Tribunals and CommissionsFull Bench(2023) 04 NGT CK 0002

Manish Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors

National Green Tribunal · Decided on 6 April 2023

HON’BLE JUDGES
Adarsh Kumar Goel, CP · Sudhir Agarwal, JM · Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Original Application No. 162 Of 2023

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 277 words
1.

Grievance in this application is that a private builder, SDS Infracon Private Limited, in whose complex the applicant is also living, is illegally extracting ground water in Sector-26 A, Yamuna Expressway Noida. Such water is of not good quality. As per study in catchment area of Hindon, Krishna and Kali, water quality is not as per norms as it contains heavy metals. Fluoride, Nitrate, Arsenic, Iron, Manganese, Aluminum, Copper, Lead, Nickel and Selenium content are high, apart from presence of carcinogenic chemicals. Provisions of Uttar Pradesh Ground Water (Management and Regulation) Act, 2019 are not being enforced.

2.

We find from the record that identical grievance was raised and disposed of by this Tribunal vide order dated 03.08.2021 in O.A. No. 184/2021, Sanjay Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. by directing joint Committee of State PBC, CGWA and YEIDA to look into the matter and take remedial action. Thereafter, same issue was dealt with vide order dated 15.12.2022 in EA No. 37/2022 in O.A. No. 184/2021 and was disposed of in view of the fact that the allegations were vague and unsubstantiated.

3.

On 13.03.2023, when the matter was taken up, Counsel for the applicant sought time to place on record relevant facts but no further fact has been brought on record. Only contention of the applicant is that the applicant is being supplied contaminated water. Thus, main grievance of the applicant is his dispute on the issue with the builder who has not been impleaded nor the allegations earlier put forward in similar matter were substantiated.

4.

In view of above, no further order appears to be necessary.

The application is disposed of.