RANJEET SINGH CHAUHAN vs STATE OF HARYANA
Party Details
- RANJEET SINGH CHAUHAN
- STATE OF HARYANA
- FARIDABAD ADMINISTRATION
- HARYANA SHAHARI VIKAS PRADHIKARAN
- MUNICIPALITY
Case Summary
RANJEET SINGH CHAUHAN filed Case No. Original Application No. 781/2023 in the National Green Tribunal on 16 Dec 2023 against STATE OF HARYANA and FARIDABAD ADMINISTRATION. The case has had one hearing so far. The case is currently pending. 1 order has been issued in this matter.
Hearing History (1)
- Hearing
Judge: Mr. Justice Prakash Shrivastava Dr. A. Senthil Vel
Orders (1)
- 4JAN 2024judgementView Order ↗
Order No: 1
Judgement DetailsView full order PDF ↗
1 Item No.
05 Court No.
1 BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI Original Application No.
781/2023 Ranjeet Singh Chauhan Applicant Versus State of Haryana & Ors.
Respondent(s) Date of hearing: 04.01.2024 CORAM: HON’BLE MR.
JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE DR.
A.
SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER Applicant: Mr.
Ranjeet Singh Chauhan, Applicant in Person (Through VC) ORDER 1.
In this original application, Applicant, a practicing advocate, has has prayed for following reliefs: “(a) Direct Respondent herein in number all the trees in urban area of Distt.
Faridabad and/or; (b) Constitute committee chaired by Chief Conservator of Forests, Govt. of Haryana to take remedial action to ensure protection of trees in the absence of State Tree Preservation Act like The Delhi Tree Preservation Act in State of Haryana and/or; (c) To sought detail report regarding issues raised in Annexure P- 1 to P-7 and/or; (d) Pass any order/relief in favor of the applicant as deemed fit and proper under the circumstances and in the interest of Justice.” 2.
Submission of the applicant is that an issue relating to concretization of trunks and roots of trees was raised and the respondents had sent the response, Annexure P-2.
Perusal of the said response reveals that the concrete surrounding the trees, trunks and roots was removed.
2 3.
During the course of arguments, Applicant has referred to annexures which are relating to year 2010 and he has not been able to point out any current violation in respect of cutting or damaging of tree.
We also find that the prayer made in the OA is vague.
4.
In the circumstances, we dismiss the OA, however, making it clear that this dismissal will not come in the way of Applicant to approach the Tribunal again with proper pleading and adequate material supporting the plea.
Prakash Shrivastava, CP Dr.
Senthil Vel, EM January 04, 2024 Original Application No.