Meta Pixel
CNR: --
DISPOSED

SHANKAR LAL vs DELHI POLLUTION CONTROL COMMITTEE

Case NumberAppeal No. 1/2024
Date of Filing7 Dec 2023
Case TypeAppeal
Last Hearing19 Jan 2024
StateDelhi
CityDelhi
Year of Filing2023

Party Details

Petitioner
  • SHANKAR LAL
Respondent
  • DELHI POLLUTION CONTROL COMMITTEE
  • ARIF MOHD
  • AMIT CHAUDHARY

Case Summary

SHANKAR LAL filed Case No. Appeal No. 1/2024 in the National Green Tribunal on 7 Dec 2023 against DELHI POLLUTION CONTROL COMMITTEE and ARIF MOHD. The case has undergone 2 hearings. The case was disposed of on 19 Jan 2024.

Hearing History (2)

  • 19JAN 2024
    Hearing

    Judge: Mr. Justice Sudhir Agarwal Dr. A. Senthil Vel

  • Hearing

    Judge: Mr. Justice Prakash Shrivastava Dr. A. Senthil Vel

Judgement Details

1 Item No.

17 Court No.

2 BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI Appeal No.

1/2024 (I.A.

No 31/2024 & I.A.

No.

32/2024) Shankar Lal Appellant Versus Delhi Pollution Control Committee Respondent Date of hearing: 20.03.2024 CORAM: HON’BLE MR.

JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR.

A.

SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER Appellant: Mr.

D.

Sabharwal & Mr.

Shiv Kumar, Advs. for Appellant Respondent: Mr.

Balendu Shekhar & Ms.

Tanisha Samantra, Advs. for DPCC ORDER I.A.

No 31/2024 1.

This Appeal under Section 16 of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NGT Act, 2010’) has been preferred against order dated 04.01.2023 passed by Delhi Pollution Control Committee (hereinafter referred to as ‘DPCC’) imposing Environmental Compensation of Rs.

20 lakhs upon appellant.

2.

Appeal has been presented in the Registry of Tribunal on 07.12.2023 i.e. after more than 11 months.

3.

Appellant, in memo of appeal, under the ‘Head’, limitation, had admitted that copy of impugned order dated 04.01.2023 was served upon appellant on 07.01.2023.

4.

That being so, maximum period of delay which is condonable by Tribunal under Section 16 has expired long back in April, 2023 and 2 delay, thereafter of almost 8 months is not condonable.

In view therefore, delay cannot be condoned.

5.

The I.A. is accordingly, rejected.

Main matter 6.

The appeal being barred by limitation is, dismissed accordingly.

Sudhir Agarwal, JM Dr.

Senthil Vel, EM March 20, 2024 Appeal No.

32/2024) SN