HGI Automotives Ltd vs Commission For Air Quality Management

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 4, Cited by 0 ] ### National Green Tribunal

M/S Hgi Automotives Ltd vs Commission For Air Quality Management ... on 19 March, 2026

Item No. 41 Court No. 1
BEFORE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

                         Appeal No. 25/2026
                          (IA No. 206/2026)

M/s HGI Automotives Ltd. Appellant

                               Versus

Commission for Air Quality
Management in NCR & Ors. Respondent(s)

Date of hearing: 19.03.2026

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON
HON'BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER

Appellant: Mr. Pinaki Misra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, Mr. Arjun
Nanda, Mr. Adiraj Bali & Ms. Vanshika Jhamb, Advs. for Appellant

Respondents: Dr. Abhishek Atrey & Mr. Navneet Gupta, Advs. for CAQM
Mr. Rahul Khurana, Adv. for R - 2 & 4

                                 ORDER 1.     By this Appeal filed under Section 18 of the Commission for [Air

Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas Act,

2021](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/66504720/) read with Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010,

appellant has challenged the closure direction dated 16.03.2026 issued by

the CAQM under Section 12 (2)(xi) of the Commission for [Air Quality

Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas Act, 2021](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/66504720/).

1. The impugned order reveals that the appellant's unit was inspected

by the Flying Squad of the CAQM on 11.02.2026 when the Stage II GRAP

order was in force and following lapses/non-compliances have noticed

which formed the basis of issuing the impugned order:

"Whereas, it was reported that 05 induction furnace were being
operated (out of the total 06 furnace) without stack and APCD. The
remaining one furnace was found non-operational. Fugitive emissions 1 were observed during inspection. Further, the capacity, number of
furnace and emission limits are not indicated in the CTO".
3. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the

appellant unit does not have the induction furnace, therefore, the very

basis of issuing the closure order is incorrect. He submits that the unit has

the electric furnaces. Therefore, there is also no question of any fugitive

emissions.

1. Learned counsel appearing for the CAQM has pointed out that the

show cause notice dated 11.02.2026 was issued to the appellant and the

same was not replied, therefore, the impugned closure order has been

issued.

1. In the grounds raised in the memo of appeal also the appellant has

taken the plea that it has electric furnace and the impugned order wrongly

records the induction furnace.

1. If the stand of the appellant is that it is not violating any of the norms

and the appellant is only using electric furnace, then the appellant is

required to file reply before the CAQM along with the supporting material.

1. It has been pointed out that in other Appeal No. 24/2026 of similar

nature listed today, the Tribunal has permitted the appellant therein to file

the reply to the CAQM and also directed the CAQM to verify the said fact.

1. Clause 6 of the impugned order provides for the levy of

environmental compensation and resumption of the operations on

compliance of the conditions mentioned therein. Clause 6 of the impugned

order is as under:

"6. For consideration of resumption of operations in the unit, the following
needs to be complied with:

(i) After taking due corrective and preventive measures, in respect
of the non-compliances / violations as noted in the closure
direction, the project proponent shall report the same to the
Regional Officer Faridabad, of the Haryana State Pollution 2 Control Board, also under advise to the headquarter office of the
HSPCB.

(ii) The Regional Officer, HSPCB shall thereafter verify the corrective
and preventive measures initiated by the unit / project proponent
and submit a report in this context to the HSPCB headquarter
office along with a recommendation for levying of EC charges, as
per extant guidelines duly taking cognizance of Standard
Schedule for EC charges issued by the Commission vide order
dated 01.01.2025 & 05.06.2025.

(iii) The HSPCB shall review the report of the Regional Officer in this
context to ascertain effectiveness of actions initiated for
compliance, levy appropriate EC charges on the project / unit for
all categories of violations as noted in this direction and realise
the same, from the proponent. A recommendation towards
resumption of activities at the site/industrial unit etc. may be
made to the Commission by the HQ office of the HSPCB.

(iv) The Project Proponent shall thereafter also report compliance of
all the requisites as above to the Commission, in the form of an
affidavit. The indicative procedure and guidelines for processing
of the cases for resumption, including the format for the affidavit
may be accessed from the Commission's
website www.caqm.nic.in >> Closures/Resumptions >>
GUIDELINES FOR RESUMPTION OF OPERATIONS IN CLOSED
UNITS.

(v) In exercise of powers of the Commission under Section 14 of the
Act, the Member of Secretary, HSPCB shall also initiate action for
prosecution under Section 14 of the Commission for Air Quality
Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas Act,
2021 against the said unit".
9. In the present case if the CAQM comes to the conclusion that the

very basis of passing the impugned order was incorrect then the Clause 6

concerning levy of EC may not be attracted.

1. Hence, we dispose of the appeal permitting the appellant to file an

appropriate reply along with all the supporting material with the CAQM by

tomorrow.

1. The CAQM will verify the disclosure made in the reply and pass

appropriate order within one week.

1. Till the next date of hearing the parties are directed to maintain

status quo. If the appellant unit is operating as of now, it will be allowed to

operate, however, subject to compliance of all the environmental norms. 3

1. IA No. 206/2026 is accordingly disposed of.

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

                                                Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

March 19, 2026 Appeal No. 25/2026 (IA No. 206/2026)
P 4