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

                         Appeal No. 24/2026
                          (IA No. 205/2026)

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 10.03.2026 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 order reflects that the appellant's unit was inspected by the

Flying Squad constituted by the CAQM to verify the compliance of the

direction/order issued by the CAQM on 10.02.2026 and at the time of

inspection the Stage II of the GRAP issued by the Commission was in force.

1. The impugned order mentions following lapses/non-compliances

which were found at appellant's unit:

1

"Whereas, it was reported that in the holding furnaces hoods were not
present. Further, the unit has not provided latest stack emission report
conducted in the last three months".
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the above non-

compliances are irrelevant because the appellant is using the electric

furnace only in which the hood was not required to be placed and stack

emission report was not required to be prepared.

1. The record reflects that the show cause notice dated 10.02.2026 was

issued to the appellant, but no reply to the show cause notice was

submitted. Hence, the impugned closure order has been issued by the

CAQM. If the stand of the appellant is that the lapses noted in the

impugned order are not in fact applicable to the appellant, then the

appellant can approach the CAQM by filing an appropriate reply along with

all the supporting material. If the CAQM finds the explanation of the

appellant to be corrected then appropriate order can be passed by the

CAQM.

1. The impugned order contains following directions in Clause 6 for

resumption:

"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
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 2 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".
7. In case if the CAQM accepts the explanation of the appellant, then

the Clause 6 relating to imposition of EC for violating the norms may not

be attracted. Therefore, the applicability of Clause 6 and consequential

action in terms of Clause 6 by the HSPCB will depend upon the final

decision to be taken by the CAQM on the explanation submitted by the

appellant.

1. In such circumstances we dispose of the appeal permitting the

appellant to submit the reply/explanation along with the supporting

material with the CAQM by tomorrow. The CAQM will verify the same and

will pass appropriate orders within three working days.

1. IA No. 205/2026 is accordingly disposed of.

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

                                                    Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

March 19, 2026 Appeal No. 24/2026 (IA No. 205/2026)
P 3