Nizamuddin West Association vs Union Of India

Select the following parts of the judgment
| Petitioner's Arguments | Respondent's Arguments |
| Court's Reasoning | Conclusion |
For entire doc: Unmark Mark

## 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 1, Cited by 0 ] ### National Green Tribunal

Nizamuddin West Association vs Union Of India on 24 March, 2026

Item Nos. 17 to 19 Court No. 1

            BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
                PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

                    Original Application No. 6/2012
          (IA No 130/2026, IA No 192/2026, IA No 204/2026,
          IA No 220/2026, IA No 221/2026, IA No 222/2026,
          IA No 116/2025, IA No 253/2025, IA No 272/2025,
           IA No 559/2025, IA No 679/2025, IA No 72/2024,
          IA No 276/2024, IA No 329/2024, IA No 420/2024,
          IA No 421/2024, IA No 549/2024, IA No 585/2024,
                  MA No 244/2019, MA No 868/2014)

                                 WITH
                    Execution Application No. 5/2024
                           (IA No 550/2024)
                                   In
                    Original Application No. 6/2012
                                 WITH
                           IA No. 170/2024
                                   In
                    Original Application No. 6/2012

Nizamuddin West Association Applicant

                                Versus

Union of India & Ors. Respondent(s)

Date of hearing: 24.03.2026

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

Applicants: Mr. Zain Haider & Mr. Mohammad Tavir Ali, Advs. for Applicant in OA
06/2012 & E.A 05/2024
Mr. Mahesh Chandra Saxena, Applicant in Person in I.A. 170/2024
Mr. Rahul Khurana, Adv. (Court Commissioner)

Respondents: Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kunal Mimani, Mr.
Kartikey Bhatt, Mr. Tanish Arora & Mr. Kushagra Raghuvanshi, Advs. in
I.A. No. 272, 329, 421, 559/2025 & 192/2026
Ms. Priyanka Swami & Ms. Dippt Anubhuti, Advs. for Delhi Jal Board &
Irrigation Department, State of UP
Ms. Puja S. Kalra & Mr. Virendra Singh, Advs. for MCD with Mr. S.D.
Tomar, SE & Mr. K.P. Yadav, AE
Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta & Ms. Ananya Basudha, Advs. for GNCTD (Through
VC)
Mr. Rahul Khurana, Adv. for the State of Haryana & HSPCB
Mr. Bhanwar Pal Singh Jadon, Ms. Gargi Chaturvedi & Ms. Anjali
Sharma, Advs. for the State of UP
Mr. Pradeep Misra & Mr. Daleep Dhyani, Adv. for UPPCB (Through VC)
Mr. Narender Pal Singh, Adv. for DPCC
Ms. Prabhsahay Kaur, Ms. Deeksha L. Kakar & Mr. Rashneet Singh,
Advs. for DDA
Mr. Raj Kumar, Ms. Vidushi Sah, Mr. Sumit Chaudhary, Mr. Ankit
Chaudhary, Mr. Sushant Rana & Ms. Vandana Sachdeva, Advs. for
NDMC

                                                                                 1
           Mr. Anuj Chaturvedi, Adv. for DUSIB
          Mr. Saurabh Balwani, Adv. for [CPC](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/161831507/) B
          Mr. Gigi. C. George & Ms. Neha Sharma, Advs. for CGWA
          Mr. Ashok Kumar & Ms. Savita Dedha, Advs. in I.A. 220 - 222/2026

                                 ORDER 1.    The Tribunal by the order dated 08.01.2026 had considered the

prayer of the Counsel for the DUSIB for placing on record the full

particulars of discharge of sewage from each of the JJ Clusters of Delhi

and other details by filing the affidavit within three weeks. No such affidavit

was filed by the DUSIB till the matter was taken up on the next date on

24.02.2026.

1. On 24.02.2026, Senior Counsel appearing for some of the aggrieved

persons had alleged that DUSIB was unnecessarily dragging the matter

and was not placing on record the full particulars by filing the reply

whereas the major sources of discharge of untreated sewage in the storm

water drains were the JJ Clusters and again, learned Counsel for the

DUSIB had submitted that the information was being collected and the

reply with full particulars would be filed positively within two weeks. The

statement so made by Counsel for the DUSIB on 24.02.2026 was as under:

"5. Learned Counsel for the DUSIB submits that the requisite
information is being collected and a comprehensive reply with full
particulars will be filed positively within two weeks."
3. Inspite of the above statement, no such reply has been filed by the

DUSIB till now.

1. Learned Counsel for the DUSIB submits that the reply is ready and

a copy of the reply has been supplied to Counsel for the DJB and to

Counsel for the Applicant.

1. Counsel for the DJB submits that today at 12.00 Noon copy of the

reply has been supplied, therefore, she could not examine the said reply.

1. On account of not filing the reply by DUSIB inspite of repeated

opportunities, the examination of issue has been delayed. The reply has

not been filed till now, therefore, the matter is being adjourned even today.

Hence, we impose the cost of Rs. 25,000/- upon the DUSIB for the repeated

non-compliance of the order of the Tribunal. Let this cost be deposited by

DUSIB with the NGT Bar Association within one week.

1. IA No. 220/2026 and IA No. 221/2026 have been filed by the

Applicant - Gajender Singh. Counsel for the Applicant is directed to supply

a copy of these IA's to Counsel for the concerned parties, specially to

Counsel for the DDA. Since, these IA's have been taken up today, therefore,

IA No. 222/2026 which is an application for early hearing of these IA's has

become infructuous and is accordingly disposed of.

1. Shri Luthra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Applicant in

IA No. 192/2026 has referred to the prayer clause in the IA and has

submitted that the MCD has floated the tender for de-silting only on

25.02.2026, whereas this exercise ought to have been started much earlier.

He has further referred to the photographs on page 12838 onwards in

respect of slits which has been opened for cleaning the Defence Colony

drain and has submitted that these slits have not been properly secured

and there is a possibility of accident on account of these unsafe slits.

1. Counsel for the MCD, on instructions, has submitted that these slits

are absolutely safe, but on perusal of the photographs on page 12784 and

12785 we find that there are big gaps in the tin protection which have been

put much above the ground level. Hence, it is clear that these slits have

not been properly secured. They are also open to the sky. Hence, it is the

responsibility of the Commissioner, MCD to ensure that these slits are

properly secured and made safe so that no accident or untoward incident

takes places.

1. Learned Counsel for the MCD submits that the tenders have been

floated in February 2026 as a part of the annual de-silting exercise. She

has submitted that the tender has been floated on 19.03.2026 for

constructing permanent toe walls to protect these slits. The Commissioner,

MCD is directed to file an affidavit disclosing the full particulars of the

protective measures which are being taken and will be taken to avoid any

accident/untoward incident on account of the open slits alongwith the

supporting material.

1. List on 01.04.2026.

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

                                                Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM

                                                 Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

March 24, 2026
Original Application No. 6/2012
and other connected matters
dv