National Green Tribunal
Kapil vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 6 May, 2026
Item No. 06 Court No. 2
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Original Application No. 186/2026
(IA No 319/2026, IA No 320/2026 & IA No 361/2026)
Kapil & Ors. Applicants
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Respondents
Date of hearing: 06.05.2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER
Applicants: Mr. Vishal Singh, Advocate for the Applicant.
Respondents: Mr. Mukesh Verma and Ms. Vatsala Tripathi, Advocates for respondents
no. 1 to 5 (Through VC).
Mr. Pradeep Misra and Mr. Daleep Dhyani, Advocates for respondent no.
6 (Through VC).
Ms. Priyanka Swami and Ms. Dippt Anubhuti, Advocates for respondent
no. 7.
Mr. Rahul Khurana and Mr. Hasil Jain, Advocates for respondent no. 9.
None for respondent no. 8.
ORDER
1. The applicants have filed the present Original Application (O.A.) under Section 14 read with Section 15 and Section 18 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 with prayer for cancellation of environmental clearance, imposition of environmental compensation and prohibition of use of mechanized and semi mechanized machinery for river bed mining.
2. The applicants have made allegations that Respondent No. 9-M/s Gaurav Builders is carrying out large scale illegal mining in the river Yamuna at Village Naithala Khadar.
3. Vide order dated 24.03.2026, this Tribunal ordered issuance of notices to the respondents and also constituted a Joint Committee with direction to ascertain the extent of sand mining, and compliance with EC 1 conditions by Respondent No. 9 and in case of violation to suggest remedial and punitive action.
4. In compliance thereof report dated 30.04.2026 of the Joint Committee has been filed with its observations and recommendations.
5. Action taken report dated 30.04.2026 in the vernacular has been filed by respondent no. 2 - District Magistrate, Baghpat.
6. Response dated 04.05.2026 has been filed on behalf of Respondent No. 6- UPPCB with prayer for direction to Respondent No. 9- M/s. Gaurav Builders to deposit environmental compensation of Rs. 31,27,417/- with UPPCB.
7. Reply dated 04.05.2026 has been filed by Respondent No. 9-M/s. Gaurav Builders denying the allegation regarding illegal mining by it.
8. A written request for adjournment has been made by learned Counsel for Respondent No. 9 for grant of four weeks' time to examine and file responses to the UPPCB response dated 04.05.2026, Joint Committee report dated 30.04.2026 uploaded on website on 02.05.2026 and action taken report filed by District Magistrate uploaded on website on 02.05.2026.
9. I.A. No. 319/2026 dated 19.04.2026 has been filed by the applicants seeking direction for closure of mining activities by Respondent No. 9 at Gata No. ½ Village - Naithala Khadar, Tehsil Baghpat, District Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh with I.A. No. 320/2026 for urgent listing of I.A. No. 319/2026.
10. I.A. No. 320/2026 for urgent listing of I.A. No. 319/2026 has become infructuous and I.A. No. 320/2026 is disposed of accordingly. 2
11. Notice of I.A. No. 319/2026 is ordered to be issued to the respondents for filing of their replies to the same at least one day before the next date of hearing fixed.
12. I.A. No. 361/2026 dated 04.05.2026 has been filed by the applicants seeking permission to place on record the subsequent fact and additional documents as mentioned in paragraph 2 thereof.
13. Notice of I.A. No. 361/2026 is also ordered to be issued to the respondents for filing of their replies to the same at least one day before the next date of hearing fixed.
14. In the course of hearing learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that Respondent No. 9 is illegally carrying out mining in the river stream and in support of this claim learned Counsel for the applicant has referred to the pen drive filed by the applicant before this Tribunal.
15. We have seen the video clips in the pen drive in the presence of the learned Counsel for the parties and the video clips show carrying out of river stream mining which is not legally permissible.
16. Learned Counsel for Respondent no. 9 has disputed the authenticity of the pen drive on the ground that copy thereof has not been supplied to Respondent No. 9 and certificate under Section 65 B of the Evidence Act, 1872 is not appended to the same.
17. Learned Counsel for Respondent no. 9 has also denied involvement of Respondent No. 9 in incident of river stream mining and seeks time to file response of Respondent No. 9 in this regard.
18. The authenticity/genuineness of the pen drive can be ascertained in due course of time by production of the original/reference to FSL but the video clips produced by the applicant cannot be lightly brushed aside 3 particularly so when this Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
19. The Registry is directed to supply copy of the video clips in the pen drive filed by the applicant to the Respondents on submission of blank pen drives for this purpose.
20. The District Magistrate, Baghpat and District Mining Officer, Baghpat are directed to file their own affidavits in response to the video clips which show illegal river stream mining with specific reply as to whether the geo-cordinates given in the video clips fall within mining lease area leased out to Respondent No. 9.
21. Vide order dated 29.01.2026 passed in O.A. No. 724/2023 titled Bittu Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. this Tribunal had with reference to observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of NCT of Delhi vs. Sanjay, (2014) 9 SCC 772, Jayant vs. State of Madhya Pradesh(SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 1776867 and Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P. (SC) : 2013(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 979 : 399 :2014(2) SCC 1 and the relevant provisions referred to/reproduced in para number 28 to 35 thereof ordered the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad to direct SHO of the concerned police station to register FIR regarding incident of legally impermissible river stream mining.
22. The facts of present case are similar as the video clips produced in the present case also show legally permissible river stream mining. In view of the above, the Superintendent of the Police, Baghpat is ordered to direct concerned SHO to register FIR regarding alleged incident of illegal mining and to conduct investigation expeditiously and to file his own affidavit providing complete information with respect to the registered owners and 4 drivers of the vehicles involved in illegal river stream mining and names, parentage and addresses of all the accused persons involved in illegal river stream mining regarding action taken in this regard.
23. Respondent No. 9 is also given opportunity to file his response with respect to the video clips and photographs placed on record by the applicant and response by Respondent No. 9 may be filed at least one day before the next date of hearing fixed.
24. The District Magistrate, Baghpat and the Superintendent of Police, Baghpat to take all necessary measures for ensuring that no illegal mining/river stream mining takes place in District Baghpat.
25. List on 26.05.2026 for further consideration.
26. A copy of this order may be sent to the District Magistrate, Baghpat, the Superintendent of Police, Baghpat and the District Mining Officer, Baghpat by email for requisite compliance.
Arun Kumar Tyagi, JM Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM May 06, 2026 Original Application No. 186/2026 (IA No 319/2026, IA No 320/2026 & IA No 361/2026) dv 5