Swatanter Kumar, J. (Chairperson)

1. Applicant Divesh Bhutani approached this Tribunal by invoking its jurisdiction under Section 18(1) read with Section 14, 15 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (for short NGT Act). The grievance of the applicant primarily is that he is a regular commuter between Delhi and Faridabad through Suraj Kund-Badhkal road, which is in the Aravalli Range, an ecologically sensitive area. The area having been declared as forest area, non-forest activities of different kinds like running of restaurants, marriage houses, banquet halls, which have been permitted by concerned governmental authorities is in flagrant violation of the law and environmental standards and is causing severe threat to the environmental and ecological balance of the area. A Gazette Notification dated 18th August, 1992 was issued by the Government of Haryana by including Khasra Nos. 1359, 1374 and 1378 in Anangpur Village and notifying them as forest land. The Supreme Court in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India : JT 2004 (4) SC 181 and in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India & Ors. : (1997) 2 SCC 267 stated that the forest area should not be used for non-forest activities. The applicant also relies upon the order of this Tribunal in the case of Sonya Ghosh v. State of Haryana &Ors., being Original Application No. 4 of 2013,wherein restraining order was passed against the people carrying on commercial and non-forest activities in the forest areas of Sikandrapur Ghosi in Haryana. It is stated that there is parking of large number of vehicles and food waste, garbage and bottles are thrown all over the land in the forest area. Moreover in all these activities ground water is used/wasted through boring pumps and there are various other violations by many, including the firms, persons or entities, who were directed to be impleaded as respondents vide order dated 29th May, 2013 and 29th August, 2013. On this premise, it is submitted that there is clear violation of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 (for short Act of 1980) and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (for short Act of 1986). Thus, he prayed for the relief that the respondents should be directed to stop all illegal or commercial activities in the forest area, particularly in Village Anangpur and restore the area to its original state. This application was contested by various parties including the private respondents.

2. The State of Haryana admitted that it had issued a Notification dated 18th August, 1992 wherein the areas in question were declared to be forests and protected areas in terms of the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900. In terms of this Notification, cutting of trees or timber, collection or removal of any forest produce except from grass, flower, fruit and honey or undertaking any process of construction were prohibited. The Notification also stated other prohibited activities in the forest areas.

3. The State of Haryana also issued a Notification dated 18th December, 1997 directing taking of minimum steps in terms of Sections 5 and 7 of the Act of 1986 and Section 19 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. This Notification primarily related to carrying on stone crushing business in these areas. The Notification also provided for the procedure for regulating such activities.

4. This case was contested by the respondents, particularly the private respondents who denied that they were carrying on any commercial activity in a manner which was prejudicial to the environment or ecology. In fact, they relied upon the orders of the Honble Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal No. 29962/2013, titled Narender Singh and Ors. v. Divesh Bhutani, wherein the Supreme Court granted leave to the appellants before the Supreme Court to carry on their business of hosting marriages in these areas. In other Civil Appeal, Diary No. 5240/2014 titled as Kamaljit Singh and Ors., which was taken up along with the other case of Divesh Bhutani, the Supreme Court passed the following order:

"Permission to file Civil Appeal is granted.

Learned Counsel for the appellants relies upon a decision of this Court rendered in the case of B.S. Sandhu v. Government of India and others, : 2014 (7) SCALE 390 and contends that the notification in respect of the land in the instant case was issued under Section 3 of the Punjab land Preservation Act, 1900, and that such a notification would not lead to the unqualified inference that the land indicated in the notification would be forest land.

Delay condoned.

Issue notice.

In the meanwhile, the appellants may carry on their business of hosting marriages.

Tag with Civil Appeal D. No. 36804 of 2013, titled Balesh and others v. DiveshBhutani and others."

5. Besides relying upon the above orders, the private respondents have also contended that the Notifications as well as the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of T.N. Godavarmans case (supra) did not apply to the present area, as in fact, it is not a forest or eco-sensitive area.

6. The Haryana State Pollution Control Board (for short HSPCB) had taken up the stand that all the stone crushers and these marriage houses were located in the notified areas and were carrying on the activity which was not permissible. Reference to revenue records had also been made in this regard. It was also brought to the notice of the Tribunal that there is large scale stone crushing activity going on in that area and there were more than 50 stone crushers operating in that area. The HSPCB had issued show cause notices to 87 stone crushers for violating the conditions of the consent order and operating without consent including that they were operating in an area where such activity could not be carried on, i.e., the forest area. The notices were being issued to all the stone crushers as they were patent violators of the Act of 1980. On different grounds, the HSPCB had issued the notices to all the operators in that area. Replies were filed and finally vide order dated 24th September, 2015 taking a decision on the representation of the Association of Stone Crushers Owners of Pali Mohhabatabad, it was held that they were protected by the order of the Honble Supreme Court and the authorities were of the view that the stone crusher units had been set up in an area on which there were no restrictions whatsoever on any count on the date of the establishment. In view of this, the notice dated 24th August, 2015 cannot be sustained. Copy of the above order has been placed on the records of the Tribunal. The order reflects the stand of the State very clearly.

7. The HSPCB would be entitled to take its own decisions in accordance with law as to the issue of causing pollution by carrying on of this activity by crushers. The private respondents and the stone crushers are also protected by the order of the Honble Supreme Court afore-referred.

8. In the event the applicant feels aggrieved from the order of the authorities dated 24th September, 2015, he is free to take its remedies in accordance with law. At this stage, it will not be appropriate for the Tribunal to adjudicate on these aspects in light of the above orders particularly when the parties would be at liberty to take up appropriate remedies available to them in accordance with law. We would keep all contentions and issues open, including the ones raised in this application and the pleas taken by the respondents before the Tribunal.

9. Consequently, we dispose of this application at this stage with liberty to the parties as afore-noticed, however, without any order as to costs.