Authority: Supreme Court of India

Order Date: 03-09-2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Arun Kumar Gupta, Member & Ex‑Chairman (Natural Gas Cell), National Chamber of Industries Association, filed IA Nos.20616‑20617 of 2020 alleging that the TTZ Authority violated the directions of the Court’s 30‑Dec‑1996 judgment by permitting capacity enhancements and new units in the glass‑industry sector at Firozabad; they sought a restraining order on any new industry or capacity enhancement in the Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ).
  • The Court noted subsequent developments: its judgment dated 22‑Apr‑2025 which considered CEC Report No.19 of 2025; the TTZ Authority’s affidavit dated 26‑Sep‑2025; and the receipt of the Cumulative Impact Assessment Study Report on 02‑Sep‑2026.
  • The Court recalled its earlier order dated 23‑Jul‑2026 in IA No.22551 of 2025 directing the TTZ Authority to process 410 pending applications for establishment, expansion or relocation of industries, subject to the following safeguards:

(a) An expert representative of the Central Pollution Control Board (CEC) and an expert representative of the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) must be present at every meeting;

(b) If either expert objects to classifying an industry as “non‑polluting”, the application cannot be accepted without leave of the Court;

(c) If both experts and the TTZ Authority deliver a unanimous opinion, the applications may be processed to their logical conclusion without further reference to the Court.

Final Outcome

  • The Court held that the safeguards introduced on 23‑Jul‑2026 adequately address the concerns raised in the 2020 applications, which have become obsolete with the passage of time.
  • Accordingly, the Court disposed of IA Nos.20616‑20617 of 2020, directing that any new industry application be examined and processed under the 23‑Jul‑2026 order.
  • Any aggrieved person may initiate independent proceedings; public‑spirited persons may submit their viewpoints to the TTZ Authority, which will be considered while processing the pending applications.
  • The Court appreciated the expeditious disposal of the 410 pending applications.

Topics: Judicial Review, Industrial Regulation, Environmental Safeguards