Uttarakhand high court has stayed legal proceedings until the next hearing in a 2016 case filed by the Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board (UKPCB) against the divisional railway manager (DRM) of the Izzatnagar division (Bareilly) of the North Eastern Railway (NER) for alleged environmental violations at Kathgodam railway station, Nainital. A single bench of Justice Vivek Bharati Sharma directed UKPCB to submit a counter affidavit by Jan 8, 2025, the next hearing date.
The DRM, Nikhil Pandey, argued that the case was initiated before he took charge and sought the disposal of the summoning order issued by the additional chief judicial magistrate of Dehradun in Aug 2017, along with the quashing of the case. He said that the complaint, filed under the Environment Protection Act and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, pertains to violations identified before April 2016. His counsel informed the court that Pandey was not the DRM of NER Izzatnagar at that time.
Pandey further contended that no violations were alleged after April 2016, and on that basis, the criminal proceedings against him should be quashed.
The board’s counsel also acknowledged that inspections conducted after April 25, 2016, found no violations and requested a four-week extension to file the counter affidavit.
Dehradun: Uttarakhand high court has stayed legal proceedings until the next hearing in a 2016 case filed by the Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board (UKPCB) against the divisional railway manager (DRM) of the Izzatnagar division (Bareilly) of the North Eastern Railway (NER) for alleged environmental violations at Kathgodam railway station, Nainital. A single bench of Justice Vivek Bharati Sharma directed UKPCB to submit a counter affidavit by Jan 8, 2025, the next hearing date.
The DRM, Nikhil Pandey, argued that the case was initiated before he took charge and sought the disposal of the summoning order issued by the additional chief judicial magistrate of Dehradun in Aug 2017, along with the quashing of the case. He said that the complaint, filed under the Environment Protection Act and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, pertains to violations identified before April 2016. His counsel informed the court that Pandey was not the DRM of NER Izzatnagar at that time.
Pandey further contended that no violations were alleged after April 2016, and on that basis, the criminal proceedings against him should be quashed.
The board’s counsel also acknowledged that inspections conducted after April 25, 2016, found no violations and requested a four-week extension to file the counter affidavit.
