NEETU SOLVENTS versus VINEET NAGAR & ORS.

Citation: [2026] 5 S.C.R. 421 · Decided: 06-05-2026 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.K. MAHESHWARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2026] 5 S.C.R. 421 : 2026 INSC 455
Neetu Solvents 
v. 
Vineet Nagar & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 2881 of 2021)
06 May 2026
[J.K. Maheshwari* and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the direction of closure of the appellant-units issued by 
the NGT is liable to be set aside; whether the judgment of Pahwa 
Plastics squarely applies to the facts of this case.
Headnotes†
Environment – Environmental Clearance – The appellants 
herein are the industries, and running the manufacturing units 
of Formaldehyde, its different resins – The NGT directed closure 
of the appellants-units – The NGT held that formaldehyde 
manufacturing units cannot be allowed to operate without 
prior Environmental Clearance (EC) – Correctness:
Held: The case in hand is not a one where the appellants 
established the units of formaldehyde and started operation due 
to lack of bona fide ignoring any requirement of law – On the 
contrary it is a case where the Pollution Control Board (PCB) 
were not aware that prior EC to establish and operate such 
units is required in terms of Environment Impact Assessment 
notification dated 14.09.2006 (EIA 2006 notification) – Accordingly, 
in terms of the notices issued by the PCBs, the appellants-units 
have applied for grant of EC which remains pending – In view 
of this Court, the judgment of Pahwa Plastics squarely applies 
to the facts of this case – Accordingly, the direction of closure 
of the appellant-units by the impugned orders of NGT stands 
set aside  – The parties are directed to apply the ratio of the 
judgment of Pahwa Plastics mutatis mutandis – Therefore, it is 
directed that, (i) the appellant-units, having been established and 
operated pursuant to the Consent to Establish (CTE) and Consent 
to Operate (CTO) granted by the PCB for the respective State, be 
allowed to function and operate; (ii) The respondent is directed 
* Author
422
[2026] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
to take a decision on the applications of the appellant-units for 
EC in accordance with law; (iii) Electricity for the appellant-units, 
if disconnected, shall be restored subject to payment of charges, 
if any. [Paras 26, 27]
Case Law Cited
Pahwa Plastics Private Limited and Anr. v. Dastak NGO and Ors. 
[2022] 16 SCR 855 : (2023) 12 SCC 774 – held applicable.
Vanashakti v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1139; Common 
Cause v. Union of India [2017] 13 SCR 361 : (2017) 9 SCC 499; 
Alembic Pharmaceuticals v. Rohit Prajapati [2020] 10 SCR 677 : 
(2020) 17 SCC 157; Elecctrosteel Steels Ltd. v. Union of India 
[2021] 14 SCR 863 : (2023) 6 SCC 615; Confederation of Real 
Estate Developers of India (CREDAI) v. Vanashakti and Another, 
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2474 – referred to.
List of Acts
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974; 
Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.
List of Keywords
Environment; Environmental clearance; Formaldehyde 
manufacturing units; Pollution Control Board; Consent to Establish; 
Consent to Operate; Ex-post facto Environmental Clearance; EIA 
2006 notification.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2881 of 2021
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.06.2021 of the National 
Green Tribunal in OA No. 298 of 2020.
With
Civil Appeal No(s). 4432, 4431, 4654, 4748, 4902-4903 and 4908 
of 2021
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv., Tarun Gupta, Bikram Dwivedi.
[2026] 5 S.C.R. 
423
Neetu Solvents v. Vineet Nagar & Ors.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
Mrs. Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G., B.K. Satija, Shiv Mangal 
Sharma, A.A.Gs. Ankit Jain, Sr. Adv., Harpreet Popli, Amarjeet 
Singh, Rahul Sambher, Eish Kesariwani, Dr. Surender Singh Hooda, 
Subhranshu Padhi, Ms. Priyanka Das, Ms. Preeti Rani, B.K. Satija, 
Vivek Gupta, Vijay Awana, Yogesh Vats, Dr. N. Visakamurthy, 
Mahesh Kasana, Ms. Aparna Rohatgi Jain, S. K. Verma, Rahul 
Khurana, Samar Vijay Singh, Ms. Sabarni Som, Anupam Saxena, 
Ashwini Kr. Mishra, Pradeep Misra, Daleep Dhyani, Anupam 
Misra, Suraj Singh, Ms. Abhinandini Sharma, Saurabh Rajpal, Ms. 
Saubhagya Sundriyal, Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, Gurmeet Singh Makker, 
Ms. Priyanka Das, B K Satija, Rohan Gupta, Shubhranshu Padhi, 
Ms. Preeti Rani, Kartikey Sahai, Tahir Ashraf Siddiqui, Rajesh 
Kumar Gautam.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
J.K. Maheshwari, J.
1)	
In all these appeals, the appellants are the industries, and running 
the manufacturing units of Formaldehyde, its different resins 
(includin

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.