$~100 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010459012026 + CONT.CAS(C) 1781/2026, CM APPL. 66112/2026 NEVCO ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Ms Kritika Gupta, Ms Srishtii Sharma, Advocates. versus CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Manish Paliwal, Advocate for Contemnor No.4. Mr. Ankur Yadav, SPC with Mr. Brijesh Yadav and Mr. Kailash Kumar, Advs. for R-5. Mr Balendu Shekhar Advocate for CPCB with Mr Krishna Chaitanya Mr Divyansh Singh Dev and Mr Rajkumar Maurya Advocates for Respondent, Central Pollution Control Board. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA O R D E R % 24.09.2026 1. A Contempt Petition under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Sections 2(b), 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act has been filed against the Order dated 19.01.2026, whereby the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) was directed to consider the request of the Petitioner to approve their DOAS/UV-DOAS technology and the decision taken within a period of six months. 2. In compliance of the said Order, the Respondent has passed an Order dated 18.07.2026 declining the request of the Petitioner by observing that UV-DOAS technology cannot be included as a method of measurement for This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/09/2026 at 11:08:20 Ammonia and Benzene in NAAQS for ambient air quality monitoring in the country. 3. The only grievance of the Petitioner is that the Order is not reasoned and does not state why there has been a denial of inclusion of Ammonia and Benzene in NAAQS. 4. However, the learned counsel for the Respondent stated that it is a matter of national economic policy in interest of which the aforesaid decision has been taken by the Respondent. It is also emphasized that any decision taken by the Respondent has to be followed by the Pollution Board PAN India and has PAN India implications. 5. In the Order dated 19.01.2026, the Reply of Respondent No.2 was extracted as under: “12. That it is reiterated that Respondent No. 2 has neither refused nor declined to consider other pollutants such as Ammonia and Benzene. Rather, it had no instructions or directions to proceed further in that regard. Without specific directives from Respondent No. 1, Respondent No. 3, or the Hon’ble Court, Respondent No. 2 cannot, suo motu, undertake a supplementary technical review. The Respondent No. 2 expressly denies all allegations, contentions, and insinuations made against it in the present Writ Petition and submits that no cause of action or liability, either in fact or in law, arises against it in any manner whatsoever.” 6. In view of the submissions made, there has been due compliance of the Order dated 19.01.2026. 7. There is no merit in the present Contempt Petition which is hereby disposed of with liberty to the Petitioner to pursue its remedies in accordance with law. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/09/2026 at 11:08:20 8. The pending Application(s) also stands disposed of. NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J. SEPTEMBER 24, 2026/VA This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/09/2026 at 11:08:20