The matter has been listed under the heading 'For Orders' under the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioners.

Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and learned A.A.G.-4 for the State.

Following reliefs have been sought for in paragraph 1 of the writ application:

1(i) To set aside/grant an order of stay of the order of settlement of Shairat of "Suhiya Bhagar Jalker", Shahpur, Bhojpur for the financial year 2020-21 contained in Memo No. 994/Ra, dated 07.04.2020 (Annexure-4) issued by the respondent no. 4, Additional Collector, Bhojpur as the same has been passed without following the procedure of open tender/Bid/Dak as per the Advertisement dated 27th February 2020 (Annexure-1) published in the local Daily Newspaper.

Mr. N. K. Agarwal, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Manoj Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appeared for the petitioner and Mr. Kumar Alok, Standing Counsel-27 appeared for the State respondents.

The Office has pointed out some defects. The petitioner shall ensure removal of the defects within two weeks of the start of normal functioning of the Court, failing which this application would stand dismissed.

In this writ application, the petitioner has sought for quashment of order contained in Annexure-1 vide Memo No. 683 dated 06.04.2020 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Patna High Court CWJC No.5626 of 2020(2) dt.01-05-2020 2/3 Ara (respondent no.2), whereby the PDS License No. 13/2016 of the petitioner was cancelled.

Heard learned counsels for the petitioner, the State and the BIADA.

The present interlocutory application has been filed seeking amendment in the relief portion i.e. paragraph no. 1 of the writ petition and consequently in paragraph no. 2 and the prayer portion thereof. The amendment sought for in paragraph 2 of the I.A. is as follows:

"1(iii) To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 24.04.2020 as contained in memo no. 1237/D dated 24.04.2020 whereby and whereunder the Respondent BIADA has rejected the application dated 22.04.2020 (Anx.-5 )filed by the petitioner Company for issue of lockdown pass;

Learned counsels for the petitioner, the State and the BIADA are present.

Mr. Yashraj Bardhan, learned counsel for the BIADA submits that the arguing counsel Mr. Lalit Kishore is engaged before D.B.-II, hence the matter be taken up tomorrow at 10.30 A.M.

As prayed for, list this matter tomorrow i.e. on 06.05.2020 at 10.30 A.M. under the same heading.

(Sudhir Singh, J) Pankaj/Narendra U

Learned counsels for the petitioner, the State and the BIADA are present.

Mr. Yashraj Bardhan, learned counsel for the BIADA submits that there is a bereavement in the family of the arguing counsel Mr. Lalit Kishore, hence the matter may be passed over for the day.

As prayed for, list this matter tomorrow i.e. on 07.05.2020 at 2.15. P.M. under the same heading.

(Sudhir Singh, J) Pankaj/Narendra U

2. Naturally, filing of the writ application has been found to be defective being inconsistent with the filing procedure prescribed under the High Court Rules, on many counts.

3. The petitioner is a Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society (PACS) registered under the Bihar Cooperative Societies Act, 1935 and is, therefore, a body corporate. The PACS has been given licence to run a fair price shop. There is no averment in the writ application as to when such licence was granted to the PACS, though it is stated in paragraph-5 of the application that for last one decade various similar cooperative societies of the State are successfully conducting the business of fair price shops in addition to discharge of their other duties including procurement of food grains under the procurement schemes of the Government.

Heard Mr. P. K. Shahi, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S. D. Yadav, learned Additional Advocate General No.9, appearing for the State- respondents.

Patna High Court CWJC No.3963 of 2020(2) dt.06-05-2020 2/6 The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of government contract registered as Class-I Contractor. Since the petitioner was lowest bidder its bids were accepted by the respondent No.8, the Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Division, Saharsa, Bihar. Consequent upon the petitioner and respondent No.8 entered into 118 agreements separately for the purpose of different works as mentioned in different agreements, a copy at Annexure-4 series to the writ petition. The petitioner had deposited certificate of different deposits as security money for separate contracts. The certificates of deposits of money either in the fixed deposit or term deposit scheme were issued by the post office of Mithapur Branch. Later on those certificates were found to be forged document. Thereafter, the petitioner was intimated about by respondent No.8 and petitioner supplied fresh documents in the nature of certificate of deposit in the IDBI Bank as security for the referred contract. A copy of the fresh documents dated 13.12.2019 are at Annexure-5 series. The respondent No.8 verified the genuineness of the subsequent documents from the IDBI Bank vide letter at Annexure-10 series dated 26.12.2019. The Bank reported that the documents are genuine one. Patna High Court CWJC No.3963 of 2020(2) dt.06-05-2020 3/6 The petitioner has stated on oath that respondent No.8 accepted the subsequent documents of deposit in the IDBI Bank as security money and the said documents are still in possession of respondent No.8. The acceptance of the subsequent security document was by necessary implication as respondent No.8 verified the genuineness of those documents from the bank authorities and the bank authorities reported the same as genuine documents. The act of verification was for some purpose and not for fun.

Heard Mr. Sanjay Singh and Mr. Nikhil Kumar Agrawal for the petitioner, Mr. Lalit Kishore, Senior Counsel and Mr. Yashraj Bardhan for the BIADA and Mr. Vikas Kumar, S.C.-11, for the State.

Order is reserved.

Learned counsels for the parties seek permission to file a written note of argument by tomorrow.

Permission is accorded.

Put up this matter on 12.05.2020 at 10.30. A.M. under the heading 'For Orders'.

(Sudhir Singh, J) Pankaj/Narendra U

2. The petition was filed on 16.08.2019 against an order dated 11.07.2019 (Annexure N) whereby the petitioner's application for migration of CMTS Licence effective from 31.12.1998 for Tamil Nadu Service Area to Unitied Licence (UL) was rejected for the second time by the respondent. Before adverting to the issues, it will be useful to take note of some significant and relevant facts.

3. The historical facts relating to the petitioner company; its wholly owned subsidiary, Aircel Cellular Ltd. (ACL); the details of its licences and also subsequent allocation of spectrum which came to be bundled with the said licence are not in dispute. The petitioner's CMTS Licence for Tamil Nadu Circle was for a period of 10 years and due to expire on 30.12.2008. In terms of National Telecom Policy of 1999, DoT offered a migration package. The migration package, inter alia, changed the "Fixed Fee" policy for Indian Telecom Licences to a "Revenue Share" regime. The period of licence got extended upto 20 years and as a result petitioner's licence was to be valid till 30.12.2018. In 2010, the petitioner acquired 5 + 5 MHz of 2100 MHz (3G) and 20 MHz of 2300 MHz spectrum (BWA) in the Tamil Nadu Telecom Circle through auction. These are fully paid for and the validity of allotment is of 20 years i.e. till 2030. In 2015, the petitioner further acquired 10 + 10 MHz of 1800 MHz spectrum in the Tamil Nadu Telecom Circle through auction. Petitioner has the right to use the said spectrum for a period of 20 years Le. till 26.05.2035 and under a deferred payment plan, it claims to have paid 33% of its price.

2. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondent in January 2014, two main defenses were raised against the claim. Firstly, the respondent pleaded that the channels of the respondent were not placed regularly and due to such irregularity, the respondent suffered loss of revenue and loss in viewership. Secondly, it on claimed that payment had been made regularly as per the agreed terms. In other words, the second defense was that all the lawful outstanding dues have been paid by the respondent and, therefore, the demand is on account of errors in accounts etc.

3. Through a rejoinder filed in February 2014, the petitioner denied the defense of the respondent and some other allegations and pointed out that at no point of time any grievance or notice was communicated to the petitioner about the alleged irregularity in placement. Through the rejoinder an updated statement of accounts in respect of both the channels was brought on record as annexure to show payment made after the filing of the petitioner and also updated claim of interest. On the basis of statement of accounts the rejoinder disclosed that the claimed amount stood reduced and the respondent was liable till 17.01.2014 only for Rs.2,34,11,352/-.

2. Only to avoid repetition of facts relating to the petitioner and because the nature of agreements with the respondent(s) in both the petitions are similar, both the petitions involving claim for a money decree have been heard together and shall be governed by this common judgement and order.

3. As noted earlier, the petitions have been filed for money decree. In BP No. 39 of 2018, the total claimed amount is for Rs.1,31,40,753.00 involving dues payable from October 2015 onwards, In B.P. No, 163 of 2018, the claim is for an amount of Rs.7,53,44,675.00 to cover dues from January 2011 | onwards. The prayer has been made for pendente lite and future interest also at the rate of 18% p.a. in both the petitions. In B.P. No.163 of 2018, there is an additional prayer for an amount of Rs. 63,843.00 said to have been deducted by the respondent{s) as TDS during the Financial Year 2011-12 but allegedly not deposited with the Income Tax Authorities,

>. Learned counsel for the appellants has also filed written notes of arguments and in reply a further written note of arguments has been filed by learned counsel for the respondent. The respondent, as an account holder in the State Bank of India (SBI), suffered a loss of Rs. 18,35 lakh through 20 internet transactions and the money was transferred to 20 accounts, all with the SBI. The account holder/complainant filed Petition No. 1 of 2013 before the leamed A.O./Secretary to Government, Information Technology, Electronics and Communications Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh. After hearing the parties in detail and taking into consideration the defence of the Bank, which is the appellants herein, and all the relevant documents, learned A.O. by the impugned order dated 12,3.2014 has allowed claim of the complainant who is respondent herein and directed SBI to pay the entire amount of Rs. 18.35 lakh with interest from the date of loss ie. 13.5.2012 till the date of payment along with the costs of Rs. 39,750.00. The rate of interest is 18% per annum. Admittedly, nothing has been paid by SBI so far.

2. At the outset, it is deemed useful to record that besides the two agreements both dated 1.4,2012 between the parties which are covered by present petition, the petitioner and a sister concern of the respondent namely, Mi Marathi Media Ltd. also had a similar agreement with the petitioner. Some of correspondences ayailable on record support the aforesaid fact and disclose common meetings on the issue of outstanding dues.

3. Against Mi Marathi Media Utd, alryost in similar factual situation, petitioner had preferred BP No. 39 of 2018 for claiming an amount of Rs. 1.31 crores approximately. After considering ali the relevant issues, that broadcasting petition alongwith BP No. 163 of 2018 was heard ex-parte and substantially allowed by a recent judgment and order of this Tribunal dated 14.2.2020. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed strong reliance upon that judgment more so because this petition is also against the sister concern of Ml Marathi Media having aimest identical factual background and is also being heard ex-parte. This petition has been filed for a money decree for an arnount of Rs. 2,46,20,606/- and for pendente lite and future interest @ 18% ¢.a, 4, The petitioner is Union of india in the capacity of a service provider. The respondent, who is a broadcaster Heencee, is.alse a service previder. The respandent has been shawn ta be ef a "Hcencee" within the meaning of the term under the TRA! Act, 1997. The petition is, therefore, claimed ta be covered within the ambit of Section 14 of the TRAI Act.

2. The Appellate Tribunal at the relevant time could not take up the appeals because of vacancies in its composition and therefore, the appellant approached the Hon'ble High Court of Hyderabad through a writ petition bearing WP No.22474/2014 to challenge the impugned Tariff Order dated 24.02.2014 and also to seek its suspension/stay. The High Court issued notices and by an order passed on 26.11.2014 it also directed the Registry to requisition/eall for the records of the present appeal. The Appellate Tribunal was also directed to send the records of this appeal which was accordingly sent within time. It may be noted that the High Court did not transfer the appeal to itself but only requisitioned the records. When the Appellate Tribunal began to function, then in the presence of learned counsel for the appellant, vide order dated 26.11.2015, it held that since the Hon'ble High Court has decided to examine the correctness and validity of the impugned Tariff Order challenged in the present appeal, the appeal has been rendered mfructuous.

os Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent even after service of notice and as a result the petition has been heard ex parte. The respondent has not appeared at any stage and has filed neither reply nor any affidavit of evidence

2. The petitioner company carries on the business of receiving signals from broadcasters of various television channels and of redistributing the same through franchisee cable network. The respondent company carries on business as a broadcaster/eontent provider. Both the parties are service providers and as such amenable to the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.

3. Through this petition, the petitioner is seeking recovery of Bs.13,41,756/- said to be the outstanding dues inclusive of interest as on 15.03.2016 along with interest @ 18% til the date of realization from the respondent. The dues are towards carriage fee for the services availed by the respondent from the petitioner for carriage of its television channels.

2. Yhe petitioner company carries on the business of receiving signals from Pt gh ei ae broadcasters of various television channels and of redistributing the same thr franchisee cable network. The respondent company carries on business as a broadeaster/content provider. Both the purlies are service providers and as such amenable to the jurisdiction of this Tebunal,

3. Through this petition, the petitioner is seek dng recovery of Re.4d0 98 000/.

aid to be the oufstand) me dues inelusive of interest as on 1s 03 2016 along with os interest @ 18% till the date of realization from the re Spondent. The dues are a towards carriage fee for the services availed by the respondent trom the petitioner for carnage of its television channels.

2. The other appeal (No.7of 2013) has been preferred by Federation of Indian Airlines (FIA) which has challenged the legality etc. of a subsequent Order No.30/2012-13 dated 28.12.2012 issued by AERA in exercise of powers under Section 13(1)(b) of the AERA Act read with Section 22A of the Airports Authority of India Act 1994(AAI Act) to re-determine the amount of DF at IGI Airport, New 4 Delhi. By this order AERA reviewed the earlier DF Order dated 14.11.2011 in a small measure, reduced the rate of DF w.e.f. 01.01.2013 and extended the levy period upto April, 2016 subject to further review. The FIA, it appears, had challenged the earlier DF order dated 14.11.2011 also. Its stand is that levy of DF to bridge the funding gap for IGI Airport is contrary to law and the relevant agreements which cast a duty upon DIAL to arrange for funds for development of the Airport. It is also pleaded that the project cost has been blown-up beyond realistic proportions and AERA has failed to exercise the required level of scrutiny which would have kept the final project cost at a reasonable and permissible level.

2. The petitioner company carries on the business of receiving signals from broadcasters of various television channels and of redistributing the same through franchisee cable network. The respondent company carries on business as a broadcaster/content provider. Both the parties are service providers and as such amenable to the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.

3. Through this petition, the petitioner is seeking recovery of Rs.1,44,84,050/- (Rupees One Crore Forty Four lakhs Eighty Four Thousand Fifty Only) said to be the outstanding dues inclusive of interest as on 09.02.2016 along with interest @ 18% till the date of realization from the respondent. The dues are towards carriage fee for the services availed by the respondent from the petitioner for carriage of its television channel "Mi Marathi".

2. The petitioner company carries on the business of receiving signals from broadcasters of various television channels and of redistributing the same through franchisee cable network. The respondent company carries on business as a broadcaster/content provider. Both the parties are service providers and as such amenable to the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.

3. Through this petition, the petitioner is seeking recovery of Rs.1,51,88,898.26p(Rupees One Crore Fifty One lakhs Eighty Eight Thousand Ninety Eight and Paise Twenty Six Only) said to be the outstanding dues inclusive of interest as on 09.02.2016 along with interest @ 18% till the date of realization from the respondent. The dues are towards carriage fee for the services availed by 3 the respondent from the petitioner for carriage of its television channel "Live India".

2. It may be useful to note that the facts relevant for the main issue of law indicated above are not in dispute and hence do not require detailed narration. For the sake of convenience, facts will be referred to from the records of T.P. No.77/2019 which has been heard as the lead matter, unless indicated otherwise.

3|Page

3. The two respondents, Tata Communications Ltd. and Bharti Airtel Ltd. are owners / operators of certain facilities which have been described as Cable Landing Operations. For these facilities they are entitled to levy three distinct charges i.e. (i) Access Facilitation Charges (AFC), (ii) Co-Location Charges(CLC) and (iii) Operation and Maintenance Charges (OMC). Prior to 07.06.2007, the charges were based purely on contract between the parties. In 2007, TRAI issued the "International Telecommunication Access to Essential Facilities at Cable Landing Stations Regulations 2007" (2007 Regulations). This introduced the requirement of framing of Cable Landing Stations - Reference Interconnect Offer (RIO) to be calculated on cost based method. Such RIOs for all the three charges were required to be submitted to TRAI, the Regulator for approval. This light- touch regulation was operational till the 2007 Regulations were amended by Amendment Regulation, 2012 dated 19.10.2012. This amendment enabled TRAI to fix and specify the highest charges which could be realizable as per agreement between the parties. On 21.12.2012, TRAI fixed all the three charges vide notification which brought into effect the "International Telecommunication Landing Station Access Facilities Charges and Co-Location Charges Regulations 2012. The said Regulations (No.27 of 2012) contained 3 schedules of charges made effective from 01.01.2013.

2. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.Vishwanathan and learned Senior Counsel for the non-applicant, Bharti Airtel, Mr.Gopal Jain through video-conferencing.

3. The applicant seeks a direction upon Bharti Airtel not to encash the Bank Guarantee (BG) to which it has become entitled vide judgment of this Tribunal dated 16.04.2020 whereby applicant's petition bearing T.P. No.77/2019 has been dismissed on merits. In the last paragraph of that judgment notice has been taken of an order of the Hon'ble Madras High Court dated 14.11.2019 and in view of the said consent order this Tribunal has directed that the BG submitted to the Tribunal stands invoked for immediate payment to the non-applicant. The prayer in the MA is solely on the ground that moving the Hon'ble Supreme Court in appeal is likely to take some time because of the prevailing pandemic COVID-19.

1. Goa Foundation Through Dinesh George Dias G-8, St. Britto's Apts. Feira Alta, Mapusa, Bardez, Goa - 403507.

2. Peaceful Society Through Kumar Kalanand Mani R/o Peaceful Society Campus Honsowado-Madkai, Post: Kundai 403115, Goa .....Appellants Versus

1. Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment and Forests Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003

2. State of Maharashtra Through its Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400023

3. State of Karnataka Through the Chief Secretary, Vidhan Soudha, Bangalore - 560001

National Green Tribunal Bar Association Through the Secretary Trikoot II Bikaji Cama Palace New Delhi .....Applicant Versus

1. Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Environment & Forest Prayavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003

2. State of Uttranchal Through Chief Secretary Department of Environment and Forest Uttranchal Secretariat, Dehradun Uttrakhand- 248006

3. Divisional Forest Officer IT Cell, PCCF Office, 87-Rajpur Road, Dehradun, Uttrakhand-248001

4. VS Sidhu IPS Officer Police Officers Colony Kishanpur, Dehradun Uttrakhand-24800 .....Respondents Counsel for Applicant:

Shri Dharamvir Sharma, Adv.

Dated: 30th September , 2014 Delivered in open court by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalip Singh, Judicial Member

1. Admit.

2. It is submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Applicant that the matter raised in this application has already been covered by the decision of this Tribunal in O.A.No. 315/2014 (CZ) in case of Ram Swaroop Chaturvedi V/s Chairman, MPSEIAA & Ors. decided on 11.09.2014 in the matter of the Office Memorandum dated 24.12.2013, issued by the MoEF, Government of India.

3. We have considered the application as well as submissions made before us. We would accordingly dispose of this petition in the light of our earlier judgement dated 11.09.2014 in O.A.No. 315/2014 and the directions contained therein shall also apply to the applicant in so far as the applicability of the aforesaid orders of MoEF dated 24.12.2013 is concerned. In case an application is submitted by the Applicant, online or as prescribed under the procedure alongwith requisite fee, such application shall be entertained by the MPSEIAA in accordance with law within two months without being influenced by the Office Memorandum dated 24.12.2013 issued by the MoEF in so far as its operations have been stayed by the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal in Application No. 343 of 2013 (M.A.No. 1093/2013) in the case of Ranbir Singh Vs. State of H.P. & Ors and Page 2 of 3 Application No. 279/2013 (M.A.No. 1120 of 2013) in case of Promila Devi Vs. State & Ors. dated 28.03.2014.

2. Considering above, the sentence in paragraph 30, reading "The industry has also filed M.A.No.145/2014 in connection with such closure with a prayer to direct MPCB to give hearing before restart" Should be read as "The industry has also filed MA No.145/2014, with a prayer to direct the MPCB to take decision on the Application of the Applicant for revocation of closure directions at the earliest, on the basis of merit of the matter".

3. Considering the above specific directions, we do not find any necessity to rectify the operative part of the Judgment. However, considering the fact that hearing has already been extended to the said Industry on 19.8.2014, by the Member Secretary, as mentioned by the Applicant- Industry, and also by MPCB in its affidavit Misc Appln. No.155/2014 Page 2 dated 2nd September, 2014, we expect that the learned Member Secretary will expedite decision making, and take a decision on the request of the Industry for re-start, in any case, not later than two (2) weeks from today.

24. "Considering foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that the Application will have to be partly allowed in order to protect Environment and ecology, as well as the Forests area. Consequently, we partly allow the Application and give following directions:

1. The interim orders given by Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, on 30/4/2004 referred in para-9 above shall continue to operate, as the state government has not submitted the necessary data and reports on the present status of forest and an updated action plan to increase the forest cover in the state to the desired level and also, comprehensive statement of the compliance of various directions of Apex court and High Court, issued in this regard. The Tribunal is required to continue the interim orders on Pre-cautionary Principle basis in the absence of above information and Tribunal is willing to reconsider the position if the state government approaches the Tribunal with necessary data, reports and action plan. The said interim orders shall be part of this final order. "

24. "Considering foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that the Application will have to be partly allowed in order to protect Environment and ecology, as well as the Forests area. Consequently, we partly allow the Application and give following directions:

1. The interim orders given by Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, on 30/4/2004 referred in para-9 above shall continue to operate, as the state government has not submitted the necessary data and reports on the present status of forest and an updated action plan to increase the forest cover in the state to the desired level and also, comprehensive statement of the compliance of various directions of Apex court and High Court, issued in this regard. The Tribunal is required to continue the interim orders on Pre-cautionary Principle basis in the absence of above information and Tribunal is willing to reconsider the position if the state government approaches the Tribunal with necessary data, reports and action plan. The said interim orders shall be part of this final order. "

"M.A.No.628 0f 2013 "Notice of this Misc Application on the question of limitation be issued by registered post/acknowledgement due and Dasti as well.

Notice returnable on 04th September, 2013."

...........Sd/xxx..........................., CP (Swatanter Kumar) ..........Sd/-xxx.........................., JM (U.D. Salvi) ..

..........Sd/xxx..........................., JM (S.N.Hussain) .............Sd/xxx........................, EM (P.S.Rao) ............sd/xxx........................, EM (Ranjan Chatterjee) Page 3 (J) M.A. No.628/2013, ,Appln. No.17/2013 & Appeal No.80/2013 (WZ)

"M.A.No.628 0f 2013 "Notice of this Misc Application on the question of limitation be issued by registered post/acknowledgement due and Dasti as well.

Notice returnable on 04th September, 2013."

...........Sd/xxx..........................., CP (Swatanter Kumar) ..........Sd/-xxx.........................., JM (U.D. Salvi) ..

..........Sd/xxx..........................., JM (S.N.Hussain) .............Sd/xxx........................, EM (P.S.Rao) ............sd/xxx........................, EM (Ranjan Chatterjee) Page 3 (J) M.A. No.628/2013, ,Appln. No.17/2013 & Appeal No.80/2013 (WZ)

Counsel for Respondent Shri Sachin K. Verma,Adv. Nos. 1, 3, 4 & 8: Shri D.S.Kanesh, DFO Counsel for Respondent No. 2: Shri Rajendra Babbar, Adv. Counsel for Respondent No. 5: Shri Naman Nagrath, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Qasim Ali, Adv. Counsel for Respondent No. 6 & 7: Shri Om Shankar Shrivastav, Adv. & Shri Dharamvir Sharma, Adv. Dated : October 1st, 2014 J U D GEM E N T

1. This Application was originally filed as Writ Petition No. 6930/2009 in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur as Public Interest Litigation. In pursuance of the order dated 05.12.2013 of the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in consonance with the judgement dated 9th August, 2012 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan and Others Vs. Union of India & Others (2012) 8 SCC 326, the Writ Petition was transferred to the Central Zone Bench, National Green Tribunal, Bhopal and was registered as Original Application No.114/2013. The matter was listed for hearing on 13-1- 2014 since the Hon'ble High Court, while ordering the transfer of the case, directed that the parties shall appear before this Tribunal on 13-1-2014.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar (Chairperson) Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.S. Nambiar (Judicial Member) Hon'ble Dr. D.K. Agrawal (Expert Member) Hon'ble Dr. R.C. Trivedi (Expert Member) Dated: October 16, 2014

1. Whether the judgment is allowed to be published on the net?

2. Whether the judgment is allowed to be published in the NGT Reporter?

JUSTICE SWATANTER KUMAR, (CHAIRPERSON) The first applicant in this application claims to be a public spirited person who has been working in the field of environment conservation. The second applicant is an organisation working in the field of environment across the country. Both these applicants raise a specific substantial question relating to environment with respect to water pollution in the River Ganga, particularly, between Garh Mukteshwar and Narora, due to discharge of highly toxic and harmful effluents. It is alleged that highly toxic and 4 harmful effluents are being discharged by the respondent units into the Sambhaoli drain/Phuldera drain that travels along with the Syana Escape Canal which finally joins River Ganga. These units had constructed underground pipelines for such discharge. According to the applicants, Simbhaoli Sugar Mills was established in 1933 and presently is operating three sugar mills and three distilleries in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The total crushing capacity of all three complexes is of 20100 TCD. The unit at Simbhaoli alone has a crushing capacity of 9500 TCD. In just outside the premises of this sugar mill, untreated effluents are being discharged into the drain which finally joins the River Ganga. The other unit, Gopalji Dairy which is producing milk and milk products of different kinds, also discharges untreated effluents in the same Simbhaoli drain. The contamination from discharge of trade effluents is so high that it not only pollutes the Syana Escape canal and the River Ganga but also threatens the life of endangered aquatic species such as dolphins, turtles and other aquatic life. It has also polluted the groundwater of villages from where it passes through, like Bauxar, Jamalpur, Syana, Bahadurgarh, Alampur, Paswada and Nawada village. It is the submission of the applicant that the Gangetic Dolphin is a highly endangered species and is listed in Schedule I of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. It is also submitted that the WWF India has come out with a report on Ganges and has recorded the finding that a large number of factories like sugar, chemicals, 5 fertilizers, small-scale engineering etc. located at the bank of the river, discharge their effluents directly into the River Ganga and pollute the river to a considerable extent. It is estimated that nearly 260 million litres of industrial waste-water, largely untreated, is discharged by these units while the other major pollution inputs include runoff from the agricultural fields. It is submitted that more than 6 million tonnes of chemical fertilizers and 9,000 tonnes of pesticides are used annually within the basin. The dumping of untreated effluents has also been reported in several newspapers many times and one of the news article published in India Today dated 19th July, 2010 titled as "Ganga Chokes as Sugar Mills Dump Wastes" reported that Simbhaoli Sugar Mills has been rushing its poisonous industrial waste directly into the River. As a result thereof, the colour of green water is black and it stinks around the year. Several large fishes have died and four of the buffaloes of the villagers died after they drank the drain water.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar (Chairperson) Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.S. Nambiar (Judicial Member) Hon'ble Dr. D.K. Agrawal (Expert Member) Hon'ble Dr. R.C. Trivedi (Expert Member) Dated: October 16, 2014

1. Whether the judgment is allowed to be published on the net?

2. Whether the judgment is allowed to be published in the NGT Reporter?

JUSTICE SWATANTER KUMAR, (CHAIRPERSON) The first applicant in this application claims to be a public spirited person who has been working in the field of environment conservation. The second applicant is an organisation working in the field of environment across the country. Both these applicants raise a specific substantial question relating to environment with respect to water pollution in the River Ganga, particularly, between Garh Mukteshwar and Narora, due to discharge of highly toxic and harmful effluents. It is alleged that highly toxic and 4 harmful effluents are being discharged by the respondent units into the Sambhaoli drain/Phuldera drain that travels along with the Syana Escape Canal which finally joins River Ganga. These units had constructed underground pipelines for such discharge. According to the applicants, Simbhaoli Sugar Mills was established in 1933 and presently is operating three sugar mills and three distilleries in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The total crushing capacity of all three complexes is of 20100 TCD. The unit at Simbhaoli alone has a crushing capacity of 9500 TCD. In just outside the premises of this sugar mill, untreated effluents are being discharged into the drain which finally joins the River Ganga. The other unit, Gopalji Dairy which is producing milk and milk products of different kinds, also discharges untreated effluents in the same Simbhaoli drain. The contamination from discharge of trade effluents is so high that it not only pollutes the Syana Escape canal and the River Ganga but also threatens the life of endangered aquatic species such as dolphins, turtles and other aquatic life. It has also polluted the groundwater of villages from where it passes through, like Bauxar, Jamalpur, Syana, Bahadurgarh, Alampur, Paswada and Nawada village. It is the submission of the applicant that the Gangetic Dolphin is a highly endangered species and is listed in Schedule I of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. It is also submitted that the WWF India has come out with a report on Ganges and has recorded the finding that a large number of factories like sugar, chemicals, 5 fertilizers, small-scale engineering etc. located at the bank of the river, discharge their effluents directly into the River Ganga and pollute the river to a considerable extent. It is estimated that nearly 260 million litres of industrial waste-water, largely untreated, is discharged by these units while the other major pollution inputs include runoff from the agricultural fields. It is submitted that more than 6 million tonnes of chemical fertilizers and 9,000 tonnes of pesticides are used annually within the basin. The dumping of untreated effluents has also been reported in several newspapers many times and one of the news article published in India Today dated 19th July, 2010 titled as "Ganga Chokes as Sugar Mills Dump Wastes" reported that Simbhaoli Sugar Mills has been rushing its poisonous industrial waste directly into the River. As a result thereof, the colour of green water is black and it stinks around the year. Several large fishes have died and four of the buffaloes of the villagers died after they drank the drain water.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar (Chairperson) Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.S. Nambiar (Judicial Member) Hon'ble Dr. D.K. Agrawal (Expert Member) Hon'ble Dr. R.C. Trivedi (Expert Member) Dated: October 16, 2014

1. Whether the judgment is allowed to be published on the net?

2. Whether the judgment is allowed to be published in the NGT Reporter?

JUSTICE SWATANTER KUMAR, (CHAIRPERSON) The first applicant in this application claims to be a public spirited person who has been working in the field of environment conservation. The second applicant is an organisation working in the field of environment across the country. Both these applicants raise a specific substantial question relating to environment with respect to water pollution in the River Ganga, particularly, between Garh Mukteshwar and Narora, due to discharge of highly toxic and harmful effluents. It is alleged that highly toxic and 4 harmful effluents are being discharged by the respondent units into the Sambhaoli drain/Phuldera drain that travels along with the Syana Escape Canal which finally joins River Ganga. These units had constructed underground pipelines for such discharge. According to the applicants, Simbhaoli Sugar Mills was established in 1933 and presently is operating three sugar mills and three distilleries in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The total crushing capacity of all three complexes is of 20100 TCD. The unit at Simbhaoli alone has a crushing capacity of 9500 TCD. In just outside the premises of this sugar mill, untreated effluents are being discharged into the drain which finally joins the River Ganga. The other unit, Gopalji Dairy which is producing milk and milk products of different kinds, also discharges untreated effluents in the same Simbhaoli drain. The contamination from discharge of trade effluents is so high that it not only pollutes the Syana Escape canal and the River Ganga but also threatens the life of endangered aquatic species such as dolphins, turtles and other aquatic life. It has also polluted the groundwater of villages from where it passes through, like Bauxar, Jamalpur, Syana, Bahadurgarh, Alampur, Paswada and Nawada village. It is the submission of the applicant that the Gangetic Dolphin is a highly endangered species and is listed in Schedule I of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. It is also submitted that the WWF India has come out with a report on Ganges and has recorded the finding that a large number of factories like sugar, chemicals, 5 fertilizers, small-scale engineering etc. located at the bank of the river, discharge their effluents directly into the River Ganga and pollute the river to a considerable extent. It is estimated that nearly 260 million litres of industrial waste-water, largely untreated, is discharged by these units while the other major pollution inputs include runoff from the agricultural fields. It is submitted that more than 6 million tonnes of chemical fertilizers and 9,000 tonnes of pesticides are used annually within the basin. The dumping of untreated effluents has also been reported in several newspapers many times and one of the news article published in India Today dated 19th July, 2010 titled as "Ganga Chokes as Sugar Mills Dump Wastes" reported that Simbhaoli Sugar Mills has been rushing its poisonous industrial waste directly into the River. As a result thereof, the colour of green water is black and it stinks around the year. Several large fishes have died and four of the buffaloes of the villagers died after they drank the drain water.

Case No. 36 of 2019 1

Brief facts and allegations

2. JSW Paints is stated to be a part of the JSW group of companies, which is involved in several sectors, including steel, energy, cement, etc. JSW Paints was incorporated in the year 2016 and launched its decorative paints in May 2019 in Bengaluru and Hubli in Karnataka. JSW Paints has introduced many innovative approaches in the paints industry for the first time in India.

3. Asian Paints is a listed company and is primarily engaged in manufacture and sale of decorative and industrial paints. According to its Annual Report for the FY 2018-19, it is the 3rd largest paint company in Asia and largest in India. In India, it has 8 manufacturing plants for decorative paints and 2 for industrial paints.

2. The Informant is an individual user/consumer of the services provided by PayU and other e-payment gateways.

3. PayU is a fintech company that provides payment technology solutions to online merchants. It was founded in the year 2002 and has its head-quarter at Hoofddorp, Netherlands. It allows online businesses to accept and process payments through payment methods that can be integrated with web and mobile applications. Further, PayU is the e-payment division of Naspers, a global internet and entertainment group and one of the leading technology investors in the world. Naspers is a leading financial services provider in the global growth markets and is engaged in the business of providing payment gateway services and other digital payment enablement services to both consumers and businesses. It also holds a Non- Banking Financial Company ('NBFC') license in India to offer credit services.

2. As stated in the information, the Informant is a pharmaceutical wholesaler who had placed an order for purchase of drugs from USV on 31.07.2019. Kundan vide its letter dated 06.08.2019, confirmed receipt of the said order of the Informant along with documents and demand draft.

3. The Informant alleged that USV imposed the following unfair conditions on the Informant:

 Collection of goods from Pune C&F agent (Kundan), which is 360 km away from the Informant's location.  The Informant is not entitled to return any product purchased from USV for any reason whatsoever including those on account of expiry or damage.  Advance payment to be paid every time.  The Informant cannot purchase the products of USV from any other C&F agent.

2. Anti TB Department Mr. K. S. Sachdeva, DDG, Room No. 243-A/523 'C' Wing, Nirman Bhawan Opposite Party No. 2 New Delhi

3. RITES India Ltd.

MSM Division, RITES Bhawan-II, 4th Floor, Plot No. 144, Sector-44, Gurgaon-122003 Opposite Party No. 3 Haryana CORAM Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta Chairperson Ms. Sangeeta Verma Member Mr. Bhagwant Singh Bishnoi Member Case No. 02 of 2020 1 Order under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002

1. The Information in the present case has been filed by Mr. Ambalal V. Patel (hereinafter, the 'Informant') under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter, the "Act") against Central Medical Service Society (hereinafter, the 'CMSS/ Opposite Party No. 1 / OP-1'), Anti TB Department (hereinafter, the 'Opposite Party No. 2 / OP-2') and RITES India Ltd (hereinafter, the 'Opposite Party No. 3 / OP-3'), alleging contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act. Hereinafter, OP-1, OP-2 and OP-3 are collectively referred to as 'Opposite Parties / OPs'.

Ref. Case No. 05 of 2019 1

2. The Informant in the present case had issued RFP for procurement of Cloth Cotton Pagdi for quantity of 7,42,426 Mtrs and Mattress MK-II (Improved Version), quantity 57,761 (in numbers). The Informant has stated that out of 04 firms which participated, only 03 firms could qualify for opening of commercial bids for Cloth Cotton Pagdi and out of 10 firms only 04 could qualify for opening of commercial bid for mattress. The tender for procurement of Cotton Pagdi was floated on 22.10.2018, and for Mattress was floated on 08.11.2018, respectively.

3. The Informant has averred that Commercial Negotiation Committee ('CNC') observed that the rates may have been quoted after collusion by the said two firms. As submitted by the Informant, details of the bid are reproduced in the table below:

2. The Informant in the present case had floated a Tender No. A/59919/Shirt Khakhi/DGOS/OS-PII/Proc Sec, dated 19.06.2017 for procurement of 1,38,251 Shirt Man's Cellular Cotton 1973 Pattern (Modified) Khaki ("Item"). The Informant has stated that out of 14 firms which participated, only 09 qualified for the opening of their commercial bids.

3. The Informant has averred that Commercial Negotiation Committee ('CNC') observed that the rates may have been quoted after collusion by the said four firms (Opposite Parties). As submitted by the Informant, details of the bid are reproduced in the table below:

Table 1: Details of Bidders S. No Firm Name Rate (in Rs) Status

Ref. Case No. 05 of 2019 1

2. The Informant in the present case had issued RFP for procurement of Cloth Cotton Pagdi for quantity of 7,42,426 Mtrs and Mattress MK-II (Improved Version), quantity 57,761 (in numbers). The Informant has stated that out of 04 firms which participated, only 03 firms could qualify for opening of commercial bids for Cloth Cotton Pagdi and out of 10 firms only 04 could qualify for opening of commercial bid for mattress. The tender for procurement of Cotton Pagdi was floated on 22.10.2018, and for Mattress was floated on 08.11.2018, respectively.

3. The Informant has averred that Commercial Negotiation Committee ('CNC') observed that the rates may have been quoted after collusion by the said two firms. As submitted by the Informant, details of the bid are reproduced in the table below:

2. The Informant in the present case had floated a Request for Proposal ("RFP") No. A/59876/Durries/ Clo-1/DGOS/OS-PII/Proc Sec dated 15.12.2015 for procurement of 8,18,009 Durries IT OG ("Item").

3. The Informant averred that 09 firms participated in the said tender including Standard Gram/OP-2 and out of the said 09 firms, only 06 qualified for opening of commercial bids. As stated by the Informant, Standard Gram/OP-2 could not qualify in technical evaluation as the firm was not registered with Association of Corporations and Apex Societies of Handlooms/Khadi Village Industries Commission ("ACASH/KVIC") which was a pre-requisite. It is further stated that while the contract was under progress, Standard Gram/OP-2 merged with Integrated Defence/OP-3. Subsequently, the L1 firm (HP Handicraft/OP-1) sublet the manufacture of the Item to Integrated Defence/OP-3 vide Letter No. HPSHHC:173/10(EM)/Durries/838081 dated 23.03.2018.

1. The present case pertains to alleged cartelisation amongst certain parties in relation to Requests for Quotations ('RFQs') issued by certain Automobile Original Equipment Manufacturers ('OEMs') for supply of (i) Anti-Vibration Rubber Products ('AVR Products'); and (ii) Automotive Hoses (Water and Fuel) ('Hoses').

Suo Motu Case No. 01 of 2016 1

PUBLIC VERSION

2. The case commenced upon receipt of certain information under the provisions of Section 46 of the Competition Act, 2002 (the 'Act') read with the Competition Commission of India (Lesser Penalty) Regulations, 2009 (the 'LPR') which disclosed that two or more of the following companies had exchanged information and/ or reached agreements amongst themselves, as to who would supply AVR Products and Hoses in response to the RFQs issued by certain Automobile OEMs:

Case No. 37 of 2019 1

2. The Informant, a private limited company, is engaged in the business of export of stone aggregates/ boulders and has stated that it exports stone aggregates/ boulders through rakes allotted by OP. For allotment of rakes, the Informant places indent itself or through its consignor at respective railway sidings. The Informant also stated that OP follows quota system for dispatch of rakes. Under such a system, the Informant got rakes allotted to it at various sidings in Howrah and Malda Division of the Eastern Railways, which is OP in the present case.

3. The Informant alleges that from July 2019 onwards, OP stopped allotment of rakes to it and instead, the rakes were allotted to Orient Exports Pvt. Ltd. as per the directions of the Indian Railway Board contained in letter No. 2017/TT- III(M)/71/D/10/Quota dated 18.07.2019. The Informant claims that this decision was taken by Indian Railway Board as per the request of the Bangladesh Railway Board. The Informant has stated that non-allotment of rakes has impacted its goodwill amongst its customers as it is not being able to meet its prior commitments.

Case Nos. 36 of 2015, 31 of 2016 and 58 of 2016 33

Koushik Das: Yes, one BCDA N.O.C. is required with the application.

Shri Arajit Das: Yes, that is essential, you prepare your papers I need the orders, otherwise it is problem to me. I have submitted my drug licence number, trade licence number everything.

Koushik Das: Yes, but only those papers are not enough, there are something more, you have deal with Alembic before and done with other parties also.

Shri Arajit Das: that is not required.

2. It was stated that OP-1 is an association of man-made fibre manufacturers in India; OP-2 is the largest producer and seller of Viscose Staple Fibre (VSF) in India; OP-3 is a company registered in Thailand and promoted by OP-2; and OP-4 is a company belonging to the Aditya Birla Group operating in Indonesia and engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling and exporting VSF to customers located in the US, Europe, Turkey, Japan, Korea, China and other countries in both textile and non-woven segments.

3. The Informant alleged that OP-2 is the sole producer of VSF having a market share of almost 100% in India and it is misusing its sole position in the domestic market to squeeze the textile industry consumers. With regard to OP-3 and OP-4, it was alleged that OP-2 imports and markets its products and Case No. 62 of 2016 2 Public Version OP-3, operating from Thailand and OP-4, operating from Indonesia, have joined hands to exploit the Indian market.

2. As stated in the information, the Informant is running a sole proprietorship by the name of M/s Venkateswara Agencies (earlier known as Rohini Agencies) dealing with agricultural machineries, based in West Godavari District of Andhra Pradesh. The Informant has been the authorised dealer of KAMCO from the year 2006, for which dealership agreement dated 28.09.2006 was entered into between Informant and KAMCO. The scope of the agreement included supplying the products of KAMCO to Case No.38 of 2019 1 the customers in West Godavari, East Godavari, Krishna, Srikakulam and Guntur Districts of the state of Andhra Pradesh.

4. Saransh Biotech Pvt. Ltd Opposite Party No. 4 5. Aarav Pharmaceuticals Opposite Party No. 5 6. Laxmi Pharma Opposite Party No. 6 7. M C Pharma Opposite Party No. 7 8. Maa Ambey Enterprises Opposite Party No. 8 9. Goyal Pharma Opposite Party No. 9 10. MD Medical Store Opposite Party No. 10 CORAM Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta Chairperson Ms. Sangeeta Verma Member Mr. Bhagwant Singh Bishnoi Member ORDER UNDER SECTION 26(2) OF THE COMPETITION ACT, 2002

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Bhati, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Order 08/05/2020

Learned counsel for the applicant did not login. The Public Prosecutor was heard through video conferencing. The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No. 06/2020, Police Station Sangaria, District - Hanumangarh for the offence under Section 8/22 of the NDPS Act.

..

S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4048/2020. Sunil Jat S/o Shri Suwa Jat, aged about 29 years, resident of Bholi, Tehsil and District Bhilwara, Police Station Mangrop, District Bhilwara.

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Neeraj Kumar Gurjar (through video calling).

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Joshi, PP (through video calling).

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA Order 08/05/2020 As per advisory, with regard to serious pandemic and infection of Novel Corona Virus (COVID-19), issued by the World Health Organisation (WHO), Rajasthan High Court, Central Government and the State Government for effective control over spread of COVID-19, none present in-person on behalf of the parties.

..

S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4047/2020. Mahrilal S/o Mohan B/c Joshi Age 55 Years R/o Uttarvada Police Station Badisadri, District Chittorgarh.

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shreekant Verma (through video calling).

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Joshi, PP (through video calling).

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA Order 08/05/2020 As per advisory, with regard to serious pandemic and infection of Novel Corona Virus (COVID-19), issued by the World Health Organisation (WHO), Rajasthan High Court, Central Government and the State Government for effective control over spread of COVID-19, none present in-person on behalf of the parties.