THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ORS THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY v. RAJENDRA SINGH BHANDARI .

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc. Page 1 of 34 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1359 OF 2017 Techi Tagi Tara … Appellant v ersus Rajendra Singh Bhandari & Ors. …Respondent s WITH C.A. No. 1360/2017, C.A. No. 2481/2017 , C.A. No. 526/2017, C.A. No. 1561/2017 , C.A. No. 4917/2017, C.A. No . 4936/2017, C.A. No. 5735/2017, C.A. Nos. 8377 - 8378/2017 , C.A. No. 10471/2017, C.A. No. 9498/2017 and C.A. Nos. 10472 - 10473/2017 J U D G M E N T Madan B. Lokur, J . 1. This batch of appeals is directed against the judgment and order dated 24 th August , 2016 passed by the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short ‘the NGT’) in Original Application No. 318 of 2013. 1 On a reading of the judgment and order passed by the NGT, it 1 Rajendra Singh Bhandari v. State of Uttarakhand and others

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc. Page 2 of 34 is quite clear that the Tribunal was perturbed and anguished that some persons appointed to the State Pollution Control Boards (for short ‘SPCBs’) did not have, according to the NGT, the necessary expertise or qualifications to be members or chairpersons of such high powered and specialized statutory bodies and therefore did not deserve the ir appoint ment or nomination . While we fully commiserate with the NGT and share the pain and anguish, we are of the view that the Tribunal has , at law, exceeded its jurisdiction in directing the State Governments to reconsider the appointments and in laying down guidelines for appointment to the SPCBs , however well - meaning they might be. T herefore, we set aside the decision of the NGT, but note that a large number of disconcerting facts have been brought out in the judgment which need serious consideration by th ose in authority, particularly the State G overnments that make appointments or nominations to the SPCB s. Such appointments should not be made casually or without du e application of mind considering the duties, functions and responsibilities of the SPC B s . 2. Why is it important to be more than careful in making such appointments? There can be no doubt that the protection and preservation

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc. Page 3 of 34 of the environment is extremely vital for all of us and unless this responsibility is taken very seriously, particularly by the State Governments and the SPCBs, we are inviting trouble that will have adverse consequences for future generations. Issues of sustainable development, public trust and intergenerational equity are not mere catch words, but are concepts of great importance in environment al jurisprudence. Perhaps appreciating and anticipating this, Article 48A was introduced in the Constitution and this Article reads as follows: “ Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and wild life - The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country. ” Similarly Article 51A (g) of the Constitution indicates the fundamental duties of every citizen of the country, one of them being to protect and improve th e natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures. 2 It is quite clear that apart from the natural law obligation to protect and preserve the environment, there is also a constitutional obligat ion to do so. Unfortunately, despite this, our society has been witness ing over the last 2 51A. Fundamental duties . — It shall be the duty of every citizen of India — ( a ) to (f) xxx xxx xxx ( g ) to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures; (h) to (k) xxx xxx xxx

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc. Page 4 of 34 few decades, to repeated onslaughts against the environment, sometimes in the name of development and sometimes because our society just does not seem to care. In thi s context we may also mention Article 21 of the Constitution which has been given a very wide amplitude by several decisions of this Court, including on issues concerning the environment. The judgment of the NGT draws attention to some of these aspects but essentially points to the ‘who - cares’ attitude adopted by several State G overnments . I t is this attitude that compelled a public spirited environmentally conscious individual to challenge the co mposition of the SPCB in the Stat e of Uttarakhand and consequently the necessity of being extra careful in making appointments to the SPCB. 3 . One of the principal attributes of good governance is the establishment of viable institutions comprising professionally competent persons and the strengthening of such institutions so that the duties and responsibilities conferred on them are performed with dedication and sincerity in public interest. This is applicable not only to administrative bodies but more so to statutory authorities – more s o, because statutory authorities are the creation of a law made by a competent l egislature , representing the will of the people. 4 . State Pollution Control Boards (or SPCBs) constituted under the

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc. Page 5 of 34 provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 3 fall in this category but many of them possess only a few or sometimes none of the above attributes of good governance and again a few or none of them are adequately empowere d. This is a serious problem haunting the SPCBs for at least two decades (if not more). 5 . The composition of the SPCB is provided for in Section 4(2) of the Water Act and this reads as follows (Section 5(2) of the Air Act is similar) : “4(2) A State Bo ard shall consist of the following members, namely: - (a) a chairman, being a person having special knowledge or practical experience in respect of matters relating to environmental protection or a person having knowledge and experience in administering institu tions dealing with the matters aforesaid, to be nominated by the State Government: Provided that the chairman may be either whole - time or part - time as the State Government may think fit; (b) such number of officials, not exceeding five, to be nominated by the State Government to represent that Government; 3 Henceforth the Water Act and the Air Act

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc. Page 6 of 34 (c) such number of persons, not exceeding five, to be nominated by the State Government from amongst the members of the local authorities functioning within the State; (d) such number of non - officials, not excee ding three, to be nominated by the State Government to represent the interests of agriculture, fishery or industry or trade or any other interest which, in the opinion of the State Government, ought to be represented; (e) two persons to represent the companie s or corporations owned, controlled or managed by the State Government, to be nominated by that Government; (f) A full - time member - secretary, possessing qualifications, knowledge and experience of scientific, engineering or management aspects of pollution control, to be appointed by the State Government.” 6 . One of the earliest communications on our record encouraging professionalism in the SPCB s with a view to empowering them is a letter of 26 th September, 1997 addressed by the Secretary in the Ministry o f Environment and Forest (MoEF) of the Government of India to the Chief Secretary of every State highlighting the importance of the SPCBs, the fact that their activities are science and technology based and the necessity of taking relevant factors into con sideration while making appointments to the SPCBs . The letter reads as follows:

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc. Page 7 of 34 “Secretary Ministry of Environment & Forests Government of India September 26, 1997 D.O. No. PS/Secy (E&F)/CPCB/97 Dear The State Pollution Control Boards/Pollution Control Committees in Union Territories have been assigned an important role for prevention and control of pollution from different sources. In recent years, additional responsibilities have been assigned to them for enforcement of variou s statu t es. Hence, these organizations need to be suitably strengthened so that they can cope up with the tasks. In fact, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also had occasion to observe on the unsatisfactory performance of State Boards in discharging their fu nctions. The activities of the Pollution Control Boards/Pollution Control Committees are essentially science and technology based. The Chairman and Member Secretaries are the key functionaries of the Boards/Committees who are expected to have requisites professional knowledge and experience for providing effective leadership to their organizations. Under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 the specific requirements for appo intment to these posts have been laid down. However, in some State Boards/Committees, the appointments to these posts are made without due consideration to such requirements as envisaged under the Acts. Also, another major problem being faced by these or ganizations is on account of frequent changes of Chairmen and Member Secretaries. I request you to kindly ensure that appropriate persons are appointed for these key positions and they are not frequently changed. Where the incumbents do not have the pres cribed criteria they should be replaced.

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc. Page 8 of 34 It is requested that this issue may kindly receive your personal attention on a top priority basis. With regards Yours sincerely, Sd/ - (Vishwanath Anand)” 7 . More importantly and perhaps keeping the diverse nature of activities of the SPCBs in mind, a conference was held in Coimbatore on 29 th and 30 th January, 2001 of the Ministers of Environment and Forest s of the State Governments. The conference recommended, inter alia , the induction of academicians, profe ssionals, experts and technologists for the effective functioning of the SPCBs. As a follow - up to the recommendations, a letter was addressed by the Secretary in the MoEF to the Chief Secretary of every State on 3 rd July, 2001. This letter reads as follows : “P.V. Jayakrishnan Secretary D.O. No. PS/Secy (E&F)/CPCB/2001 July 3, 2001 Dear In the National Conference of Ministries of Environment and Forests held at Coimbatore on January 29 - 30, 2001, several important recommendations were made regarding effectiv e functioning of the State Pollution Control Boards/ Committees. These include the following:

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc. Page 9 of 34 (i) Induction of academicians, legal professionals, health experts and technologists as members of the Boards/Committees. (ii) Appointment of multi - disciplinary staff (iii) Ban on recruitment shall be relaxed for the posts of scientists and engineers in the Pollution Control B oards/Committees. (iv) Training of personnel, for which programme shall be drawn up by the Central Pollution Control Board. (v) Stream lining of Consent/Authoriza tion procedures. (vi) Inventorization of polluting sources and pollution load. (vii) Formulation of Annual Action Plans. (viii) Publication of annual State Environment Report. (ix) Strengthening and upgrading of water and air quality monitoring and laboratory facilities. We had taken up the matter with the respective State Pollution Control Boards/Committees. Since most of the action points require intervention of the State Governments, I request you kindly to take necessary action for implementation of the recommendations. I loo k forward to your response at the earliest. With regards. Yours Sincerely, Sd/ - (P.V. Jayakrishnan) To Chief Secretaries of all States/UTs” 8 . These communications seem to have had little or no impact at least in one instance as is evident from a reading of a decision of the Jharkhand High Court dated 15 th May, 2002 in Binay Kumar Sinha v. State of Jharkhand 4 concerning the Chairperson of the SPCB of that 4 (2002) 50 BLJR 2223

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc. Page 10 of 34 State. The High Court was compelled to make the following scathing and unfortunate observations: “ 4. On 4th April 2002, when the Chairman appeared before us and we started ta lking to him in order to elicit his views and opinion on the aforesaid questions, what we found has been aptly and clearly recorded in our order of that day. The extracts read thus: -- "Shri Thakur Bal Mukund Nath Shahdeo, Chairman, State Pollution Control Board has appeared before us tod ay in person. During the course of our conversation with him, we found (to our total horror, surprise, dismay and amazement) that he does not know anything at all about any aspect relating to pollution, or the control of pollution. In course of our extensi ve conversation with him, we found that the only academic qualification that he boasts of is 'matriculation'. He has no other academic or technical qualification whatsoever. When, by referring to Section 5(2)(a) of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollutio n) Act, 1981, we asked him whether he has any special knowledge or any practical experience in respect of any matter relating to the environmental pollution, his answer was in the negative. We must record that during the course of our conversation with Sri Shahdeo, we were constantly helped and assisted by Mr. Poddar, learned Addl. Advocate General. We actually impressed upon Mr. Poddar the need of assisting Sri Shahdeo in answering our questions. Mr. Poddar very kindly lent his helping hand to us. What eme rged was that Mr. Shahdeo has neither any general or special knowledge, nor any academic qualification, nor any experience whatsoever that may have anything to do with any matter or any aspect relating to the pollution, air pollution, water pollution, nois e pollution, or any other pollution of any kind. What to speak of his - having special knowledge or practical experience, he has neither any knowledge, general or special, nor any experience, practical or otherwise with respect to any matters relating to env ironmental pollution. We repeatedly asked him to inform us about one single such fact by which he could lay his claim to hold this office. He failed to inform us of even a single fact

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc. Page 11 of 34 which could qualify him to hold this office. His only claim was that he is a politico - social worker. We asked him also as to how he came to be appointed on this post. He says that he made an application to Mrs. Neelam Nath, Secretary, Forests, we asked him whether such an application was invited from him. He says that the appl ication was invited from him. We asked him whether invitation was extended to him personally by Mrs. Neelam Nath or did it appear in any advertisement. He says that he, on his own, gave such an application and that it was neither invited personally from hi m nor through any advertisement. Prima facie, it appears to us that a person who does not have the requisite qualification, experience, or knowledge has been appointed on the post of Chairman, Pollution Control Board. Before we proceed any further, we woul d like Mr. Poddar, learned A.A.G. to produce before us the original records of the Govt. relating to the appointment of Mr. Shahdeo." 5. It was from this point onwards that a case arose within a case. Both the issues started being dealt with simultaneousl y by us, namely, the issue relating to Sundera Mineral & Chemical Industry and the propriety, legality and validity of the appointment of Mr. Shahdeo.” A little later in the judgment it was held: “ 41. Looked at from the aforesaid legal perspective and in view of our clear findings that Shri Shahdeo did not possess the qualifications required of the Chairman, State Pollution Control Board, we have no hesitation, but to hold that it would be a violation of the law to allow him to continue as the Chairman of the State Board. We accordingly order and declare that the appointment of Shri Shahdeo as Chairman, State Board, was not legal and valid and hence improperly made and therefore, on these grounds we order and direct that he cannot continue to function as su ch. By issuance of a writ of quo - warranto, therefore, the appointment of Shri Shahdeo as Chairman, State Board, is quashed and set aside. Shri Shahdeo shall forthwith and with immediate effect cease to hold the office of Chairman, State

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc. Page 12 of 34 Board. The post of Chairman, State Board is hereby declared to be vacant, and with immediate effect.” 9 . Notwithstanding the above decision, communications and orders , the State Governments continued to display disinterest in the matter of professional appointments to the SPCBs. This led to another communication from the MoE F on 16 th August, 2005 (which still did not have the desired effect) and this communication reads as follows: “Supreme Court Matter Most Immediate By Speed Post No. 23 - 8/2004 - HSMD (Vol.II) Government of India Ministry of Environment & Forests (Supreme Court Monitoring Committee) Room No, 927, Paryavaran Bhawan C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road New Delhi - 110003 108 Dated 16 th August, 2005 To, The Chief Secretaries of all States/UTs (As per the list enclosed) Sub: Constitution of the State Pollution Control Board/Pollution Control Committees (SPCBs PCCs) - regarding Dear Sir, The Supreme Court by its order dated 14 - 10 - 2003 in the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 657/1995 set up a Monitoring Committee to ensure time - bound implementation of various directions given in

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc. Page 13 of 34 the said order. 5 The committee has been visiting several States to mo nitor the status of implementation of these directions. During its interaction with various pollution control officials, the Supreme Court Monitoring Committee (SCMC) has noticed that the State Pollution Control Board (SPCBs), Pollution Control C ommittee (PCCs) of UTs were not constituted in accordance with the provisions given in the Water Act, 1994 and the Air Act, 1981. Chairperson of the Board : - 3. The statutory provisions require that Chairpersons appointed shall be persons having “special knowled ge or practical experience in respect of matters relating to environmental protection or a person having knowledge and experience in administering institutions dealing with the matter aforesaid” 4. The SCMC has found that in the several cases, the Chief S ecretaries, Environment Secretaries, politicians, MLAs , literary persons and non - technical persons have been appointed as Chairperson of SPCBs/PCCs. 5. The MGK Menon Committee had recommended in its report that “The Chairman of the P ollution Control Board s & Committees should be individuals with a sense of vision and a feeling for the future. They must have an understanding of the complexity of modern science and technology since they will be dealing with highly technical issue. They must have an understan ding of law. The chairperson would have to be fully involved in the task of environment construction and planning appointment of the Chairperson of the Board should be on full time basis. Member Secretary of the Board : - 6. Similarly, in respect of the p ost of Member Secretary the statutory provisions (Water Act) require that he be full - time, possessing qualifications, knowledge and experience of scientific, engineering or management aspects of pollution control. 5 Research Foundation for Science v. Union of India

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc. Page 14 of 34 7. In relation to appointment of Member S ecretaries, the Menon Committee has recommended that: “The incumbent should possess a post - graduate degree in science, engineering or technology, and have adequate experience of working in the area of environment protection”. 8. The SCMC has found that in several States, persons from IFS or from the PWD especially from the PHE departments, are either being appointed or deputed to the post of Member Secretary without the necessary statutory qualifications. Members : - 9. No effort is being made to appoint persons with adequate scientific, technical or legal background from the environmental field as members of the Board. Board members are increasingly being appointed for political purposes. This is leading to ineffecti ve and inefficient functioning of SPCBs/PCCs. 10. Though the Boards are to function as statutory bodies under the Air Act, 1981, no specialists in air pollution (as required by the Air Act, 1981) are being appointed as members. This is a serious lacuna in constitution of the Boards. 11. During its visits to various States to monitor implementation of the order dated 14.10.2003, the SCMC has observed that the order of the Supreme Court being efficiently carried out in States that have competent Chairperson or Member Secretaries. In other States, due to lack of proper attention at the highest level, implementation is found to be tardy and without much progress. 12. The SCMC discussed these issues at its meeting held on 28 - 03 - 2005 came to the firm conclusion that only technically qualified professionals should be appointed to the critical positions of Chairperson, Member Secretary and Members of the P ollution Control Boards so that their functioning can be strengthened as required in terms of paragraph - 41.1 of the Supreme Court’s order dated 14.10.2003. 13. The committee is also of the view that recommendations of the MGK Menon Committee be fully respected and the Chairperson should be appointed on full - time basis. Without the

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc. Page 15 of 34 officers it is not possible fo r any Board to function effectively in view of the numerous laws and statutes that demand efficient and effective actions from State Pollution Control Boards. 14. We draw your kind attention to several reports on strengthening of State Pollution Control B oards. These include: 1) The Bhattacharia Committee, 1984 2) The Belliappa Committee, 1990 3) The ASCI Study, 1994 4) Study of the Sub Group, 1994 15. All these studies were considered during the Evaluation Study on “Function of the Pollution Control Board” prepared by the Programme Evaluation Organization of the Planning Commission. 16. The Planning Commission report concluded: “Considering the int eresting technicalities involved in the functions to be performed by these Boards, it is essential that technical persons possessing scientific knowledge about matters relating to pollution and pollution control hold the upper hand”. 17. The conference of Ministers of Environment that took place in Coimbatore also reiterated at the highest political level, the decision that the SPCBs should be headed and staffed by technically competent professionals (and not by journalists or politicians or administrative officers). 18. The composition of the Boards is therefore under the scrutiny of the SCMC and no further appointment of Chairpersons or Member Secretaries should be carried out which do not meet the norms given in the statute and elucidated by the Menon C ommittee. 19. In view of the above, you are requested to inform this monitoring Committee regarding the qualifications of the Chairperson, Member Secretary and Members of the Pollution Control Board, Pollution C ontrol C ommittee in your State/ Union Territ ory. Based on the information, the committee will examine whether the persons nominated to these positions meet the

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc. Page 16 of 34 statutory norms and the requirements as indicated in the MGK Menon Committee Report and the Order of the Supreme Court dated 14.10.2003 and further necessary action will be taken in the matter. 20. This matter may kindly be given the highest consideration and a reply in this regard may be provided to the undersigned within 4 weeks so that the same will be considered in the next SCMC meeting. It will be highly appreciated, if a copy of the information may also be sent through email. Yours faithfully Sd/ - (Dr. G. Thyagarajan) Chairman, Supreme Court Monitoring Committee Telefax: 011 - 24361410 Email: drgarajan @yahoo.co.in” 1 0 . There are a few other communications on the same subject but it is not necessary to detail their contents. All that need be said is that the Central Government , time and again , request ed the State Governments to appoint persons who could add value and st ature to the SPCBs by their very presence and the n utilize their expertise in preserving and protecting the environment, including air and water. 1 1 . As far as the State of Uttarakhand is concerned, it has come on record that no r ules (let alone recruitment rules) have been framed by the State under the Water Act and the Air Act even though the State was formed several years ago. R ule s framed by the State of Uttar Pradesh

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc. Page 17 of 34 notified in 1984 have been adopted by Uttarakhand but there has apparently been no fre sh application of mi n d to these Rules or even consideration of the possibly somewhat different conditions in Uttarakhand . There seems to be a mechanical and bodily lifting of the Uttar Pradesh Rules. Apart from the above, it has a lso come on record that meeting s of the SPCB are required to be held once in three months but as far as the State of Uttarakhand is concerned, only 15 meetings were held during the period from 2001 ( when the Board was constituted ) over the next 12 years. There is therefore non chalance shown by Uttarakhand to the rule making power and the provisions of Section 8 of the Water Act and Section 10 of the Air Act 6 relating to holding meetings of the SPCB. 1 2 . To make matter worse, despite this Court passing an order on 8 th January, 2008 (in IA No.4/2007 in SLP (Civil) No.6023/2006) directing 6 Section 8 of the Water Act: 8. Meetings of Board . — A Board shall meet at least once in every three months and shall observe such rules of procedure in regard to the transaction of business at its meetings as may be prescribed: Provided that if, in the opin ion of the chairman, any business of an urgent nature is to be transacted, he may convene a meeting of the Board at such time as he thinks fit for the aforesaid purpose. Section 10 of the Air Act: 10. Meetings of Board . — (1) For the purposes of this Act, a Board shall meet at least once in every three months and shall observe such rules of procedure in regard to the transaction of business at its meetings as may be prescribed: Provided that if, in the opinion of the Chairman, any business of an urgent natur e is to be transacted, he may convene a meeting of the Board at such time as he thinks fit for the aforesaid purpose. (2) Copies of the minutes of the meetings under sub - section (1) shall be forwarded to the Central Board and to the State Government concer ned.

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc. Page 18 of 34 the State of Uttarakhand and the SPCB to consi der the desirability of making r ules laying down essential qualifications and experience and other relevant factors for appointment of members in the SPCB 7 , we are told that u nfortunately, such r ules have not been made and the impugned order under appeal indicates that the matter has remained under consideration of the State Government since 2006 . 1 3 . Keeping all these facts and the recalcitrance of the State Governments in mind , the NGT examined the expertise and qualifications of m embers of the SPCB of almost all States and prima facie found that about ten States and one Union Territor y had members in the SPCB who lacked the qualifications suggested by the Central Government. 14. At this stage, it must be mention ed that apart from the Central Government, there are several authorities that have applied their mind to the issue of appointment of members of the SP CBs. These include Expert Committees such as t he Bhattachar ya Committee of 1984, t he 7 “ I.A. No. 4/2007 be treated as an original petition to be listed along with SLP (C) No. 6023/2006. Learned counsel for the State of Uttaranchal and Uttarakhand Environment Protection and Pollution Control Board shall find out the desirability of h aving Rules governing the essential qualifications and experience and such relevant factors for the appointment of various officials in the Board. They shall also indicate their stand as regards certain NOCs stated to have been issued to pharmaceutical ma nufacturers. Call after eight weeks.” IA No.4/2007 was converted to W.P. (Civil) No.85/2008 which was listed along with SLP (Civil) No.6023/2006

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc. Page 19 of 34 Belliappa Committee of 1990, t he Administrative Staff College of India Study of 1994 and a Committee chaired by Prof. M . G . K . Menon . Notwithstanding this, the response of the State Governments in appointing professionals and experts to the SPCBs has been remarkably casual. It is this chalta hai attitude that led the NGT to direct the State Governments to consider examining the appoin tment of the Chairperson and members in the SPCBs and determining whether their appointment deserves continuation or cancellation. The reafter the NGT g a ve several guidelines that ought to be followed in making appointments to the SPCBs. 1 5 . The objection of the appellants is to : (i) the exercise of jurisdiction by the NGT in directing the State Government s to reconsider the appointment of the Chairperson and members of the SPCBs; and (ii) laying down guidelines for appointment of the Chairperson and members of the SPCBs. 1 6 . As regard the first grievance, i t is contended that the appointment or removal of members of the SPCBs does not lie within the statutory jurisdiction of the NGT. Our attention has been drawn to some provisions of the National Gre en Tribunal Act, 2010 (for short ‘the Act’). The

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc. Page 20 of 34 jurisdiction of the NGT is circumscribed by Section 14 of the Act which reads as follows: “14. Tribunal to settle disputes . — (1) The Tribunal shall have the jurisdiction over all civil cases where a substanti al question relating to environment (including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment), is involved and such question arises out of the implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I. (2) The Tribunal shall hear the disputes aris ing from the questions referred to in sub - section (1) and settle such disputes and pass order thereon. (3) No application for adjudication of dispute under this section shall be entertained by the Tribunal unless it is made within a period of six months f rom the date on which the cause of action for such dispute first arose: Provided that the Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the application within the said period, allow it to be filed within a further period not exceeding sixty days. ” This provision cannot be read in isolation but must be read in conjunction with Section 15 of the Act which relates to relief, compensation and restitution as being broadly the directions that can be issued by the NGT. Section 15 of the Act reads as follows: “ 15. Relief, compensation and restitution. — (1) The Tri bunal may, by an order, provide , — (a) relief and compensation to the victims of pollution and other environmental damage arising under the enactments specified in the Schedule I (including accident occurring while handling any hazardous substance); (b) for restitution of property damaged;

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc. Page 21 of 34 (c) for restitution of the environment for such area or areas, as the Tribunal may think fit. (2) The relief and compensation and restitution of property and environment referred to in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub - section (1) shall be in addition to the relie f paid or payable under the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 (6 of 1991). (3) No application for grant of any compensation or relief or restitution of property or environment under this section shall be entertained by the Tribunal unless it is made wi thin a period of five years from the date on which the cause for such compensation or relief first arose: Provided that the Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the application within the said p eriod, allow it to be filed within a further period not exceeding sixty days. (4) The Tribunal may, having regard to the damage to public health, property and environment, divide the compensation or relief payable under separate heads specified in Schedul e II so as to provide compensation or relief to the claimants and for restitution of the damaged property or environment, as it may think fit. (5) Every claimant of the compensation or relief under this Act shall intimate to the Tribunal about the applica tion filed to, or, as the case may be, compensation or relief received from , any other court or authority.” Finally, it is important to refer to Section 2(m) of the Act which reads: “ ( m ) “substantial question relating to environment” shall include an inst ance where, — ( i ) there is a direct violation of a specific statutory environmental obligation by a person by which, — (A) the community at large other than an individual or group of individuals is affected or likely to be affected by the environmental conse quences; or (B) the gravity of damage to the environment or property is substantial; or

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc. Page 22 of 34 (C) the damage to public health is broadly measurable; ( ii ) the environmental consequences relate to a specific activity or a point source of pollution; ” 1 7 . On a combined reading of all these provisions, it is clear to us that there must be a substantial question relating to the environment and that question must arise in a dispute – it should not be an academic question . There must also be a claimant raising that dispute which dispute is capable of settlement by the NGT by the grant of some relief which could be in the nature of compensation or restitution of property damaged or restitution of the environment and any other incidental or ancillary relief connec ted there with. 1 8 . The appointment of the Chairperson and members of the SPCBs cannot be classified in any circumstance as a substantial question relating to the environment. At best it could be a substantial question relating to their appointment. Moreover, their appointment is not a dispute as one would normally understand it. In Prabhakar v. Joint Director, Sericulture D ep artment 8 the following ‘definition’ of dispute was noted in paragraphs 34 and 35 of the Report: 8 (2015) 15 SCC 1

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc. Page 23 of 34 “ 34. To understand the meaning of the word “dispute”, it would be appropriate to start with the grammatical or dictionary meaning of the term: “‘ Dispute ’. — to argue about, to contend for, to oppose by argument, to call in question — to argue or debate (with, about or over) — a contest with words; an argument; a debate; a quarrel;” 35. Black’s Law Dictionary , 5th Edn., p. 424 defines “dispute” as under: “ Dispute . — A conflict or controversy; a conflict of claims or rights; an assertion of a right, claim, or demand on one side, met by contrary claims or allegations on the other. The subject of litigation; the matter for which a suit is brought and upon which issue i s joined, and in relation to which jurors are called and witnesses examined.” 1 9 . As far as we are concerned, in the context of the Act , a dispute would be the assertion of a right or an interest or a claim met by contrary claims on the other side . In ot her words, the dispute must be one of substance and not of form and it appears to us that the appointments that we are concerned with are not ‘disputes’ as such or even disputes for the purposes of the Act – they could be disputes for a c onstitutional court to resolve through a writ of quo warranto , but certainly not for the NGT to venture into. The failure of the State Government to appoint professional and experienced persons to key positions in the SPCBs or the failure to appoint any pe rson at all might incidentally result in an ineffective implementation of the Water Act and the Air Act, but this cannot be classified as a primary dispute over which the NGT would have

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc. Page 24 of 34 jurisdiction. Such a failure might be of a statutory obligation over which , in the present context and not universally, only a constitutional court would have jurisdiction and not a statutory body like the NGT. While we appreciate the anxiety of the NGT to preserve and protect the environment as a part of its statutory fun ctions, we cannot extend these concepts to the extent of enabling the NGT to consider who should be appointed as a Chairperson or a member of any SPCB or who should not be so appointed. 20 . Additionally, no relief as postulated by Section 15 of the Act could be granted to a claimant, assuming that a substantial question relating to the environment does arise and that a dispute does exist. 2 1 . It appears to us that the NGT realized its limita tions in this regard and therefore issued a direction to the State Governments to reconsider the appointments already been made, but the seminal issue is really whether the NGT could at all have entertained a claim of the nature that was raised. For reaso ns given above, the answer must be in the negative and it would have been more appropriate for the NGT to have required the claimant to approach a constitutional court for the relief prayed for in the original application. To this extent therefore, the direction given by the NGT must be set aside as being without jurisdiction. However, we

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc. Page 25 of 34 have been told that some States have implemented the order of the NGT and removed some members while others have approached this Court and obtained an interim stay order. Those officials who were removed pursuant to the order of the NGT (including the appellant Techi Tagi Tara) have an independent cause of action and we leave it open to them to challenge their removal in appropriate and independent proceedings. This is an issue between the removed official and the State Government - the removal is not a public interest issue and we cannot reverse the situation. 2 2 . On the second grievance relating to the issue of guidelines by the NGT, the meat of the matter concerns the appointment of officials who are experts in their field and are otherwise professional. This is for each State Government to consider and decide w hat is the right thing to do under the circumstances – should an unqualified or inexperienced person be appointed or should the SPCB be a representative but expert body? The Water Act and the Air Act as well as the Constitution give ample guidance in this regard. We have already adverted to the provisions of the Constitution including Article 48A , Article 51A (g) and Article 21 of the Constitution. So, the entire scheme of the various provisions of the Constitution adverted to above, including the principles that have been

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc. Page 26 of 34 accepted and adopted internationally as well as by this Court such as the principles of sustainable development, public trust and intergenerational equity are a clear indication that in matters relating to the protection and preservation of the environment ( through the appointment of officials to the SPCBs ) the Central Government as well as the State Governments have to walk the extra mile. Unfortunately, many of the State Governments have not even taken the first step in that direction – he nce the present problem . 2 3 . While it is beyond the jurisdiction of the NGT and also beyond our jurisdiction to lay down specific rules and guidelines for recruitment of the Chairperson and members of the SPCBs, we are of opinion that there should be consi derable deliberation before an appointment is made and only the best should be appointed to the SPCB. It is necessary in this regard for the Executive to consider and frame appropriate rules for the appointment of such persons who would add lustre and valu e to the SPCB. In this connection we refer to the State of Punjab v. Salil Sabhlok 9 in which it was observed with reference to appointments to the Public Service Commission that besides express restrictions in a statute or the Constitution, there can be implied restrictions in a statute or the 9 (2013) 5 SCC 1

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc. Page 27 of 34 Constitution and the statutory or constituti onal authority cannot, in breach of such implied restrictions , exercise its discretionary power. In our opinion this would be equally applicable to an appointment to a statuto ry body such as the SPCB - the State Government does not have unlimited discreti on or power to appoint anybody that it chooses to do. 2 4 . It was also held in Salil Sab h lok (supra) that the deliberative process and institutional requirements are of considerable importance in respect of any appointment that is made. In this context, the imperative of good governance was highlighted and with regard to framing rules or issuing guid elines, it was held as follows: “In the light of the various decisions of this Court adverted to above, the administrative and constitutional imperative can be met only if the Government frames guidelines or parameters for the appointment of the Chairperson and Members of the Punjab Public Service Commission. That it has failed to do so does not preclude this Court or any superior court from giving a directio n to the State Government to conduct the necessary exercise within a specified period. Only because it is left to the State Legislature to consider the desirability or otherwise of specifying the qualifications or experience for the appointment of a perso n to the position of Chairperson or Member of the Punjab Public Service Commission, does not imply that this Court cannot direct the executive to frame guidelines and set the parameters. This Court can certainly issue appropriate directions in this regard , and in the light of the experience gained over the last several decades coupled with the views expressed by the Law Commission, the Second Administrative Reform Commission and the views expressed by this Court from time to time, it is imperative for good governance and better administration to issue directions to the executive to frame appropriate guidelines and parameters based on the indicators mentioned by this Court.

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc. Page 28 of 34 These guidelines can and should be binding on the State of Punjab till the State Leg islature exercises its power.” 2 5 . In Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana 10 this Court observed that competent, honest, independent persons of outstanding ability and high reputation who command the confidence of people and who would not allow themselves to be deflected by any extraneous consideration from discharging their duties should be appointed to Public Service Commissions. Similarly, in In R/o Dr Ram Ashray Yadav 11 it was held that the credibility of an institution is founded upon the fa ith of the common man in its proper functioning. The faith would be eroded and confidence destroyed if it appears that the officials act subjectively and not objectively or that their actions are suspect. In our opinion, these conclusions of this Court w ould equally apply to professional and expert statutory bodies such as the Central Pollution Control Board and the State Pollution Control Boards. 2 6 . Additionally, various committees have given sufficient guidelines for the appointment of the Chairperson and members of the SPCBs. The Bhattacharya Committee (1984) proposed that the structural organization of SPCBs should consist of technical services, scientific 10 (1985) 4 SCC 417 11 (2000) 4 SCC 309

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc. Page 29 of 34 services, planning, legal se rvices, administrative services, accounts, training cell and research and development. The Committee, inter - alia , called for (a) discouraging the flow of deputationists to the Boards, (b) upgrading regional laboratories, (c) providing each Board with at le ast one mobile laboratory, (d) creating a centralized training institute, (e) providing, on priority, funds to establish air control activity, and (f) bestowing the power to make posts at least up to the rank of environmental engineers/scientists with the Boards. 12 2 7 . Similarly, t he Belliappa Committee (1990) recommended (a) introducing elaborate monitoring, reporting and organizational systems at the national level along with four regional centres and one training cell in each Board, (b ) effecting suitable changes in the Boards recruitment policy to enable them induct persons with suitable academic qualifications, and ( c ) ensuring that the Chairman and Member - Secretary are appointed for a minimum of three years . 2 8 . The Administrative Staff College of India (1994) recommended , inter alia , that (a) the SPCBs be reoriented for implementing the instrument mix of legislation and regulation, fiscal incentives, voluntary 12 Final Report prepared by the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board in 2005 on Institutional Capacity Building highlights the recommendations made by the Bhattacharya Committee, the Belliappa Committee and the ASCI Study

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc. Page 30 of 34 agreements, information campaigns and educational programmes (b) an Annual Environmental Quali ty Report be prepared by every SPCB for the concerned State, (c) an inventory of discharges and effluents disaggregated to the district level be prepared, (d) a research cell be formed in each SPCB and a network be established with the proposed clean techn ology centre and (f) model environmental impact assessments be prepared for major categories of industries. 2 9 . Finally, the Menon Committee 13 made recommendations that are a part of the communication of 16 th August, 2005 referred to above. It was also recommended that (a) i n general, State Governments should not interfere with recruitment policies of the SPCBs, especially where the Boards are making efforts to equip their institutions with more and better tra ined engineering and scientific staff, (b) the statutory independence and functional autonomy given to the SPCBs should be protected and the Boards should be kept free from political interference. The Boards should be enabled to make independent decisions in this regard and (c) the Chairperson of the SPCB should be a full - time appointee for a period of five years and the Member - Secretary of the SPCB should also be appointed for a period of five years. 13 Constituted pursuant to an order p assed by this Court on 14 th October, 2003 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 657/1995

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc. Page 31 of 34 30 . All these suggestions and recommendations are more than enough for making expert and professional appointments to the SPCBs being geared towards establishing a professional body with multifarious tasks intended to preserve and protect the environment and consisting of experts . Any contrary view or compromi se in the appointments would render the exercise undertaken by all these committees completely irrelevant and redundant. Surely, it cannot be said that the committees were not constituted for the purpose of putting their recommendations in the dustbin. 3 1 . Unfortunately, n otwithstanding all these suggestions, recommendations and guidelines the SPCBs continue to be manned by persons who do not necessarily have the necessary expertise or professional experience to address the issues for which the SPCBs were e stablished by law. The Tata Institute of Social Sciences in a Report published quite recently in 2013 titled “ Environmental Regulatory Authorities in India: An Assessment of State Pollution Control Boards ” had this to say about some of the appointments to the SPCBs: “An analysis of data collected from State Pollution Control Boards, however, gives a contrasting picture. It has been observed that time and again across state governments have not been able to choose a qualified, impartial, and politically neutral person of high standing to this crucial regulatory post. The recent

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc. Page 32 of 34 appointments of chairpersons of various State Pollution Control Boards like Karnataka (A a senior BJP leader), Himachal Pradesh (B a Congress party leader and former MLA), Uttar Pradesh (C appoin ted on the recommendation of SP leader X), Arunachal Pradesh (D a sitting NCP party MLA), Manipur Pollution Control Board (E a sitting MLA), Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (F a former bureaucrat) are in blatant violation of the apex court guidelines. The apex court has recommended that the appointees should be qualified in the field of environment or should have special knowledge of the subject. It is unfortunate that in a democratic set up, key enterprises and boards are headed by bureaucrats for over a decade. In this connection, it is very important for State Governments to understand that filling a key regulatory post with the primary intention to reward an ex - official through his or her appointment upon retirement, to a position for which he or she may not possess the essential overall qualifications, does not do justice to the people of their own states and also staffs working in the State Pollution Control Boards. The primary lacuna with this kind of appointment was that it did not evoke any trust in the people that decisions taken by an ex - official of the State or a former political leader, appointed to this regulatory post through what appeared to be a totally non - transparent unilateral decision. Many senior environmental scientists and other off icers of various State Pollution Control Boards have expressed their concern for appointing bureaucrats and political leader as Chairpersons who they feel not able to create a favourable atmosphere and an effective work culture in the functioning of the bo ard. It has also been argued by various environmental groups that if the government is unable to find a competent person, then it should advertise the post, as has been done recently by states like Odisha. However, State Governments have been defending the ir decision to appoint bureaucrats to the post of Chairperson as they believe that the vast experience of IAS officers in handling responsibilities would be easy. Another major challenge has been appointing people without having any knowledge in this field . For example, the appointment of G with maximum qualification of Class X as Chairperson of State Pollution Control Board of Sikkim was clear violation of Water Pollution and Prevention Act, 1974.” 14 14 The names have been deliberately left out by us

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc. Page 33 of 34 3 2 . The concern really is not one of a lack of profession al expertise – there is plenty of it available in the country – but the lack of dedication and willingness to take advantage of the resources available and instead benefit someone close to the powers that be. With this couldn’t - care - less attitude , the envi ronment and public trust are the immediate casualties. It is unlikely that with such an attitude, any substantive effort can be made to tackle the issues of environment degradation and issues of pollution. Since the NGT was faced with this situation, we c an appreciate its frustration at the scant regard for the law by some State Governments, but it is still necessary in such situations to exercise restraint as cautioned in State of U.P. v. Jeet S. Bisht . 15 3 3 . Keeping the above in mind, we are of the view that it would be appropriate, while setting aside the judgment and order of the NGT, to direct the E xecutive in all the S t ates to frame appropriate guidelines or recruitment rules within six months, considering the institutional requirement s of the SPCBs and the law laid down by statute, by this Court and as per the reports of various committees and authorities and ensure that suitable professional s and experts are appointed to the SPCBs. Any damage to the environment could be permanent and irreversible or at least long - lasting . U nless 15 (2007) 6 SCC 586

C.A. Nos. 1359/2017 etc. etc. Page 34 of 34 corrective measures are taken at the earliest , the State Governments should not be surprised if petitions are filed against the State for the issuance of a writ of quo warranto in respect of the appointmen t of the Chairperson and m embers of the SPCBs . We make it clear that it is left open to public spirited individuals to move the appropriate High Court for the issuance of a writ of quo warranto if any person who does not meet the statutory or constitutio nal requirements is appointed as a Chairperson or a member of any SPCB or is presently continuing as such. 34 . The appeals are disposed of in light of the above discussion. ….……………………J (Madan B. Lokur) ………………………..J (Deepak Gupta) New Delhi; September 22, 2017

1 ITEM NO.1501 COURT NO.4 SECTION XVII (for judgment) S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s).1359/2017 TECHI TAGI TARA Appellant(s) VERSUS RAJENDRA SINGH BHANDARI & ORS. Respondent(s) WITH C.A. No. 1561/2017 (XVII) C.A. No. 4917/2017 (XVII) C.A. No. 4936/2017 (XVII) C.A. No. 5735/2017 (XVII) C.A. No. 1360/2017 (XVII) C.A. No. 2481/2017 (XVII) C.A. No. 526/2017 (XVII) C.A. No. 8377-8378/2017 (XVII) C.A. No. 9498/2017 (XVII) C.A. No. 10471/2017 (XVII) C.A. No. 10472-10473/2017 (XVII) Date : 22-09-2017 These appeals were called on for pronouncement of judgment today. For Appellant(s) Mr. Ranji Thomas, Sr. Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Gajanand Kirodiwal, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Pall, AOR Mr. A. Mariaputham, Adv. Gen. Ms. Aruna Mathur, Adv. Mr. Avneesh Arputham, Adv. Ms. Anuradha Arputham, Adv. Ms. Simran Jeet, Adv. for Arputham Aruna and Co Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, AOR Ms. Rachana Srivastava, AOR Ms. Monika, Adv. Mr. Sukrit R. Kapoor, Adv. Ms. Nitya Madhusoodhanan, Adv.

2 Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, AOR Mr. M. R. Shamshad, AOR Mr. S.S. Shamshery, AAG Raj. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ankit Raj, Adv. Ms. Indira Bhakar, Adv. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, AOR Mr. P. Venkat Reddy, Adv. Mr. Prashant Kr. Tyagi, Adv. for M/s. Venkat Palwai Law Associates Mr. R. Rakesh Sharma, Adv. Mr. K.V. Vijayakumar, AOR Mr. Abhishek, Adv. Mowli, Adv. Mr. Ajay Marwah, Adv. Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Baij Nath Patel, Adv. Ms. Sweta, Adv. Ms. Romila, Adv. Mr. Vivek Gupta, AOR Mr. P. V. Yogeswaran, AOR Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, AOR Mr. K.V. Jagdishvaran, Adv. Ms. G. Indira, AOR Mr. V. G. Pragasam, AOR Mr. S. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv. Mr. Manu Sundaram, Adv. Mr. Yash Pal Dhingra, AOR Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, AOR Mr. Som Raj Choudhury, AOR Mr. Shubham Bhalla, AOR Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR Mr. Manish Yadav, Adv.

3 Mr. Chandan Kumar, AOR Mr. Shishir Deshpande, AOR Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR Mr. Edward Belho, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. K. Luikang Michael, Adv. Mr. Z.H. Isaac Haiding, Adv. Mr. Amith J., Adv. Mr. Raja Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, AOR Runa Bhuyan, Adv. Mr. Piyush Sachdev, Adv. Mr. M. Shoeb Alam, AOR Ms. Fauzia Shakil, Adv. Mr. Ujjwal Singh, Adv. Mr. Mojahid Karim Khan, Adv. Mr. K.V. Jagdishvaran, Adv. Mrs. G. Indira, Adv. Mr. Sapam Biswajit Meitei, Adv. Mr. Naresh Kumar Gaur, Adv. Mr. Ashok Kr. Singh, Adv. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta. Delay condoned. In terms of the signed reportable judgment, the appeals are disposed of. Pending applications are disposed of. (SANJAY KUMAR-I) (KAILASH CHANDER) AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER (Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)

ITEM NO.56 COURT NO.4 SECTION XVII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 1359/2017 TECHI TAGI TARA Appellant(s) VERSUS RAJENDRA SINGH BHANDARI & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR STAY APPLICATION ON IA 2/2017, FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 3/2017 and FOR [STAY] ON IA 50093/2017) WITH C.A. No. 1360/2017 (XVII) (FOR EX-PARTE STAY ON IA 2/2016 AND FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 3/2017) C.A. No. 2481/2017 (XVII) (FOR PERMISSION TO FILE APPEAL ON IA 1/2017 and FOR STAY APPLICATION ON IA 3/2017) C.A. No. 526/2017 (XVII) (FOR EX-PARTE STAY ON IA 2/2017 FOR ON IA 3/2017) C.A. No. 1561/2017 (XVII) (FOR STAY APPLICATION ON IA 2/2017, FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 3/2017) C.A. No. 4917/2017 (XVII) (FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ANNEXURES ON IA 5/2017) C.A. No. 4936/2017 (XVII) (FOR STAY APPLICATION ON IA 3/2017) C.A. No. 5735/2017 (XVII) (FOR STAY APPLICATION ON IA 1/2017 AND FOR STAY APPLICATION ON IA 2/2017) C.A. No. 8377-8378/2017 (XVII) (FOR PERMISSION TO FILE APPEAL ON IA 48187/2017, FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 48189/2017, FOR STAY APPLICATION ON IA 48191/2017 AND FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 48193/2017) C.A. No. 10471/2017 (XVII) (IA No.67511/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.67512/2017-STAY APPLICATION) 1

C.A. No. 9498/2017 (XVII) (IA No.58557/2017-APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS) C.A. No. 10472-10473/2017 (XVII) (IA No.64834/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.64839/2017-STAY APPLICATION) Date : 21-08-2017 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA For Appellant(s) Mr. Ranji Thomas, Sr. Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR Ms. Deepa Kulkarni, Adv. Mr. Amit Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, AOR Mr. M. R. Shamshad, AOR Mr. Tushar Mehta, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Pall, AOR Mr. Himanshu Pal, Adv. Mr. A. Mariarputham, Adv. Gen. Ms. Aruna Mathru, Adv. Mr. Avneesh Arputham, Adv. Ms. Anuradha Arputham, Adv. Mr. Amit Arora, Adv. Ms. Simran Jeet, Adv. For M/s Arputham Aruna And Co. Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, AOR Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv. Ms. Rachana Srivastava, AOR Ms. Monika, Adv. Mr. Sukrit R. Kapoor, Adv. Mr. P.S. Narasimha, ASG Mr. S.S. Shamshery, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ankit Raj, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Prakash, Adv. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, AOR Mr. Subramonium Prasad, Sr. Adv. Mr. R. Rakesh Sharma, Adv. Mr. K. V. Vijayakumar, AOR 2

Mr. Abhishek, Adv. Mr. P.S. Narasimha, ASG Mr. P. Venkat Reddy, Adv. Mr. Prashant Kr. Tyagi, Adv. For M/s. Venkat Palwai Law Associates Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sapam Biswajit Meitei, Adv. Mr. Naresh Kumar Gaur, Adv. Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Vivek Gupta, AOR Mr. Mukesh Verma, Adv. Mr. Pawan Kumar Shukla, Adv. Mr. Yash Pal Dhingra, AOR MR. M. Shoeb Alam, AOR Ms. Fauzia Shakil, Adv. Mr. Ujjwal Singh, Adv. Mr. Mojahid Karim Khan, Adv. Mr. Atul Jha, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Jha, Adv. Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, AOR Mr. A.S. Nadkarni, ASG Ms. Ruchira Gupta, Adv. Mr. Shishir Deshpande, AOR Ms. Mona Sinha, Adv. Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, AOR Mr. P. V. Yogeswaran, AOR Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR Mr. Edward Belho, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. K. Luikang Michael, Adv. Mr. Z.H. Isaac Haiding, Adv. MR. Som Raj Choudhury, AOR Mr. Raja Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, AOR Mr. Piyush Sachdev, Adv. Ms. Runa Bhuyan, Adv. 3

Mr. Shubham Bhalla, AOR Mr. Ritesh Khatri, Adv. Mr. Gaurang Kanth, Adv. Mr. Chandan Kumar, AOR Ms. Eshita Baruah, Adv. Mr. K.V. Jagdishvaran, Adv. Ms. G. Indira, AOR Mr. V. G. Pragasam, AOR Mr. S. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv. Mr. Manu Sundaram, Adv. Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv. Ms. Jesal Wahi, Adv. Ms. Mamta Singh, Adv. Ms. Shodhika Sharma, Adv. Ms. Puja Singh, Adv. Mr. D.K. Singh, AAG Mr. Anuvrat Sharma, Adv. Ms. Alka Sinha, Adv. Ms. Komal Mundhra, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Agrawal, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R On the last date of hearing, Mr. Rajendra Singh Bhandari was not present in person nor his counsel was present in Court. We therefore adjourned the matter for today after hearing learned counsel for the appellants. Today, the matter has been called out twice. Neither Mr. Rajendra Singh Bhandari nor his counsel is present in court. Judgment reserved. (MEENAKSHI KOHLI) (SHARDA KAPOOR) COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 4

1 ITEM NO.5+13+14 COURT NO.5 SECTION XVII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s).1359/2017 TECHI TAGI TARA Appellant(s) VERSUS RAJENDRA SINGH BHANDARI & ORS. Respondent(s) (WITH APPLN.(S) FOR STAY ON IA 2/2017 AND FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 3/2017 AND FOR [STAY] ON IA 50093/2017) WITH C.A. No. 1561/2017 (XVII) (FOR STAY APPLICATION ON IA 2/2017 AND FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 3/2017) C.A. No. 4917/2017 (XVII) ( FOR [PERMISSION TO FILE ANNEXURES] ON IA 5/2017) C.A. No. 4936/2017 (XVII) (FOR STAY APPLICATION ON IA 3/2017) C.A. No. 5735/2017 (XVII) (FOR STAY APPLICATION ON IA 1/2017 AND FOR STAY APPLICATION ON IA 2/2017) C.A. No. 1360/2017 (XVII) (FOR EX-PARTE STAY ON IA 2/2016 AND FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 3/2017 AND FOR ON IA 4/2017) C.A. No. 2481/2017 (XVII) (FOR PERMISSION TO FILE APPEAL ON IA 1/2017 AND FOR STAY APPLICATION ON IA 3/2017) C.A. No. 526/2017 (XVII) (FOR EX-PARTE STAY ON IA 2/2017 AND FOR ON IA 3/2017) C.A. No. 8377-8378/2017 (XVII) (WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF AND FOR PERMISSION TO FILE APPEAL. ON IA 48187/2017 FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA

2 48189/2017 FOR STAY APPLICATION ON IA 48191/2017 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 48193/2017) C.A. No. 9498/2017 (XVII) (IA No.58557/2017-APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS) C.A. NO.10471/2017 (XVII) (WITH APPLN.(S) FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND STAY APPLICATION) C.A. NO.10472-10473/2017 (XVII) (WITH APPLN.(S) FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND STAY APPLICATION) Date : 16-08-2017 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA For Appellant(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, ASG Mr. Dhruv Pall, AOR Mr. A. Mariaputham, Adv. Gen. Ms. Aruna Mathur, Adv. Mr. Avneesh Arputham, Adv. Ms. Anuradha Arputham, Adv. Mr. Amit Arora, Adv. Ms. Simran Jeet, Adv. for Arputham Aruna and Co Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, AOR Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv. Ms. Rachana Srivastava, AOR Ms. Monika, Adv. Mr. Sukrit R. Kapoor, Adv. Ms. Nitya Madhusoodhanan, Adv. Mr. Ranji Thomas, Sr. Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Nishant Katneshwarkar, Adv. Ms. Deepa Kulkarni, Adv. Mr. Amit Agarwal, Adv.

3 Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, AOR Mr. D.K. Singh, AAG UP Ms. Alka Singh, Adv. Mr. Anuvrat Sharma, Adv. Ms. Komal Mundhra, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Agrawal, Adv. Mr. M. R. Shamshad, AOR Mr. P.S. Narsimha, ASG Mr. S.S. Shamshery, AAG Raj. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, AOR Mr. P.S. Narasimha, ASG Mr. P. Venkat Reddy, Adv. Mr. Prashant Kr. Tyagi, Adv. M/s. Venkat Palwai Law Associates Mr. Subramonium Prasad, Sr. Adv. Mr. R. Rakesh Sharma, Adv. Mr. K.V. Vijayakumar, Adv. Mr. Abhishek, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Vivek Gupta, AOR Mr. Pragyan Pradip Sharma, Adv. Mr. Shikhar Garg, Adv. Mr. P. V. Yogeswaran, AOR Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Subhro Sanyal, Adv. Mr. K.V. Jagdishvaran, Adv. Ms. G. Indira, AOR Mr. V. G. Pragasam, AOR Mr. S. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv. Mr. Manu Sundaram, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Verma, Adv. Mr. Pawan Kumar Shukla, Adv. Mr. Yash Pal Dhingra, AOR Mr. Atul Jha, Adv. Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, AOR

4 Mr. Sandeep Jha, Adv. Mr. Som Raj Choudhury, AOR Mr. Shubham Bhalla, AOR Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR Mr. Rohit Chandra, Adv. Mr. Gourang Kant, Adv. Mr. Chandan Kumar, AOR Ms. Eshita Baruah, Adv. Mr. Atmaram Nadkarni, ASG Mr. Shishir Deshpande, AOR Ms. Ruchira Gupta, Adv. Mr. S. Santosh Rebello, Adv. Mr. Anurag Sharma, Adv. Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR Mr. Edward Belho, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. K. Luikang Michael, Adv. Mr. Z.H. Isaac Haiding, Adv. Mr. Raja Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, AOR Runa Bhuyan, Adv. Mr. Piyush Sachdev, Adv. Mr. Adeel Ahmed, Adv. Mr. M. Shoeb Alam, Adv. Ms. Fauzia Shakil, Adv. Mr. Ujjwal Singh, Adv. Mr. Mojahid Karim Khan, Adv. Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sapam Biswajit, Adv. Mr. Naresh Kumar Gaur, Adv. Mr. Ashok Kr. Singh, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R We have heard learned counsel for the appellants.

5 Since there was a request for an adjournment on behalf of Respondent No.1, we adjourn the matter to 21 st August, 2017. In view of that, there is no appearance on behalf of Respondent No.1. However, while adjourning the matter to 21 st August, 2017, we make it clear that in case no one appears on behalf of Respondent No.1, we will proceed in pronouncing orders. (SANJAY KUMAR-I) (MADHU NARULA) AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.39 COURT NO.5 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No. …..../2017 (@ Diary No(s). 20109/2017) (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 24-08-2016 in OA No. 318/2013 passed by the National Green Tribunal) STATE OF TAMIL NADU Petitioner(s) VERSUS RAJENDRA SINGH BHANDARI & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and STAY APPLICATION) Date : 11-08-2017 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Subramonium Prasad, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Abhishek, Adv. Mr. K. V. Vijayakumar, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Issue notice. Tag with C.A. No. 1359/2017. (MEENAKSHI KOHLI) (SHARDA KAPOOR) COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITEM NO.40 COURT NO.5 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No. …......./2017 (@ Diary No(s). 21977/2017) (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 24-08-2016 in OA No. 318/2013 and order dated 08-06-2017 in OA No. 318/2013 passed by the National Green Tribunal) STATE OF MANIPUR Petitioner(s) VERSUS RAJENDRA SINGH BHANDARI & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and STAY APPLICATION) Date : 11-08-2017 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sapam Biswajit Meitei, Adv. Mr. Naresh Kumar Gaur, Adv. Mr. M.N. Singh, Adv. Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Anirudh Joshi, Adv. Mr. Vivek Gupta, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Issue notice. Tag with C.A. No. 1359/2017. (MEENAKSHI KOHLI) (SHARDA KAPOOR) COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

1 REVISED ITEM NO.55 COURT NO.5 SECTION XVII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s).1359/2017 TECHI TAGI TARA Appellant(s) VERSUS RAJENDRA SINGH BHANDARI . & ORS. Respondent(s) (WITH APPLN.(S) FOR STAY ON IA 2/2017 AND FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 3/2017 AND FOR [STAY] ON IA 50093/2017) WITH C.A. No. 1561/2017 (XVII) (FOR STAY APPLICATION ON IA 2/2017 AND FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 3/2017) C.A. No. 4917/2017 (XVII) ( FOR [PERMISSION TO FILE ANNEXURES] ON IA 5/2017) C.A. No. 4936/2017 (XVII) (FOR STAY APPLICATION ON IA 3/2017) C.A. No. 5735/2017 (XVII) (FOR STAY APPLICATION ON IA 1/2017 AND FOR STAY APPLICATION ON IA 2/2017) C.A. No. 1360/2017 (XVII) (FOR EX-PARTE STAY ON IA 2/2016 AND FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 3/2017 AND FOR ON IA 4/2017) C.A. No. 2481/2017 (XVII) (FOR PERMISSION TO FILE APPEAL ON IA 1/2017 AND FOR STAY APPLICATION ON IA 3/2017) C.A. No. 526/2017 (XVII) (FOR EX-PARTE STAY ON IA 2/2017 AND FOR ON IA 3/2017) C.A. No. 8377-8378/2017 (XVII) (WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF AND FOR PERMISSION TO FILE APPEAL. ON IA 48187/2017 FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 48189/2017 FOR STAY APPLICATION ON IA 48191/2017 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 48193/2017) C.A. No. 9498/2017 (XVII) (IA No.58557/2017-APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS)

2 Date : 31-07-2017 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA For Appellant(s) Mr. Ranji Thomas, Sr. Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Tushar Mehta, ASG Mr. Dhruv Pall, AOR Mr. A. Mariaputham, Adv. Gen. Ms. Aruna Mathur, Adv. Mr. Avneesh Arputham, Adv. Mr. Amit Arora, Adv. for Arputham Aruna and Co Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv. Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, AOR Ms. Rachana Srivastava, AOR Mr. Shekhar Naphade, Sr. Adv. Ms. Shubhangi Tuli, Adv. Mr. Nishant Katneshwarkar, Adv. Mr. Arpit Rai, Adv. Mr. Amit Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, AOR Mr. S.R. Singh, Sr. Adv. Ms. Alka Singh, Adv. Mr. Anuvrat Sharma, Adv. Mr. M. R. Shamshad, AOR Mr. P.S. Narsimha, ASG Mr. S.S. Shamshery, AAG Raj. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, AOR Mr. Vaibhav Prakash, Adv. Mr. P. Venkat Reddy, Adv. Mr. Prashant Kr. Tyagi, Adv. M/s. Venkat Palwai Law Associates For Respondent(s) Mr. Aniruddh Joshi, Adv. Mr. Vivek Gupta, AOR Mr. Pragyan Pradip Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ganesh Bapu TR, Adv.

3 Mr. Shikhar Garg, Adv. Mr. P. V. Yogeswaran, AOR Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, AOR Mr. K.V. Jagdishvaran, Adv. Ms. G. Indira, AOR Mr. J. Hillson Angam, Adv. Mr. V. G. Pragasam, AOR Mr. Mukesh Verma, Adv. Mr. Pawan Kumar Shukla, Adv. Mr. Yash Pal Dhingra, AOR Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, AOR Mr. Som Raj Choudhury, AOR Mr. Shubham Bhalla, AOR Mr. Naveen Sharma, Adv. Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR Mr. Gourang Kant, Adv. Mr. Chandan Kumar, AOR Ms. Eshita Baruah, Adv. Mr. Shishir Deshpande, AOR Mr. Atmaram Nadkarni, Adv. Ms. Ruchira Gupta, Adv. Mr. Santosh Rebello, Adv. Mr. Anurag Sharma, Adv. Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR Mr. Edward Belho, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. K. Luikang Michael, Adv. Ms. Elix Gangmei, Adv. Mr. Z.H. Isaac Haiding, Adv. Mr. Raja Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, AOR Mr. Piyush Sachdev, Adv. Mr. Ajay Marwah, Adv. Mr. M. Shoeb Alam, Adv. Ms. Fauzia Shakil, Adv. Mr. Ujjwal Singh, Adv. Mr. Mojahid Karim Khan, Adv.

4 Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sapam Biswajit, Adv. Mr. Naresh Kumar Gaur, Adv. Mr. Ashok Kr. Singh, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List the matters on 16 th August, 2017. Civil Appeal No.1359 of 2017 will be taken as the lead matter. (SANJAY KUMAR-I) (SHARDA KAPOOR) AR-CUM-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

5 ITEM NO.55 COURT NO.5 SECTION XVII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s).1359/2017 TECHI TAGI TARA Appellant(s) VERSUS RAJENDRA SINGH BHANDARI . & ORS. Respondent(s) (WITH APPLN.(S) FOR STAY ON IA 2/2017 AND FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 3/2017 AND FOR [STAY] ON IA 50093/2017) WITH C.A. No. 1561/2017 (XVII) (FOR STAY APPLICATION ON IA 2/2017 AND FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 3/2017) C.A. No. 4917/2017 (XVII) ( FOR [PERMISSION TO FILE ANNEXURES] ON IA 5/2017) C.A. No. 4936/2017 (XVII) (FOR STAY APPLICATION ON IA 3/2017) C.A. No. 5735/2017 (XVII) (FOR STAY APPLICATION ON IA 1/2017 AND FOR STAY APPLICATION ON IA 2/2017) C.A. No. 1360/2017 (XVII) (FOR EX-PARTE STAY ON IA 2/2016 AND FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 3/2017 AND FOR ON IA 4/2017) C.A. No. 2481/2017 (XVII) (FOR PERMISSION TO FILE APPEAL ON IA 1/2017 AND FOR STAY APPLICATION ON IA 3/2017) C.A. No. 526/2017 (XVII) (FOR EX-PARTE STAY ON IA 2/2017 AND FOR ON IA 3/2017) C.A. No. 8377-8378/2017 (XVII) (WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF AND FOR PERMISSION TO FILE APPEAL. ON IA 48187/2017 FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 48189/2017 FOR STAY APPLICATION ON IA 48191/2017 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 48193/2017) C.A. No. 9498/2017 (XVII) (IA No.58557/2017-APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS)

6 Date : 31-07-2017 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA For Appellant(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, ASG Mr. Dhruv Pall, AOR Mr. A. Mariaputham, Adv. Gen. Ms. Aruna Mathur, Adv. Mr. Avneesh Arputham, Adv. Mr. Amit Arora, Adv. for Arputham Aruna and Co Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv. Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, AOR Ms. Rachana Srivastava, AOR Mr. Ranji Thomas, Sr. Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Shekhar Naphade, Sr. Adv. Ms. Shubhangi Tuli, Adv. Mr. Nishant Katneshwarkar, Adv. Mr. Arpit Rai, Adv. Mr. Amit Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, AOR Mr. S.R. Singh, Sr. Adv. Ms. Alka Singh, Adv. Mr. Anuvrat Sharma, Adv. Mr. M. R. Shamshad, AOR Mr. P.S. Narsimha, ASG Mr. S.S. Shamshery, AAG Raj. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, AOR Mr. Vaibhav Prakash, Adv. Mr. P. Venkat Reddy, Adv. Mr. Prashant Kr. Tyagi, Adv. M/s. Venkat Palwai Law Associates For Respondent(s) Mr. Aniruddh Joshi, Adv. Mr. Vivek Gupta, AOR Mr. Pragyan Pradip Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ganesh Bapu TR, Adv. Mr. Shikhar Garg, Adv.

7 Mr. P. V. Yogeswaran, AOR Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, AOR Mr. K.V. Jagdishvaran, Adv. Ms. G. Indira, AOR Mr. J. Hillson Angam, Adv. Mr. V. G. Pragasam, AOR Mr. Mukesh Verma, Adv. Mr. Pawan Kumar Shukla, Adv. Mr. Yash Pal Dhingra, AOR Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, AOR Mr. Som Raj Choudhury, AOR Mr. Shubham Bhalla, AOR Mr. Naveen Sharma, Adv. Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR Mr. Gourang Kant, Adv. Mr. Chandan Kumar, AOR Ms. Eshita Baruah, Adv. Mr. Shishir Deshpande, AOR Mr. Atmaram Nadkarni, Adv. Ms. Ruchira Gupta, Adv. Mr. Santosh Rebello, Adv. Mr. Anurag Sharma, Adv. Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR Mr. Edward Belho, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. K. Luikang Michael, Adv. Ms. Elix Gangmei, Adv. Mr. Z.H. Isaac Haiding, Adv. Mr. Raja Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, AOR Mr. Piyush Sachdev, Adv. Mr. Ajay Marwah, Adv. Mr. M. Shoeb Alam, Adv. Ms. Fauzia Shakil, Adv. Mr. Ujjwal Singh, Adv. Mr. Mojahid Karim Khan, Adv. Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Sr. Adv.

8 Mr. Sapam Biswajit, Adv. Mr. Naresh Kumar Gaur, Adv. Mr. Ashok Kr. Singh, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List the matters on 16 th August, 2017. Civil Appeal No.1359 of 2017 will be taken as the lead matter. (SANJAY KUMAR-I) (SHARDA KAPOOR) AR-CUM-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITEM NO.18 COURT NO.5 SECTION S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No. /2017 Diary No(s). 20140/2017 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 24-08-2016 in OA No. 318/2013 passed by the National Green Tribunal) THE STATE OF TELANGANA Petitioner(s) VERSUS RAJENDRA SINGH BHANDARI & ORS. Respondent(s) ( and IA No.58557/2017-APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS) Date : 21-07-2017 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.S. Narasimha, ASG Mr. P. Venkat Reddy, Adv. Mr. Prashant Kr. Tyagi, Adv. for M/s. Venkat Palwai Law Associates For Respondent(s) Mr. Aniruddh Joshi, Adv. Mr. Vivek Gupta, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Permission to file appeal granted. Delay condoned. Issue notice. Tag with Civil Appeal No.001359 of 2017. (SANJAY KUMAR-I) (PARVEEN KUMARI PASRICHA) AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.57 COURT NO.5 SECTION XVII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 1359/2017 TECHI TAGI TARA Appellant(s) VERSUS RAJENDRA SINGH BHANDARI & ORS. Respondent(s) WITH Civil Appeal No. 1360/2017 Civil Appeal No. 2481/2017 Civil Appeal No. 526/2017 Civil Appeal No. 1561/2017 Civil Appeal No. 4917/2017 Civil Appeal No. 4936/2017 Civil Appeal NO. 5735/2017 Civil Appeal No. 8377-8378/2017 Date : 10-07-2017 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA For Appellant(s) Mr. S.R. Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anuvrat Sharma, Adv. Ms. Alka Sinha, Adv. Mr. Ranji Thomas, Sr. Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Shekhar Naphade, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR Ms. Deepa Kulkarni, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, AOR Mr. M. R. Shamshad, AOR Mr. Tushar Mehta, ASG Mr. Dhruv Pall, AOR 1

Mr. Himanshu Pall, Adv. Ms. Aruna Mathur, Adv. Mr. Avneesh Arputham, Adv. Ms. Anuradha Arputham, Adv. Mr. Amit Arora, Adv. For M/s Arputham Aruna And Co. Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, AOR Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv. Ms. Rachana Srivastava, AOR Ms. Monika, Adv. Mr. Sukrit R. Kapoor, Adv. Ms. Nitya Madhusoodanan, Adv. Mr. P.S. Narsimha, ASG Mr. S.S. Shamshery, AAG Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Vikas Malik, Adv. Mr. Ankit Raj, Adv. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, AOR Mr. P. Venkat Reddy, Adv. Mr. Prashant Tyagi, Adv. For M/s Venkat Palwai Law Associates For Respondent(s) Mr. Vivek Gupta, AOR Mr. Mukesh Verma, Adv. Mr. Pawan Kumar Shukla, Adv. Mr. Bikash Kumar Sinha, Adv. Mr. Yash Pal Dhingra, AOR Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, AOR Ms. Ruchira Gupta, Adv. Ms. Mona A., Adv. Mr. Shishir Deshpande, AOR Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, AOR Mr. P. V. Yogeswaran, AOR Mr. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR Mr. Edward Belho, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. K. Luikang Michael, Adv. Ms. Elix Gangmei, Adv. Mr. Z.H. Isaac Haiding, Adv. 2

Mr. Som Raj Choudhury, AOR Mr. K.V. Jagdishvaran, Adv. Ms. G. Indira, AOR Mr. J. Hillson Angam, Adv. Mr. Shubham Bhalla, AOR Mr. V. G. Pragasam, AOR Mr. S. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv. Mr. G.M. Kawoosa, Adv. Mr. M. Shoeb Alam, Adv. Ms. Fauzia Shakil, Adv. Mr. Ujjwal Singh, Adv. Mr. Mojahid Karim Khan, Adv. Mr. Sunny Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Arjun Garg, Adv. Mr. Raja Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Chanchal Kr. Ganguli, Adv. Mr. Piyush Sachdev, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Status quo, as on today, shall be maintained by the parties. The proceedings before the National Green Tribunal are stayed. List the matter for final disposal immediately after three weeks. We make it clear that the hearing will go on whether affidavits are filed or not. (MEENAKSHI KOHLI) (SHARDA KAPOOR) COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 3

ITEM NO.53 COURT NO.5 SECTION XVII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 526/2017 STATE OF U.P Appellant(s) VERSUS RAJENDRA SINGH BHANDARI Respondent(s) (For ex parte stay) C.A. No. 1359/2017 (XVII) (FOR STAY APPLICATION and FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) C.A. No. 1360/2017 (XVII) (FOR EX-PARTE STAY and FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) C.A. No. 2481/2017 (XVII) (FOR PERMISSION TO FILE APPEAL AND FOR STAY APPLICATION) WITH C.A. No. 1561/2017 (XVII) (FOR STAY APPLICATION AND FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) C.A. No. 4917/2017 (XVII) (FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ANNEXURES) C.A. No. 4936/2017 (XVII) (FOR STAY APPLICATION) C.A. No. 5735/2017 (XVII) (FOR STAY APPLICATION) Date : 04-07-2017 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA For Appellant(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, ASG Mr. Dhruv Pal, Adv. Mr. Shree Pal Singh, AOR Mr. M. R. Shamshad, AOR Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR 1

Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, AOR Ms. Aruna Mathur, Adv. Mr. Avneesh Arputham, Adv. Ms. Anuradha Arputham, Adv. Mr. Amit Arora, Adv. For M/s Arputham Aruna And Co. Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, AOR Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv. Ms. Rachana Srivastava, AOR Ms. Monika, Adv. Mr. Sukrit R. Kapoor, Adv. Mr. P.S. Narsimha, ASG Mr. S.S. Shamshery, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ankit Raj, Adv. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Aniruddh Joshi, Adv. Mr. Vivek Gupta, AOR Mr. Mukesh Verma, Adv. Mr. Pawan Kumar Shukla, Adv. Mr. Bikash Kumar Sinha, Adv. Mr. Yash Pal Dhingra, AOR Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, AOR Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Pragyan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Shikhar Garg, Adv. Mr. Ganesh Bapu, Adv. Mr. P. V. Yogeswaran, AOR Mr. Som Raj Choudhury, AOR Mr. Bhupesh Narula, Adv. Mr. K.V. Jagdishvaran, Adv. Ms. G. Indira, AOR Mr. Shubham Bhalla, AOR Ms. Vidushi, Adv. 2

Mr. V. G. Pragasam, AOR Ms. Ruchira Gupta, Adv. Mr. S.R.Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sandeep Singh, Adv. Ms. Alka Sinha, Adv. Mr. Anuvrat Sharma, Adv. Mrs. K. Enatoli Sema, Adv. Mr. Edward Belho, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. K. Luikang Michael, Adv. Ms. Elix Gangmei, Adv. Mr. Z.H. Isaac Haiding, Adv. Mr. G.M. Kanoosa, Adv. Mr. M. Shoeb Alam, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List the matters on 10.07.2017. (MEENAKSHI KOHLI) (SHARDA KAPOOR) COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 3

ITEM NO.MM-808 COURT NO.1 SECTION - XVII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL No.1359 OF 2017 TECHI TAGI TARA CHAIRMAN, ARUNACHAL PRADESH Appellant(s) STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD VERSUS RAJENDRA SINGH BHANDARI AND ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 03/07/2017 This appeal was mentioned today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE D.Y.CHANDRACHUD For Appellant(s) Ms.Subhangi Tuli, Adv. For Respondent(s) U pon being mentioned the Court made the following O R D E R Tag with C.A.No.526 of 2017. (SATISH KUMAR YADAV) (RENUKA SADANA) AR-CUM-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (N.B.: C.A.No.526 of 2017 is stated to be listed on 04.07.2017 before Court No.5 as Item No.22)

ITEM NO.12 COURT NO.4 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No. …...... of 2017 (@ CAD No. 17912/2017) State of Rajasthan Appellant(s) VERSUS Rajendra Singh Bhandari & Ors. Respondent(s) [For permission to file appeal, condonation of delay in filing appeal, stay application and exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment] Date : 28/06/2017 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL [VACATION BENCH] For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.S. Narsimha, ASG Mr. S.S. Shamshery, AAG Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned judgment is allowed. Permission to file civil appeals is granted. Issue notice on the appeals as well as on the application(s) for condonation of delay. Tag with Civil Appeal No. 1360/2017. (Meenakshi Kohli) (Sharda Kapoor) Court Master A.R.

1 ITEM NO.801 COURT NO. 4 SECTION XVII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL (Diary) no. 17912 of 2017 State of Rajasthan Appellant(s) VERSUS Rajendra Singh Bhandari & Ors. Respondent(s) Date : 23/06/2017 The Appeal was Mentioned today. CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL (VACATION BENCH) For the Petitioner: Mr. S.S. Shamshery, AAG Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Adv. For the Respondent: UPON being mentioning the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List on 28.6.2017. (NEELAM GULATI) COURT MASTER (SHARDA KAPOOR) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITEM NO. 36.1,36.2 COURT NO. 4 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1360/2017 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. ITS ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT APPELLANT(S) VERSUS RAJENDRA SINGH BHANDARI AND ORS. (For ex-parte stay on IA 2/2016, for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment on IA 3/2017 for on IA 4/2017 C.A.NO. 1561/2017 (for stay application on IA 2/2017, for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment on IA 3/2017) Date : 19/06/2017 This/These appeal/appeal(s) was/were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL (VACATION BENCH) For Petitioner(s) Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Adv. Mr.Dhruv Pal, Adv. Mr. Shree Pal Singh, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Deepak Goel, Adv. Mr. G.S. Makker, Adv. Mr. Vivek Gupta, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List the matters on re-opening. [ Charanjeet Kaur ] [ Sharda Kapoor ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar

1 ITEM NO.813 COURT NO.4 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO.1561/2017 STATE OF GUJARAT PETITIONER(S) VERSUS RAJENDRA SINGH BHANDARI RESPONDENT(S) Date : 15/06/2017 This appeal was mentioned today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL [VACATION BENCH] For appellant (s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, ASG Mr. Dhruv Pal, Adv. Mr. Shree Pal Singh, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List the matter on Monday i.e. 19 th June, 2017. [VINOD LAKHINA] A.R.-cum-P.S. [SHARDA KAPOOR] ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITEM NO.810 COURT NO.4 SECTION XVII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. No.4 of 2017 in Civil Appeal No.1360 of 2017 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT Appellant(s) VERSUS RAJENDRA SINGH BHANDARI & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 14/06/2017 This application was orally mentioned for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA For Appellant(s) Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Vivek Gupta, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R On being mentioned, the matter is taken on Board. Let the application be listed on 19.6.2017. (Sharda Kapoor) (Gulshan Kumar Arora) Assistant Registrar Court Master

¦ITEM NO.39 COURT NO.5 SECTION XVII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSCivil Appeal Diary No(s). 10234/2017(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 24/08/2016in OA No. 318/2013 passed by the National Green Tribunal)STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ORS Petitioner(s) VERSUSRAJENDRA SINGH BHANDARI AND ANR. Respondent(s)(With application for condonation of delay in filing appeal andOffice Report)Date : 24/04/2017 This appeal was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKURHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTAFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Pankaj Bhatia, Adv.Mr. Nipun Goel, Adv.Mr. Dhruv Surana, Adv.Mr. Ashish Choudhury, Adv.Ms. Rachana Srivastava, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RDelay condoned.Issue notice.Tag with C.A. No. 526/2017.(Meenakshi Kohli) (Sharda Kapoor)Court Master (SH) Court Master (NS)

¾ITEM NO.21 COURT NO.5 SECTION XVII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSCivil Appeal Diary No(s). 5225/2017(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 24/08/2016in OA No. 318/2013 passed by the National Green Tribunal)STATE OF SIKKIM AND ANR Appellant(s) VERSUSRAJENDRA SINGH BHANDARI AND ORS Respondent(s)(With application for permission to file appeal and Office Report)Date : 03/04/2017 This appeal was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKURHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTAFor Petitioner(s) Ms. Aruna Mathur, Adv.Mr. Avneesh Arputham, Adv.Ms. Anuradha Arputham, Adv.Mr. Amit Arora, Adv.For M/s Arputham Aruna & Co. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RPermission to file appeal is granted.Delay condoned.Issue notice.Tag with C.A. No. 526/2017.(Meenakshi Kohli) (Sharda Kapoor)Court Master (SH) Court Master (NS)

ITEM NO.16 COURT NO.5 SECTION XVII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal Diary No(s). No(s). 39305/2016 STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR. Appellant(s) VERSUS RAJENDRA SINGH BHANDARI & ORS. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for permission to file appeal. and office report) Date : 10/02/2017 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Appellant(s) Mr. Amit Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Vivek Gupta,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Permission to file the appeal is granted. Delay condoned. Issue notice on the civil appeal as also on the application for stay. Tag with Civil Appeal Diary No. 42841 of 2016 and other connected matters. [JASWINDER KAUR] [SUKHBIR PAUL KAUR] COURT MASTER A.R.-CUM-P.S.

¨ITEM NO.16 COURT NO.5 SECTION XVII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSCivil Appeal Diary No(s). No(s). 39305/2016STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR. Appellant(s) VERSUSRAJENDRA SINGH BHANDARI & ORS. Respondent(s)(with appln. (s) for permission to file appeal. and office report)Date : 10/02/2017 This appeal was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANTFor Appellant(s) Mr. Amit Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Vivek Gupta,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RPermission to file the appeal is granted.Delay condoned.Issue notice on the civil appeal as also on theapplication for stay.Tag with Civil Appeal Diary No. 42841 of 2016 and otherconnected matters. [JASWINDER KAUR] [SUKHBIR PAUL KAUR] COURT MASTER A.R.-CUM-P.S.

ITEM NO.32 COURT NO.5 SECTION XVII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal Diary No(s). No(s). 2673/2017 STATE OF GUJARAT Appellant(s) VERSUS RAJENDRA SINGH BHANDARI AND ORS Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for permission to file appeal and office report) Date : 06/02/2017 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Appellant(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, ASG Mr. Dhruv Pal, Adv. Mr. Shree Pal Singh,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Permission to file appeal granted. Delay condoned. Issue notice on the civil appeal as well as on the application for stay. Tag with C.A. No. 526 of 2017. (Meenakshi Kohli) (Jaswinder Kaur) Court Master Court Master

\200ITEM NO.32 COURT NO.5 SECTION XVII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSCivil Appeal Diary No(s). No(s). 2673/2017STATE OF GUJARAT Appellant(s) VERSUSRAJENDRA SINGH BHANDARI AND ORS Respondent(s)(With appln. (s) for permission to file appeal and office report)Date : 06/02/2017 This appeal was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKURHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANTFor Appellant(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, ASGMr. Dhruv Pal, Adv.Mr. Shree Pal Singh,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RPermission to file appeal granted.Delay condoned.Issue notice on the civil appeal as well as on the applicationfor stay.Tag with C.A. No. 526 of 2017.(Meenakshi Kohli) (Jaswinder Kaur) Court Master Court Master

ITEM NO.25 COURT NO.5 SECTION XVII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal Diary No(s). No(s).35789/2016 TECHI TAGI TARA CHAIRMAN, ARUNACHAL PRADESH STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD Appellant(s) VERSUS RAJENDRA SINGH BHANDARI AND ORS. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for permission to file appeal) WITH C.A. D 38913/2016 (With appln.(s) for ad-interim ex-parte stay and appln.(s) for permission to file appeal. and Office Report) Date : 23/01/2017 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Appellant(s) Mr. Ranji Thomas, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gajanan Krirorimal, Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Shekhar Naphade, Sr. Adv. Ms. Subhangi Tuli, Adv. Mr. Preshit Surshe, Adv. Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Adv. Mr. Annirudh Joshi, Adv. Mr. Vivek Gupta, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Permission to file appeal(s) granted. Issue notice on the civil appeal(s) as also on the application for interim stay. Dasti, in addition, is permitted. Tag with Civil Appeal Diary No.42841 of 2016. (SANJAY KUMAR-I) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER

\226ITEM NO.25 COURT NO.5 SECTION XVII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSCivil Appeal Diary No(s). No(s).35789/2016TECHI TAGI TARA CHAIRMAN, ARUNACHAL PRADESH STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD Appellant(s) VERSUSRAJENDRA SINGH BHANDARI AND ORS. Respondent(s)(with appln. (s) for permission to file appeal)WITH C.A. D 38913/2016(With appln.(s) for ad-interim ex-parte stay and appln.(s) forpermission to file appeal. and Office Report) Date : 23/01/2017 These appeals were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANTFor Appellant(s) Mr. Ranji Thomas, Sr. Adv.Mr. Gajanan Krirorimal, Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Shekhar Naphade, Sr. Adv.Ms. Subhangi Tuli, Adv.Mr. Preshit Surshe, Adv.Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AORFor Respondent(s) Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Adv.Mr. Annirudh Joshi, Adv. Mr. Vivek Gupta, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RPermission to file appeal(s) granted. Issue notice on the civil appeal(s) as also on theapplication for interim stay. Dasti, in addition, is permitted. Tag with Civil Appeal Diary No.42841 of 2016. (SANJAY KUMAR-I) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.15 COURT NO.5 SECTION XVII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal Diary No(s).42841/2016 STATE OF U.P Appellant(s) VERSUS RAJENDRA SINGH BHANDARI AND ORS Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for condonation of delay in filing appeal. and office report) Date : 13/01/2017 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Appellant(s) Mr. Sunil Gupta, Adv. Mr. Tanmaya Agarwal, Adv. Mr. M. R. Shamshad, AOR Ms. Harshita Deshwal, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Issue notice on the civil appeal as also on the application for interim stay. (SANJAY KUMAR-I) (JASWINDER KAUR) AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.15 COURT NO.5 SECTION XVII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSCivil Appeal Diary No(s).42841/2016STATE OF U.P Appellant(s) VERSUSRAJENDRA SINGH BHANDARI AND ORS Respondent(s)(with appln. (s) for condonation of delay in filing appeal. andoffice report)Date : 13/01/2017 This appeal was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANTFor Appellant(s) Mr. Sunil Gupta, Adv.Mr. Tanmaya Agarwal, Adv. Mr. M. R. Shamshad, AORMs. Harshita Deshwal, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RDelay condoned. Issue notice on the civil appeal as also on theapplication for interim stay. (SANJAY KUMAR-I) (JASWINDER KAUR) AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.18 COURT NO.1 SECTION XVII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal Diary No(s). No(s). 35789/2016 TECHI TAGI TARA CHAIRMAN, ARUNACHAL PRADESH STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD Appellant(s) VERSUS RAJENDRA SINGH BHANDARI AND ORS. Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for permission to file appeal.) WITH C.A. D 38913/2016 (With (With appln.(s) for ad-interim ex-parte stay and appln.(s) for permission to file appeal. and Office Report) Date : 02/01/2017 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD For Appellant(s) Mr. Ranji Thomas,Sr.Adv. (CAD No.35789/2016) Mr. Gajanand Kirodiwal,Adv. Mr. Abhay Pratap Singh,Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy,Adv. (CAD NO.38913/2016) Mr. Shekhar Naphade,Adv. Ms. Subhangi Tuli,Adv. Mr. Preshit Surshe,Adv. Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Vivek Gupta,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard. Post after two weeks. (MAHABIR SINGH) (SUMAN JAIN) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

ìITEM NO.18 COURT NO.1 SECTION XVII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSCivil Appeal Diary No(s). No(s). 35789/2016TECHI TAGI TARA CHAIRMAN, ARUNACHAL PRADESH STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD Appellant(s) VERSUSRAJENDRA SINGH BHANDARI AND ORS. Respondent(s)(With appln. (s) for permission to file appeal.)WITH C.A. D 38913/2016(With (With appln.(s) for ad-interim ex-parte stay and appln.(s)for permission to file appeal. and Office Report) Date : 02/01/2017 These matters were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUDFor Appellant(s) Mr. Ranji Thomas,Sr.Adv.(CAD No.35789/2016) Mr. Gajanand Kirodiwal,Adv.Mr. Abhay Pratap Singh,Adv.Mr. V. N. Raghupathy,Adv. (CAD NO.38913/2016) Mr. Shekhar Naphade,Adv.Ms. Subhangi Tuli,Adv.Mr. Preshit Surshe,Adv.Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Vivek Gupta,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RHeard.Post after two weeks.(MAHABIR SINGH) (SUMAN JAIN) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.601 COURT NO.1 SECTION XVII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal Diary No.35789/2016 TECHI TAGI TARA CHAIRMAN, ARUNACHAL PRADESH STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD Appellant(s) VERSUS RAJENDRA SINGH BHANDARI AND ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 18/11/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today in the mentioning list. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE For Appellant(s) Mr. Ranji Thomas, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gajanand Kirodiwal, Adv. Mr. Abhay Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Neeraj K. Jain, Adv. Mr. Anirudh Joshi, Adv. Mr. Vivek Gupta, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List after two weeks along with other similar petitions filed against the impugned order. (Ashok Raj Singh) (Veena Khera) Court Master Court Master

XITEM NO.601 COURT NO.1 SECTION XVII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSCivil Appeal Diary No.35789/2016TECHI TAGI TARA CHAIRMAN, ARUNACHAL PRADESHSTATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD Appellant(s) VERSUSRAJENDRA SINGH BHANDARI AND ORS. Respondent(s)Date : 18/11/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today in the mentioning list.CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVEFor Appellant(s) Mr. Ranji Thomas, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gajanand Kirodiwal, Adv. Mr. Abhay Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Neeraj K. Jain, Adv. Mr. Anirudh Joshi, Adv. Mr. Vivek Gupta, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RList after two weeks along with other similar petitions filedagainst the impugned order. (Ashok Raj Singh) (Veena Khera) Court Master Court Master