BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL

PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

[

Original Application No. 186/2016

(M.A. No. 350/2016)
And
Original Application No. 200/2016
And
Original Application No. 580/2016
(M.A. No. 1182/2016)
And
Original Application No. 102/2017
And
Original Application No. 404/2016
(M.A. No. 758/2016, M.A. No. 920/2016,
M.A. No. 1122/2016, M.A. No. 12/2017 & M.A. No. 843/2017)
And
Original Application No. 405/2016
And
Original Application No. 520 of 2016
(M.A. No. 981/2016, M.A. No. 982/2016 & M.A. No. 384/2017)

IN THE MATTERS OF:

Satendra Pandey
Vs.
Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change & Anr.
And
Rajeev Suri Vs. Union of India
And
Badal Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.
And
Nature Club of Rajasthan (NGO) Vs. Union of India & Ors.
And
Naresh Zargar Vs. Ministry of Environment & Forest and Anr.
And
Rajeev Suri Vs. Union of India & Anr.
And
Vikrant Tongad Vs. Union of India

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, CHAIRPERSON

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE JAWAD RAHIM, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. WANGDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON’BLE DR. NAGIN NANDA, EXPERT MEMBER

Present: Applicant: Mr. Rahul Choudhary and Ms. Meera Gopal,

Advs. in Original Application No. 388/2018
Respondents Mr. Divya Prakash Pande, Adv. for Ministry of
Environment, Forest and Climate Change
Dr. Abhishek Atrey, Adv. for Ministry of
Environment, Forest and Climate Change
Mr. Amit Tiwari, Adv. for State of Uttar Pradesh
Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma and Mr. Kshitij
Mudgal, Advs.
Mr. V.K. Shukla, and Ms. Vijay Lakshmi, Advs.
for State of MP, State Environment Impact
Assessment Authority & Mining Corporation
Mr. Rahul Pratap, Adv. for Ministry of
Environment, Forest and Climate Change
Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, AAG with Mr. Saurabh
Rajpal and Mr. Vikramjeet Singh, Advs. for
State of Rajasthan

1
Date and Orders of the Tribunal
Remarks
Item Nos.
07 to 14 1. By this application, the applicant has sought to

September assail Notifications dated 15.01.2016, 20.01.2016 and

13, 2018
DV & AT
01.07.2016 amending the EIA Notification dated

14.09.2006 on the ground that the procedure for

obtaining Environmental Clearance in respect of mining of

minor minerals for areas from 0 to 25 ha has been diluted

by bringing it within B-2 category projects and exempting

such category from Public Consultation, Environment

Impact Assessment (EIA) and Environment Management

Plan (EMP) which was in contravention of the judgment of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar Vs. State of

Haryana & Ors.: (2012) 4SCC 629 and also of this

Tribunal in Original Application No. 123 of 2014 dated

13.01.2015.

2. The crux of the case of the applicant is that while in

Deepak Kumar case (supra) it had been held that all

mining leases in respect of its size would require to obtain

Environmental Clearance and be subjected to strict

regulatory framework as that of all major minerals, the

impugned Notifications, more particularly 15.01.2016,

exempts the necessity of having EIA and Public

Consultation for areas upto 25 ha.

3. According to the applicant the impugned

Notification dated 15.01.2016 provided exemption of the

rigors of the necessity of EIA and EMP even for areas

ranging from 5 to 25 ha when in the earlier Notifications it

was necessary from 5 to 50 ha. It was contended that the

Hon’ble Supreme Court had expressed its concern on

2
 dispensing with the necessity of obtaining Environmental

Clearance and the other requirements cognate thereto for

Item Nos.
07 to 14
areas less than 5 ha in the case of Deepak Kumar (supra).
September
13, 2018
DV & AT
4. Further contention was that B-category as it stood

originally, was broken to B-1 and B-2 categories by

bringing areas of mining of minerals from 25 ha to 50 ha

within B-1 category and 0 to 25 ha as B-2 category. For B-

2 category, the authority prescribed for grant of

Environmental Clearance is now the District Environment

Impact Assessment Authority (DEIAA) which would base

its decision on the recommendations of District Expert

Appraisal Committee (DEAC).

5. Further contentions of the applicant in assailing the

Notification dated 15.01.2016 are as follows:

a) Form-1M prescribed in the impugned

Notification dated 15.01.2016, required to be

submitted for mining of minor minerals upto 5

ha under Category B-2 projects provided in

Appendix-VII, is generic seeking only basic

details pertaining to the lease holder and the

mine with perfunctory information on the

environmental effect of the project which was in

contrast to Form-1 which is required to be filled

up for all other categories which is

comprehensive seeking detailed information on

environmental implications of the project.

b) B-2 projects of 0 – 5 ha under individual and

cluster category are exempted from requirements

of preparing an Environment Impact Assessment

3
 Report (EIA) and Environment Management Plan

(EMP) and those greater than 5 ha and less than

Item Nos.
07 to 14
or equal to 25 ha are exempted from preparing
September
13, 2018 Environment Impact Assessment Report (EIA)
DV & AT
both with respect to individual Mine Lease and

cluster situation. No such exemption has been

provided in para 7 (i) of the EIA Notification,

2006 under Stage (2) - Scoping which stipulates

such requirement, but it has been done away

with now at Appendix-XI of Notification dated

15.01.2016.

c) EIA/EMP is an integral and most critical

component of Environmental Clearance as it is

only through the EIA that the potential impacts

and risks of a project can be assessed and

mitigation measures formulated and adopted in

the EMP. By exempting EIA/EMP, critical

environmental aspects like anticipated

environmental impacts, mitigation measures and

additional studies involving public consultation,

risk assessment, social impact assessment and

rehabilitation and resettlement action plans,

stand exempted. These requirements provided

under Appendix-III, defeats the very purpose of

the Notification and the Environment (Protection)

Act, 1986.

d) The District Level Environment Impact

Assessment Authority (DEIAA) and District Level

Expert Appraisal Committee (DEAC) comprises

mostly of officers/bureaucrats who have no

4
 expertise and scientific knowledge to assess
Item Nos.
environmental implications, and have been
07 to 14

September conferred with excessive and uncanalized power

13, 2018
devoid of any guidelines. Even the power to
DV & AT

appoint the Expert Members vested upon the

authorities in the DEIAA and DEAC are

unguided whereas there is an extensive

elaborations with regard to qualifications, skill

sets and competencies for the members of SEAC

and SEIAA.

6. Based, inter-alia, upon the aforesaid grounds, the

applicant seeks a direction for quashing the impugned

Notifications.

7. Mr. Divya Prakash Pande, Ld. Counsel for

MoEF&CC in his arguments, at the outset, raised

objection as to the maintainability of the application on

the ground of jurisdiction of the Tribunal to grant relief for

quashing the impugned notifications. It is contended that

the decision of this Court in the case of S.P. Muthuraman

v. Union of India, in O.A. No. 676 of 2017 (Earlier O.A. No.

37/2015) whereby the Tribunal has held that it had the

jurisdiction to pass such orders has since been challenged

before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.

7191-7192 of 2015 and is yet to be decided and, by

implication of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court, operation of the impugned judgement stands

stayed.

8. On the merits of the application, it is submitted that

Notification dated 15th January, 2016 which is sought to

5
 be assailed, had been passed by the MoEF&CC in exercise
Item Nos.
of its powers conferred by sub-section (1) and clause (v) of
07 to 14

September sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Environment (Protection)

13, 2018
Act, 1986 read with clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of
DV & AT

the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986. The

notification was issued after due deliberations with

various stakeholders and the State Governments over the

draft notification in respect thereof issued on 22nd

September, 2015 and, after a committee constituted vide

letter dated 3rd December, 2015 to examine the

comments/suggestions submitted by them, had submitted

its report. The impugned Notification provides for

DIEAA/DEAC in the districts which also includes

appointment of Officers/bureaucrats as experts in the two

bodies. The impugned Notification is further justified by

the Learned Counsel contending that as the Executive

Engineer, Irrigation Department has been made part of

the DEAC as he deals with the rivers and canals in the

district and, therefore, has the best information and

knowledge about sand and gravel deposits in the districts.

The Forest Department officials are also part of these

committees who have the ability to do value addition in

forest areas or areas adjoining the forest having deposits

of minor minerals.

9. Upon consideration of the fact and circumstances

set out in the original application and upon hearing the

Ld. Counsel for parties, we find that the impugned

Notification dated 15th January, 2016 is not consistent

with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

case of Deepak Kumar (supra). We find substance in the

6
 submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the applicant that
Item Nos.
07 to 14 while breaking category B of the mines to B-1 & B-2 may
September
not per se be bad, it certainly dilutes the stringent
13, 2018
DV & AT requirement of lease areas upto 25 ha being exempted

from the necessity of submitting EIA and EMP for grant of

Environmental Clearance. It is undisputed that the

impugned Notification is issued with the object to comply

with the directions passed in the case of Deepak Kumar

(supra). This case had arisen as the EIA Notification dated

14th September, 2006 was being flouted by breaking

homogenous areas into pieces of less than 5 ha in the

States of Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Haryana, as the

notification then did not require Environmental Clearance

for areas less than 5 ha. The Hon’ble Supreme Court after

noting the serious deleterious effect of quarrying, mining

and removal of sand in-stream and up-stream of rivers to

the environment, in paragraphs 9 and 10 (of SCC), held as

follows:

“9. Extraction of alluvial material from

within or near a streambed has a direct
impact on the stream's physical habitat
characteristics. These characteristics include
bed elevation, substrate composition and
stability, in-stream roughness elements,
depth, velocity, turbidity, sediment transport,
stream discharge and temperature. Altering
these habitat characteristics can have
deleterious impacts on both in-stream biota
and the associated riparian habitat. The
demand for sand continues to increase day by
day as building and construction of new
infrastructures and expansion of existing ones
is continuous thereby placing immense
pressure on the supply of the sand resource
and hence mining activities are going on
legally and illegally without any restrictions.
Lack of proper planning and sand
management cause disturbance of marine
ecosystem and also upset the ability of natural
marine processes to replenish the sand.

10. We are expressing our deep concern

since we are faced with a situation where the

7
 auction notices dated 3-6-2011 and 8-8-2011
have permitted quarrying mining and removal
Item Nos.
of sand from in-stream and upstream of
07 to 14
several rivers, which may have serious
September environmental impact on ephemeral, seasonal
13, 2018 and perennial rivers and river beds and sand
extraction may have an adverse effect on bio-
DV & AT
diversity as well. Further it may also lead to
bed degradation and sedimentation having a
negative effect on the aquatic life. The rivers
mentioned in the auction notices are on the
foothills of the fragile Shivalik hills. Shivalik
hills are the source of rivers like Ghaggar,
Tangri, Markanda etc. River Ghaggar is a
seasonal river which rises up in the outer
Himalayas between Yamuna and Satluj and
enters Haryana near Pinjore, District
Panchkula, which passes through
Ambala and Hissar and reaches Bikaner in
Rajasthan. River Markanda is also a seasonal
river like Ghaggar, which also originates from
the lower Shivalik hills and enters Haryana
near Ambala. During monsoon, this stream
swells up into a raging torrent, notorious for its
devastating power, as also, river Yamuna.

11. We find that it is without conducting any

study on the possible environmental impact
on/in the river beds and elsewhere the
auction notices have been issued. We are of
the considered view that when we are faced
with a situation where extraction of alluvial
material within or near a riverbed has an
impact on the rivers physical habitat
characteristics, like river stability, flood risk,
environmental degradation, loss of habitat,
decline in biodiversity, it is not an answer to
say that the extraction is in blocks of less than
5 hectares, separated by 1 km, because their
collective impact may be significant, hence the
necessity of a proper environmental
assessment plan.”

10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also took note of the

fact that the MoEF&CC had constituted a Core Group

under the Chairmanship of the Secretary (Environment &

Forest) to look into the environment aspects associated

with mining of the minor minerals vide order dated 24th

March, 2009 with specific terms and conditions. The Core

Group after consideration of various issues including

cluster of mine approach for addressing and implementing

EMP in case of small mines, submitted a report on 29th

8
 January, 2010 with the recommendation to permit mining
Item Nos.
of minor minerals under strict regulatory regime and
07 to 14

September carried out only under an approved framework of mining

13, 2018
plan which should provide for reclamation and
DV & AT

rehabilitation of mine areas. For smaller mine lease areas

a cluster approach was recommended. It was directed

that the States should adopt the recommendations and

the model guidelines framed by the Ministry of Mines,

namely the Model Rules, 2010.

11. In pursuance of the directions, the impugned

Notification dated 15th January, 2016 was ultimately

issued. The MoEF&CC Notification dated 14th December,

2006 as it stood earlier prescribed for two categories of

projects and activities as Category A and Category B based

on the spatial extent of potential impacts, potential

impacts on human health and natural and man-made

resources. Stage (1)-Screening that provides for Category

‘B’ projects or activities, entail scrutiny of an application

seeking prior Environment Clearance made in Form 1 by

the concerned State Level Expert Appraisal Committee

(SEAC) for determining whether or not the project or

activity requires further environmental studies for

preparation of EIA for appraisal prior to grant of

Environment Clearance depending upon the nature and

location specificity of the project. It further provides that

the project requiring EIA report would be termed as

Category ‘B-1’ and remaining projects as Category ‘B-2’

that would not require EIA report. Discretion to make

such categorization was left upon the MoEF&CC and to

issue appropriate guidelines from time to time. This

9
 provision was a subject matter of challenge in the case of
Item Nos.
07 to 14 Himmat Singh Shekhawat v. State of Rajasthan, 2015 ALL
September
(I) NGT Reporter (1) DEL 44 by which it was upheld as
13, 2018
DV & AT having been issued by the Ministry as a Subordinate

Legislation. However, the office memorandums dated 24th

June, 2013 and 24th December, 2013 prohibiting grant of

Environment Clearance to the mine areas of less than 5

ha was quashed as being in conflict with the aforesaid

provision.

12. The only contention that require for us to consider

in this case is as to whether the Notification dated 15th

January, 2016 would satisfy the spirit of the directions

issued in the case of Deepak Kumar (supra). As already

noted, EIA Notification dated 14th September, 2006 under

the Schedule provided thereto require all mining lease

area of equal to and up to 50 ha to seek Environment

Clearance requiring to submit EIA for appraisal from the

SEIAA.

13. The impugned Notification dated 15th January,

2016, however, would clearly indicate that Category B has

been split into category B1 and B2 and again, category B2

has been further split into areas of 0-5 ha and 5-25 ha.

While 0-5 ha has been exempted from the requirement of

EIA/Public Consultation, such exemption has also been

provided even for mining areas of 5 ha to 25 ha with the

DEAC and the DEIAA as the prescribed authority for

evaluation and grant of Environmental Clearance.

Category B-1 being mining areas of 25 ha to 50 ha, the

authorities prescribed are the SEAC and SEIAA. For falling

in excess of 50 ha being Category-A, it is the EAC and the

10
 MoEF&CC.
Item Nos.
14. The procedure for grant of the Environment
07 to 14

September Clearance by the DEIAA for areas between 0 to 5 ha falling

13, 2018
under Category ‘B-2’ is found prescribed in paragraphs 6,
DV & AT

7(iii) (a) and 7(iii) (b) of the impugned Notification read

with appendices VIII, X and XI. The Schematic

Presentation of Requirement of Environment Clearance of

Minor Minerals including cluster situation provided in a

table to Appendix XI would substantiate indubitably that

even for areas between 5 to 25 ha, no EIA and Public

Hearing is required and in cluster situation also, the

requirement of EIA and Public Hearing have been

exempted.

15. Introduction of such procedure, in our view, is

clearly not consistent with the directions contained in the

case of Deepak Kumar (supra) and the spirit behind such

direction. By the provision, mining area upto from 5 ha to

25 ha has been completely exempted from the EIA and

Public Consultation. For areas of 5 ha and below, apart

from the exemption, it has been made only subject to a

separate procedure of preparing a District Survey Report

(DSR). These provisions quite apparently are more mine-

centric rather than striving a balance between mining and

environment especially with regard to Form-1M which

needs to be made more elaborate incorporating

environment related aspects.

16. The Sustainable Sand Mining Management

Guidelines, 2016 prepared by the MoEF&CC has also

deprecated the procedure as will appear from below which

11
 is contained in the chapter on “The Issues and
Item Nos.
Management of Mining in Cluster”:-
07 to 14

September “It is seen that the categorization of mines

13, 2018 into 'B1' and 'B2' category in which Category
'B2' leases are being exempted from the
DV & AT
requirement of Environment Impact
Assessment, Environment Management Plan,
and Public Consultation for grant of EC, in
many cases now the mining leases are being
given for 25 hectares or less. This defeats the
purpose and intent of Hon'ble Supreme Court
Judgment which orders environment
clearance for all mining leases irrespective of
size. The environment clearance without
Environment Impact Assessment,
Environment Management Plan, and Public
Consultation does not serve the purpose of
environment clearance which is to ensure
environmentally sustainable and socially
responsible mining. So if a cluster or
individual lease size exceeds 5 hectare, the
EIA/ EMP should be completed in the
process of grant of prior environment
clearance.”

17. Thus, even according to the Sustainable Sand

Mining Management Policy issued by the MoEF&CC by

dispensing with Public Hearing, the judgment of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Kumar

(supra) will stand defeated.

18. We also find that parameters for consideration while

preparing District Mining Plan (DMP) and District Survey

Report (DSR) are only for the purpose of ascertaining

whether an area is fit for mining which are quite different

from the parameters laid down for EIA. The consideration

of the view point of the public by keeping DSR in public

domain is not a substitute of Public Hearing for

consideration of the view point of the public for EIA.

19. With specific reference to mining in cluster, the

Report of the Committee of Secretaries, Ministry of

Environment, Forest and Climate Change, 2010

recommended as follows:

12
 “Considering the nature of occurrence of minor
mineral, economic condition of the lessee and the
likely difficulties to be faced by Regulatory
Item Nos.
07 to 14 Authorities in monitoring the environmental
impacts and implementation of necessary
September mitigation measures, it may be desirable to adopt
13, 2018 cluster approach in case of smaller mine leases
DV & AT
being operated presently.”

20. This report which is a part of the Sustainable Sand

Mining Management Guidelines, 2016 finds reinforcement

in the Chapter “The Issues and Management of Mining in

Cluster” referred to earlier where it has inter-alia been

recommended as under:

“The Hon'ble Supreme Court, NGT, SEAC/EAC

and the Project Proponents have raised issue of
cluster in mine lease allotment and environment
clearance for the same, so following conditions
need to be ensured for cluster of mines:

1. To address the concern of adverse

impact of minor mineral mining on
environment it is proposed that all mining
activity including river sand mining (above 5
hectare individual or cluster) will need to
prepare Environment Impact Assessment
Report and Environment Management Plan
before grant of environment clearance.
These reports (EIA /EMP) can be prepared
by the State or State nominated Agency /
the Project Proponent (s).
2. As can be seen from the data provided
by the States most of the mining leases
for minor minerals are of lease area less
than 5 hectare. It is also reported that in hill
states getting a stretch in river with area
more than 5 hectare is very uncommon.
So the size of lease for minor minerals
including river sand mining will be
determined by the States as per their
circumstances.
3. The EIA Notification, 2006 does not provide
for cluster EC, it provides for issuance of EC
to individual project proponents and the
same has also been upheld in the judgment
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Bansal
vs. State of Haryana case. So EC will have
to be applied for and issued to the
individual project proponent.
4. A cluster shall be formed when the distance
between the peripheries of one lease is less
than 500 meters from the periphery of other
lease in a homogeneous mineral area.
5. The mining of minor minerals is mostly in
clusters. The Environment Impact
Assessment or Environment Management

13
 Plan are required to be prepared for the
entire cluster in order to capture all the
possible externalities. These reports shall
Item Nos. capture carrying capacity of the cluster,
07 to 14 transportation and related issues,
replenishment and recharge issues, geo-
September hydrological study of the cluster area. The
13, 2018 Environment Impact Assessment or
DV & AT Environment Management Plan shall be
prepared by the State or State nominated
Agency or group of project proponents in the
Cluster or the project proponent in the
cluster.
6. The individual lease holders in cluster can
use the same Environment Impact
Assessment or Environment Management
Plan for application for environmental
clearance. The cluster Environment Impact
Assessment or Environment Management
Plan shall be updated as per need keeping
in view any significant change.
7. There shall be one public consultation for
entire cluster after which the final
Environment Impact Assessment or
Environment Management Plan report for
the cluster shall be prepared.
8. The details of cluster Environment Impact
Assessment or Environment Management
Plan shall be reflected in each
environmental clearance in that cluster and
District Expert Appraisal Committee (DEAC),
SEAC, and EAC shall ensure that the
mitigative measures emanating from the
Environment Impact Assessment or
Environment Management Plan study are
fully reflected as environmental clearance
conditions in the environmental clearance's
of individual project proponents in that
cluster.
9. …………………………………………………….
10. …………………………………………………….
11. …………………………………………………….”

21. Dispensing with the requirement of Public Hearing

which forms a part of the Public Consultation under

Stage-III of the Environmental Clearance process under

EIA Notification, 2006 for areas measuring 0 to 25 ha for

individual mine areas and in cluster situation where

public hearing has been provided, has resulted in gross

dilution of EIA Notification dated 14th September, 2006.

Such dilution would, in our view, result in its misuse by

unscrupulous elements and the situation would revert

14
 back to the lawless state prevailing prior to the decision in

the case of Deepak Kumar (supra). Stringent measures

Item Nos.
07 to 14
are, therefore, necessary if the rampant exploitation of the
September
13, 2018 minor minerals is to be curbed. This apparently was also
DV & AT
the view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

Deepak Kumar (supra).

22. For all these reasons, we direct that the procedure

laid down in the impugned Notification be brought in

consonance and in accord with the directions passed in

the case of Deepak Kumar (supra) by (i) providing for EIA,

EMP and therefore, Public Consultation for all areas from

5 to 25 ha falling under Category B-2 at par with Category

B-1 by SEAC/ SIEAA as well as for cluster situation

wherever it is not provided; (ii) Form-1M be made more

comprehensive for areas of 0 to 5 ha by dispensing with

the requirement for Public Consultation to be evaluated by

SEAC for recommendation of grant EC by SEIAA instead

of DEAC/DEIAA; (iii) if a cluster or an individual lease size

exceeds 5 ha the EIA/EMP be made applicable in the

process of grant of prior environmental clearance; (iv) EIA

and/or EMP be prepared for the entire cluster in terms of

recommendation 5 (supra) of the Guidelines for the

purpose of recommendations 6, 7 and 8 thereof; (v) revise

the procedure to also incorporate procedure with respect

to annual rate of replenishment and timeframe for

replenishment after mining closure in an area; (vi) the

MoEF&CC to prepare guidelines for calculation of the cost

of restitution of damage caused to mined-out areas along

with the Net Present Value of Ecological Services forgone

because of illegal or unscientific mining.

15
 23. We have permitted retention of 0-5 ha as a category

keeping in view that some States grant isolated single

Item Nos.
07 to 14 lease of 5 ha and less not falling in cluster situation for

September which stringent requirements in Form-1M will serve the

13, 2018
DV & AT purpose of providing safeguards for protection of the

environment and sustainable mining of minor minerals.

This is particularly true in smaller and mountainous

States as will also appear from condition no. 2 under “The

Issues and Management of Mining in Cluster” referred to

earlier in para 20 of this order.

24. It is reiterated that any attempt to split the lease

area for the purpose of avoiding the applicable regulatory

regime shall be viewed seriously. This in our view will be

in the interest of the environment as deliberated in detail

in the case of Deepak Kumar (supra) and would also

satisfy the Precautionary Principle and the Principle of

Sustainable Development contemplated under Section 20

of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.

25. The MoEF&CC shall, therefore, take appropriate

steps to revise the procedure laid down in the impugned

Notification dated 15th January, 2016 in terms of the

above directions and observations so that it is conformity

with the letter and spirit of the directions passed by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar (supra).

The applications stand disposed of.

..…..…………………………….., CP
(Adarsh Kumar Goel)

.…..…………………………….., JM
(Dr. Jawad Rahim)

16
Item Nos. ...…..…………………………….,JM
07 to 14 (S.P. Wangdi)

September
13, 2018 ...…..…………………………….,EM
DV & AT (Dr. Nagin Nanda)
13.09.2018

17