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

2. The subscriber reports furnished by the petitioner since the introduction. of new regime from 01.02.2019 as per new Regulations and Tariff Order of 2017 were not in accordance with the legal requirement. In the notice, the respondent had alleged under-reporting of subscribers in respect of its channels and later also alleged that petitioner was redistributing Zee Bangla channel in unencrypted mode. As the earlier orders would disclose, technical audit held under the orders of this Tribunal was not a smooth affair. The audit report of KPMG is on record. The parties have filed their response to the audit report. Some of the initial difficulties in the audit and reasons for delay of several months will appear from orders passed on 23.07.2019 and also some of the subsequent orders. The initial shortcomings in the petitioner's system are clear not only from the facts available on record and in the order sheets but also from reports of technical audit of petitioner's system prepared 'at the instance of some other broadcasters. As an interim measure, provisional bills were directed to be raised by the respondent on the basis of subscriber reports of the petitioner but it has been made clear that this arrangement shall not prejudice the claim of the respondent for a higher amount, if justified.

Mr, Saniay Govind Dhande & Ors. .. Respondents BERPORE:

HON BLE MR.FUSTICE SHIVA BIRTI SINGH, CHAIRPERSON For Petitioner (in C.A. No.l of 2014) =: Mr, Thyagrajan, Advocate Ms. Akanksha Banerjee, Advocate For Petitioner (in C.A. No.4 of 2014) : Mr. Alok Sharma, Advocate For Respondents > Mr. Arpun Natrajan, Advocate QRDER By S.K. Singh, Chairperson -- At the outset, it ig recorded that learned counsel for Vodafone Cellular Ltd, appellant in Cyber Appeal No.1 of 2014 has informed that the name of the above corporate entity now stands changed to Vodafone Idea Lid. He prays that this change may be recorded and the changed name should appear in the judgment. This prayer has not been opposed by the learned counsel for the other side and hence the change in the name of Vodatone Cellular Ltd. to that of Vodafone Idea Lid. is recorded and the cause title of this judgment and order is accordingly modified so as to teflect the name of Vodafone Idea Lid. Cyber Appeal No.1 of 2014 has been taken as the lead matter. The appellant in the other appeal (Cyber Appeal No.4 of 2014) Le. ICICT Bank Lid. is one of the respondents in Cyber Appeal No.1 of 2014,

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Through this petition, the petitioner is seeking recovery of Rs. l6,52,587/- said to be thé outstanding dues inclusive of Interest as on 15.03.2016 along with interest @ 18% ail the date of realization from the respondent. The dues are iowards carriage fee for the services availed by the respondent from the petitioner for carriage of tts television channels.

of areas and other details including the schedule of carriage foe and payment schedule are mentioned in the agreement dated LB.1O2013 which was valid for one year for the period 23.05.2015 to 22.05.2016. A oypy of the agreement is annexed with the petition and has also been proved as exhibit. Trac and correct copies of the inveices and a credit note have also heen proved as an exhibit icolly.). These show that the dues are as per invoices and pertain to the period covered by the agreement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3|Page

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

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

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

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar (Chairperson) Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.S. Nambiar (Judicial Member) Hon'ble Dr. D.K. Agrawal (Expert Member) Hon'ble Prof. A.R. Yousuf (Expert Member) Dated: September 25, 2014

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

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

JUSTICE SWATANTER KUMAR, (CHAIRPERSON) The Ministry of Environment and Forest (for short 'the MoEF'), Government of India vide their letter dated 21st December, 2011 accorded Environmental Clearance for Parsa East and Kanta Basan Opencast Coal mine project of 10 MTPA production capacity along with a Pit Head Coal Washery (10 MTPA ROM) to M/s Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited involving a total project area of 2711.034 hectare under the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 (for short 'EIA Notification, 2006') subject to the specific conditions stated in that Order. 2

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

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

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

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

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

2. We heard the Learned Counsel for the parties. This application was filed by the Applicant in the matter of the grant of the mining lease to the Respondent No.1 for executing the construction work of the road from the Jaora-Piplodha-Jalandharkheda & Piploda - Sailana at the instance of the Respondent No. 8/Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Ltd. (MPRDC). For the aforesaid purpose the Respondent No.1 was granted temporary mining lease in July, 2013 for mining of material i.e. stone/boulder and murrum from the land in Khasra no. 308/1/1/a, village Amba, Tahsil Sailana, District Ratlam. The question raised by the Applicant was looking to the close proximity to the site of the aforesaid mining lease granted to the Respondent No.1, to the Sailana Wildlife Sanctuary famous for the Lesser Floricon bird, commonly known as Kharmour which is reported to be on the verge of near extinction and the aforesaid Sanctuary is one of the few habitats left over for the breeding purpose preferred by this bird, would be extensively disturbed as a result of the mining activity in such close proximity of the Sanctuary as also the fact, as was revealed before the Tribunal during the hearing, that the extent of the area of the Sailana Wildlife Sanctuary was limited to just about 13 sq.km.

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

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

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

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

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

Shri Dharamvir Sharma, Adv.

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

1. Admit.

2. The grievance of the Applicant is that the Applicant is the land holder of Khasra No. 614 measuring 1.113 hectare in Village Barua, Tehsil Gaurihar, Dist. Chhatarpur, MP and as a result of flooding of river Ken huge amount of sand and muram got deposited on his agriculture field. With a view to cultivate the said land, he intended to remove the aforesaid deposit of sand and muram which would amount to mining operation and as such requiring the grant of EC from SEIAA. However, it was brought to his notice on approaching the authorities of MPSEIAA that under the orders issued in Office Memorandum dated 24.12.2013 by the MoEF, Government of India, no such application could be entertained.

Shri Dharamvir Sharma, Adv.

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

1. Admit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. There is no dispute about fact that Respondent No.2 formulated a policy as published in Government Resolution dated 12th March 2013. Case of the Appellant is that, Respondent No.5 auctioned various sand-beds of Yavatmal District as per guidelines issued by the Government of Maharashtra in its Policy OM dated March 12th, 2013. He alleges that due to such illegality, extraction of sand by lease holders including Respondent No.6, one of such auction lease holder, being carried out. The Appellant is more concerned with sand-beds at village Babhulgaon. He would Misc Appln. No.155/2014 Page 3 submit that before grant of Environmental Clearance, State Environment Appraisal Committee (SEAC) ought to have considered whether the sand-bed is below 5 ha. area and distance between two (2) sand-beds is atleast 1 k.m. The SEAC failed to consider such kind of parameters and recommended the case to the SEIAA (Respondent No.4). The SEIAA thereafter granted the EC without proper assessment and appraisal. Consequently, the Appellant challenges the EC and the auction proceedings.

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

Notice returnable on 04th September, 2013."

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

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

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

Notice returnable on 04th September, 2013."

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

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

2. Briefly stated, case of the Appellant is that as per Judgment of Apex Court in "Deepak Kumar Vrs. State of Haryana, 2012(4) SCC 629" sand beds (sandghats) situated below 5 ha. area may be leased out only if distance between the two (2) ghats is of atleast 1 k.m. It is in keeping with such directions of the Apex Court that the MoEF has issued OM dated 24th December 2013. The State has no authority to consider the project activities of granting lease of area over and above 5 ha. of sandghats into the category of 'B-2' as per class 2(I)(iii) of the OM dated 24th December 2013. Such a project will have to be treated as category 'B-1' project for the purpose of appraisal and must be appraised by the MoEF. The SEIAA could not have done the work of assessment/appraisal nor the SEIAA could have granted the EC. According to the Petitioner the Respondents purposefully downsized the (J) Appeal No.10/2014 (WZ) 3 sand beds without keeping marginal space of 1 k.m. between the two (2) sand beds. It is stated that the auction conducted by both the Collectors is illegal and erroneous. Consequently the Appellant seeks to challenge the same and urges to quash the same.

2. The Project Proponent (M/s Windosor Reality Pvt Ltd), has come out with a case that the plans for construction of commercial building were issued by the Planning Authority on 7.7.1993. The project work was started long back. The construction work was going on for about a period almost over and above 8/10 years. The Project Proponent alleges that the building having 28 floors, 3 level podium and 2 voids, in total 33 floors, have been constructed and that by itself must be deemed to be a notice to the Applicant. So, it is not open for the Applicant now to raise such a dispute under false and frivolous allegations that 'cause of action' to file the Application has arisen first on 23rd October, 2013. The Applicant cannot raise such a dispute at a belated stage by giving goby to the specific provisions of Section 14 (3) read with Section 18 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court interpreted the special enactments like the Arbitration Act, 1998, the Electricity Act, 2003 and held that where a statute prescribes shorter period of limitation and different scheme of limitation is provided under such a Statute, the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, are excluded and the Tribunal must apply the period of Page 4 (J) M.A. No.65/2014 in Application No.13/2014 (WZ) limitation as prescribed under the special enactment while exercising its powers. So, when the special provision is set out under Section 14(3) of the NGT Act, then time cannot be extended any more by Application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, or any such analogues provision.

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

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

1. Hon'ble Shri Justice M. Chockalingam, Judicial Member

2. Hon'ble Prof. Dr. R. Nagendran, Expert Member

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15th October, 2014

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ (Hon'ble Shri Justice M. Chockalingam, Judicial Member) These appeals have been filled by appellant herein challenging the order of the 2nd respondent, namely, the Appellant Authority, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control (Appellant Authority) made in Appeal Nos. 37 and 38 of 2013 dated 28.02.2014 whereby the appeals have been dismissed.

1. Hon'ble Shri Justice M. Chockalingam, Judicial Member

2. Hon'ble Prof. Dr. R. Nagendran, Expert Member

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15th October, 2014

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ (Hon'ble Shri Justice M. Chockalingam, Judicial Member) These appeals have been filled by appellant herein challenging the order of the 2nd respondent, namely, the Appellant Authority, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control (Appellant Authority) made in Appeal Nos. 37 and 38 of 2013 dated 28.02.2014 whereby the appeals have been dismissed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case No. 36 of 2019 1

Brief facts and allegations

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

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

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

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

5 Mr. Rishi Gulati, "IGBT-based power quality compensation solutions are high Business end solution in terms of technology as compare to non IGBT Development which our company manufacturing. As per my market Manager, experience, I can say that approximately IGBT based power Cummins India quality compensation solution cost double to the customer as Ltd. compare to non IGBT base solutions. Switching speed is in nano seconds in IGBT based solutions whereas switching speed is in milliseconds in TSC or non-IGBT solutions."

2. Brief facts and allegations in the present case are summarised as under:

a. The Informants i.e., Mr. Meet Shah and Mr. Anand Ranpara are individuals residing in Ahmedabad and Rajkot, respectively.

b. OP-1 is the Ministry of Railways, which controls Indian Railways, a departmental undertaking of the Government of India which is administered by the Railway Board. The Ministry of Railways through Railway Board also owns and administratively controls a large number of Public Sector Undertakings including IRCTC.

c. OP-2, IRCTC is a public sector enterprise incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is stated to be an extended arm of Indian Railways. OP-2 is, inter-alia, engaged in online ticketing operations of Indian Railways.

2. The Informant is stated to be a company engaged in manufacture of high performance and highly sophisticated machines for track maintenance, track laying and track renewal. OP-1 is a private limited company incorporated in India and OP-2 is a partnership firm established in India. OP-3, OP-4 and OP- 6 are Chinese companies engaged in developing railway track maintenance machinery. OP-5 is the Indian Railways, a Department of the Government of India.

Case No. 45 of 2019 2

3. The Informant states that OP-5 periodically invites tenders for the supply of track maintenance machinery. In this connection, it is averred that OP-5 invited electronic bids for supply of Dynamic Track Stabilizing Machine vide Tender No. 'TM 1709' which inter alia required that 'Manufacturer or their agents may note that an agent can represent or quote on behalf of only one firm in a tender' [Clause 1.4.1 of 'Instructions to Tenderers]. Further, Check List-II of tender document also reiterates the same by stating that 'Manufacturer or their sole selling agents may note that an agent can represent only one firm in a tender and any manufacturer cannot submit more than one offer against a tender through different sole selling agents, or one directly and others through sole selling agents. In such a situation all the offers will be rejected.'

Case No. 34 of 2019 1

2. The Informant is an association of the plywood manufacturers in State of Assam. The OP is a public sector undertaking of Government of Assam established for production of methanol and formalin.

3. As per the Information, formalin is used by plywood units for manufacture of resin, which, in turn, is used as a binding agent in the manufacture of plywoods. The Informant states that formalin is purchased by them from OP, which is the sole unit in North-Eastern India manufacturing the same. The Informant has alleged that the OP is abusing its dominant position by charging a discriminatory price of formalin in State of Assam and State of West Bengal, while it charges Rs. 15,300/- per Metric Tonne ('PMT') in State of Assam, it charges only Rs. 11,000/- PMT in State of West Bengal.

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

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

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

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

3. RITES India Ltd.

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

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

2. The Informant has filed the information for Teleclub (Alberta Limited), Canada in the capacity of its CEO. It is submitted by the Informant that Teleclub is one of the international telecom carriers in Canada.

3. As per publically available information, OP-1 is an Indian subsidiary of Britain based Vodafone Group PLC, which started Indian operations in 2007 with the acquisition of controlling interest in Hutch Essar. In 2018, Vodafone acquired Idea Cellular and became the largest telecom service provider in India. Likewise, OP-2 and OP-3 are also major telecom service providers operating in India. Further, as per publicly available information, OP-4 is the largest Information and Communications Technology ("ICT") service provider, systems integrator and all-in-one network solutions company operating in India, which has partnered with major network operators to deliver global network solutions.

Ref. Case No. 05 of 2019 1

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

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

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

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

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

Ref. Case No. 05 of 2019 1

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

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

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

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

2. The Informant, a company incorporated in May, 2015, has been operating under the brand name of Treebo Hotels' and is in the business of providing franchising services to budget hotels in India. In addition to this, Treebo also provides service to numerous independent budget hotels who partner with it under its newly launched 'Hotel Superhero' scheme. Under the said scheme, Treebo only provides services such as hotel management technology services, listing on its platform and other online travel aggregators, credit facilities, support and quality control of the staff and hotel management resources etc. but does not provide its brand name.

3. MMT is an Online Travel Agency (OTA) engaged in the business of providing travel and tourism related services in India. It is a part of MakeMyTrip group of companies (MMT Group). OYO, on the other hand, provides budget accommodation to customers and is in the market for providing franchising services to budget hotels under the brand name 'OYO'.

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

Suo Motu Case No. 01 of 2016 1

PUBLIC VERSION

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

Case No. 37 of 2019 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shri Arajit Das: that is not required.