Heard Dr. Anjani Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dilip Kumar Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

The prosecution case is that the petitioner was apprehended by the police on suspicion, from out side his house, and thereafter house of the petitioner was searched and two litres of country made liquor was recovered.

Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.N.Shahi, learned Additional Advocate General for the State along with Mr. Sanjay Pandey, learned counsel of the Board.

In this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has sought for modification in the order dated 31.01.2020 passed in Cr. Misc. No.67419 of 2019 whereby a Bench of this Court had granted provisional bail to the petitioner in connection with Sastri Nagar P.S.Case No.733 of 2019 on fulfilling certain conditions and the provisional bail was to be confirmed only after fulfillment of the remaining part of the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19089 of 2020(2) dt.27-04-2020 2/4 terms.

List this case on 11.05.2020, in order to enable learned counsel for the State to file counter affidavit.

(S. Kumar, J) ranjan/-

U

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

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

Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission for filing of Interlocutory Application to amend the relief/s as sought for in the writ application, whereby he wants to challenge the order dated 24.04.2020 issued vide Memo No. 1237/D by which the respondent nos. 5 to 7 have rejected the representation of the petitioner made vide Annexure-5 to the writ application.

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

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered under Section 30(A) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

The prosecution case, in short, is that 1586.160 liters wine is recovered from the brick kiln.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 30.11.2019 and has got no criminal antecedent. Charge sheet has been submitted in this case. There Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10317 of 2020(3) dt.29-04-2020 2/3 is no allegation of tampering of witnesses against the petitioner. The name of the petitioner has come on the basis of disclosure made by the co-villagers. The names of the co-villagers have not been disclosed by the prosecution. It is alleged that 1586.160 liters wine is recovered from the brick kiln. The brick kiln in question belongs to the joint family of the petitioner. The petitioner had no knowledge regarding the alleged occurrence. There is no recovery from the conscious possession of the petitioner. A supplementary affidavit has been filed stating that the mother of the petitioner has expired on 13.04.2020. There is no compliance of Section 100 Cr.P.C. There is no chance of the trial being concluded in near future. Other similarly situated co- accused, namely, Babban Ray has been granted anticipatory bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide Cr.Misc.No.78312 of 2019 dated 29.01.2020.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Sudhir Singh, J) Pankaj/Narendra U

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

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

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

(Sudhir Singh, J) Pankaj/Narendra U

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

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

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

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

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

Order is reserved.

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

Permission is accorded.

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

(Sudhir Singh, J) Pankaj/Narendra U

3. Both the Appeals arise out of and are directed against the same order dated 19.5.2018 passed in Complaint No.14/2016 by Shri S V R Srinivas, Principal Seoretary, Information and Technology, Government of Maharashtra in the capacity of Adjudicating Officer (AO) exercising jurisdiction under section 46 of the Information Technology Act,2000, Since parties and the issues are common, both the Appeals have been heard together and shall be governed by this common judgement.

4. The proceedings before the learned AO commenced on filing of a complaint on 14.12.2015 by the complainant, Sandeep Singhal, a businessman residing at Nagpur. The complaint contains all the relevant informations with respect to both the respondents, Bank of India, Rana Pratap Nagar Branch, Nagpur and Vodafone Cellular Ltd., Maharashira, The particulars of claims show that Rs. 18,75,381.41 has been claimed towards actual losses sustained because of alleged negligence of the bank andfor because of negligence of M/s. Vodafone in illegally issuing the duplicate SIM Card to an imposter, Rs. 5 lakhs have been claimed towards actual costs on account of travelling and ldgation expenses etc. Rs 10 lakh has been claimed towards damages on account of mental agonies caused to the complainant.

HOM BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTIE SINGH, CHAIRPERSON For Petitioner : Ms. Bitwik Nanda, Advocate MrAbhishek Bose, Advocate Ms.ApoorvaVijh, Advocate For Respondent : None Judgement(Oral) This petition has been beard ex-parte against the respondent because even after service of notice through paper publication it chose not to appear and has not filed any reply to contest the claim of the petitioner, to The prayer of the petitioner is as follows: -

*(i} Pass a decree in favour of the Petitioner thereby directing the Respondent, pay a sum of Rs. 2,81,100/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Eighty One Thousand and One Hundred Only} to the Petitioner towards the outstanding dues as on date;

Gi) Pass a decree in favour of the Petitioner awarding interest @ 18% from 08,16.2015 dil realization of the outstanding amount:

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

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

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

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

2. The petition has been filed for a money decree for an amount of Rs. L81,81,517/- and also for pendente lite and future interest with effect from Financial Year 2014-15 along with certain further claims which require i i s been consideration of foreign exchange fluctuations. The said amount has b 2 claimed for recovery of dues/outstanding dues in relation to an agreement between the petitioner and the respondent dated 10.08.2011 whereunder respondent was provided 3 MHz of Ku-band Space Segrnent Capacity on INSAT --~ Asiasat 5 Satellite System.

3. The petitioner, Government of India, has preferred this petition as a service orovider and the respondent, a broadcast licencee, is also a service orovider. The respondent has been shawn to be a "licencee" within the meaning of the term under the TRA] Act, 1997 (the Act}. The petition is thus claimed to be covered within the ambit of Section 14 of the Act.

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

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

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

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

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

2. 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.