Dismissed

Suresh Rawat & Villagers v. Union of India through Its Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change (Moef&Cc)

NGT15 Apr 2026Original Application No. 150/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal entertained an application alleging illegal establishment of a metallurgical unit within 269 meters of a Reserved Forest, violating the 500-meter buffer for Red Category industries. The Tribunal rejected the claim, holding the unit falls under the Orange Category requiring only a 200-meter buffer and noting a subsequent notification substituting automatic location prohi

What the court decided

AI extract

Suresh Rawat & Villagers vs Union of India through Its… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No.08

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CENTRAL ZONE BENCH, BHOPAL (THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)

¶3

Original Application No.150/2025(CZ) (I.A. No.08/2026, I.A. No.34/2026) (I.A. No.41/2026 & I.A. No.42/2026)

¶4

Suresh Rawat & Villagers Applicant(s)

¶5

Vs.

¶6

Union of India & Ors. Respondent(s)

¶7

Date of Hearing: 15.04.2026

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE MR. SUDHIR KUMAR CHATURVEDI, EXPERT MEMBER

¶9

For Applicant (s): Ms. Diksha Chaturvedi

¶10

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Om Shankar Shrivastava Adv. Mr. Shantanu Saxena Adv. Mr. Kartikey Bhatia Adv. Mr. Vaibha Thakuria Adv. for RSPCB

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Main contention in this application is with regard to a categorization of the units and distance criteria.

¶13

The grievance of the applicant is illegal establishment of a Red Category industrial unit, M/s Ishan Copper Industries, within a prohibited buffer of approximately 269 metres from the Bada Magra–Gangarar Reserved Forest in District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan, in direct violation of the MoEF&CC Gazette Notification dated 29.01.2025 prescribing mandatory siting criteria for industrial plants. The issue raised herein pertains to the environmental illegality of locating a highly polluting metallurgical unit in an ecologically sensitive zone adjoining a

¶14

¶15

O.A. No.150/2025(CZ) Suresh Rawat & Villagers Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶16

Reserved Forest, and the resulting non-compliance of statutory environmental safeguards by the State authorities themselves. 3. The MoEF&CC Guidelines notified on 29.01.2025, titled “Procedure and Criteria for the Siting of Industrial Plants”, lay down the central regulatory framework governing establishment of industrial units vis-à-vis ecologically sensitive areas. Clause 9, Chapter 3 of the said notification categorically mandates that “Red Category industries shall not be located within 500 metres of habitation, educational institutions, places of worship, archaeological monuments, national parks, Reserved Forests, heritage sites, or natural drains.” The provision is unambiguous and binding upon all State Boards and industrial development agencies. Furthermore, Clause 13(xi) of the same Guidelines empowers the State Pollution Control Board to refuse or cancel any consent if the Petitioner has submitted incomplete or false information or concealed material facts. The present case squarely falls within the mischief of these two clauses, as the industry in question has been permitted and allowed to construct in a location that violates the 500 metre buffer criterion from a Reserved Forest boundary. The project site of M/s Ishan Copper Industries, situated at Plots F-33, F- 34 and F-35 within RIICO Industrial Area, Soniyana, Tehsil Gangrar, District Chittorgarh, lies at a measured aerial distance of approximately 269 metres from the nearest Reserved Forest boundary, as verified through the Google Earth imagery annexed herewith. Despite this clear contravention of central siting norms, the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board proceeded to grant Consent to Establish (CTE) to the

¶17

¶18

O.A. No.150/2025(CZ) Suresh Rawat & Villagers Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶19

said Red Category unit on 01.10.2025, thereby enabling the continuation of construction activity in a location where industrial siting itself is environmentally impermissible. Such an act not only defeats the object of the MoEF&CC Guidelines but also undermines the precautionary and preventive principles underlying environmental governance.

¶20

After taking cognizance of the matter this Tribunal issued notice to the respondent with direction to submit the reply in addition to constituting a committee to submit the report.

¶21

In compliance of the above order the Members of the Joint Committee visited the site and submitted the report on following points.

¶22

i. According to the self-declaration form dated 01.10.2025, when the use of energy is up to .000384 MTPA then environment clearance is not required.

¶23

ii. So far as the distance criteria is concerned, it is not required to call a report on that point. However, Tehsildar has filed the report with regard to the distance as 362 meters.

¶24

Main contention of the learned counsel for the respondent are that the application is based on a wrong assumption by the applicant on the basis of a gazette notification dated 29^th of January 2025 issued by the MoEF&CC on the point of control of air pollution (grant, refusal or cancellation of consent) guidelines 2025. Rule 9 provides as follows:

¶25

Procedure for selection of location. –

¶26

(1) Restrictions on establishing an industrial plant at a location may be imposed taking into account the technological and scientific developments that have

¶27

¶28

O.A. No.150/2025(CZ) Suresh Rawat & Villagers Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶29

taken place in industrial planning and manufacturing process in order to protect the sensitive areas, such as national parks, sanctuaries, wetlands and archaeological monuments.

¶30

(2) The industrial plant shall comply with respective criteria fixed by the Central Government or the State Government or the Union territory Administration, as the case may be.

¶31

(3) While establishing an industrial plant, the following minimum distance shall be maintained, Namely

¶32

(a) from the nearest boundary of surface water body (flood plain/ HFL/Red line) as per the revenue records in case of industrial plant of-

¶33

(i) red category, beyond five hundred meters;

¶34

(ii) orange category,

¶35

(A) with effluent generation, beyond seventy-five meters;

¶36

(B) without effluent generation, beyond thirty meters;

¶37

(iii) green category, beyond thirty meters;

¶38

(b) from the settlement, educational institute, worship place, archaeological monuments, national park, reserve forest, heritage site, in case of industrial plant of-

¶39

(i) red category, beyond five hundred meters.

¶40

(ii) orange category, beyond two hundred meters;

¶41

(iii) green category, beyond one hundred meters.

¶42

(c) The State Board shall ensure that other laws, rules, and regulations, and notifications are complied with by the industrial plant.

¶43

(d) The natural or storm drain passing through the location of industrial plant shall not be disturbed.

¶44

¶45

O.A. No.150/2025(CZ) Suresh Rawat & Villagers Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶46

Submission of the learned counsel for the Applicant is the unit comes in the red category and distance required is 500 meter while the contention of the respondents are that the industries are in Orange Category and distance required is 200 meter and as per report of the Tehsildar, the distance is more than 200 meters.

¶47

Learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Shantanoo Saxena. has further argued that this criteria is not applicable for the reasons that the MoEF & CC vide Notification dated 23^rd of January 2026 revised the guidelines as provided in Section 9 which is as follows:-

¶48

Procedure for selection of location – Specific and/or General conditions related to establish a new industrial unit at a location along with the appropriate environment safeguards and/or mitigation measures, in view of site condition on the ground shall be imposed, in the case of an industrial unit requiring Environment Clerance (EC), by the concerned Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) at the Central/State level, and in other cases, by the concerned State Board.”

¶49

In response to the reply against the I.A. No.8/2026 filed by the Applicant, learned counsel for the respondent had argued that answering Respondent is a bona fide industrialist who was expressly invited by the State of Rajasthan to establish industrial operations under its industrial promotion initiatives, including participation in the “Rising Rajasthan” investment programme. Acting upon such invitation and representations made by State authorities and instrumentalities, the Answering

¶50

¶51

O.A. No.150/2025(CZ) Suresh Rawat & Villagers Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶52

Respondent participated in the RIICO auction process and was allotted Plot Nos. F-33, F-34 and F-35 in RIICO Industrial Area, Soniyana, District Chittorgarh, for establishment of an industrial unit, pursuant to allotment letters dated 06.12.2024 and a registered lease deed dated 17.03.2025. The industrial unit is being established strictly within a notified industrial estate developed and governed by RIICO, a statutory authority constituted for planned industrial development.

¶53

That prior to commencement of any activity, the Answering Respondent approached the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board (RSPCB) and submitted a complete application for grant of Consent to Establish (CTE), disclosing all technical, environmental and process-related details. During the course of scrutiny, RSPCB sought clarifications and, in turn, consulted the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) on issues relating to environmental categorization and applicability of Environmental Clearance.

¶54

After due deliberation, SEIAA clarified the applicable position, pursuant to which the Answering Respondent submitted a detailed self-declaration on 01.10.2025. Only thereafter, and upon full satisfaction of statutory requirements, Respondent RSPCB granted Consent to Establish on 01.10.2025. The CTE itself expressly records that it has been issued after considering the MoEF notification dated 07.06.2024, the clarification issued by SEIAA, and the self-declaration submitted by the Answering Respondent. All conditions stipulated in the CTE have been duly complied with.

¶55

¶56

O.A. No.150/2025(CZ) Suresh Rawat & Villagers Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶57

The Applicant has repeatedly alleged that the unit is prohibited “Red Category” or “A Category” industry. This assertion is legally incorrect and misleading. The Environmental Clearance granted to RIICO Soniyana Industrial Area restricts only Category A projects. There is no prohibition on establishment of other types industries within the said industrial estate.

¶58

As per the EIA Notification, 2006, the Answering Respondent’s unit falls under Category B (secondary metallurgical processing below the prescribed threshold), which position stands confirmed by the correspondence between RSPCB and SEIAA preceding grant of CTE. The Applicant has attempted to conflate environmental categorization with siting illegality, which is neither supported by the EIA Notification nor borne out from the statutory record

¶59

In furtherance of the State Government’s invitation and industrial policy, RIICO conducted an auction in November 2024 for allotment of industrial plots at RIICO Industrial Area, Soniana. Pursuant to the said auction, RIICO allotted Plot Nos. F-33, F-34 and F-35, admeasuring a total area of 5850 square meters, to the Applicant on a lease for the purpose of establishing a secondary in nature of Copper Smelting Plant, vide Allotment Letters dated 06.12.2024 and the same has been annexed as ANNEXURE R-6/3.Subsequently a lease agreement was entered into between RIICO and the answering respondent/applicant on 17.03.2025.

¶60

Thereafter, the Applicant applied to the Respondent Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board (RSPCB) for grant of Consent to Establish (CTE) on 15.04.2025, disclosing complete details of

¶61

¶62

O.A. No.150/2025(CZ) Suresh Rawat & Villagers Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶63

the proposed industrial process, pollution control measures, and compliance framework. The applicant received bank loans, procured machineries thereafter started mobilizing the machineries and equipment's only after due clearance from office of RSPCB.

¶64

That the above-mentioned deliberations also find mention in the Consent to Establish issued to the answering respondent as points 7(d) and 7(e). The clauses have been reproduced hereunder:

¶65

7(d) That this Consent to Establish is being issued in light of notification issued by MoEF dated 07.06.2024 and clarification issued by State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) vide letter dated 29.09.2025 regarding applicability of Environment Clearance.

¶66

e). That this Consent to Establish is being issued in light of self-declaration submitted by the industry vide letter dated 01.10.2025 ….”

¶67

After due deliberation, consultation with SEIAA, and satisfaction regarding compliance with applicable environmental norms, RSPCB granted Consent to Establish (CTE) to the Applicant on 01.10.2025. The CTE is valid for the period from 15.04.2025 to 31.03.2030 or till commencement of production/commissioning of the project, whichever is earlier.

¶68

That under the EIA Notification, 2006, the Applicant’s unit clearly falls under ‘Category B’ projects, which is evident from the communications and deliberations between RSPCB and SEIAA preceding the grant of CTE. The industrial unit of the

¶69

¶70

O.A. No.150/2025(CZ) Suresh Rawat & Villagers Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶71

Answering Respondent falls under Para 3 Materials Production, sub para (a) Metallurgical industries (Ferrous and non-ferrous); column (4) Secondary metallurgical processing industry (i) All toxic and heavy metal producing units <20,000 tonnes/annum.

¶72

Respondent PP has filed Annexure R-6/6 the self-declaration in which it is stated in Para 3 that LPG, PNG gas shall only be used as fuel in the furnace in quantity of the same shall be .00000128 ton per day i.e., .000384 million ton per annum.

¶73

On the basis of this the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent are that the unit is of Orange Category.

¶74

As a matter of record, the same category of industry was classified as a “Red Category” industry prior to 2016. Subsequently, the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), Delhi, issued the final document on industrial classification under the Red, Orange, Green and White Categories on 29 February 2016. The industries were reclassified on the basis of Pollution Index scores after a detailed cumulative assessment exercise. Pursuant to the said exercise, several industries were reclassified under the revised categories. In Table G-3 of the said CPCB publication, titled “Final List of Orange Category Industrial Sectors,” at Final Serial No. 28 (corresponding to Original Serial No. 21), the industry in question was revised from its original classification of “Red” to “Orange,” as reflected in Column 12 of the table, where the notation “R-O” has been specifically recorded. Column 3 of the said table describes the relevant industrial activity as “Ferrous and Non-Ferrous Metal Extraction involving different furnaces through melting,

¶75

¶76

O.A. No.150/2025(CZ) Suresh Rawat & Villagers Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶77

refining, repurposing, casting and alloy making.” It is further pertinent to note that the last column of the said table clearly records that:

¶78

“i. Mainly air polluting.

¶79

ii. This score is applicable to secondary production of ferrous & non- ferrous metals (excluding lead) upto 1 MT/hour production.

¶80

iii. For lead, the normalized air pollution score will be = (100*25)/40= 62.5 and is categorized as Red.

¶81

iv. For Induction Furnace clubbed with AOD furnace – separate calculation shall be made based on the capacity of the furnaces. In such industries, the molten metal from induction furnace is transferred to AOD furnace where other metals like manganese and nickel are added to get the metal of desired constituents. The lime and silicon are also added for reduction of the metal oxides to the base metal. the normalized air pollution score will be = (100*25)/ 40= 62.5 and is categorized as Red.”

¶82

It is apparent from the above-mentioned contents of the last column that the operations of the Applicant does not fall under point (ii) and (iii).

¶83

That Subsequent to the 2016 categorisation, the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) issued the latest classification of industrial sectors in January 2025 under the heading “Classification of Sectors under Red, Orange, Green and White Categories.” Annexure I of the said publication sets out the list of industrial sectors classified under the respective categories. Entry No. 99 pertains to “Ferrous and Non-Ferrous Metals.” Under Entry 99.1, industries using coal or liquid fuels have been classified under the Red Category. However, under Entry 99.2, industries using cleaner fuels have been classified under the Orange Category. It was in light of the said revised classification

¶84

¶85

O.A. No.150/2025(CZ) Suresh Rawat & Villagers Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶86

that specific information regarding the nature of fuel being used by the industry was sought. Pursuant thereto, a self-declaration was submitted by the industry on 01.10.2025, wherein it was expressly declared that only LPG/PNG gas shall be used for the operation of the furnace. The contents of the third point of the Self Declaration have been reproduced hereunder:

¶87

3. That LPG/PNG gas shall only be used as fuel in the furnace and quantity of the same shall be 0.00000128 Ton Per Day i.e. 0.000384 Million Ton Per Anumn”

¶88

Since the industry is operating using cleaner fuels, it squarely falls within Entry 99.2 and is liable to be classified under the Orange Category in terms of the 2025 CPCB classification. It is pertinent to mention here that the RSPCB only after getting satisfied with the contents of the self-declaration and other documents submitted by the Applicant, was pleased to issue the Consent to Establish to the Applicant.

¶89

In light of the above, the very foundation of the present Original Application on the allegation that the siting guidelines applicable to Red Category industries under the MoEFCC guidelines have not been complied with — stands completely misconceived. The MoEFCC Guidelines dated 29.01.2025 expressly prescribe siting criteria based upon the pollution category of an industry. As per the said guidelines, an Orange Category industry is required to be located beyond 200 meters from a Reserved Forest, whereas the 500-meter siting restriction is applicable only to Red Category industries. The Applicant has proceeded on the erroneous assumption that the Answering Respondent’s unit falls under the Red Category and has, on that incorrect premise, sought to invoke the 500-meter

¶90

¶91

O.A. No.150/2025(CZ) Suresh Rawat & Villagers Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶92

restriction. However, as demonstrated hereinabove, the unit in question falls within the Orange Category. Consequently, the 500-meter siting criterion is wholly inapplicable. Even as per the Applicant’s own pleadings and measurements, no violation of the 200-meter requirement is made out. Therefore, the entire basis of the Original Application collapses both factually and legally.

¶93

The Applicant has levelled the aforesaid allegations regarding alleged non-adherence to the siting guidelines without examining the legal basis of the applicable industrial classification or the actual nature of the industry in question. Had the Applicant applied due diligence to the relevant classification framework and perused the impugned Consent to Operate, it would have been evident that the unit is not a Red Category industry. In fact, Clause 7(i) of the Consent to Operate expressly stipulates that the fuel to be used shall be LPG. Thus, the allegation proceeds on a fundamental by misreading of both the governing classification regime and the terms of the Consent to Operate.

¶94

That it is further pertinent to mention here that the as per the Opinion of the SEIAA Rajasthan, issued to Member Secretary RSPCBin furtherance of the letter written by Member Sec PCB. In the said opinion dated 29/07/25 with the subject titled decision on applicability of EC for Ishaansh Copper Industries, perusal of the said opinion would clarify that the project would fall under the category of metallurgical industry ferries and non-ferrous and that whether the industry and as regards the question whether the industry is a primary or a secondary

¶95

¶96

O.A. No.150/2025(CZ) Suresh Rawat & Villagers Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶97

industry. And the same is contingent upon the source of Raw Material and that as regards the requirement of EC for Secondary Metallurgical Industry was dependent upon the requirement of fuel, which should be more that 0.06 MTPA. It is further pertinent that the declaration as regards the use of scrap based secondary metallurgical units as raw materials as well as the use of LPG gas that too only 0.00038 MTPA was submitted, which clarifies the position that the industry is a Secondary Metallurgical unit.

¶98

That only after due technical scrutiny, consultation with SEIAA, and satisfaction regarding environmental safeguards, RSPCB granted Consent to Establish dated 01.10.2025 in favour of the Answering Respondent. Therefore, the allegation of the Original Applicant that the unit is an environmentally impermissible or illegally categorized industry is therefore contradicted by the position adopted by the statutory regulator itself.

¶99

The Answering Respondent’s operations squarely fall under the ORANGE category, as per Point 99.2 of the CPCB Guidelines for Categorization of Industries on the Basis of Pollution Index, as well as under earlier CPCB categorization frameworks.

¶100

The Learned Counsel for the Respondent has further argued that the CPCB has issued revised guidelines at serial No.28 ferrous and non-ferrous metal extraction involving different furnaces through melting refining re-processing casting and alloy making which were previously Red Category are now categorized in Orange Category. This has been clarified on paper book: -

¶101

¶102

O.A. No.150/2025(CZ) Suresh Rawat & Villagers Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶103

It has also been argued that a revised guidelines has been

¶104

issued (paper book Page No.578 at Serial No.99.2) with regard to the present unit using cleaner fuels and electricity in Orange Category.

¶105

¶106

O.A. No.150/2025(CZ) Suresh Rawat & Villagers Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶107

The submission of the learned counsel for the RIICO are that the matter was deliberated by the Competent Authority SEIAA and CPCB and RSPCB and relevant categorization has been issued by the concerned authorities and unit was operating within a notified Industrial State developed and governed by RIICO, a Statutory Authority constituted for Plant & Industrial Development.

¶108

It is further argued that the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change IMoEF&CC) subsequently issued a Notification date d 27 .0L.2026, whereby Paragraph "9" of the earlier guidelines stands substituted. The substituted provision provides that specific and/or general conditions relating to establishment of industrial units, along with environmental safeguards and mitigation measures, shall be imposed by the concerned Expert Appraisal Committee fin cases requiring EC) or by the concerned State Board. In view of the substitution, suitability of location is to be determined by the competent environmental authority on a case-specific basis and is not an automatic prohibition. The allegation with respect to allowing the construction by RIICO has no substance as it is the land of allottee and his prerogative to construct after execution of the lease deed. The allegation of the Applicants pertaining to the distance misconceived and are wrong and hence denied.

¶109

It is submitted that as per the latest Central Pollution Control Board (CPCBJ categorization guidelines dated 1,2.02.2025, the industrial activity undertaken by the Project Proponent falls under the "Orange Category". The Categorization of industries is determined by Central Pollution Control Board from time to time

¶110

¶111

O.A. No.150/2025(CZ) Suresh Rawat & Villagers Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶112

and implemented by the State Pollution Control Board. It is pertinent to submit here that RSPCB vide its 'office order dated 2L.01.,2026 adopted the CPCB Guidelines for harmonization of classification of Industrial sectors under red/orange/green/white categories dated 12.02.2025.\t is pertinent to submit here that, RIICO does not independently classify the categorization of the industries. Moreover, it is submitted that the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change [MoEF&CCJ subsequently issued a Notification dated 27.01,.2026, whereby Paragraph 9 of the earlier guidelines stands substituted. That, the Annexure P/1 filed by the Applicants has no force of law after such amendment vide dated 27.01,.2026 issued by MoEF &CC. The substituted provision provides that specific and/or general conditions relating to establishment of industrial units, along with environmental safeguards and mitigation measures, shall be imposed by the concerned Expert Appraisal Committee [in cases requiring EC) or by the concerned State Board. In view of the substitution, suitability of location is to be determined by the competent environmental authority on a case-specific basis and is not an automatic prohibition.

¶113

Further submission of the learned counsel for the applicant are that the RSPCB or the Competent Authority has wrongly issued the concerned conditions and category should be scrutinized on the basis of the date of operation and in response to the above contention submission of the respondent Advocate Shantanoo Saxena are that the Paragraph 9, the provision with regard to the citing criteria has been deleted and substituted with new conditions which

¶114

¶115

O.A. No.150/2025(CZ) Suresh Rawat & Villagers Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶116

shall be considered by the Competent Authority. Further that the unit was running with required consent conditions from the Competent Authorities and the categorization has also been revised. It is further argued that even if it is considered on the date of consent. It was duly considered by the Competent Authorities and the unit was in the Orange Category.

¶117

We have gone through the contention raised by the learned counsel for the parties and are of the view that in view of the latest notification distance criteria is not applicable and the industries is within the Orange Category. Accordingly, the application is not maintainable and have no merit at all.

¶118

Accordingly, the applications with the I.A for the interim order stands dismissed . All the pending IAs are disposed of in accordance with the above order.

¶119

Sheo Kumar Singh, JM

¶120

Sudhir Kumar Chaturvedi, EM

¶121

15^th April, 2026,

¶122

Original Application No.150/2025(CZ)

¶123

(I.A. No.08/2026, I.A. No.34/2026)

¶124

(I.A. No.41/2026 & I.A. No.42/2026) A

¶125

¶126

O.A. No.150/2025(CZ) Suresh Rawat & Villagers Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Suresh Rawat & Villagers v. Union of India through Its Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change (Moef&Cc)

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Suresh Rawat & Villagers v. Union of India through Its Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change (Moef&Cc)

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suo Moto Titled Paatal Me Jata Pani Semi Critical Zone Me Bhopal Appear in People S Samachar Newspaper Dated 16TH March 2026 vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Suo Moto Titled Raunak Residency Ke Piche Padon Ki Katai Ke Sath Avedh Utkhanan Appear in Dainik Bhaskar Sagar News Paper Dated 26TH February 2026 vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Suo Moto Tilted Bhujal Mai Silent Killer Dushit Pani Aapki Nashon Mai Ghol Raha Zehar Appear in Patrika Newspaper Dated 23RD February 2026 vs State of Madhya Pradesh

General Manager Sambhar Salt Ltd. vs State of Rajasthan

Pramod vs State of Uttar Pradesh

News Item Titled Balauda Bazar Ke Real Ispat Plant Mai Hadasha 6 Shramikon Ki Mout 5 Gambheer Ghayal Appearing in Rajasthan Patrika Dated 23.01.2026. vs Central Pollution Control Board

News Item Titled Chhattishgarh Yahan Shivnath Nadi Par Kabja 10 Kilometer Duri Ghatane Aur Mitti Lane Ke Liye Bana Liya Avedh Anicate Appearing in Dainik Bahshkar News Paper Dated 5TH January 2026 vs State of Chattisgarh

Suo Moto Titled Betul 7 Lakh Logon Ki Life Line Macchna Nadi Dam Todne Ki Kagaar Par Appear in Dainik Bhaskar Newspaper Dated 12TH March 2026 vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Suo Moto Titled Paatal Me Jata Pani Semi Critical Zone Me Bhopal Appear in People S Samachar Newspaper Dated 16TH March 2026 vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Suo Moto Titled Raunak Residency Ke Piche Padon Ki Katai Ke Sath Avedh Utkhanan Appear in Dainik Bhaskar Sagar News Paper Dated 26TH February 2026 vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Suo Moto Tilted Bhujal Mai Silent Killer Dushit Pani Aapki Nashon Mai Ghol Raha Zehar Appear in Patrika Newspaper Dated 23RD February 2026 vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Rahul Sharma vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Suo Moto Titled Forest Guard 33 Crushed to Death by Illegal Sand Miners Dated 9TH April 2026 vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Ajay Dabariya vs the State of Rajasthan through Chief Secretary