Supreme Court: While considering the instant application concerning conversion of Forest Land for commercial purposes; the Bench of B.R. Gavai, CJ.*, Augustine George Masih and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ., noted that the instant case was a classic example of as to how the nexus between the Politicians, Bureaucrats and the Builders can result in the conversion of precious Forest Land for commercial purposes under the garb of resettlement of people belonging to the backward class from whose ancestors, agricultural land was acquired for public purpose.
Taking note of the illegal conversion of forest land as it was done in the instant case, the Court issued the following directions:
-
The Court directed the Chief Secretaries of all the States and the Administrators of all the Union Territories to constitute Special Investigation Teams for the purpose of examining as to whether any of the reserved Forest Land in the possession of the Revenue Department has been allotted to any private individuals/institutions for any purpose other than the forestry purposes.
-
The State Governments and the Union Territories were also directed to take steps to take back the possession of the land from the persons/institutions in possession of such lands and handover the same to the Forest Department. In case, it is found that taking back the possession of the land would not be in the larger public interest, the State Governments/Union Territories should recover the cost of the said land from the persons/institutions to whom they were allotted and use the said amount for the purpose of development of forests.
-
The Court directed the Chief Secretaries of all the States and the Administrators of all the Union Territories to constitute Special Teams to ensure that all such transfers take place within a period of one year from today. Needless to state that hereinafter such land should be used only for the purpose of afforestation.
Background and Legal Trajectory:
An area measuring 32 Acres 35 Gunthas at Survey No. 20 of Village Kondhwa Budruk in Pune District was notified as a Reserved Forest under the provisions of Section 34 of the Forest Act, 1878 in 1879. A portion of the land measuring 3 Acres 20 Gunthas was de-reserved by the State Government vide Notification dated 5-1-1934. Since no further orders for dereservation were passed post 1934, the remaining area of 29 Acres and 15 Gunthas, which was numbered as Survey No.20-A and subsequently renumbered as Survey No.21 of Village Kondhwa Budruk remained to be a Forest Land (subject land).
During the 1960s, a different parcel of land in Survey No.37 of Kondhwa Budruk belonging to one ‘Chavan Family’ was acquired by the State Government for the purposes of construction of a hospital. It appears from the record that no compensation was paid to the ‘Chavan Family’. As such, a request was made by them for allotment of the subject land as an alternative for their resettlement. In response to the request made by the ‘Chavan Family’, the Tehsildar, Haveli vide his communication dated 13-5-1968, released the subject land to the ‘Chavan Family’ for cultivation for a period of one year (Eksali) and this lease was never renewed thereafter.
On 22-3-1969, the Maharashtra Government took a decision that the Forest Land given on lease for cultivation on Eksali basis should be permanently released for cultivation to the Eksali leaseholders after de-reservation. In pursuance of this, the Chavan family made an application for permanent release of the subject land in 1988. Pertinently, the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (FC Act) came into force with effect from 25-10-1980. Under Section 2 no Forest Land could be de-reserved or used for any non-forest purposes without the permission of the Central Government. The then Minister for Revenue, the Government of Maharashtra taking note of the Divisional Commissioner’s recommendation and in consultation with Deputy Secretary to Government, Law and Judiciary Department vis-a-vis the legality aspect concerning the FC Act, sanctioned the allotment of the subject land and an order came to be issued by the Government of Maharashtra vide 1998 Memorandum.
Immediately after the land was allotted, the Divisional Commissioner vide order dated 30-10-1999 granted permission to the ‘Chavan Family’ to sell the land in question to the Chief Promotor of Richie Rich Cooperative Housing Society Limited (“RRCHS”) for residential purposes. The District Collector, Pune thereafter vide order dated 8-7-2005 granted permission for use of the subject land for Non-Agricultural purposes i.e. for construction of the residential buildings. In February 2006, the Pune Municipal Corporation issued a Commencement Certificate and sanctioned the Building Plan. Thereafter, in July 2007, the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) granted environmental clearance for construction of “Raheja Richmond Park”, a Residential, Shopping and IT Complex.
Upon noticing the afore-stated aspects, Nagrik Chetna Manch approached the Supreme Court challenging the allotment of Reserved Forest Land to private persons and its use for construction of multi-storeyed buildings in violation of the FC Act. The Court ordered CEC to enquire into the matter and submit its report. The CEC reported that the allotment of the subject land to the RRCHS should be cancelled; the area should be restored back as forest and senior functionaries and officers of the Government of Maharashtra responsible for the allotment/use of the said Reserve Forest land in violation of the provision of the FC Act should be prosecuted.
Issues for Consideration:
-
whether the subject land is a Forest Land;
-
whether the Divisional Commissioner was justified in recommending the allotment of subject land in favour of the ‘Chavan Family’ and as to whether the State Government was justified in accepting the said recommendation;
-
whether the doctrine of desuetude would be applicable to the facts of the present case;
-
whether the RRCHS could be said to be bona fide purchaser of the subject land and be entitled to allotment of alternate piece of land
-
whether the doctrine of public trust would be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Court’s Assessment:
Perusing the 1879 Notification concerning the subject land and the records of the Forest Department, the Court noted that the said area continued to be shown as notified ‘Reserved Forest’. However, in the records maintained by the Revenue Department, the said area of Survey No.21 Kondhwa Budruk has been recorded as “Government Grazing Ground”. the Court also took note that officers of the Forest Department had addressed number of letters to the Collector, Pune for rectification of the revenue records. Furthermore, communication of August 1994, addressed by the District Collector, Pune to the Executive Engineer (Estd.), Maharashtra State Electricity Board revealed that the subject land was reserved as a “Forest Land”. the Court pointed out that it was amply clear from the record that the said land was notified as early as in 1879 as Reserved Forest and the reservation continues to be so till date. Therefore, the subject land is a reserved Forest Land.
Vis-a-vis the Divisional Commissioner recommending the allotment of the entire subject land to the Chavan Family, the Court stated that after the FC Act was brought into effect, no State Government or any other authority, unless there is prior approval by the Central Government, could have directed any Reserved Forest or any portion thereof to cease to be under the status of “reserved” or any forest land or any portion thereof to be used for any non-forest purposes. Nor could it have assigned any forest land or any portion thereof, by way of lease or otherwise to any private person or to any authority, corporation, agency or any other organization. Perusing the facts of the instant case, the Court pointed out that there was no order permitting the subject land to be used for non-forest purposes by any of the competent authorities. The Court further pointed out that while accepting the Eksali, the ‘Chavan Family’ had given an undertaking that they will hand over the vacant and peaceful possession on 15-12-1967 (sic) i.e. prior to 1980. It was pointed out that nothing was placed on record to show that the land was permitted to be used by the State for any non-forest purposes prior to 1980. Since the lease deed was valid only for one year, after the 1980 FC Act came into effect, in view of the restrictions imposed in Section 2(iii), the forest land could not have been assigned either by way of lease or any other mode to any private person unless there was prior approval of the Central Government.
The Court noted that the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra had totally erred in relying on the case of State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi, (1985) 3 SCC 643 by ignoring the observations made by the Court in Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat, (1987) 1 SCC 213, and other specific directions given by the Court in the instant proceedings. Therefore, the decision of the State Government of allotting the land and implementing the same by the Collector are not at all sustainable in law. Thus, the allotment of the land in favour of the ‘Chavan Family’ vide orders dated 4-8-1998 and 28-8-1998 is not sustainable in law.
Regarding application of the doctrine of desuetude, the Court said that for applicability of the doctrine of desuetude, the statute must not only be required to be in disuse for long duration but instead, a contrary practice must also be prevalent. Taking note of the contention raised by RRCHS that though the subject land was shown as Reserved Forest Land, as far back as in 1879, it was not used as a Forest Land for a long period and therefore it ceased to be Reserved Forest Land; the Court found it difficult to appreciate the contention as the subject land has been continuously been recorded as ‘Reserved Forest’ in the Forest Records. Not only that, the Forest Authorities through a number of communications had requested the Revenue Authorities to correct the revenue entries and transfer the land to the Forest Department.
In the instant case, the legislative history would clearly show that, right from 1878, when the Forest Act was enacted, under Section 34, the law with regard to protection and conservation of forest has been consistently evolving more and more in favour of protection of forests. Nothing has been brought on record to show that a practice contrary to the provisions of the said Act was being applied.
Vis-a-vis whether RRCHS was a bona-fide purchaser of the subject land, the Court noted that it is well-settled law that the entries in the revenue record do not confer a title to the property. The Court pointed out that after the lease was not renewed in 1969, for a period of about 20 years, the members of the ‘Chavan Family’ kept silent. It appears that only in the year 1988, they started moving the authorities for allotment of land in lieu of compensation. However, much prior to the actual allotment of land in their favour, they had already entered into transactions with the Builders. Examining the facts pertaining to the grant of allotment to the Chavan Family, the Court pointed out that allotment order dated 28-8-1998, specifically prohibited the ‘Chavan Family’ from mortgaging, donating, selling, partitioning or exchanging in any other manner, or allotting the said land on lease to any other person without the prior permission of the District Collector. The allotment order further mandated the ‘Chavan Family’ to bring the said land under cultivation within a period of 2 years from the date of the allotment. It further prohibited the said land from being used for any other purpose than agricultural purpose. Furthermore, certain members of the Chavan Family also entered Development Agreement and executed Power of Attorney in favour of the promoter of RRCHS surrendering their entire rights in his favour. Therefore, the Court found no substance in the bona-fide purchaser argument.
“The fact that the agricultural land of the ‘Chavan Family’ was acquired, was being misused by the Developers as a pretext for grabbing the valuable piece of Forest Land for the purposes of commercial development. For doing so, even the status of a person who belongs to backward class was being misused”.
The Court further stated that RRCHS had, with open eyes, entered into illegal transactions with the members of the ‘Chavan Family’. If a direction regarding grant of alternate piece of land as sought by the RRCHS is issued, then it will amount to granting a premium to the RRCHS for the illegalities committed by them.
Considering whether doctrine of Public Trust is applicable to the instant case, the Court pointed out that the then Minister for Revenue and the then Divisional Commissioner had totally given a go-bye to the doctrine of public trust. The facts appearing on the record are glaring.
Decision:
-
In light of the afore-stated facts, the Court held that the allotment of the subject land to the ‘Chavan Family’ was in blatant disregard to the provisions of the law inasmuch as it was violative of Section 2 of the FC Act as well as the directions issued by the Court from time to time. Hence, allotment of 11.89 ha of Reserve Forest land in Survey No.21 Kondhwa Budruk in District Pune for agriculture purposes on 28-8-1998 and subsequent permission given for its sale in favour of RRCHS on 30-10-1999 was totally illegal;
-
Environmental Clearance granted by the MoEF on July 2007 to RRCHS is illegal and is accordingly quashed and set aside
-
The Court further held that the allotment of the subject land was made, ignoring the communications of the Forest Department which had insisted that the said land could not be allotted inasmuch as, the same was classified as a Forest Land.
-
The then Minister for Revenue and the then Divisional Commissioner, Pune have given a total go-bye to the doctrine of public trust inasmuch as, valuable forest land was allotted to the ‘Chavan Family’ de hors the provisions of the law.
-
The Court directed that the possession of the subject land, which is reserved as a Forest Land, but is in possession of the Revenue Department, should be handed over to the Forest Department within a period of three months from the date of the instant judgment.
[In Re: Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings in Forest Land Maharashtra, I.A.NO. 2079 OF 2007, decided on 15-5-2025]
*Judgment by Justice B.R Gavai, the Chief Justice of India
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner(s): Mr. K. Parameshwar, Sr. Adv. Mr. M.V. Kunda, Adv. Ms. Kanti, Adv. Ms. Raji, Adv. Mr. Srinivas Patil, Adv. Ms. Chitransha Singh Shikarwar, Adv. Mr. Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, AOR M/S. Plr Chambers And Co., AOR Mr. Syed Mehdi Imam, AOR Mr. T. Harish Kumar, AOR Mr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Yashraj Singh Deora, Sr. Adv. Mr. Priyesh Mohan Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Anupama Dhurve, Adv. Ms. Sonal K Chopra, Adv. M/S. Mitter & Mitter Co., AOR M/S. Lawyer S Knit & Co, AOR
For Respondent(s): Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Shekhar Naphade, Sr. Adv. Mr. Chinmoy Khaladkar, Adv. Mr. B. K. Pal, AOR Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aniruddha Joshi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Ms. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv. Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR Mr. Deepayan Dutta, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Gaichangpou Gangmei, AOR Mr. Raj Kishor Choudhary, AOR Mr. Pitambar Acharya, Advocate General Mr. Shibashish Misra, AOR Mr. Manav Sabharwal, Adv. Mr. K. L. Janjani, AOR Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, AOR Ms. A. Sumathi, AOR Mr. Jai Prakash Pandey, AOR Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, AOR Mr. K. V. Vijayakumar, AOR Mrs. Rani Chhabra, AOR Ms. Divya Roy, AOR Mr. Tarun Johri, AOR Mr. Radha Shyam Jena, AOR Mr. Ajit Pudussery, AOR Mr. Ashok Mathur, AOR M/S. Parekh & Co., AOR M/S. K J John And Co, AOR Mr. V. Balachandran, AOR Mr. S. C. Birla, AOR Mr. Ram Swarup Sharma, AOR Mr. T. Mahipal, AOR Mr. Umesh Bhagwat, AOR Mrs. M. Qamaruddin, AOR Mr. H. S. Parihar, AOR Ms. Baby Krishnan, AOR Mr. P. R. Ramasesh, AOR Ms. Adviteeya, Adv. Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR Mr. P. N. Gupta, AOR Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, AOR Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Nilay Gupta, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. Kuldip Singh, AOR Ms. Bina Madhavan, AOR Ms. Pratibha Jain, AOR Mr. Rajat Joseph, AOR Mr. Gopal Prasad, AOR Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, AOR Mr. S.. Udaya Kumar Sagar, AOR Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Tejaswi Kumar Pradhan, AOR M/S. Arputham Aruna And Co, AOR Mrs. Nandini Gore, AOR Mr. Raj Kumar Mehta, AOR Ms. Madhu Moolchandani, AOR Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay, AOR Mr. Rajeev Singh, AOR Mrs. Kanchan Kaur Dhodi, AOR Mr. Surya Kant, AOR Mr. E. C. Vidya Sagar, AOR M/S. M. V. Kini & Associates, AOR Mrs. B. Sunita Rao, AOR Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, AOR Mr. Prashant Kumar, AOR Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, AOR Mr. Kanisk Mor, Adv. Mrs. Shweta Sand, Adv. Mr. Raju Sonkar, Adv. Mr. P. Parmeswaran, AOR Ms. Sujata Kurdukar, AOR Mrs. Manik Karanjawala, AOR Mr. Bhavanishankar V. Gadnis, Adv. Mr. A. Venayagam Balan, AOR Mr. Vishwanath Gadnis, Adv. Mr. Sudarsh Menon, AOR Mr. Ramesh Babu M. R., AOR Mr. Vikrant Singh Bais, AOR Mr. Shiva Pujan Singh Ms. Charu Mathur, AOR Mr. Rajiv Mehta, AOR Mr. Ejaz Maqbool, AOR Mr. Rajesh, AOR M/S. Corporate Law Group, AOR Mr. Lakshmi Raman Singh, AOR Ms. K. V. Bharathi Upadhyaya, AOR Mr. Sufyan Hasan, Adv. Ms. Hema Malik, Adv. Mr. T. N. Singh, AOR Mr. Rajendra Sahu, Adv. Mr. C. L. Sahu, AOR Ms. Hema Sahu, Adv. Mr. Manmohan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rishabh Sahu, Adv. Ms. Sumita Hazarika, AOR Ms. Abha R. Sharma, AOR Mr. Abhishek Chaudhary, AOR Mr. B V Deepak, AOR Mr. Gopal Singh, AOR Mr. T. V. George, AOR Mr. Krishnanand Pandeya, AOR Mr. Neeraj Shekhar, AOR Mr. Ujjwal Ashutosh, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Maurya, Adv. Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, AOR Mr. Rajesh Singh, AOR Mrs. Rekha Pandey, AOR Mr. Mohd. Irshad Hanif, AOR Mr. Punit Dutt Tyagi, AOR Mr. Rathin Das, AOR Mr. Ratan Kumar Choudhuri, AOR Mr. Sudhir Kulshreshtha, AOR Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, AOR Mr. Parth Shekhar, Adv. Mr. Shubham Singh, Adv. Mr. Youkteshwari Prasad, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma, Adv. Mr. Mata Prasad Pathak, Adv. Mr. Vijay Singh, Adv. Ms. Ambali Vedasen, Adv. Mr. Ayush Gupta, Adv. Mr. Rishabh Jain, Adv. Mr. Chandrakant Siddarkar, Adv. Mr. Rajmani Mohanty, Adv. Mr. Somyadeep Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Adv. Ms. Hemantika Wahi, AOR Ms. Sushma Suri, AOR Mr. Sudhir Kumar Gupta, AOR Mr. A. N. Arora, AOR Mr. Irshad Ahmad, AOR Mr. G. Prakash, AOR Mr. E. M. S. Anam, AOR Mrs. Bina Gupta, AOR Mr. P. V. Yogeswaran, AOR Mr. Jitendra Mohan Sharma, AOR Ms. Malini Poduval, AOR Ms. C. K. Sucharita, AOR Ms. Binu Tamta, AOR Mr. Aniruddha Joshi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Ms. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv. Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, AOR Mr. Vikash Singh, AOR Mr. Abhishek Atrey, AOR Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker, AOR Mr. Chinmoy Chaitanya, Adv. Mr. Dhaval Mehrotra, AOR Mr. Ravindra Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Binay Kumar Das, AOR Ms. Priyanka Das, Adv. Ms. Neha Das, Adv. Mr. Shivam Saksena, Adv. Mr. Vikas Bharti, Adv. Ms. Lakshmi N. Kaimal, AOR Mr. Subhasish Mohanty, AOR Mr Rahul Jain, AOR Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Mr. Naveen Kumar, AOR Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Raghavendra M. Kulkarni, Adv. Mr. Venkata Raghu Mannepalli, Adv. M/S. D.S.K. Legal, AOR Ms. Shibani Ghosh, AOR Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, AOR Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, A.A.G. Mr. Saurabh Rajpal, Adv. Mr. Amogh Bansal, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, AOR Ms. Pallavi Langar, AOR Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, AOR Mr. Saurabh Singh Chauhan, Adv. M/S. Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas Aor, AOR Mr. Sandeep Kumar Jha, AOR Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, Adv. Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR Mr. Mohit Paul, AOR Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar, AOR Ms. Manika Tripathy, AOR Ms. Ankita Sharma, AOR Mr. Arjun D Singh, Adv. Ms. Supreeta Sharanagouda, AOR Mr. Sharanagouda Patil, Adv. Mr. Jyotish Pandey, Adv. Mr. Yash, Adv. Ms. Adarsh Nain, AOR Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Yadav, Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Ms. Purnima Krishna, AOR Mr. M.f. Philip, Adv. Mr. Karamveer Singh Yadav, Adv. Mr. Togin M. Babichen, Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Mrs. Ruchi Kohli, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Raghav Sharma, Adv. Mr. Jagdish Chandra Solanki, Adv. Mr. S.s. Rebello, Adv. Mr. Suhasini Sen, Adv. Mr. Gaurang Bhushan, Adv. Dr. Surender Singh Hooda, AOR Ms. Tannu, Adv. Mr. Yuvarj Nandal, Adv. Mr. Sunil Kumar Verma, AOR Mr. Prakash Kumar Singh, AOR Ms. Seita Vaidyalingam, AOR Mr. Kumar Anurag Singh, Adv. Mr. Anando Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Shwetank Singh, Adv. Ms. Anzu. K. Varkey, AOR Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR Mr. T. R. B. Sivakumar, AOR Mr. Sujit Kumar Mishra, AOR Mr. Aldanish Rein, AOR Mr. Kunal Mimani, AOR Ms. Shraddha Chirania, Adv Mr. Nishanth Patil, AOR M/S. Venkat Palwai Law Associates, AOR Mr. Ajay Marwah, AOR Mr. Ravindra S. Garia, AOR Mr. Vivek Jain, D.A.G. Mr. Karan Sharma, AOR Mr. Vaibhav Srivastava, A.A.G. Ms. Sugandha Anand, AOR Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, AOR Mr. T.k. Nayak, Adv. Mr. Vikas Bansal, Adv. Mr. Deeptakirti Verma, AOR Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, AOR Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, AOR Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, AOR Mr. Vivek Jain, AOR Ms. Garima Prashad, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Sudeep Kumar, AOR Ms. Manisha, Adv. Ms. Rupali, Adv. Ms. Rani Mishra, AOR Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR Mr. Karun Sharma, Adv. Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Adv. Ms. Rajkumari Divyasana, Adv. Mr. Venkata Raghuvamsy D., AOR Mr. Ajay Agarwal, A.A.G. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Adv. Mr. Ashiwan Mishra, Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, AOR Mr. Somesh Chandra Jha, AOR Mr. Tarun Bajaj, Adv. Ms. Ruchira Goel, AOR Mr. Aniruddha Joshi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Ms. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv. Mr. Parth Awasthi, Adv. Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR Mr. Tarun Gupta, AOR Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, AOR Mr. Rahul Kumar, Adv. Mr. Aakash Thakur, Adv. Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, AOR Mr. P. S. Sudheer, AOR Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR Mr. Siddhartha Jha, AOR Mr. Naved Anwar, Adv. Mr. Gurrick Jassar, Adv. Mr. Naveen .n, Adv. Mr. N. Nagan Pillai, Adv. M/S. V. Maheshwari & Co., AOR Mr. Mayank Aggarwal, AOR Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, AOR Mr. Shovan Mishra, AOR Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Naveen Kumar, AOR Mr. P. K. Manohar, AOR Mr. Vinod Sharma, AOR Ms. Surbhi Mehta, AOR Mr. Rajeev Singh, AOR Ms. Parul Shukla, AOR Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Adv. Mr. Prashant Kumar Umrao, AOR Mr. Arun K. Sinha, AOR Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, AOR Mr. Shakti Singh, Adv. Mr. B. K. Pal, AOR Mr. James P. Thomas, AOR Mr. S. Gowthaman, AOR Mr. A. Karthik, AOR Mr. Rajiv Kumar Choudhry, AOR Mr. Anurag Tandon, AOR Ms. Dr. Monika Gusain, Sr. Adv. Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, AOR Mr. Hariom Yaduvanshi, Adv. Mr. Arjun Yaduvanshi, Adv. Ms. S. Harini, Adv. Mr. Avi Dhankhar, Adv. Mr. Vansmani Tripathi, Adv. Ms. Aahana Jaiswal, Adv. Ms. Drishti Rawal, Adv. Ms. Pragya Upadhyay, Adv. Ms. Drishti Saraf, Adv. Mr. Omanakuttan K. K., AOR Mr. Ajit Sharma, AOR Mr. Yuvrajsinh C. Solanki, Adv. Mr. Lareb Habib Ansari, Adv. Mr. Kanchan Kumar, Adv. Ms. Shalini Kaul, AOR Mr. Sunil Kumar Sharma, AOR Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR Ms. Neha Singh, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Sharma, AOR Mrs. Aishwrya Bhati, A.S.G. Mrs. Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G. Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Mr. Uday Prakash Yadav, Adv. Mr. Raghav Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sughosh Subramanium, Adv. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Adv. Ms. Suhasini Sen, Adv. Mr. S S Rebello, Adv. Mr. Samir Ali Khan, AOR Mr. Pranjal Sharma, Adv. Mr. Kashif Irshad Khan, Adv. Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, AOR Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR Mr. Alim Anvar, Adv. Ms. Anu K Hoy, Adv. Mr. Santhosh K, Adv. Mr. Nishit Agrawal, AOR Mr. Krishna Ballabh Thakur, AOR Ms. Aruna Gupta, AOR Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Adv. Mr. Prang Newmai, Adv. Mr. Shishir Deshpande, AOR Mr. Yusuf, AOR Mrs. Pragya Baghel, AOR Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR Mr. Raghvendra Kumar, AOR Mr. Sravan Kumar Karanam, AOR Mr. Abhiram Bannur, Adv. Ms. Shireesh Tyagi, Adv. Applicant-in-person, AOR Mr. Anant Mann, AOR Mr. Lakshmeesh S. Kamath, AOR Mr. Gopal Balwant Sathe, AOR Mr. Sarvam Ritam Khare, AOR Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Mr. K. M. Nataraj Ld. Asg, A.S.G. Mr. Shyam Gopal, Adv. Mr. Salvador Santosh Rebello, Adv, Ms. Suhasini Sen, Adv. Mr. Raghav Sharma, Adv. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Adv. Mr. Harish Pandey, Adv. Ms. Indira Bhakar, Adv. Mr. Anuj Srinivas Udupa, Adv. Mr. Krishna Kant Dubey, Adv. Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Adv. Mr. Neeraj Kumar Sharma, Adv. Ms. Mrinal Elker Mazumdar, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Parihar, Adv. Mr. Mukesh K Verma, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR Ms. Sunieta Ojha, AOR Mr. Dinesh Chandra Pandey, AOR Mr. Saurabh Rajpal, AOR Mr. Ashzad Mubarak, Adv. Mr. Himinder Lal, AOR Ms. Shruti Jose, AOR Mr. Kaushik Choudhury, AOR Mr. Aravindh S., AOR Mr. Aadithya Aravindh, Adv. Mrs. Kirti Renu Mishra, AOR Mr. Atul Sharma, AOR Mr. Anirudh Sanganeria, AOR Mr. Shrey Kapoor, AOR Ms. Anne Mathew, AOR Mr. Yash S. Vijay, AOR
