Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

   

Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: While deciding the instant petition seeking quashment of FIR against the media outlet Kashmiryat and Kashmir Walla regarding an article on their news portal claiming that the Army had forced the school authorities of Siraj-ul-Uloom to celebrate Republic Day; the Bench of Vinod Chatterji Koul, J., held that the instant case when examined on the touchstone of law laid down by the Supreme Court, has not persuaded this Bench to grant the relief prayed for by the petitioner. It was further held that since the FIR has been registered alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 153, 505 IPC, which requires to be investigated by the police and during the investigation the petitioners can take the defence which may be available to them.

An FIR was registered with Police station, Imam Sahib, Shopian, based on a written complaint made by Company Commander D-Coy 44 1- Rashtriya Rifles Camp under Section 153 (Wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot) and Section 505 (Statements conducing to public mischief) of Penal Code, 1860, for publishing an article on 27-01-2021, alleging that Siraj-ul-Uloom was pressurized by the Army to hold the 72nd Republic Day function in their school. The article also stated that the National Flag was unfurled, and celebrations of Republic Day were carried out in presence of the Army,

During the investigation, it was found that article was published by Mir Junaid of Kashmiryat and Yashraj Sharma of Kashmir Walla. Further during investigation, the statement of Yousuf Matoo, Chairman, Siraj-ul-Uloom, was recorded, wherein he stated that allegation made against the army were baseless. The investigation in the matter is still underway.

The respondents submitted that the impugned article has falsely accused the Army of using force for celebrating Republic Day at Siraj-ul-Uloom; and by such false publication, the petitioners had intended to cause provocation to commit riots. Thus, they have committed offences punishable under Section 153 as well as Section 505 of IPC.

The petitioner on the other hand, prayed to the Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of CrPC.

Perusing the facts of the case and the contentions presented, the Court relied on Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor, 2013 (3) SCC 330, wherein the Supreme Court delineated the steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashment raised by an accused, by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of CrPC. It was held that the Court was not persuaded to grant any quashment in the present matter.

Vis-a vis the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482, the Bench while relied on State of Andhra Pradesh v. Golconda Linga Swamy, (2004) 6 SCC 522, where it was observed that Section 482 does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code.

The High Court further noted that Section 482 of CrPC preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. It was further pointed out that while inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude, it must be exercised to secure ends of justice or to prevent an abuse of the process of any court.

[Shah Fahad Peerzada v. UT of J&K, 2022 SCC OnLine J&K 894, decided on 17-11-2022]


Advocates who appeared in this case :

Hashir Shafiq, Advocate and Mohammad Altaf Khan, Advocate for the Petitioners;

Sheikh Mushtaq, AAG for R-1 and T. M. Shamsi, DSGI of R-2.


*Sucheta Sarkar, Editorial Assistant has prepared this brief.

Armed Forces Tribunal
Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

Armed Forces Tribunal (Lucknow Bench): The Division Bench of Justice Umesh Chandra Srivastava, Member (J) and Vice Admiral Abhay Raghunath Karve, Member (A) upheld the antedated dismissal of the applicant which was served without any show cause notice on the ground of his involvement in espionage and anti-national activities.

Background

In December 2006, there happened a theft case of 87 Identity Cards in the 50 Armoured Regiment. A detailed investigation was carried out by Army authorities at the highest levels which revealed that Lance Dafadar Babu Kathat of 50 Armoured Regiment was a prime suspect. Also, during further investigation, the applicant’s name was figured for communicating with Pakistan Intelligence Operatives (PIO) and it was not reported to military authorities. Further, on analysing the calls, ground verification, and interrogation, it was concluded that the applicant had links to the loss of Identity Cards and was involved in an espionage network that was controlled by the ISI agent at Gujranwala (Pakistan).

The applicant also spoke to Ranjit, a resident of Sikar, who had also received conferencing calls from the United States of America. On query, the applicant denied revealing the contents of the conversation with between Ranjit, and Lance Dafadar Babu Kathat who deserted the Army on 24.12.2006 and later was killed/committed suicide. The applicant is the last person who spoke to main suspect late Lance Dafadar Babu Kathat which again indicated the applicant’s deep involvement in the loss of Identity Cards.

Dismissal Order

The case was taken up with the higher authorities to dismiss the applicant from service on the ground of his involvement in espionage and anti-national activities. The Chief of the Army Staff vide letter dated 24-10-2011 passed an order for his dismissal under Section 20 of Army Act, 1950 read with Rule 17 of Army Rules, 1954 without issuing a Show Cause Notice. Accordingly, he was dismissed from service w.e.f. 28-12-2013.

Contentions Raised by the Applicant

The applicant submitted that though he had received a phone call on 28-12-2006 which incidentally was made from Pakistan and he talked for about 33 seconds, he was unaware that it was from Pakistan. The applicant alleged that though he was interrogated on two occasions, nothing adverse was found against him.

Assailing the sudden and antedated dismissal on 28-12-2013 by an order dated 24-10-2011, the applicant contended that the dismissal order served after a lapse of more than 2 years, was a premeditated one so as to dismiss him from service on the flimsy ground of ‘suspected person’, that too without serving him any show cause notice or giving him any opportunity of being heard. The applicant further submitted that he was allowed to continue in service and was paid a salary and other benefits during the period between 24-10-2011 to 28-12-2013. Therefore, the applicant prayed that he should either be re-instated in service or the dismissal order be converted into discharge to enable him to receive service pension along with consequential benefits.

Stand Taken by the Respondent

The contentions raised by the applicant were contradicted by the respondent on following grounds:

  • Para 17 of the Army Rules, 1954 stipulates to issue Show Cause Notice except when the authority competent to order such dismissal or removal considers it inexpedient to give such notice as stipulated in the proviso to the rule. Since it was not expedient to serve the applicant with a Show Cause Notice, therefore, it was not served upon him as per order dated 24-10-2011;

  • Though dismissal order was issued on 24-10-2011, it took long time to implement it owing to Army’s vast organisation having their own channel and procedure due to the involvement of various agencies and deployment all over India;

  • There being a strong suspicion of the applicant’s involvement in anti-national activities and there being a prime suspicion of involvement in espionage activities, his further retention in service was considered a security risk to the nation.

Findings and Conclusion

The Tribunal, upon an exhaustive consideration of all the records including notings produced by the Officer-in-Charge, Legal Cell, observed that the inquiry against the applicant was initiated by lower unit/formation which travelled to the Director General of Military Intelligence, Army Headquarters and finally reached the Chief of the Army Staff who ordered the dismissal of the applicant keeping in view his involvement in espionage activities.

Relying on Union of India v. S.P. Sharma, (2014) 6 SCC 351, the Tribunal opined that as far as security is concerned, the safeguard available to civil servants under Article 311 is not available to defence personnel. In cases where continuance of Army personnel in service is not practicable for security purposes and there is loss of confidence and potential risk to the security issue then such personnel can be removed under the Army Act/Rules.

Thus, the Tribunal held that the dismissal order dated 24-10-2011 promulgated on 28-12-2013 did not suffer from any illegality, bias or malafide and needed no interference. Accordingly, the Original Application was dismissed.

[Arjun Singh v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine AFT 6295, decided on 04-08-2022]


Advocates who appeared in this case :

Yashpal Singh, Advocate, for the Applicant.

Deepti Prasad Bajpai, Advocate, for the Union of India;


*Kamini Sharma, Editorial Assistant has put this report together.

Armed Forces Tribunal
Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

Armed Forces Tribunal (Lucknow Bench): The Division Bench of Justice Umesh Chandra Srivastava, Member (J) and Vice Admiral Abhay Raghunath Karve, Member (A) held that a defence person cannot be permitted to change the name of his wife twice in service records.

“Name of wife of the applicant has already been changed from Malhouthi Devi to Samalti Singh on the basis of affidavit given by the applicant in the year 1973. If there was any clerical mistake, the applicant should have reported the matter to concerned officer within few days.”

The applicant was enrolled in the Army on 13-11-1963. On being discharged from service on 21-11-1980, he had been granted service pension from vide PPO dated 02-03-1981. Later on, he joined the Directorate General of Quality Assurance (DGQA) and got retired on 31-01-2005. Therefore, he was getting a 2nd pension vide PPO dated 18-02-2005.

The grievance of the applicant was that he had represented his case for change of name and date of birth of his wife in his army service documents which was denied by the respondents-Union of India. The Government noted that there was a mismatch in the date of birth and name of the applicant’s wife mentioned in the service records and appendix containing change and suggested the applicant to forward a few documents for change of name and date of birth.

Ultimately, the Government rejected the request to introduce afore-mentioned change on the following grounds:

  • “Policy allows only change in surname/maidan name.

  • Applicant had already changed the name from Malhouthi Devi to Samalti Singh.

  • No provision to change of name of wife except surname or maiden name and date of birth except typographical/clerical errors and in applicant’s case no such error is found.”

The Government contended that the applicant had already changed his wife’s name from Malhouthi Devi to Samalti Singh during the year 1973 and policy does not allow change of name second time. Similarly, owing to the difference of more than four (4) years in the date of birth as recorded in service and the proposed date of birth the government denied accepting any changes in the date of birth as well.

The Tribunal noted that earlier the applicant had applied for change of name of his wife in the year 1973, which was changed but at that time he had chosen to remain silent regarding the change of date of birth. Similarly, in the year 2001, he again gave another affidavit requesting to change the name of his wife but nothing was mentioned regarding change of date of birth. It was in the year 2019 after about 56 years from the date of entry in army service documents, the applicant applied for change of date of birth. Thus, the Tribunal held that the applicant’s attempt to change the date of birth of his wife at a belated stage was not justified. The Tribunal stated,

“If the date of birth of the wife of applicant was recorded wrong, then applicant should have consulted the competent authority within few months for correction of date of birth of his wife.”

With regard to change in name of the applicant’s wife, the Tribunal observed the following:

  • First affidavit was given while applicant was serving in the army in the year 1973 for change of name of his wife from Malhouthi Devi to Samalti Singh in army service documents.

  • Second affidavit was given by the applicant in the year 2001 while he was serving in DGQA Kanpur for change of name of his wife from Samanti Singh to Shyam Lata Singh in DGQA service documents.

  • Third affidavit was given by the applicant in the year 2019 for change of name and date of birth of his wife in PPO of army service.

Therefore, the Tribunal opined that it is doubtful for someone to give affidavit three times for change of name of spouse. Further, as per policy on the subject, name of spouse can be changed only one time. Hence, observing that the name of the applicant’s wife had already been changed from Malhouthi Devi to Samalti Singh in the year 1973 the Tribunal held that if there was any clerical mistake, as alleged by the applicant, he should have reported the matter to the officer concerned within few days.

In view of the above, the instant application was dismissed.

[Ram Naresh Singh v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine AFT 835, decided on 27-01-2022]


Advocates who appeared in this case :

Shailendra Kumar Singh and Ravi Kumar Yadav, Advocates, for the Applicant;

Namit Sharma, Central Government Counsel, for the Union of India.


*Kamini Sharma, Editorial Assistant has reported the brief.

Armed Forces Tribunal
Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

Armed Forces Tribunal (Chandigarh Bench): The Bench of Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary (Member J) and Vice Admiral HCS Bisht (Member A), granted war injury pension to the ex-serviceman who had sustained injuries resulting in disability during Operation Hifazat.

Brief facts of the case were that the applicant was enrolled in the Indian Army on 29-01-1981 in a fit medical category. During service, the applicant was deployed in Triupra under Operation Hifazat and suffered grievous injuries while moving for search operation against insurgents. The said accident resulted in a disability namely Compression Fracture which was duly declared a “Battle casualty” and was held to be “attributable” to service.

Owing to his permanent low medical category, the applicant opted for voluntary discharge from service and he was accordingly released from service on 31-10-2000. The grievance of the applicant was that the respondents had wrongly rejected him claim for War Injury pension on the ground that he was discharged at his own request; therefore, he was not entitled to any disability benefits.

Noticeably, the Government of India, Ministry of Defence had issued a Policy dated 19-05-2017 declaring to grant the benefit of disability and war injury pension to those who have sought voluntarily retirement.

Hence, considering the government policy along with the written statement filed by the respondents that the applicant was proceeding to participate in specific search operation against insurgents during (CI) Counter Insurgency Operation and that it was a battle casualty in operation HIFAZAT-II which was corroborated by the Release Medical Board proceedings, the Bench held that the applicant was entitled to war injury pension.

Resultantly, the respondents were directed to process the claim of war injury pension of the applicant in terms of the Policy of the Government and subject to verification the arrears were directed to be released within a period of three months. [Ram Pal v. Union of India, O.A. No. 634 of 2021, decided on 01-11-2021]


Kamini Sharma, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.


Appearance by:

For the Applicant: Navdeep Singh, Advocate

For Union of India: Sutikshan Sharma, CGC

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: In a case where a soldier, after serving in the Regular Army for 25 years, was re-enrolled in the Infantry Battalion (Territorial Army), Ecological Task Force (ETF) and was denied disability pension in view of the letter of the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, dated 31st March 2008 which provides that the members of ETF would not be entitled for disability pension, the bench of L. Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai*, JJ has held that it was wrong to deny the claim as the ETF is established as an additional company for 130 Infantry Battalion of Territorial Army and the other officers or enrolled persons working in the Territorial Army are entitled to disability pension.

Factual Background

  • After serving for about 25 years in Infantry of the Regular Army, the appellant got re-enrolled in the Territorial Army as a full-time soldier on 1st August 2007.
  • After availing the annual leave, when the appellant was coming back on his scooter to rejoin his duty, on 24th April 2009, he met with a serious accident.
  • The Medical Board assessed the appellant’s disability to be  80%. However, it could not give any opinion about the attributability aspect of the injury.
  • The Court of Inquiry (CoI) found that the injury sustained by the appellant was attributable to military service and it was not due to his own negligence.
  • Subsequently, on the basis of the opinion of the Invaliding Medical Board, on 1st January 2012, the appellant was invalided out of service with 80% disability which was attributable to military service.
  • The AFT though held, that the injury sustained by the appellant which resulted into 80% disability was found by the competent authority to be aggravated and attributable to the military service, it rejected the claim of the appellant on the ground that a separate scheme and service conditions have been created for the Members of ETF, which was accepted by the appellant and hence, he was not entitled to disability pension.

What does the law state?

  • as per Government of India, Ministry of Defence’s letter, dated 31st March 2008, the members of ETF would not be entitled for disability pension. Vide the said communication, the Government of India has   communicated   to   the   Chief   of   Army   Staff,   the sanction of the President of India for raising two additional companies   for   130   Infantry   Battalion   (Territorial   Army) Ecological under Rule 33 of Territorial Army Act, Rules 1948.
  • every such officer or enrolled person in Territorial Army when holds the rank, shall be subject to the provisions of Army Act, 1950 and the rules or regulations made thereunder, equivalent to the same rank in the Regular Army.
  • as per the Regulation No. 292 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, the grant of pensionary awards to the members of the Territorial Army shall be governed by the same rules and regulations as are applicable to the corresponding persons of the Army except where they are inconsistent with the provisions of regulations in the said chapter.
  • as per Regulation No. 173 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, an individual who is invalided out of service on account of disability, which is attributable or aggravated by Military Service in non-battle casualty and is assessed 20% or more, would be entitled to disability pension.

Analysis

Disability pension to member of ETF

The ETF is established as an additional company for 130 Infantry Battalion of Territorial Army. Since other officers or enrolled persons working in the Territorial Army are entitled to disability pension under Regulation No. 173 read with Regulation No. 292 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, the appellant, who is enrolled as a member of ETF which is a company for 130 Infantry Battalion (Territorial Army), cannot be denied the disability pension. Specifically so, when the Medical Board and COI have found that the injury sustained by the appellant was attributable to the Military Service and it was not due to his own negligence.

Signing on a “Certificate” agreeing to not getting any enhanced pension  

The appellants had signed a document dated 30th August 2007, titled “Certificate”, wherein he had agreed to the condition that he will not be getting any enhanced pension for having been enrolled in   ETF. However, the same cannot be used to deny disability pension to the appellant for the following reasons:

  • the said document deals with enhanced pension and not disability pension. A conjoint reading of Section 9 of the Territorial Army Act, 1948 and Regulation Nos. 292 and 173 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961, would show that a member of the Territorial Army would be entitled to disability pension.
  • even accepting that the appellant has signed such a document, it needs to be noted that a Right to Equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India would also apply to a man who has no choice or rather no meaningful choice, but to give his assent to a contract or to sign on the dotted line in a prescribed or standard form or to accept a set of rules as part of the contract, however unfair, unreasonable and unconscionable a clause in that contract or form or rules may be.

“Can it be said that the mighty Union of India and an ordinary soldier, who having fought for the country and retired from Regular Army, seeking reemployment in the Territorial Army, have an equal bargaining power.”

Conclusion

The Union of India was, hence, directed to grant disability pension to the appellant in accordance with the rules and regulations applicable to the Members of the Territorial Army with effect from 1st January 2012 and to also clear arrears from 1st January 2012 within a period of three months from the date of this judgment with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

[Pani Ram v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1277, decided on 17.12.2021]


Counsels

For appellant: Advocate Siddhartha Iyer

For UOI:  Additional Solicitor General Vikramjit Banerjee


*Judgment by: Justice BR Gavai

Armed Forces Tribunal
Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

Armed Forces Tribunal: The Division Bench of Justice Umesh Chandra Srivastava and Vice Admiral Abhay Raghunath Karve, Member (A) slammed the Union of India opining that gross injustice done to the applicant was a case of mind set and adhering to old junk system. Opining that it requires interference by administration of justice so that one has to obey and respect law, the Bench remarked,

“It is a matter of great surprise that 23 years have elapsed but order of High Court Allahabad has not yet been complied with and respondents are stating that compliance of order is in process.”

Brief facts of the case were that the applicant’s husband was enrolled in the army on 15-12-1971 and dismissed from service on 22-11-1986, after completing about 14 years and 11 months of service. Noticeably, on 03-02-1985 the husband of the applicant had written a to Defence Secretary, Chief of Army Staff and GOC-in C, Southern Command containing allegation against his Squadron Commander. The matter was investigated and disciplinary action was taken against her husband for direct writing to superior officers.

The applicant’s husband was tried by District Court Martial (DCM) for an offence under Army Act Section 56 (a); i.e. making a false accusation. Consequently, he was punished and was dismissed from service.

The husband of the applicant preferred appeal before the Allahabad High Court which was allowed His appeal was allowed vide order dated 27.07.1998 and order of punishment awarded by DCM was quashed and respondents were directed to reinstate husband of the applicant in service and treat him in continuous service with all service benefits including increment and promotion as per relevant rules.

The grievance of the applicant was that instead of complying with the decision of the High Court, the respondents had filed an appeal on 18-11-1998 against the judgment which was dismissed on 08-07-2010. During pendency of the appeal, husband of the applicant died on 31-01-2002. The applicant contended that though there was no any stay against the order of High Court, the same was not complied with.

Noticing that the High Court had passed detailed order in favour of the husband of the applicant granting all service benefits including promotion and pay and allowance and that the appeal against the order was dismissed in the year 2010, the Bench opined that the respondents should have immediately reinstate the husband of the applicant in service and grant his dues.

The public interest demands that administration must abide by the promises held out to citizens. It is totally immoral to go back from the promises held out by the mighty state to the detriment of a small people.

Considering that the husband of the applicant died during pendency of the matter and applicant suffered mental pain and agony for more than 34 years and had to enter in unnecessarily litigation even after her case was decided by the High Court, the Bench imposed exemplary cost of Rs. 75,000 on the respondents for not implementing the order of the High Court for about 23 years.

Accordingly, the respondents were directed to grant all service benefits as applicable to the husband of the applicant in terms of order of the High Court Allahabad along with arrears and further grant family pension to the applicant from the next date of death of her husband within four months. Interest at the rate of 8% was also awarded on the amount accrued from due date till the date of actual payment. [Gulkandi Devi v. Union of India, Original Application No. 605 of 2018, decided on 13-10-2021]


Kamini Sharma, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Appearance by:

For the Applicant: Advocate Birendra Prasad Singh

For Union of India: Central Govt. Counsel RC Shukla

COVID 19Hot Off The PressNews

Indian Armed Forces have dispatched Naval ships with medical teams and aid supplies to several countries in the IOR region. In return journey, the Ships will bring back Indian national evacuees from this region.

Further, Armed Forces have kept in readiness six quarantine facilities that can accommodate up to 2,100 Indians being evacuated from several countries in coordination with the Ministry of External Affairs and Ministry of Civil Aviation. The Indian National evacuees stranded due to COVID19 in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Malaysia will be housed in the quarantine facilities maintained by the three Services- Indian Army, Indian Navy and Indian Air Force- in Jodhpur, Jaisalmer, Bhopal, Kochi, Vishakhapatnam and Chennai.

The evacuees will undergo mandatory quarantine as per the SOPs in the following quarantine facilities, run by the Army, Navy and Air Force after which further necessary action will be taken for their onward journey as per the approved SOPs.

Besides, naval ships have sailed with with food grains, medical teams, medicines to Indian Ocean Region (IOR) countries and they will evacuate Indians during return journey. Indian Naval Ship (INS) Kesari has proceeded on deployment to Southern Indian Ocean Region from yesterday (May 6) till June 29, 2020. The ship will visit Madagascar, Comoros, Maldives and Seychelles. It will deliver 10-12 tonnes of medicines each to all these countries. It will also provide 660 tonnes of food grains to Maldives. Medical teams comprising of 14 personnel (eight doctors and six paramedics) and 13 personnel (four doctors and nine paramedics) have been dispatched to Mauritius and Comoros respectively.

Earlier, INS Jalashwa sailed to Maldives for evacuating stranded Indian nationals. It reached Male earlier today. The ship will start for Kochi tomorrow with evacuee Indians. The INS Magar has also sailed to Maldives and is on the way to Male. The INS Airawat and INS Shardul are likely to proceed to Gulf region for evacuation of Indian nationals.


Ministry of Defence

[Press Release dt. 07-05-2020]

[Source: PIB]

NGT
Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

National Green Tribunal (NGT), New Delhi: A Coram of Justice K. Ramakrishnan (Judicial Member) and Dr Nagin Nanda (Expert Member) dismissed an application filed by Delhi Cantonment Board that sought the intervention of the Tribunal to make a change of wards which they gave to the Chief Secretary as per the directions of this Tribunal. This was done to make the model ward under the Board for implementation of Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 in an effective manner.

The applicants alleged that following the directions of this Tribunal, in the meeting held by the Chief Secretary, they were given three wards situated in Delhi Cantonment Area which were proposed to be notified as model wards. It was alleged in the application that the second ward and fourth ward fell entirely within the Defence, and it was not under the control or management of the Cantonment Board. So, they found it difficult to implement the Rules in that area. Subsequently, they filed a petition where they wanted to substitute these wards with two other wards.

The counsel for the applicant, Mr. Rahul Singhal, submitted that the Board may not be able to implement the Rules in the above said two wards as it was under the control of the Defence and hence, the prayer was made to change the model wards accordingly.

The Tribunal observed that the submission made by Singhal was without any merit. It remarked that the Army was a unit and had to comply with the Rules and set a model as to how the rules would be implemented in that area effectively. They could sort a plan for implementation by talking to the people in that area. The Tribunal opined that it was expected that the Army would cooperate with the Cantonment Board to implement the rules “in its true spirit and to be a model for others.” Hence, the application was dismissed.[ I.A. No. 375/2019, 2019 SCC OnLine NGT 96, decided on 04-06-2019]