State of Uttar Pradesh vs Uday Education and Welfare Trust

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 1086

B. R. GAVAI, B. V. NAGARATHNA
State of Uttar Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Uday Education and Welfare Trust – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the parties : Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, AOR Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv. Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Singh Chauhan, Adv. Ms. Saroj Tripathi, AOR Mr. Syed Waseem Qadri, Sr. Adv. Mr. Md. Rashid Saeed, AOR Mr. Saeed Quadri, Adv. Mr. V.K. Uniyal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, AOR Mr. Abhishek Garg, Adv. Mr. Dhananjay Garg, Adv. Mr. Ishaan Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Satyajeet Kumar, AOR Mr. Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, AOR Mr. Gaurav Verma, Adv Mr. Neeraj Datt Gaur, Adv Mr. Lokesh Kumar Choudhary, AOR Ms. Saroj Tripathi, AOR Mr. A. Lakshminarayanan, AOR Mr. Rudraksh Gupta, Adv. Mr. A. Velan, Adv. Mr. Akhil P. Philip, Adv. Mr. Vishwadeep Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Vikalp Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta, AOR Mr. V.K. Shukla, Sr. Adv Mr. Ajay Singh, Adv. Mr. Ram Kumar, Adv. Mr. Debasis Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Lokesh Kumar Choudhary, AOR Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Brijender Chahar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vivek Gupta, AOR Mr. Mrinmay Bhattmewara, Adv. Mr. Rajvir Singh Bhati, Adv. Mr. Shyam R. Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Namit Saxena, AOR Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Ld. ASG Ms. Suhashini Sen, Adv. Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Adv. Ms. Chinmayee Chandra, Adv. Mr. Varun Chugh, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary, AOR Mr. Rashid Hasan Adv. Ms. Shehla Chaudhary Adv. Mr. Md. Anas Chaudhary Adv. Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari, AOR Mr. Alok Kumar, AOR Mr. Nihal Ahmad, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Shukla, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv. Ms. Prachi Goyal, Adv. Ms. Anu Singla, Adv. Mr. Tushar Swahi, Adv. Mr. Vasu, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Shukla, Adv. Mr. Vasu Chaudhar, Adv. Ms. Prachi, Adv. Mr. S. K. Verma, AOR Mr. Zulfiker Ali P. S, AOR Ms. Saroj Tripathi, AOR

Table of Content
1. challenge to ngt's ruling on wbis. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. overview of procedures leading to issuance of licenses. (Para 5 , 6 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
3. arguments supporting the establishment of wbis. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 25 , 28)
4. response highlighting environmental principles. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 34 , 36)
5. explaining ngt’s rationale. (Para 39 , 40 , 63 , 64 , 67)
6. conclusion setting aside ngt's orders. (Para 98 , 99 , 100 , 102 , 104)

JUDGMENT :

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. For the reasons stated in the applications for impleadment/intervention, the same are allowed.

2. This bunch of appeals challenges the order dated 18th February 2020, passed by the learned National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the learned NGT”) in Original Application Nos. 313, 335 and 396 of 2019, thereby quashing and setting aside the notice dated 1st March 2019 issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh for establishing new wood based industries (hereinafter referred to as “WBIs”) and also setting aside all the provisional licenses given in pursuance thereof.

3. The appeals also challenge the orders dated 18th March 2020, 2nd December 2020, and 21st December 202

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2022 Supreme(SC) 1086

B. R. GAVAI, B. V. NAGARATHNAState of Uttar Pradesh – AppellantVersusUday Education and Welfare Trust – Respondent

Cases Referred (11)

B. R. GAVAI, B. V. NAGARATHNA
State of Uttar Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Uday Education and Welfare Trust – Respondent