ORDER

1. In compliance with our previous order dated 07.03.2024, applicant has filed English translation of the 7/12 extract of 2022-23 and 2023-24, which is found to be defective by the Registry as per its report dated 21.11.2024. But we overrule these objections and take this document on record.

2. Thereafter, we have heard the argument of learned counsel Ms. Reshma P. Bhurke representing applicant in this matter. When we asked from her as to what is the evidence in support of her case regarding pollution, she has drawn our attention to page no.96 of the paper book, wherein photographs of the site in question are annexed and indicating the same, it is urged by her that there are soot and dust particles, which can be clearly seen. But we cannot make out any such soot or dust particles visible in these photographs. Thereafter, she has drawn our attention to page no.97 of the paper book as well, in which there are also some photographs annexed, based on which it is tried to be asserted that there were fruit trees at the site in question and on the basis of this, it is further urged that the Joint Committee Report is absolutely false.

3. From the side of respondent No.2- MPCB, learned