Back
NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, Judicial Member, AFROZ AHMAD, Expert Member
Om Pal – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicants allege illegal sand mining violations. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. joint committee inspections reveal initial compliance. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. court imposes mining restraint pending verification. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. supreme court interim allows conditional mining resumption. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. debate on mandatory cte/cto for sand mining. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 6. lease execution must align with ec validity. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 7. state must expedite environmental compensation recovery. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81) |
| 8. parties argue compliance and violations. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 9. court identifies joint committee report deficiencies. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 10. non-compliance with court orders noted. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49) |
| 11. ec/cto conditions violated by project proponent. (Para 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54) |
| 12. csr and green cover obligations unfulfilled. (Para 55 , 56) |
| 13. authorities negligent in monitoring compliance. (Para 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63) |
| 14. periodic inspections mandatory for oversight. (Para 64 , 65 , 66) |
| 15. lease/cto cannot exceed ec validity. (Para 67 , |
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
