Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
For Petitioners :- Mr. M.C. Mehta, Mr. K.R. Rajasekaran Pillai, Advocates. For the Union of India. :- Mr. N.N. Goswami, Sr.Adv. Mr. S. Wasim A. Qadri, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocates. For the Respondents No.4 and 8 :- Mr. Shanti Bhushan, Sr.Advocate. Mr. Vikas Singh, Mr. Yunus Malik, Miss Amrita Narayan, Mr. Ravi Prakash, Mr. Prashant Chaudhary, Advocates. For the Rajasthan State :- Mr. K.B. Rohtagi, Pollution Control Ms. Aparna Rohatgi Jain, Board Mr. Manoj Kumar, Mr. Mahesh Kasana, Advocates. For the State of Raj. Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, Addl. Adv. Genl, Raj. Naveen Kumar Singh, Ms. Shivangi, Mr. S.K. Dhingra, Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, Mr. P. Parmeswaran, Mr. Shail Kumar Dwivedi, Mr. T. Raja, Mr. S.C. Sharma, Advocates. Environmental law - Polluting industries - Environmental damage in villages - Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board and the Union of India, directed to come forward with information specifying the works to be undertaken on priority basis in order to remedy the environmental damage in the villages concerned. [Para ]ORDER
1. The notices to the Financial Institutions/Bank have not returned served. Fresh notices shall be got served to the four financial institutions/bank through the concerned City Civil Court/District Court. The notices shall also intimate the next date of hearing as 13th July, 2005. 2. The Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board and the Union of India, in consultation with the technical personnel/expert, shall come forward with the information specifying the works to be undertaken on priority basis in the first instance in order to remedy the environmental damage in the villages concerned. In this connection we may note that certain recommendations in regard to the execution of works phase-wise, were made in the Expert Committee Report of July 2002 preparedby Scnes/Neeri. They may be taken into account to the extent necessary for furnishing the said information. For this the matter may be posted on 12th May, 2005. In the meanwhile the parties are at liberty to file additional affidavit/written submissions. The copies of the reports to be furnished by the Registry to the counsel for the respondents, whoever may request for the same, at their cost. I.A. No.37: 3. There is nothing to clarify in this I. A. in the manner in which the applicant desires. We have no reason to think that the appeal will not be disposed of in accordance with law. The I.A. is dismissed as unnecessary. .