<p>Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board report in Original Application No 112 of 2020 (Southern Zone) in the matter of Suo Motu Vs The Principal Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, Chennai
<p>Report on behalf of the Commissioner, Avadi Corporation in Original Application No 76 of 2020 (SZ) in the matter of Suo Motu Vs The Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu & Others.</p> <p>The
<p>Order of the National Green Tribunal in the matter of Rita Sharma & Others Vs State of Himachal Pradesh & Others dated 01/09/2021. Grievance in the application was against violation of Air Act
<p>Report by the Municipal Corporation, Singrauli in the matter of (Suvidha Seva Sansthan Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Others), 28/08/2021.</p> <p>An application was filed before the NGT stating that
<p>Order of the National Green Tribunal in the matter of Awasiya Jan Kalyan Samiti Vs State of Haryana dated 27/08/2021.</p> <p>The issue for consideration is the remedial action for discharge of untreated
<p>Order of the National Green Tribunal in the matter of Residents of Village Adampur, PO Masodi Khera, District Dholpur Vs State of Rajasthan dated 17/08/2021.</p> <p><a href="http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/file/legacy-waste-Adampur-NGT-order-August18-2021.pdf"
<p>Order of the Supreme Court of India in the matter of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Vs Nitin Shankar Despande & Others dated 13/08/2021.</p> <p>The matter related to discharge of untreated
<p>Report filed by the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board in compliance to the National Green Tribunal (NGT) order, January 7, 2021 in O.A. No. 301/2020 titled Satyapal Singh Vs State of Uttar Pradesh.</p>
<p>Compliance report filed by the Municipal Corporation, Bhopal in the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in the matter of Aarya Shrivastava Vs Ministry of Environment and Forest & Others.</p> <p>The matter
<p>Order of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in the matter of In Re Death of Sanitation Workers Vs Chief Secretary & Others dated 06/07/2021.</p> <p>The HC was looking at compensation payable to
