National Green Tribunal
Manu Narala vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 May, 2026
Item No.01
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
CENTRAL ZONE BENCH, BHOPAL
(THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)
Original Application No.120/2026(CZ)
(I.A. No.81/2026 & I.A. No.82/2026)
Earlier O.A. No.579/2025(PB)
Manu Narala Applicant(s)
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Respondent(s)
Date of Hearing: 20.05.2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. SUDHIR KUMAR CHATURVEDI, EXPERT MEMBER
For Applicant (s): None
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Parul Bhadoria, Adv. for MPPCB
Mr. Rajat Jariwal, Adv. for R-5
ORDER
1. This Original Application have been taken on a letter petition in exercise of the suo motu jurisdiction in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. Ankita Sinha (2022) 13 SCC 401. The allegations in this application are against M/s Ultratech Cement Limited, a unit of Birla White in Badwara tehsil of district Katni with regard to illegal mining of dolomite. The application was registered at Principle Bench of National Green Tribunal and was transferred to this Bench on the basis of territorial jurisdiction. The allegations as levelled in the application were sent to a Joint Committee nominated by this Tribunal consisting the representative of MoEF&CC, CPCB, State PCB and the District Magistrate, who visited the site and submitted the report. 1 O.A. No.120/2026(CZ) Manu Narala Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
2. The issues referred under the letter petition are as follows:
a. Illegal mining of dolomite mineral and backfilling at Khasra No. 5, 13, 14 (part) by M/s Ultratech Cement Ltd. b. Illegal mining from outside of mine lease area at Khasra No. 13 (part).
c. Inclusion of Khasra No. 5 in its sanctioned mining lease. d. The land under Khasra Nos. 8/52 to 8/60 is owned by local tribes and therefore cannot be allotted for mining purposes without tendering process.
e. Illegal mining from outside of mine lease area at 0.52-hectare site situated in Bhadawar, Katni.
f. Alleged impact on water quality in the surrounding areas due to surface runoff/overflow from mining operations to the water bodies in Jhanpi & Bhajiya village.
g. Alleged violation of EC with regard to:
i. Plantation/green belt development. ii. Status of 7.5 meter barrier zone (safety zone) around the mining area.
Provision of garland drains, check dams etc. iv. Stabilization of OB dumps with proper height and slope. v. Violations of mine safety provisions i.e. height and slope of OB dumps .
3. Members of the Committee visited the site and submitted the report as follows:-
1. The mining lease is located at Village Chhaparwah, Tehsil Badwara, District Katni, Madhya Pradesh. The lease was allocated to M/s Alcon Laboratory and Industries (India) by Mineral Resource Department (MRD), Govt. of MP (GoMP) vide order No. 3-37/80/12 Bhopal dated 06.08.1980 for mining of limestone, dolomite, bauxite, soapstone in the lease area of 10.117 ha (previously Khasara No. 176/1 & 176/2 part) for a period of ten years i.e. 23.02.1981 to 22.02.1991. Further, vide order dated 05.07.1985 the lease area was extended to 19.71 ha (Khasra no. 176/land 176/2 & 176/13) for a period of 20 years i.e. 23.02.1981-22.02.2001.2
O.A. No.120/2026(CZ) Manu Narala Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
2. In the meantime, bandobast (revenue land settlement) was carried out during the year 1989-90, wherein the Khasra Nos.
176/1, 176/2 and 176/13 were resurveyed and allocated revised Khasra Nos. 13 & 31 based on the manual survey. It is noted that a part of Khasra Nos. 13 & 31 was granted in Mining Lease to M/s Alcon Laboratory and Industries (India)., (M/s ALI). Thus, it is understood that the lease boundary was resurveyed and remapped comprising an aera of 19.71 ha.
3. Later on, the mining lease period extended for further 20 years, i.e., 23.02.2001- 22.02.2021 by the MRD, GoMP vide order No. 3-23/2002/12/2 Bhopal dated 09.08.2002 on the part of new Khasra nos. 13 & 31.
4. Environmental Clearance (EC) was granted to M/s ALI vide letter dated 16.12.2009 (based on the application dated 13.10.2008) for dolomite & limestone mining in the mine lease area, 19.71 ha at village Chhaparwah, District Katni. It is noted that there is no mention of geo-coordinates in the EC.
5. In 2009, vide order no. 3-23/2002/12/2 Bhopal dated 10.08.2009, the mine lease was transferred to M/s Grasim Industries. Further, the mine lease was transferred to M/s Ultratech Cement Ltd. vide order no. 3-23/2002/12/2 Bhopal dated 13.07.2011. Thus, as on date, the mine lease is in the lease holding of M/s UTCL.
6. During the EC transfer process, M/s Grasim Industries Ltd.
submitted proposal for expansion along with transfer of Environmental Clearance (EC) on 21.12.2010 and ToR was issued on 11.02.2011. Subsequently, M/s Ultratech Cement Ltd. submitted the proposal requesting to amend the name in the name of M/s Ultratech Cement Ltd. (herein after referred as "Project Proponent") vide letter dated 20.08.2011.
7. Thus, the EC was accorded by MPSEIAA vide letter No. 1085/SEIAA/13 dated 25.06.2013 to M/s UTCL for expansion of dolomite and limestone mining for enhancement of production capacity from 6600 ΤΡΑ to 500000 TPA. Now, the EC mentions geo-coordinates of the mine lease, as Latitude 23°39'21.9" to 23°39'39.6"N and Longitude 80°34'42.5" to 80°35'11.11"E.
8. It is noted that the geo-coordinates mentioned in EC are corresponding to part of the Khasra Nos. 14, 5 & 13, which is contradictory to the allocated mine lease, i.e., parts Khasra No. 13 & 31. It is pertinent to mention that the geo-coordinates were 3 O.A. No.120/2026(CZ) Manu Narala Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
not mentioned in the documents/mine lease deed received from MRD, GoMP /Local Revenue Department.
9. The mine lease was re-opened by UTCL in 2013. A copy of the letter dated 29.07.2013 by UTCL to Director General of Mines and safety, Dhanbad to inform re-opening of mine, is enclosed as Annexure-06.
10. It is noted that the EC of the mining lease areas at Khasra no.13 and 31 parts measuring 19.71 hectare was granted to M/s Alcon Laboratories in December, 2009. However, before grant of EC in August 2009, mining lease was already transferred in the name of M/s Grasim Industries Ltd. and further it was transferred to M/s UTCL in July 2011 without any modification in the EC. The first EC was granted in June 2013 in the name of UTCL.
11. As per the EC granted in 2013 to M/s UTCL, though the mining lease area mentioned in EC is 19.71 ha at Khasra No. 13 & 31 parts, However the mining area defined by the coordinates specified in the EC comprised Khasra Nos. 13 (part), 5 (part), and 14 (part) measuring a total area of 19.71 hectares, which remained under the possession and operation of the project proponent for mining purposes till 2019. Subsequently, upon digitization of the revenue maps and DGPS-based demarcation of the site in 2019, the mining lease area, as per the revised geospatial delineation, had shifted southwards by approximately 90 to 120 metres. The lease area, as per the updated coordinates (Latitude: 23.659854°N to 23.655492°N and Longitude: 80.586099°E to 80.577727°E), now encompasses land falling under Khasra Nos. 13 (part), 31 (part), and 5 (part) which is presently under the possession of the Project Proponent where mining operation is being undertaken.
12. It may be noted that the granted EC mentions only Khasra no.
13 & 31 parts but as per the revenue maps and Bhuabhilekh portal of MP government, the demarcated lease area also includes Khasara no. 5 part which is under the possession of the project proponent where mining is being carried out. Hence, the mining being done on the Khasara no. 5 part is illegal. However, it was claimed by the Project Proponent and as informed by the Revenue officer that the khasra no. 5 has been inadvertently marked in the allocated lease area during the bandobast. Also, it is informed that a case has already been 4 O.A. No.120/2026(CZ) Manu Narala Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
filed vide Case No. 228/B-121-2022-23 seeking correction of the revenue maps which is pending before the SDO (Revenue) Court, Katni. Since, the matter is sub judice before the SDO (Revenue) Court, Katni, hence the committee has made no comments regarding illegality of mining at khasra no. 5.
13. Project Proponent also obtained the renewal of Consent to Operate from the MPPCB vide order dated 31.10.2023 under section 25 of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 & under section 21 of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, for mining of Limestone & Dolomite of quantity 5,00,000 MTPA which is valid up to 29.10.2028.
5. Brief on the mining operation of Dolomite and Putty manufacturing process:
• Mining Operation:
All mining operations are carried out by deployment of heavy earth moving machineries for excavation, loading & transport. Mining operations such as development, drilling, winging of ore, loading and transport etc. are being carried out by opencast fully mechanized method of mining using JCB, excavator cum loader shovel, loader etc. Presently total excavated area is about 5.89 ha with approximate depth of 35-40 m at combined Khasra No. 13, 5 & 31 parts with Lat-23.658157°N, Long-80.383060 E. From the loading point of view, mineral is transported by truck/dumper to its own plant. Loading of mineral/waste in to truck/ dumper is being done by excavator cum loader.
• Putty manufacturing process:
The putty manufacturing unit is M/s Ultratech Cement Ltd (Unit of Birla White), located at Village-Patti Jherela, Tehsil-Badwara, Katni.
The unit has obtained the Consent to Operate from the MPPCB vide order dated 02.06.2025 under section 25 of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 & under section 21 of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, which is valid till 31.07.2030.
As verified from the records, the last three years raw material and production details are as under:5
O.A. No.120/2026(CZ) Manu Narala Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
1) Quantity of dolomite mined out & the quantity of dolomite dispatched from Chhaparwah mines, the data was verified from e-Khanij portal by Mining Department, Katni.
The mined mineral is being used for manufacturing of Putty, which is a batch production process. The main raw material of putty production is dolomite lumps (80% dolomite use as raw material in putty production), which is crushed in the crusher and crushed material stored in hopper. Crushed dolomite lumps, clinker and gypsum mix are fed in to the required proportion and grind in the ball Mill. The chalk powder transported to the silo by mechanical conveying system. The chalk powder, white cement and polymers is mixed in mixture machine and the finally mixed product transported to putty storage silo. The putty from silos is extracted by aeration and transported to packaging machine where carry bags are filled with putty and sent to loading points by a system of belt conveyors. The bags are manually / automatically loaded in trucks and containers. The unit has provided an open stockyard within the plant premises for temporary storage of raw material with an area of 8.99 ha (Khasra No. 71, 72, 73, 74 & 75). On the day of visit, about 28000-29000 MT of raw material was stored at the stockyard.
6 O.A. No.120/2026(CZ) Manu Narala Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
6. Site visit of the Joint Committee • The Joint Committee along with other concerned officials from District Revenue department, District Mining department, Plant officials and the Applicant (Shri Manu Narla) conducted a site visit on 2nd January, 2026 to verify the factual status on the ground of the allegations raised by the Applicant in the letter petition, to collect information from the project authorities and other concerned authorities, and to collect surface water and ground water samples.
• The Committee also gave an opportunity to the Applicant to submit his views and also requested him to physically show the locations pertaining to the allegations made in the letter petition, particularly with regard to the alleged illegal mining sites.
• The Joint Committee visited the nearby areas of Jhanpi and Bhajiya villages, as mentioned in the letter petition, along with team of officials and local villagers. Further, efforts were made to assess the present status of surface and groundwater quality in the area during the visit of the Committee.
• After the visit, the applicant submitted further representation (which includes same points as letter petition) through his representatives (Sh. R.K. Agrawal & Sh. Aryan Agrwal) to the Committee.
7. Observation of the Joint Committee:
• Based on the deliberations held during visit, observations made during site inspections of the mining lease areas, sampling and analysis of surface & ground water and documents made available to the Committee, the following observations are made:7
O.A. No.120/2026(CZ) Manu Narala Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.8
O.A. No.120/2026(CZ) Manu Narala Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.9
O.A. No.120/2026(CZ) Manu Narala Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.10
O.A. No.120/2026(CZ) Manu Narala Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.11
O.A. No.120/2026(CZ) Manu Narala Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Surface & Ground Water Quality of the surrounding water bodies:
• As per the letter petition, the water quality of the ponds located in Jhanpi and Bhajiya village area getting deteriorated due to surface runoff water of M/s UTCL. As observed, there is no river within radius of about 6 kms, and only seasonal nala flows. To 12 O.A. No.120/2026(CZ) Manu Narala Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
assess the present status of water quality 03 water samples were collected from borewell located at Jhanpi village, pond located at back side of Jhanpi village and pond located at Bhajiya village for analysis.
• The Joint Committee interacted with Sarpanch of Jhanpi and Bhajiya village on effect on water quality, if any. The Sarpanch of Bhajiya and Kachhari (Jhanpi) village informed in writing that no surface runoff/overflow from the mine area is received in the nearby water bodies and there is no adverse effect on the water quality in their locality.
• The details of the sampling locations are shown below:
8. Remedial actions recommended by the Joint Committee:
On the basis of the above observations made during inspection of the Committee, the following recommendations are submitted for implementation by the project proponent for further improvement:
1. To undertake a fresh joint DGPS-based demarcation of the entire mining lease in coordination with the IBM, Revenue Department, and Mining Department, to clearly establish the 13 O.A. No.120/2026(CZ) Manu Narala Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
lease boundaries along with the corresponding khasra numbers. The demarcated boundaries to be permanently marked on the ground through pillars or fencing and uniformly incorporated in the mining plans, EC, CTO, and revenue records. It is advised that the fresh survey should be undertaken in reference to the village Field Measurement Book (FMB) sketch map.
2. To obtain an amended EC from the MPSEIAA, in view of changes in coordinates. lease configuration, and khasra numbers impacting the EC. Consistency to be ensured between EC coordinates, lease maps, and ground demarcation to prevent future disputes.
3. To take necessary steps for resolving pending revenue cases related to correction of khasra maps, including Khasra No. 5. before the SDO (Revenue) Court. The Revenue Department to expedite the issue of correction of Khasra numbers as pending before the SDO (Revenue) Court, Katni.
4. To ensure that all mining, backfilling, and reclamation activities are executed strictly in line with the approved Mining Plan/Review of Mining Plan and the provisions of the MCDR, 2017. Any changes in land use. mining sequence, or lease area, shall be undertaken only with prior approval from the IBM and other competent authorities.
5. To restore and maintain the 7.5-meter safety zone uniformly across the entire mining lease. Haul roads overlapping with the safety zone, particularly along the northern boundary. to be relocated or realigned. A greenbelt should be developed in accordance with FC condition.
6. The project proponent may expedite the matter with Mineral Resource Department. Katni, Govt of M.P for obtaining storage/stockyard licence under the MP Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining. Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2022 for storage of dolomite within the plant premises.
4. In response to the above application the Respondent No.5 has filed the reply by filing the I.A. No.82/2026 and submitted that the Original Application does not raise any "substantial question relating to environment" within the meaning of Sections 14 and 2(1)(m) of the NGT Act and is accordingly liable to be rejected at the very threshold. The true character of the OA, stripped of its environmental veneer, is a 14 O.A. No.120/2026(CZ) Manu Narala Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
dispute relating to: (a) alleged illegal extraction of minerals beyond the lease boundary; (b) alleged encroachment upon adjoining khasra numbers, in particular Khasra No. 5; (c) alleged excess excavation and dispatch of minerals; (d) alleged non-possession of a stock/storage licence; (e) alleged discrepancy in production and dispatch figures; and
(f) alleged non-compliance with the sanctioned mining plan. Every document relied upon by the Applicant directly addresses these mining and land demarcation issues: lease deeds, revenue records, demarcation maps, production and dispatch data, and complaints to mining and revenue authorities. The OA is, in substance, a mining-law and land-revenue dispute dressed in environmental language and argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Auroville Foundation v. Navroz Kersasp Mody & Ors. (2025) 4 SCC 150 ("Auroville") has authoritatively laid down that two cumulative jurisdictional preconditions must be satisfied before this Tribunal may assume jurisdiction under Section 14 of the NGT Act: (1) a substantial question relating to environment, as defined in Section 2(1)(m) of the NGT Act, must be involved; and (2) such question must arise out of the implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I. Both conditions must co-exist.
5. The grievances articulated in the OA arise, if at all, under the following statutes and regulatory instruments, none of which are included in Schedule I to the NGT Act:
(a) Mines Act, 1952;
(b) Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act ("MMDR"), 1957;
(c) Mineral Concession Rules, 1960
(d) Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961;
(e) Explosives Rules, 2008;
(f) Madhya Pradesh Minor Mineral Rules, 1996;15
O.A. No.120/2026(CZ) Manu Narala Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
(g) Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959; and
(h) Madhya Pradesh Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2006 and 2022.
6. The Tribunal has consistently recognized that disputes arising under mining statutes including inter alia the MMDR Act, 1957 and State mineral concession rules fall outside its jurisdiction, as these statutes are not included in Schedule I of NGT Act. Similarly, issues relating to land rights, boundary demarcation, revenue records, and encroachment belong to the domain of the civil courts and the revenue authorities of the State. The statutory test under Section 2(1)(m) of the NGT Act reinforces this legal requirement. For a "substantial question relating to environment" to arise, there must be: (a) a direct violation of a specific statutory environmental obligation arising out of statutes mentioned in Schedule 1; (b) by which the community at large is affected or is likely to be affected, or the gravity of environmental damage is substantial, or the damage to public health is broadly measurable. It is not every petty or inconsequential alleged omission or non-compliance which requires interference by Tribunal. The OA places no material of concrete, measurable environmental degradation before this Hon'ble Tribunal. There is no identification of a specific provision of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, or the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, each being a Schedule I enactment, that has been violated, independently of the mining and demarcation controversy. The proposition that mere allegations of illegal mining, excess dispatch, or encroachment into neighbouring khasras automatically vests this Hon'ble Tribunal with jurisdiction is legally impermissible and has been expressly rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 16 O.A. No.120/2026(CZ) Manu Narala Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
7. The aforesaid position has been further confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Singh Gehlot & Ors. v. Amitabha Sen & Ors. 2026 SCC Online SC 97. In the foregoing judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, following Auroville, categorically held that the Hon'ble NGT's jurisdiction is confined to substantial questions of environment arising from Schedule I enactments, and that where the core controversy pertains to matters such as alleged change of land use, deviation from sanctioned plans, or questions of land utilization already under consideration before the Hon'ble High Court, the NGT would not be justified in assuming jurisdiction. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that not every dispute with an environmental overlay constitutes a 'substantial question relating to environment', and where the controversy is essentially rooted in contested factual claims regarding land use and development, the invocation of the Tribunal's jurisdiction is improper.
8. The issue of the stock/storage license raised in the OA is similarly the subject matter of proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in W.P. No. 14146 of 2025, wherein a stay order is presently operating in favour of Respondent No. 5. The constitutional forum seized of that dispute has exclusive competence to determine questions of regulatory entitlement under the relevant licensing and mineral storage laws, none of which, it is reiterated, fall within Schedule I of the NGT Act. Further, as evident from notice dated 23.04.2024 (Annexure 3 of the OA), the issue of alleged backfilling and alleged violation of mining statutes is already pending with Indian Bureau of mines ("IBM"). It would be contrary to the doctrine of institutional comity, and to the settled principle against 17 O.A. No.120/2026(CZ) Manu Narala Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
concurrent adjudication, for this Tribunal to permit a parallel examination of those issues.
9. It is further argued that the OA is ex facie barred by limitation and is liable to be dismissed at the threshold on this ground alone. Section 14(3) of the NGT Act expressly provides that no application for adjudication of a dispute shall be entertained by the Tribunal unless it is filed within six months from the date on which the cause of action for such dispute first arose, with the sole exception of a further condonable period not exceeding sixty days upon the applicant demonstrating sufficient cause for the delay. Similarly, Section 15(3) provides that no application for relief, compensation, or restitution shall be entertained unless made within five years from the date on which the cause for such relief first arose. The use of the expression "first arose" in both provisions is deliberate and unambiguous: it forecloses the device of reviving stale claims by loosely asserting that the effects or consequences of the original act continue to the present day.
10. That the non-applicability of the doctrine of "continuing cause of action in proceedings before the NGT has been authoritatively established in a number of cases. In Aradhana Bhargav v. Ministry of Environment and Forests, 2013 SCC online NGT 84, the Central Zonal Bench of this Tribunal expressly held that the concept of continuing cause of action has no application where Sections 14(3) and 15(3) prescribe limitation from the date the cause of action "first arose", and that stale challenges cannot be entertained by treating long-past events as continuing wrongs. The same principle was reaffirmed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Windsor Realty Pvt. Ltd. v. Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests, 2016 SCC Online Bom 18 O.A. No.120/2026(CZ) Manu Narala Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
5613, where the Court held that the concept of continuous cause of action is inapplicable to NGT proceedings given the specific statutory language prescribing limitation from the date of first accrual. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the period of limitation statutorily prescribed has to be strictly adhered to and cannot be relaxed on equitable considerations.
11. That, tested against this settled principle, the present proceedings are ex facie time-barred on the Applicant's own pleadings. The Applicant expressly avers that: (a) the Mine has been operational since 2012; (b) purported illegal excavation in the mining area was carried out from 2014 to 2019; (c) illegal mining in other parcels has allegedly been ongoing since 2014; and (d) alleged encroachment into Khasra No. 5 commenced in 2018. The alleged cause of action, if any, thus first arose more than a decade before the institution of the present proceedings on 09.06.2025. Such long-stale allegations cannot now be repackaged as a fresh environmental just because the Applicant has been unsuccessful before different fora. As held in Aradhana Bhargav (supra) and Windsor Realty (supra), and other pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, limitation under the NGT Act runs from the point when the cause of action first arose, not from when the applicant elects to approach this Hon'ble Tribunal, and the limitation period has to be strictly adhered to.
12. It is further argued that the matter and grievances as raised in the application are pending before the appropriate forum and the precautionary principle cannot expand the jurisdiction. It is further argued that the matter with regard to identification and demarcation of the land is pending before the Court of Additional Collector or Tehsildar.
19 O.A. No.120/2026(CZ) Manu Narala Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
13. The matter relates to boundaries, identification and demarcation and permanent marking on the ground through pillars or fencing and uniformly incorporation in the mining plan which can be taken by the appropriate revenue forum and the matter is pending before the revenue forum, thus, this Tribunal does not require to interfere in the proceedings which is going on the Revenue courts. However, we direct the State PCB to regularly monitor the compliance of environmental conditions. With these observations, the Original Application No.120/2026 (CZ) along with I.A. No.81/2026 and I.A. No.82/2026 stands disposed of.
Sheo Kumar Singh, JM Sudhir Kumar Chaturvedi, EM 20th May, 2026, Original Application No.120/2026(CZ) (I.A. No.81/2026 & I.A. No.82/2026) Earlier O.A. No.579/2025(PB) I.D. 20 O.A. No.120/2026(CZ) Manu Narala Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.