National Green Tribunal
Rafeek Ahamad vs State Of Uttarakhand on 4 July, 2025
Item No. 1A Count No. 1
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Original Application No. 1101/2024
Rafeek Ahamad & Ors. Applicant(s)
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Ors. Respondent(s)
Date of completion of hearing and reserving of order: 18.03.2025
Date of pronouncement of order: 04.07.2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON
HON'BLE DR. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER
Applicant: Mr. Rahul Khurana, Mr. Hasil Jain, Mr. Shaim Hasan, Ms. Farha Shah,
Mr. Busra & Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Advs. for Applicant
Respondent: Mr. Mukesh Verma & Ms. Vatsala Tripathi, Advs. for UKPCB
Mr. Varun Sharma, Mr. Vedant Bijalwan, Mr. Abhishek Darmora & Mr.
Amarjeet, Advs. for R - 5 & 6
Mr. Sai Darshan Patra, proxy counsel for the State of Uttarakhand
ORDER
1. In this original application, the plea of the Applicant is that on 20.02.2023, serial blasts of firecracker explosives took place in the illegal firecracker factory/godown operated by Respondents no. 5 and 6 situated at Mohalla Kanoon Goyan, Panchayat Dharmashala, Roorkee, District Haridwar, Uttarakhand. The Applicant is claiming compensation under Sections 15 and 17 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (for short, "NGT Act") for the death and injury of the following persons in that incident:
(i) Arman aged 15 years (son of Applicant no.1- Rafeek Ahamad)
(ii) Adnan aged 13 years (son of Applicant no.2- Sagir Ahamad)
(iii) Naushad (son of Khurshid)- and brother of Applicant no. 3 (both parents of Naushad are pre deceased)
(iv) Saddam (son of Nasarat Hussain and Applicant no. 4(mother)) 1 Further 2 persons got severely injured:
(i) Neeraj (son of Chatarpal)
(ii) Suraj (son of Rajkumar)
2. The case of the Applicant is that Arman and Adnan were the helping hands of the family of Applicants Nos. 1 and 2, who used to work at the factory of Respondents Nos. 5 and 6. However, the true nature of the work undertaken by the Respondents Nos 5 and 6 was misrepresented and concealed from the Applicants. The Applicant alleges that the Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 were manufacturing, storing and selling the fireworks items without any licence or without complying with the rules, regulations and safety norms. They also did not have the Consent to Operate (for short, "CTO"). They were carrying out hazardous activities and caused workers to handle hazardous/dangerous explosives, which were kept in large quantities. Further case of the Applicant is that the Respondents No. 5 and 6 were running the firecracker and godown unit without any licence or permission from the Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board (for short, "UKPCB"), and in violation of rule 7, 9, 10 and 13 of the Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemical Rules, 1989 (for short, "the 1989 Rules") framed under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (for short, "EP Act") which is a schedule enactment under the NGT Act. The Applicant relies upon various orders of the NGT passed in similar circumstances, awarding compensation to the family members of the victims of illegal firecracker units.
3. The UKPCB has filed the reply disclosing that the Respondents No.. 5 and 6 were illegally operating the godown of firecrackers and they had not obtained permission/licence of the same from the competent authority under the Explosives Rules, 2008. The illegal godown was 2 located in a highly congested area, having access only through 6-foot- wide road, which restricted the movement of firefighting teams. Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 had stored the firecrackers without any fire and safety arrangements. The incident occurred on 20.02.2023, F.I.R. No. 198/2023 was lodged, and after investigation, the chargesheet has been filed.
4. The Respondent No. 3 District Magistrate, Haridwar has filed the reply disclosing the details of the firecracker godown which was being illegally run by the Respondents No. 5 and 6 and registration of the FIR.
5. The Respondent No. 5 in his reply dated 16.03.2025 took the stand that it is engaged in the business of retail sales of stationery products, kites, etc. and has a warehouse adjacent to the shop which contains reserves of the products to be sold in the shop, such as kites, charkha, etc. He further took the stand that the fire broke out due to short circuit in the inverter battery, in which the Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 had suffered the injuries. The registration of the FIR and criminal trial has been admitted by the Respondent No. 5.
6. The Respondent No. 6 in his reply has taken the stand that the subject shop does not belong to the Respondent No. 6 nor he has a stake in the shop. His stand is that the shop belongs to the Respondent No. 5, the Uncle of Respondent No. 6. The Respondent No. 6 took the stand that the fire broke out in the grocery shop of the uncle of Respondent No. 6 on 20.02.2023. At another place, he has taken the stand that the uncle of the Respondent No. 6 is engaged in the business of wholesale and retail sales of stationary products, kites, Holi colours, etc. and the fire broke out on account of short circuit in the inverter battery resulting in the unfortunate death of four persons and injury to two others. The stand of 3 Respondent No. 6 is that he has no connection with the ownership, management, control or operations of the business of Respondent No. 5.
7. Learned Counsel for the Applicants submits that the Respondents No. 5 and 6 were running the firecracker godown without any licence or permission in an illegal manner where the explosion took place in which sons and nephew of the Applicants had died and two others had received injuries, therefore, the family members of the deceased and injured persons are entitled to compensation in terms of the law settled by the NGT in various orders.
8. Counsel for the Respondent No. 2, UKPCB had supported the case of the Applicants that the fire broke out in the illegal firecracker factory run by the Respondents No. 5 and 6.
9. Counsel for the Respondent No. 3, District Magistrate, Haridwar has not appeared and has not advanced arguments.
10. The stand of the Respondents No. 5 and 6 is that they were not operating the firecracker unit, and in support of that stand, Counsel for the Respondents No. 5 and 6 has placed reliance upon the cross- examination of the witnesses recorded during the criminal trial of the offence registered against them.
11. We have heard Counsel for the parties at length.
12. It is undisputed that the fire broke out in the business premises of the Respondent No. 5 on 20.02.2023, in which Arman, Adnan, Naushad and Saddam had died, and Neeraj and Suraj had received injuries. However, he has denied storage firecrackers.
4
13. Immediately after the incident, the FIR No. 198/2023 was registered against the Respondents Nos 5 and 6. Based on the said FIR, the chargesheet was filed against the Respondents Nos. 5 and 6. Copy of the FIR has been placed on record, which states that the Respondents No. 5 and 6 had kept the explosives in the shop and the godown without a licence, wherein the fire had taken place, and the sound of bursting of crackers was also heard.
14. The Applicant has placed on record the newspaper reports as Annexure A-1, reporting the details of the fire incident in the firecracker godown.
15. The Respondent No. 3, District Magistrate, Haridwar has filed the reply, which also discloses that during the investigation, the unauthorised storage facility for firecrackers operated by the Respondents No. 5 and 6 was found. The stand of Respondent No. 3, in his reply, is as under:
"xxx ......................................xxx...........................................xxx
5. That the Respondent No. 3 further submits that the contents of Paragraphs 5, 6, and 7 of the application are also matters of record. However, it is significant to bring to the attention of this Hon'ble Court that, as per the investigation conducted, an unauthorized storage facility for firecrackers was being operated by Respondents No. 5 and 6. It is submitted that Respondents No. 5 and 6 did not obtain the requisite permission or license for such an operation from the Competent Authority under the Explosive Rules, 2008. Furthermore, Respondents No. 5 and 6 failed to implement the essential safety measures mandated for the storage of explosive materials, thereby violating statutory requirements.
6. That the Respondent No. 3 respectfully submits that the statements contained in Paragraphs 8, 9, 10, and 11 of the application are matters of record and are admitted to the extent they align with the records. However, it is reiterated that the incident occurred at an unauthorized and illegal firecracker godown. The said godown was situated in a highly congested area, accessible only by a narrow road approximately six feet in width, which severely hampered the movement and operational efficiency of firefighting teams during the incident.5
7. That the Respondent No. 3 further submits that the contents of Paragraphs 12 and 13 of the application are matters of record. It is reiterated, as stated in the preceding paragraphs, that the unfortunate incident was a direct result of the illegal storage of firecrackers by Respondents No. 5 and 6, who failed to ensure any fire safety or precautionary arrangements. It is pertinent to highlight that firecrackers are classified as "Explosives" under Schedule-1 (Part-I) (C) of the Manufacture, Storage, and Import of Hazardous Chemical Rules, 1989, as amended from time to time. However, it is submitted that a godown storing firecrackers does not fall under the definition of "industrial activities" as provided under the said Rules."
16. Along with the reply, the Respondent No. 3 has placed on record the joint inspection report as Annexure-1, which discloses the status found on joint inspection as under:
"निरीक्षण के समय श्री गोपाल ज िंदल पुत्र श्री सुशील कुमार, निवासी-93, कािूि गोयि, तहसील रुड़की एविं श्री सुशील कुमार पुत्र श्री प्रसन्ि प्रकाश निवासी-93, कािूि गोयि, तहसील रुड़की उपजथित िे। निरीक्षण आख्या निम्िवत हैः-
1. श्री आलोक ज िंदल एविं श्री आयुष ज िंदल द्वारा ववषयगत थिल पर अिनिकृ त रूप से पटाखों आदद का गोदाम बिाकर पटाखों आदद को भण्डाररत दकया गया िा। पटाखों आदद के भण्डारण/ववक्रय हे तु श्री आलोक ज िंदल एविं श्री आयुष ज िंदल द्वारा सक्षम थतर से ववथफोटक पदािथ नियम, 2008 के प्राविािों के अन्तगथत वािंनित लाईसेंस/अिुमनत प्राप्त िहीिं की गयी िी।
2. श्री आलोक ज िंदल एविं श्री आयुष ज िंदल द्वारा ज ि दक ु ािों को पटाखों आदद के गोदाम के रूप में प्रयोग दकया ा रहा िा वह थिल लगभग 6 फुट सिंकरी सड़क से ुड़ा हुआ अत्यन्त घिी आबादी वाला क्षेत्र ह, ो पटाखों से अन्य ववथफोटक पदािों के भण्डारण हे तु सवथिा अिुपयुक्त गह िी।
3. श्री आलोक ज िंदल एविं श्री आयुष ज िंदल द्वारा ववषयगत थिल को गोदाम के रूप में प्रयुक्त दकये ािे हे तु आवश्यक सुरक्षा उपायों-यिा अजनिशमि यिंत्रों की व्यव्थिाएँ आदद िहीिं की गयी िी।
4. पटाखें The Manufacture, Storage and import of Hazardous Chemical Rule, 1989 (as amended time to time) के Schedule-1 (Part-1) के अन्तगथत (C) Explosives के अन्तगथत वगीकृ त ह, तिावप ववषयगत प्रकरण मात्र पटाखों आदद के अिनिकृ त भण्डारण एविं रख-रखाव से सम्बजन्ित ह।"6
17. The Respondent No. 2, UKPCB in its reply has also clearly disclosed that the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were illegaliy operating the godown of firecrackers without permission. Reply of Respondent No. 2, UKPCB in this regard is as under:
"5) That the contents of paragraph no. 5 to 7 of said application are admitted only in so far as they are a matter of record. Anything contrary thereto is vehemently denied. However, it is pertinent to mention that as per investigation, there was an illegal godown of firecrackers being runed by the Respondent No. 5 & 6. The Respondents No. 5 & 6 has not obtained permission/license of the same from Competent Authority under the Explosive Rules, 2008. The Respondent No. 5 & 6 has also not undertaken essential safety measures as required for storage of explosive materials
6) That the contents of paragraph no. 8 to 11 of said application are admitted only in so far as they are a matter of record.
Anything contrary thereto is vehemently denied. However, it is further reiterated that incident occurred at the illegal godown of firecrackers etc. The illegal godown was located in the highly 9 congested area having access only through 6 feet wide road. which restrict the movement of firefighting teams.
7) That the contents of paragraph no. 12 and 13 of said application are admitted only in so far as they are a matter of record. Further, as stated in the preceding paras, the unfortunate incident was occurred due to illegal storge of firecrackers runed by the Respondents No. 5 & 6 without any fire and safety arrangements. It is pertinent to state that the firecrackers are classified as "Explosives" under Schedule-1 (Part-1) (C) of the Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemical Rules, 1989 as amended from time to time. However, godown of firecrackers would not be covered under the "industrial activities" as defined under the said Rules."
18. Respondents No. 5 and 6 have failed to place on record any material to contradict the plea that they were not illegally operating the firecracker godown. Respondents No. 5 and 6 have placed reliance upon the cross-examination of the witnesses recorded during trial to put-forth the case that they were not illegally running the firecracker godown or its business, but such reliance upon the cross-examination of some of the hostile witnesses alone is not enough to rebut the above noted material which has been placed on record by the Applicant and Respondents No. 2 7 and 3. Respondents No. 5 and 6 have not even placed on record the full charge-sheet or complete set of witnesses recorded during the criminal trial. That apart, the standard of proof which is required in the criminal trial is different from the one which is required in the present case.
19. Therefore, considering the above material which has been placed by the Applicant and Respondents No. 2 and 3 on record, we find that private Respondents were illegally operating the firecrackers business and had illegally kept the firecrackers in godown without any permission or license from the competent authority wherein fire incident took place resulting into the death of the persons mentioned above.
20. The Tribunal in similar circumstances in the matter of "In re: News item published in The News Indian Express dated 12.02.2021 titled At least 19 dead in Virudhunagar firecracker factory blast, more than 30 injured" in OA No. 44/2021 dated 11.06.2021, in a case where the fire broke out in an illegally operating firecracker unit has considered this issue in detail and while awarding the compensation of Rs. 20 Lakhs each to the family members of victims of the deceased and also compensation to the injured in proportion to the injuries received by them has held that:
"xxx....................................xxx......................................xxx
9. ....We also find that scale of compensation based on restitution principle needs to be awarded. Procedure of this Tribunal is summary and akin to public law remedy. Compensation can be assessed on reasonable basis guided by restitution principle atleast at floor level, leaving other remedies of the victims open. Thus, broadly agreeing with the Committee, we direct that the scale of compensation should be Rs.20 lakhs in respect of each of the deceased victims and Rs.15 lakhs to persons who have burns in excess of 50% and Rs.10 lakhs for persons who have burns from 25 to 50% and Rs.5 lakhs for persons who have injuries between 5 to 25%. Victims who were treated as outpatients and who had but minor degree of 8 burns or other forms of simple injuries shall be paid Rs.2 lakhs."
21. In this regard, Applicant has also placed reliance upon the order of the Tribunal dated 11.06.2021 passed in OA No. 44/2021 in re: News item published in The News Indian Express dated 12.02.2021 titled "At least 19 dead in Virudhunagar firecracker factory blast, more than 30 injured", wherein considering the similar issue, the Tribunal held that:
"5. The questions to be gone into are • Cause of incident • Persons responsible - liability of the State for failure of regulatory regime • Quantum of compensation - directions for payment • Need for remedial measures • Compliance Cause of incidents
6. It has been clearly found that in the present case deaths and injuries are on account of unscientific handling of hazardous chemicals for business purposes.
Persons responsible - Liability of the State for its failure
7. The persons who had taken licences had further rented out the premises. Some private persons have been identified. It is also clear that incidents are frequent. Activities are highly dangerous but are not being regulated by the State PCB, Labour Department and the District Magistrate. The State has failed to put in appearance or give any explanation for its failure to protect lives of citizens by enforcing the law. The reason may be negligence of the concerned officers or incompetence. In such circumstances, the victims have to be compensated by the State and the State can recover the amount from erring parties. Primary liability is of the occupiers of the premises where activities were carried out leading to the incidents and the operators of the hazardous activity. It is the occupier who allowed the activities and the operators obviously were directly involved. The liability is joint and several and absolute. As found by the Committee there was failure to follow safety norms. Under MSIHC Rules 1989, Director Industrial Safety and District Magistrate have crucial role to oversee safety norms. In schedule V to the Rules, their responsibilities are clearly laid down. State PCB has responsibility to ensure that no industrial activity have potential for pollution of air or Water are run without consent to establish and consent to operate. Incidents are frequent but the State authorities have failed to perform their regulatory obligations for safety in operation of hazardous activities. We note that GO dated 23.12.2010 has been issued by the State to declare that the firecracker activities are covered by the Factories Act but the High 9 Court has granted stay on 30.11.2011. However, this could not prevent either the State PCB or the District Magistrate or the Director Industrial Safety to discharge their statutory responsibility for ensuring safety of the workers and other citizens. Thus, the State cannot avoid responsibility to pay compensation to the victims in these circumstances. The victims need immediate relief and it is not possible for the victims to chase the violators who are scattered and whose means are not known. It is the State who have by its failure permitted illegal hazardous activities being carried out which has resulted in deaths and injuries. Public trust doctrine applies in the circumstances. The State is at liberty to recover from the violators or the erring officers. We have taken this view recently while dealing with another similar incident in Gujrat where hazardous activity was found to be operated illegally resulting in deaths and injuries and the violator did not appear to have known sources for payment of compensation. Vide order dated 23.03.2021 in O.A. No. 258/2020, In Re: News item published in the "Indian Express"
dated 04.11.2020 titled "Ahmedabad: Nine killed as godown collapses after factory blast" this Tribunal held that the State will be liable to pay compensation to the victims except the victims who was responsible for the incident with liberty to recover from erring persons. Relevant extract from the order is as follows:-
"9. ......For death of all other persons and injured, the State will be liable to pay compensation, without prejudice to its right to recover the same from the violators of law or erring officers, following due process of law. The responsibility for compliance will be of the Chief Secretary, Gujarat, through the District Magistrate, Ahmedabad. In the light of directions already issued for preventive action by way of compliance of laid down safety norms, the State of Gujrat needs to take remedial measures to ensure that such incidents do not occur and hold accountable persons responsible for failure of the oversight. We also direct a joint Committee of Director, Industrial Safety and Health (DISH), Gujarat, and State PCB in coordination with respective Municipal Corporations and District Magistrates to conduct survey of the entire State to ascertain if any other such activities are going on, and if so to take remedial action by way of closing such illegal activities. The State PCB will be the nodal agency for coordination and compliance. The said Committee may give its report to the Chief Secretary, Gujarat within three months for further remedial action."
Principle of absolute liability
8. It is established law since MC Mehta (1987) 1 SCC 395 and later judgements that liability of the person undertaking hazardous activities for commercial gains for any accident and loss is absolute. Quantum of compensation
9. From the report, it is clear that 27 persons have died and 26 injured on account of fire incidents which were result of unscientific handling of hazardous chemicals in violation of law. We also find that scale of compensation based on restitution principle needs to be awarded. Procedure of this Tribunal is summary and akin to 10 public law remedy. Compensation can be assessed on reasonable basis guided by restitution principle atleast at floor level, leaving other remedies of the victims open. Thus, broadly agreeing with the Committee, we direct that the scale of compensation should be Rs.20 lakhs in respect of each of the deceased victims and Rs.15 lakhs to persons who have burns in excess of 50% and Rs.10 lakhs for persons who have burns from 25 to 50% and Rs.5 lakhs for persons who have injuries between 5 to 25%. Victims who were treated as outpatients and who had but minor degree of burns or other forms of simple injuries shall be paid Rs.2 lakhs.
10. Accordingly, we hold that the compensation assessed has to be paid by the State of Tamilnadu through the District Magistrate, Virudhunagar. Compliance will be responsibility of the Chief Secretary. Payment be ensured within one month from today. Ex gratia amount already paid may be deducted. We request the TN State Legal Services authority to provide legal aid to ensure that payment is made to genuine heirs of the deceased and to the injured without undue hassle. Remedial Measures
11. Apart from requirement of compensating the victims, the issue remains how such incidents are to be prevented and if such incident happens what steps are to be taken to prevent loss of lives and health. There is need for review of the matter at highest level in the State to consider the remedial steps. Hazardous activities need to regulated in terms of quantity of material to be used in the process of hazardous activities, number of persons to be allowed to work and safeguards to be followed and monitoring compliance of such safeguards.
In a recent order dated 3.2.2021 in OA 85/2020, Aryavrat Foundation vs. Yashyashvi Rasayan Pvt Ltd, the Tribunal observed "We note that in the recent past the Tribunal has come across the number of incidents of leakage of gases and handling of hazardous chemicals. On investigation, this Tribunal has found that most of the accidents are result of non-compliance of laid down safety norms under the 1989 Rules and the Chemical Accidents (Emergency Planning, Preparedness and Response) Rules, 1996 [1996 Rules]. There is, thus, need for the establishments handling hazardous chemicals to strictly follow the laid down norms, which need to be overseen by the statutory regulators...
In view of frequent accidents resulting in deaths and injuries, the Chief Secretaries of all the States/UTs may evolve a mechanism to ensure that the companies dealing with hazardous substance must forthwith pay compensation for deaths and injuries to the victims at least as per Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 wherever applicable or the principle of restitution laid down in Sarla Verma (supra), National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 to the victims either directly or through the District Magistrate. Conduct of safety audits of all establishments having potential for such accidents may be ensured. All States/UTs may also 11 ensure availability of healthcare facilities in the vicinity of such establishments. PCB and DM must assess cost of restoration of environment which should be recovered from company and spent on such restoration. The States and UTs in accordance with 1989 and 1996 Rules need to step up vigilance, surveillance and monitoring to avert such accidents. Preparedness to meet such eventualities be ensured. Regular mock drills may be ensured in respect of onsite and offsite emergency plans. We may also refer to the directions issued by this Tribunal to the MoEF&CC and all the States/UTs on the subject of strengthening regulatory and oversight measures, vide order dated 01.02.2021 in OA 837/2018, Sandeep Mittal vs. Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change & Ors."
12. The Committee has suggested measures in a tabular form indicating the authorities who have to adopt such measures. We are in broad agreement with the said suggestions.
13. Apart from the measures suggested by the Committee, there is also need for a study of the carrying capacity of the area to sustain the extent of such activities having regard to the potential for accidental, occupational and environmental hazards. The study may include number of units to be allowed, size of operation of such units, quantity of material to be used, siting criteria for location of the units, arrangement for fire management and health services. Let such study be conducted by the Director of Industrial Safety in coordination with the State PCB and CPCB within three months and report submitted to the Chief Secretary, Tamil Nadu for further action. The Committee may take the assistance of any other experts/individual.
14. Further, there is need for review at highest level in the State. We direct the Chief Secretary, Tamilnadu to hold a meeting with all the concerned stake holders, as identified by the Committee in the table in the report quoted above, titled 'Remedial Measures to Prevent Accidents', within one month. After necessary deliberations, appropriate remedial measures be identified to avoid recurrence of such incidents in future. The same may be implemented through the District Magistrate or any other appropriate authority as per law, which may be overseen by the Chief Secretary. The State PCB may incorporate appropriate conditions in consents including prohibiting use of banned chemicals, compliance of 1989 and 1996 Rules. Further, mechanism to ensure taking of insurance policies covering risk to life and health of all workers and others likely to be affected by fire or other accidents. Mechanism may provide monitoring of compliance and stopping activities of units not following laid down sops and regulations. Substance of this order and regulatory measures may be published in local area in vernacular language for information of local inhabitants to facilitate information and compliance."
22. The present case stands on the same footing, therefore, the Applicants are required to be treated in the same manner as the family 12 members of the victims have been treated in the above orders of the Tribunal. Thus, we allow the OA by holding that the family members of the deceased victims are entitled to receive Rs. 20 Lakhs for the death of each person. The injured are also entitled to receive the compensation in the manner which has been settled by the Tribunal in the above order, depending upon the nature and extent of injuries received by them, which will be ascertained by Respondent No. 3, District Magistrate, Haridwar, on the basis of their medical record. The Respondent No. 3, District Magistrate, Haridwar, will ascertain and identify the legal representatives of the above deceased and also identify the injured persons and will ensure that the compensation awarded by this order is disbursed to them.
23. In terms of the order of the Tribunal in OA No. 44/2021, the compensation, at the first instance, is required to be paid by the State of Uttarakhand through the District Magistrate, Haridwar. It will be open to the State to recover this amount from the Respondents No. 5 and 6. Compliance will be the responsibility of the Chief Secretary, State of Uttarakhand. Let this exercise be completed within three months from today.
24. OA is accordingly disposed of.
Prakash Shrivastava, CP Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM July 04, 2025 Original Application No. 1101/2024 Avt..
13