Every year, homeowners around the country suffer billions of dollars in property damage caused by termites. South Carolina residents are no different. Here in The Palmetto State, termites are especially active due to our ideal climate. Everyone loves our springs and summers, and so do termites. They're known to wreak havoc on the structural integrity of homes in the Lowcountry and throughout the state. It may be surprising to hear, then, that many of the homes we're referencing had termite bonds - which is essentially a contract between a homeowner and their termite prevention company. This bond holds the company accountable if termites or damage are found after treatment. Unfortunately, many termite control services and insurance companies try to escape responsibility, using complicated contracts, terms, and language as a shield from honoring the bond.
Other times, before buying a home, a homeowner relies on a "trustworthy" home inspector to identify costly issues and areas of improvement. In situations like these, the home inspector's knowledge and guidance are paramount to safety. In many cases, however, home inspectors fail to detect significant issues like signs of a termite infestation.
In both scenarios above, the homeowner may be entitled to compensation. With an experienced termite lawyer in Union, SC, the average person has a chance of winning in a court of law. That's where Cobb Hammett, LLC, comes into play.
With a comprehensive understanding and knowledge of termite control and home inspection contracts, Cobb Hammett law firm specializes in cases involving termites. We're proud to represent home and property owners who are harmed by pest control and home inspection negligence. We believe that when you sign a contract with one of these entities, the terms of the contract should be upheld. When they're not, somebody must be held responsible.
Instead of trying to take on these companies without a lawyer and wasting hundreds of hours to untangle a web of legalese, let Cobb Hammett, LLC handle the hard work on your behalf.
When you choose Cobb Hammett for a termite damage attorney in Union, SC, you can rest easy knowing you're in confident, capable hands. Clients trust our law firm for termite damage cases because we have:
Unlike some termite damage law firms, our lawyers study the practices and policies of large termite control and home inspection companies. We use creative strategies to avoid unfair arbitration clauses and have devoted real resources to solving our client's claims.
Simply put, you can trust our termite damage attorneys with your case because we genuinely care about you as our client.
Whether you're a homeowner, commercial property owner, or a homeowner's association, know that you're not alone. If termites are causing damage to your property, don't let giant pest control chains or home inspection franchises take advantage of you. The cost of repairs should fall where it should - on the shoulders of the home inspection company, pest control company, or their insurers.
In a perfect world, customers would be able to rely on results provided by pest control companies. Unfortunately, many termite companies intentionally mislead their hardworking clients.
Termite control companies of all sizes have convincing strategies for skirting responsibility when their work is shoddy. They know how to utilize legal jargon, intimidation and confusing contracts to their advantage, deterring ordinary people from filing lawsuits.
At Cobb Hammett, LLC, we're very aware of these tactics and excuses. Our attorneys overcome these defenses with effective tools, exposing the termite control company's failure to deliver on promised services. Unlike some law firms, our termite damage lawyers have an solid track record.
We're not afraid to get our hands dirty when it comes to holding termite companies accountable for damages you suffered. We'll do everything in our power to do what's right and get you the compensation you deserve.
Though every case is different, we're often able to recover substantial damages for our clients, such as:
If you feel like your termite company breached its bond or committed fraud, contact Cobb Hammett Law Firm today. Your termite damage attorney in Union, SC, is ready to hear your story. We know how to maneuver around unfair pest control contract terms and have the experience needed to see through common excuses and tactics.
It's not always easy to spot the signs of termite damage, especially if you're an average person without much knowledge of the termite species. Plus, termites often wreak havoc in unseen areas like drywall, siding, and the framing of your house, so seeing damage isn't always easy. Despite those challenges, there are some common signs and areas for you to consider.
Some common signs of termite damage include:
Some of the most common areas where termites do damage include:
If you find termite damage in your home, it's best not to try and fix it yourself. Why? First, repairing damage from termites is a complicated, painstaking endeavor that requires a skilled, tedious approach. Spotting termite damage and knowing how to fix it requires a deep knowledge of how termites behave and live to get rid of them. Second, and perhaps most importantly, taking a DIY approach to termite damage may ruin your termite lawsuit.
That's true even if you have the skills and experience to do so. You might inadvertently destroy important evidence that is key to your case, which may ruin your chances of compensation for damages and poor work. Instead of trying to repair damage on your own, get a second opinion from a trusted inspector. Once your concerns are verified, it's time to call Cobb Hammett Law Firm. Our experienced termite damage attorneys will dig into your case and discover if you're one of the thousands of people with grounds for filing a termite lawsuit.
We get this question often at Cobb Hammett Law Firm, though the answer is sometimes unclear. What we do know is that if you're looking for the max amount of compensation, we'll need to discover who was at fault. In some cases, it's easy to determine fault. For example, if you're a new homeowner, and a termite inspector or seller didn't inform you of an infestation, you may have grounds to sue.
However, things get more complex if you rent a home or bought a residence many years ago and have been using a pest control company for termite infestation. You could have grounds for a case against the pest control company, your landlord, or a different third party, depending on the circumstances of your case. That's why working with a termite attorney in Union, SC is so important - so they can investigate the details and damages associated with your infestation and determine who is accountable.
If you have trusted your home with a pest control company and encounter a termite issue, you might not get the help you expect, even if your claim is legitimate. With years of experience fighting big pest control companies and their insurers, we've heard just about every excuse in the book. If you're dealing with a termite problem, be wary if you hear any of the following excuses.
However, things get more complex if you rent a home or bought a residence many years ago and have been using a pest control company for termite infestation. You could have grounds for a case against the pest control company, your landlord, or a different third party, depending on the circumstances of your case. That's why working with a termite attorney in Union, SC is so important - so they can investigate the details and damages associated with your infestation and determine who is accountable.
If you're thinking about buying a new home, hiring a home inspector to spot maintenance and repair issues is a wise idea. But what happens when you spend your hard-earned money on an inaccurate inspection report? What if the report fails to notify you of termite damage or the potential for a termite infestation? In many cases, erroneous inspection reports lead to nasty surprises once you're moved in. When it comes to missed or unreported termite infestations or damage, negligence often falls on the home inspector's shoulders.
If you find yourself in a similar situation, it's crucial that you contact a termite attorney in Union, SC. At Cobb Hammett Law Firm, our termite lawyers have years of experience bringing claims and filing lawsuits on behalf of clients suffering at the hands of negligent or dishonest home inspectors. From compensation for emotional distress to repairs for termite damage, our firm can help right the wrong you had no say in receiving.
If your home inspector did not uphold their duties and obligations to you as the home buyer, you could most certainly sue a home inspector.
Unless your termite infestation was new when your home was inspected, it would be hard for a home inspector to miss it. If you just bought a house and you have discovered damage or signs of a termite infestation, contact Cobb Hammett today. Our team of termite damage attorneys may be able to prove that your inspector failed at spotting and reporting termite issues in your new home.
However, proving negligence is easier said than done without a lawyer by your side. Termite inspectors aren't always expected to find every bit of termite damage, and they're often not the final say in whether your home is damage-free. That's why, with Cobb Hammett Law Firm as your advocate, we'll ask the hard-hitting questions needed to discover if your inspector missed termite damage for legitimate reasons or if they were careless and negligent. We'll help facilitate a second inspection if needed and will work tirelessly to earn you the compensation you deserve.
You should know that even if your home inspector is legally negligent for missing termite damage or infestations, their liability will often be limited due to the language in their contract.
If your lawsuit doesn't have the proper foundation to prove negligence, your termite damage lawyer in Union, SC may be able to win compensation via breach of contract. In many circumstances, this is the best route to take if it's easier to prove that an inspector violated a contract. For example, suppose the home inspection contract you signed called for a whole-home inspection, and the inspector failed to survey your crawlspace or attic. In that case, you may have a viable claim in court.
At Cobb Hammett Law Firm, we understand that every termite damage case situation is different. As such, we approach every case with a nuanced, multi-faceted strategy crafted with your best interests in mind.
When a termite prevention company or home inspector is negligent and causes damage to your home, it's time to act fast. You need a trustworthy termite attorney in cityname, state by your side to take the proper steps toward getting compensation.
When you depend on Cobb Hammett, LLC, you'll receive personalized attention and proactive representation. That's because we make an intentional decision to limit our law firm's overall caseload. This allows us to better focus on our individual clients, many of whom remain with us for generations. We do not pass off cases to paralegals or junior associates but rather prioritize the attorney-client relationship.
We value compassion and integrity, and our practice reflects those values. If you're ready to take a stand, call our office today. Our termite damage lawyers will help create a better future for you, your family, or your business.
Law is complicated matter. It can cause you a big problem if you ignore it. Let us help you!
New Delhi: Union Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav on Monday welcomed the Supreme Court's decision to stay its order accepting a uniform definition of the Aravalli hills and ranges, and said the government stands committed to its protection and restoration. The apex court kept in abeyance the directions in its November 20 verdict that had accepted a uniform definition of the Aravalli hills and ranges recommended by a committee of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MOEFCC). It also proposed to constitute a high-powered...
New Delhi: Union Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav on Monday welcomed the Supreme Court's decision to stay its order accepting a uniform definition of the Aravalli hills and ranges, and said the government stands committed to its protection and restoration. The apex court kept in abeyance the directions in its November 20 verdict that had accepted a uniform definition of the Aravalli hills and ranges recommended by a committee of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MOEFCC). It also proposed to constitute a high-powered committee comprising domain experts to undertake an exhaustive and holistic examination of the issue.
"I welcome the Supreme Court directions introducing a stay on its order concerning the Aravalli range, and the formation of a new committee to study issues. We stand committed to extending all assistance sought from MOEFCC in the protection and restoration of the Aravalli range," Yadav said in a post on X.
"As things stand, a complete ban on mining stays with regard to new mining leases or renewal of old mining leases," he added.
The top court on November 20 accepted a uniform definition of the Aravalli hills and ranges and banned the grant of fresh mining leases inside its areas spanning Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan and Gujarat until experts' reports are out.
The apex court had accepted the recommendations of a committee of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change on the definition of the Aravalli hills and ranges to protect the world's oldest mountain system.
The committee had recommended that "Aravalli Hill" be defined as any landform in designated Aravalli districts with an elevation of 100 metres or more above its local relief, and an "Aravalli Range" will be a collection of two or more such hills within 500 metres of each other.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Tamil Nadu government to hold a joint consultation with the Centre on the issue of establishing Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas (JNVs) in the state, observing ‘we are a federal society’.A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and R Mahadevan said the state government should not adopt an adversarial attitude and there must be a federal discussion.The top court directed the authorities to ascertain the extent of land required for establishing JNVs in each district of T...
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Tamil Nadu government to hold a joint consultation with the Centre on the issue of establishing Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas (JNVs) in the state, observing ‘we are a federal society’.
A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and R Mahadevan said the state government should not adopt an adversarial attitude and there must be a federal discussion.
The top court directed the authorities to ascertain the extent of land required for establishing JNVs in each district of Tamil Nadu.
"You come one step, they will also come one step. They may come two steps.
"After the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu has gotten all the glory. It is the largest industrialised state in South India," the bench said.
It asked the Tamil Nadu government not to take it as an imposition, saying it is an opportunity for the state's students.
"You can say this is our language policy. They will look into it,” the court said.
It told the Tamil Nadu government that the Centre would also not discredit the state's policy.
"Bring to the notice of the secretaries of the central government about your act and how you are going about it. Please have a positive attitude," the bench said.
The apex court said it had passed the directions in the interest of students who are entitled to be admitted to JNVs in Tamil Nadu.
During the hearing, senior advocate P Wilson, appearing for Tamil Nadu, submitted that the JNVs follow a three-language formula, whereas the state government has a statutory two-language policy.
He said the Tamil Nadu government would have to provide around 30 acres of land in each district and bear related costs.
Justice Nagarathna observed that the issue should not be turned into a language dispute.
"Don't make it into a language issue. We are a federal society. You are part of the Republic. If you come one step forward, they will also come one step forward," she said.
The top court was hearing an appeal against the Madras High Court order filed by the state government.
The high court had directed the state to permit the establishment of JNVs after taking note of the written submission made by the Centre and the Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas, saying there was no imposition of Hindi in the regional schools.
The state government, in its reply, had stated that under the Tamil Nadu Tamil Learning Act, 2006, it followed a two-language system of having Tamil and English as the medium of instruction.
<img>BKU Azad Trust’s petition before the SC challenged the four-week voter-verification timeline in Uttar PradeshThe Bharatiya Kisan Union (BKU) Azad Trust has approached the Supreme Court seeking a three-month extension of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls underway in Uttar Pradesh, warning that the current four-week timeline is “administratively impossible” for a state with over 15.35 crore voters.The Petitioner emphasised that the challenge is not to the SIR itself, but o...
<img>
BKU Azad Trust’s petition before the SC challenged the four-week voter-verification timeline in Uttar Pradesh
The Bharatiya Kisan Union (BKU) Azad Trust has approached the Supreme Court seeking a three-month extension of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls underway in Uttar Pradesh, warning that the current four-week timeline is “administratively impossible” for a state with over 15.35 crore voters.
The Petitioner emphasised that the challenge is not to the SIR itself, but only to the compressed time frame which, it argues, risks widespread and arbitrary disenfranchisement.
Filed as a public interest litigation, the petition describes the Trust as a non-partisan organisation working across rural Uttar Pradesh to strengthen democratic participation among farmers and rural labourers. It states that despite submitting a representation to the Election Commission seeking more time for the SIR, no remedial action has followed, prompting the present plea.
The petition filed through AoR Ansar Ahmed Chaudhary and drawn by Advocates Charu Mathur, Md. Anas Chaudhary, Snehla Chaudhary and Alia Bano Zaidi underscores that the SIR is a welcome and essential democratic exercise, but insists that the four-week window is “manifestly inadequate” for a statewide, house-to-house verification.
The Trust seeks an extension solely to ensure accuracy of entries, proper disposal of claims and objections, inclusion of new or migrated voters, and protection against mass deletions caused by hurried verification. The Request, it stresses, aligns with the constitutional mandate of universal adult suffrage under Article 326.
Citing the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, the petition notes that the law prescribes no fixed duration for such revisions and that timelines must be “reasonable, practicable and non-arbitrary”.
The petition highlights that past intensive revisions; 13 rounds from 1952 to 2004, were conducted over extended periods, with the last such exercise taking nearly two years. The ongoing SIR is the first multi-state effort in more than two decades, making adequate time and procedural fairness essential.
The Trust also details socio-economic and seasonal barriers facing rural voters. The SIR coincides with peak sugarcane harvesting, during which farmers and labourers are either fully occupied or migrate to other states. Illiteracy, limited access to Booth Level Officers, and mobility challenges for women and the elderly further exacerbate the risk of exclusion.
Serious concerns are raised regarding the use of untrained volunteers such as Anganwadi workers, NCC and NSS participants for door-to-door verification. The petition contends that these volunteers are not recognised under the statutory framework, have no formal training or confidentiality obligations, and are being handed sensitive personal information; posing significant data security and privacy risks at a time when “digital arrest” scams are rampant.
The petition also flags overburdening of Booth Level Officers, many of whom are school teachers compelled to complete an “impossible workload” within an unrealistic timeline. The Trust cites media reports noting extreme stress and even suicides linked to administrative pressure in other states during similar revisions.
Arguing that Uttar Pradesh faces no imminent Assembly or Parliamentary elections, the Trust asserts that there is no election-linked urgency justifying the compressed timeline. It proposes practical safeguards including special camps, trained personnel to assist vulnerable citizens, mandatory acknowledgment receipts for all submissions, and designated grievance officers at the block level.
Contending that the four-week time frame violates Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 21 and 326 of the Constitution, the Trust urges the Supreme Court to grant a reasonable extension to ensure the SIR is conducted with fairness, transparency and procedural integrity.
The petition concludes that it seeks not to obstruct the SIR, but to protect millions of rural and marginalised voters from being excluded due to administrative haste.
Case Title: Bharatiya Kisan Union Azad Trust v. Election Commission of India & Ors.
Date of Registration of PIL: November 27, 2025
Bench: Supreme Court of India (hearing expected)
The Supreme Court on Monday, November 17, heard a petition on the prolonged failure of the Union government and several states to appoint Information Commissioners.Noting that vacancies were undermining the functioning of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, a bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi directed Himachal Pradesh to fill all vacant posts in its State Information Commission (SIC) within two months, and instructed Jharkhand to complete its long-pending appointment process within one month.The Bench said...
The Supreme Court on Monday, November 17, heard a petition on the prolonged failure of the Union government and several states to appoint Information Commissioners.
Noting that vacancies were undermining the functioning of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, a bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi directed Himachal Pradesh to fill all vacant posts in its State Information Commission (SIC) within two months, and instructed Jharkhand to complete its long-pending appointment process within one month.
The Bench said it would hear the case again in the next few days.
Appearing for the petitioners, Anjali Bhardwaj, Commodore Lokesh Batra (Retd.) and Amrita Johri, Supreme Court advocate Prashant Bhushan told the court that the Central Information Commission (CIC) has been without a chief for more than two months and that eight of the ten sanctioned posts of Information Commissioners are vacant.
The CIC currently faces a backlog of nearly 30,000 cases. Bhushan informed the court that several SICs are also functioning with serious shortages.
These are the details shared by the petitioners on the pendency at the state level commissions:
Jharkhand: Defunct for more than five years; no longer registering new cases. Himachal Pradesh: Defunct for more than four months. Chhattisgarh: Operating with only one commissioner despite nearly 35,000 pending matters. Maharashtra: Three posts vacant; backlog close to 1 lakh cases. Tamil Nadu: Only seven commissioners sanctioned despite a backlog of around 41,000 cases. Madhya Pradesh: Operating with four commissioners; around 20,000 matters pending.
Also read: RTI at 20: How RTI Exposed Corruption and Why the Govt Fears It | Jaanne Bhi Do Yaaro
Since the last hearing on October 27, the Karnataka government has filled all vacancies in its commission, bringing it to the full sanctioned strength of 11 commissioners. Counsel for the Union of India told the court that a meeting of the selection committee would be held shortly and that appointments would be completed at the earliest.
The petitioners argued that governments were “completely undermining” citizens’ right to information by not making timely and transparent appointments, resulting in delays of over a year in the disposal of appeals and complaints. They also highlighted the need to follow the transparency standards mandated in the Supreme Court’s 2019 Anjali Bhardwaj judgment.
The petitioners were also represented by advocate Rahul Gupta.
This article went live on November seventeenth, two thousand twenty five, at thirty-nine minutes past six in the evening.
AnalysisDelhi Air Pollution Crisis | Can’t hold us to standards of developed countries, Union argues; SC asks for long term planAmicus says burning is undercounted; Union points to machinery subsidies; Court seeks durable plan beyond seasonal bansToday, the Supreme Court pressed the Union Government, Punjab and Haryana to come back within a day with a workable, long-term solution to Delhi’s pollution emergency. The direction followed submissions that satellite data is undercounting farm fires and that the c...
Analysis
Amicus says burning is undercounted; Union points to machinery subsidies; Court seeks durable plan beyond seasonal bans
Today, the Supreme Court pressed the Union Government, Punjab and Haryana to come back within a day with a workable, long-term solution to Delhi’s pollution emergency. The direction followed submissions that satellite data is undercounting farm fires and that the causes of stubble burning have remained unresolved for over a decade.
The Bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Justices K.V. Chandran and N.V. Anjaria made clear that short-term bans and seasonal restrictions cannot address the pollution situation in the capital.
On 15 October, the Court allowed the limited sale and use of green firecrackers across the NCR for a four-day window during Diwali. The Bench directed strict monitoring of air quality, enforcement and compliance to prevent violations
Senior Advocate Aparajita Singh, appearing as amicus curiae, told the Court that the present stubble-burning schedules cannot be understood without first recognising that Punjab’s paddy sowing was deliberately delayed from 2009 to conserve groundwater. “Because the paddy is delayed, the harvesting of paddy and then planting of wheat are compressed… farmers don’t have enough time. The easiest thing to do is to burn,” she submitted.
Singh emphasised that this burning is not out of negligence but compulsion. She recalled that it was at the Court’s intervention that specialised machinery, balers, Happy Seeders and Super Seeders had been heavily subsidised. “50 percent for individual farmers, 80 percent for cooperatives. Thousands of machines have been provided every year since 2018.”
She said Punjab’s new plea seeking ₹100 per quintal compensation from the Centre was a “repetitive” proposal that recurs annually despite huge public spending. “Why have they not been able to solve it? Asking for ₹100 per quintal is one solution, but not the solution,” she told the Bench.
Singh alerted the Bench to the fact that official stubble-burning numbers are incomplete. Referencing India Today, The Hindu and posts by NASA scientist Hiren Jetwa, she said farmers have been told the timing of satellite passes so they can burn after the satellite crosses. “Actual burning is being undercounted,” she stressed, adding that the CAQM’s own report confirms that current methods “do not capture all the burning.”
ASG Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Union, acknowledged the limitations of current detection systems. “We do notice gaps… we have developed a protocol with ISRO and are working on two additional protocols to calculate burnt area,” she said, clarifying that these remain in trial phases.
Bhati submitted that Punjab’s present application was “nothing new,” pointing out that the Centre had already disbursed ₹1,963 crores to the State for crop-residue machinery. She added that machinery distribution is monitored by CAQM, with state governments involved at every step.
According to Bhati, Delhi’s overall pollution load is driven by its geographic position as well as human-generated emissions and stubble burning. She urged the Court to recognise the constraints of a developing country and added, “When you compare a developed country with developing countries, the same measures cannot apply. We are Global South; our realities have to be seen.”
Responding to concerns over AQI equipment, Bhati said the monitors used are “one of the best in the world”. The amicus, however, countered that some stations cap at 999 AQI, and sought an affidavit. Bhati explained that sprinkling of water around stations was part of GRAP-III requirements, including mandatory anti-smog guns for high-rise buildings.
Appearing for an intervenor, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan stated that “nothing like this has ever been seen before… we are in an emergency situation,”. He recalled that Delhi’s air improvements in the early 2000s were achieved only because past Benches took uncompromising measures, such as mandatory CNG conversion and removal of highly polluting industries.
Sankaranarayanan described the Punjab and Haryana paddy-sowing laws of 2009–10 as the root cause of the compressed crop cycle. The real solution, he argued, lay in advancing paddy sowing by at least two months, as practised in California and Beijing. He submitted, “Burning cannot be ended; it happens in farm systems globally. What matters is when the burning happens…it must not happen when the winds flow to Delhi.”
He added that geostationary satellite data shows farm-fire numbers have not actually fallen, and emissions in 2022, 2023 and 2024 have increased. “The numbers remain the same… the emissions remain the same,” he submitted.
Sankaranarayanan criticised India’s AQI thresholds. “When WHO says 50 is dangerous, our triggers are set far higher. PM2.5 is irreversible. Once it goes into my child’s lungs, it will never leave.” When CJI Gavai asked whether he expected everything to be stalled year-round, Sankaranarayanan replied, “It has to be stalled. Three out of ten deaths in Delhi are singularly caused by air pollution.”
From the Bench
The Court said that Delhi’s pollution cannot be handled through short-term or seasonal responses—the problem now requires a long-term plan. CJI Gavai noted that the city’s air quality has continued to deteriorate despite repeated restrictions every winter and remarked that “a long-term solution needs to be worked out”. When Sankaranarayanan urged a year-round halt on several activities, the Bench said this was not practical. “We cannot only think about one side… a large population depends on these activities,” CJI Gavai noted, adding that a blanket stop on construction was not possible.
The Court also directed the Chief Secretaries of Punjab and Haryana to ensure full implementation of the CAQM’s directions on stubble burning. The Bench noted that while recorded incidents may have reduced, the pollution levels have not. The Union Government was asked to place on record a concrete long-term proposal, after Singh and Bhati both stated that temporary measures were not sufficient. On the concern raised by the amicus regarding AQI monitors capping at 999 and the possibility that satellite systems were not capturing all fires, the Bench asked the Union to file an affidavit explaining the monitoring equipment in use and its accuracy.
The Court gave the authorities a day to respond and listed the matter for further hearing on 19 November.