Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 36 (0.88 seconds)
Documents citing Utkarsh Mandal vs Union Of India on 26 November, 2009

George Issac vs Moef & Cc Rep. By Its Secretary on 26 October, 2021

55. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants relied on the decision reported in English Indian Clays Limited Vs. District Collector11 of the Hon‟ble High Court of Kerala, Utkarsh Mandal Vs. Union of India12 of the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, Gram Panchayat Navlakh Umbre Vs. Union of India & Ors.13 of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay, Bengaluru Development Authority Vs. Mr. Sudhakar Hedge & Ors. 14 of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, S.P. Muthuraman Vs. Union of India & Ors. and other connected case in O.A. No.37 of 2015 and O.A. No.213 of 2014 dated 07.07.2015 of the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal, New Delhi, Samata & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.15 dated 13.12.2013 and Mathew Thomas Vs. State of Kerala & Ors.16 of this Bench and Prafulla Samantra Vs. Ministry of Environment & Forest and Ors. 17 of Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in support of their case. 11 (2019) 1 KLT Online 2113 12 Writ Petition (Civil) No.9340 of 2009 13 Public Interest Litigation No.115 of 2020 and other connected case
National Green Tribunal Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Samta And Another vs Moef And Others on 13 December, 2013

51) (After a careful consideration of the submissions made, the Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the contentions put forth by the appellants' side have got force from the judgment made by the High Court, Delhi in Utkarsh Mandal Samithi case which was to the effect that it is a mandatory requirement and also a duty of the EAC to whom the task of evaluation has been delegated to indicate its decision that the objections and concerns raised at the public hearing and the response of the Project Proponent thereon were considered and as to what reasons those objections and concerns were accepted or negatived In the said decision, it has been unambiguously held that the failure to give such reasons and render the decision vulnerable to attack on the ground of being vitiated due to non application of mind to relevant consideration and therefore, arbitrary.
National Green Tribunal Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Netgear Technologies India Private ... vs The Assistant Commissioner Gst Delhi ... on 22 July, 2022

26. The reliance of the Petitioner on the judgement of this Court in Utkarsh Mandal v. Union of India (supra) does not come to the aid of the Petitioner for the sole reason that the said judgement was regarding the evident abuse of power exhibited by the members of the EAC. It was not a case where the qualifications of the members of the EAC were under challenge; it was a case regarding the lack of adherence on behalf of the EAC to the process leading up the issuance of an EIA Report, and the decisions taken by the EAC were under challenge.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - S C Sharma - Full Document

P.Sundaravathanam vs Union Of India on 31 May, 2022

15. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant had relied on the dictum laid down in the decisions reported in T. Muruganandham & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. 4 , Sarpanch, Grampanchayat Tiroda Vs. The Ministry of Environment and Forests 5 , Alaknanda Hydro Power Company Ltd. Vs. Anuj Joshi & Ors.6, Utkarsh Mandal Vs. Union of India7, Samata Vs. Union of India8, and Samarth Trust Vs. Union of India 9 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Uma Maheswar Dahagama Vs. Union of India & Ors.10 of this Tribunal confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Thermal Power Corporation Limited (NTPC) Vs. Uma Maheshwar Dahagama 11 and also the necessity of protection of water bodies and extraction of ground water as observed by the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal, New Delhi in Lt. Col.
National Green Tribunal Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

A. Padmakumar Arnamula Post vs The Union Of India Ministry Of ... on 28 May, 2014

45. Thus, the appraisal of the project requires not only evaluation, but also estimation of works in order to make an assessment or determination of the same. The process of appraisal would certainly require application of mind independently and make evaluation of the available materials to make an approval to regulatory authority to grant EC or place before the regulatory authority with the report to refuse EC. The notification makes it mandatory not only a scrutiny but also a detailed scrutiny to the EAC or SLAEC of the application and other documents like final EIA report, outcome of the public consultation including public hearing proceedings submitted by the Project Proponent. The word 'scrutiny' 201 should have been employed in the Notification by the Legislature with clear intention that a critical observation or examination of all the available materials before submitting a recommendation to the regulatory authority. The Notification requires a categorical recommendation from the EAC or SLEAC on conclusion of the proceedings of appraisal. Hence, the appraisal cannot be a mere formality or a simple ritual to pass on. The Hon'ble High Court, Delhi in Utkarsh Mandal Vs. Union of India ( 2009 X AD (Delhi) 365 has held as follows:
National Green Tribunal Cites 57 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

K.Saravanan vs Tamilnadu Polymer Industries Park Ltd on 4 May, 2022

In the decision reported in Utkarsh Mandal Vs. Union of India reported in MANU/DE/3070/2009, after elaborately considering the provisions of the EIA Notification, it was observed that the "The decision of the EAC may not necessarily be binding on the MoEF&CC but is certainly an input into the decision making process. Considering that it constitutes the view of the expert body, its advice would be a valuable input. In terms of the procedure evolved by the MoEF&CC to deal with applications for EIA clearance, the objections at the Page 32 of 61 public hearing and the response thereto of the project proponent are placed before the EAC (Mines) for evaluation and for taking a decision which will constitute the advice to the MoEF&CC on such project proposal. The EAC is therefore performing a public law function and is expected to adhere to those very standards which law requires the MoEF&CC to adhere to. The requirement of an administrative decision making body to give reasons has been viewed as an essential concomitant of acting fairly. Given that such a decision is in any event amenable to judicial review, the failure to make known the reasons for the decision makes it difficult for the judicial body entrusted with the power of reviewing such decision as to its reasonableness and fairness. The decision must reflect the consideration of the materials available before the decision maker and the opinion formed on such material."
National Green Tribunal Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next