Rajeev Suri vs Union Of India on 5 January, 2021
In Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India393,
the Court resonated this position and observed thus:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 635 (3.27 seconds)186Th Report On Proposal To Constitute Environment Courts
In Narmada Bachao Andolan vs. Union of India 2000(10) SCC 664, it
was pointed out that when the effect of a project is known, then the
principle of sustainable development would come into play which will
ensure that mitigative steps are and can be taken to preserve the ecological
balance. "Sustainable development means what type or extent of
development can take place which can be sustained by nature/ecology with
or without mitigation."
Narmada Bachao Andolan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through ... on 21 February, 2008
He also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the first Narmada Bachao Andolan's case (supra) for the proposition that the only role which the court has to play is to ensure that the system devised by the Government works in a manner as envisaged and that the Court in exercise of its power will not go beyond its jurisdiction into the field of policy decision. He submitted that this is therefore not a fit case in which the court should entertain the contention of the petitioner at this belated stage that the displaced families and the landless agriculturists have not been offered land as per the original R&R Policy of the Government of Madhya Pradesh and as per the conditions stipulated in the different clearances of the Government of India and its agencies.
M/S. Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd ... vs The Chairman Tamil Nadu Pollution ... on 8 August, 2013
137. The view we are taking finds strength from the observations
stated by the Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of
132
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (supra) where the
Court, while referring to the case of Vellore Citizens' Welfare
Forum supra and the report of the International Law
Commission, held as under:
Raju Sahu And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. ... on 6 March, 2024
In Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India [(2000) 10 SCC 664] this Court observed that sustainable development means the type or extent of development that can take place and which can be sustained by nature/ecology with or without mitigation. In these matters, the required standard now is that the risk of harm to the environment or to human health is to be decided in public interest, according to a "reasonable person's" test. [See Chairman Barton: The Status of the Precautionary Principle in Australia (Vol. 22, 1998, Harv. Envtt.
Rajendra Singh & Ors. vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 3 November, 2008
88. Reference can be made to the Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of
India and Others (2000) 10 SCC 664 where it was held as follows:
Medha Patkar vs State Of M.P. And Anr. on 25 September, 2007
He submitted that the High Court should also direct the respondents to implement the NWDT award in accordance with the judgment of Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India and Ors. and grant to the oustees of the Sardar Sarovar Project of their entitment including land for land submerged by the Project.
M/S. Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd ... vs The Chairman Tamil Nadu Pollution ... on 8 August, 2013
137. The view we are taking finds strength from the observations
stated by the Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of
132
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (supra) where the
Court, while referring to the case of Vellore Citizens' Welfare
Forum supra and the report of the International Law
Commission, held as under:
Narmada Bachao Andolan vs Union Of India on 22 September, 2022
“Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, after some
arguments, seeks permission to withdraw the special leave
petition and states that he will move the Court for
6 SLP(C) No 4485 of 2018
11
review/clarification/modification of order dated 8.2.2017 in WP(C)
no. 328/2002(Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. Union of India &
Ors.). Permission is granted. The special leave petition is
accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.”
Pathan Mohammed Suleman Rehmatkhan vs State Of Gujarat on 22 November, 2004
In
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, SCC para 229, this Court
has held that PIL should be thrown out at the threshold if it is
challenged after the commencement of execution of the project. It was
also held that no relief should be given to persons who approach the
Court without reasonable explanation under Articles 226 and 32 after
inordinate delay.