Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 283 (1.25 seconds)
Documents citing M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 30 December, 1996

Mahendra Lodha vs State Of Rajasthan on 21 November, 2000

In M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India and ors. (6), the Apex Court gave various directions to control and regulate the traffic. The directions were given by the Apex Court from time to time in the cases referred to above. The judicial activism has been a single most democratic phenomenon that has been seen as "Public Interest" in India's political system. The writ procedure in public interest litigation has to be speedy and it must be ensured that the directions given in public interest are faithfully and punctually complied with. Thus judicial innovation requires (i) to secure detail facts (many times the information given by the petitioners may be scratchy); (ii) received experts testimony in cases involving compact of social and scientific issues; (iii) ensure the continuous supervision or monitoring the prospective judicial orders.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - N N Mathur - Full Document

'B' Block Residents Welfare ... vs Delhi Development Authority And Ors. on 12 September, 2002

"2. So far as the first contention is concerned, learned Additional Solicitor General has taken us through the order of this Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India[ ]regarding land use along with the order dated 8-7-1996 (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India regarding relocation of 168 industries. The intention of this Court is clear that the order regarding land reuse was both for relocating industries as well as those which decide to close down and not to relocate. The learned counsel for the industries have not disputed this interpretation. We, therefore, accept the contention of learned Additional Solicitor General. Nothing more need be said on this point.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 7 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Forum For A Better Hyderabad, ... vs Govt. Of A.P. And Others on 15 June, 2001

The Court also must bear in mind that the doctrine of sustainable development would mean the development which is in consonance with maintenance of ecological balance. In most environmental cases there is need for neutral scientific expertise as an essential input to the judicial decision making. These cases require expertise at high levels of scientific and technical sophistication. The Central or the State Governments, to the best knowledge of this Court, have not yet set up any ecological sciences research group who could act as information bank for the Court and the Government departments, and generate new informations according to the particular requirements of the Court for the concerned Government departments despite the observations made to that effect in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, . With a view to ensure that there is neither danger to the environment nor to the ecology and at the same time ensuring sustainable development it is considered necessary that scientific and technical aspects for investigation may be referred to an expert body for investigation and opinion having technical expertise in environment matters whose investigation and analysis offacts and opinion on objections raised by the parties would give adequate help to the Courts and also the needed reassurance.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 24 - Cited by 4 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Delhi Pollution Control Committee vs Appellate Authority And Another on 17 July, 2001

So far as the first contention is concerned, learned Additional Solicitor has taken us through the order of this Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India regarding land-use along with the order dated 8-7-1006 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, regarding relocation of 168 industries. The intention of this Court is clear t hat the order regarding land re-use was both for relocating industries as well as those which decide to close down and not to relocate.The learned counsel for the industries have not disputed this interpretation. We, therefore, accept the contention of learned Additional Solicitor General. Nothing more need be said on this point."
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - M Mudgal - Full Document

S.Suresh Kumar vs The Union Of India on 3 February, 2003

27. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to certain parliamentary discussions and other literature to demonstrate that the user of LPG gas reduce the pollution and it is better by all standards, this Court need not go into this case in view of the Supreme Court directions in M.C.Mehta's case. 28. As of today, proviso to Section 52 has been modified by Central Act 27 of 2000. In terms of the amended provision, amended Section 52 , no owner of a motor vehicle shall so alter the vehicle with the particulars contained in the certificate are at variance with those originally specified by the manufacturer. The emphasis being that there shall be no alteration even in fuel. The proviso, which has been introduced by Central Act 27 of 2000 reads thus :"Provided that where the owner of a motor vehicle makes modification of the engine, or any part thereof, of a vehicle for facilitating its operation by different type of fuel or source of energy including battery, compressed natural gas, solar power, liquid petroleum gas or any other fuel or source of energy, by fitment of a conversion kit, such modification shall be carried out subject to such conditions as may be prescribed : Provided further that the Central Government may prescribe specifications, conditions for approval, retrofitment and other related matters for such conversion kits : Provided also that the Central Government may grant exemption for alteration of vehicles in a manner other than specified above, for any specific purpose." 29. In terms of proviso to Section 52, as introduced by the amended Act 27 of 2000, the owner of the motor vehicle makes a modification of the engine or any part thereof facilitating its operation by different type of fuel or source of energy including battery, compressed natural gas, solar power, LPG or any other fuel, or source of energy, by fitment of a conversion kit, such modification shall be carried out subject to such conditions as may be prescribed. The 2nd proviso enables the Central Government to prescribe specifications, conditions for approval, retrofitment and other related matters for such conversion kits.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M. Sadasiva Sekhar vs District Collector And Ors. on 7 March, 2003

5. In all cases where an enquiry is conducted under Clause 3(4) of the Control Order and where an opportunity of personal hearing is not given, the burden is on the dealer to plead and prove the prejudice caused to him by not giving a personal hearing. Illegality of the order cannot be readily presumed wherever no personal hearing was given {See State Bank of Patiala v. S.K.Sharma, M.C.Mehta v. Union of India and Aligarh Muslim University v. Mansoor Ali Khan (supra)};
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 32 - Cited by 9 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next