Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 7839 (6.83 seconds)
Documents citing M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 March, 2004

Adil Ansari vs M/S. C.L. Gupta Export Ltd on 25 February, 2022

503. CGWA, also, in a wholly illegal manner, abdicated its authority of regulating ground water on the pretext that after enactment of UPGWMR Act 2019, matter of NOC shall be dealt with by State Authorities under the said Act, though similar defence taken by MoEF, was rejected by Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India & Others. (1997) (supra) and 410 consistently it has been reminded in other matters also where similar issues were raised, in various judgments of Supreme Court as well as Tribunal. CGWA has also failed to ensure that UPGWD may not act contrary to guidelines issued by CGWA. We have demonstrated how NOCs issued by UPGWD contravened guidelines 2020 of CGWA. Therefore, we find CGWA directly responsible in causing pollution, damaging environment severely, by allowing illegal activities of extraction of ground water. CGWA also failed to ensure recharge of ground water by PPs. The confidence reposed on CGWA, by the highest Court, has been belied.
National Green Tribunal Cites 224 - Cited by 0 - A K Goel - Full Document

Devidas Khatri vs Union Of India on 25 February, 2022

(f) CGWA is directed to forthwith issue appropriate orders/directions, regulating ground water extraction in the light of observations made above and the orders passed by Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India & Others (1997) (supra) and this Tribunal in various cases referred to in this judgment and must take all precautions and care to ensure that in OCS areas, ground water should not be allowed to be extracted in such a manner that general people would have to face problem of water for drinking and domestic purposes.
National Green Tribunal Cites 146 - Cited by 7 - A K Goel - Full Document

Praveen Kakar vs Ministry Of Environment And Forest on 4 July, 2022

In M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India, (2004)6SCC588 (Industries in residential area in Delhi matter), Court considered the question, "whether industrial activities in residential/non- conforming areas is permissible and what directions should be issued to end such illegal activities". Various orders were passed in 1995 and onwards resulting in closure, shifting etc., of industries, which, by an estimation were about 1,01,000, operating in Delhi in non-conforming zones but illegally permitted by Municipal Corporation of Delhi to operate in residential areas/ non- conforming areas. An application was filed on behalf of Delhi Government that closure of such a large number of industries functioning in residential/non-conforming areas may render about 7 lakh workers unemployed, causing hardship to 7 lakh families. The question considered by Court was, "whether a Government can plead such a justification for violation of law and throw to the winds norms of environment, health and safety or is it possible to help the workers even without violating law if there is a genuine will to do so". There was an attempt on the part of the concerned authority for regularization of certain areas having concentration of industries. Deprecating it, Court said, "Regularization cannot be done if it results in violation of the Right to Life enshrined 267 in Article 21 of the Constitution. The question will have to be considered not only from the angle of those who have setup industrial units in violation of the master plan but also others who are residents and are using the premises as allowed by law." Court also considered the changes proposed/made in the master plan and said, "The changes in the master plan or its norms to accommodate illegal activities not only amount to getting reward for illegal activities but also resulted in punishing the law abiding citizen." Commenting upon the authorities, Court said, "lack of action and initiative by the authorities is the main reason for the industry merely continuing illegal activities. There is total lack of enforcement of law by the authorities concerned." Rejecting an argument that industries were working with the consent of Government, Court said that an illegality would not become legality on inaction or connivance of the Government authorities. It further said "There cannot be any doubt that non-conforming industrial activities could not have commenced or continued at such a large scale in the capital of the country if the Government and the concerned authorities had performed their functions and obligations under various statutes. But such a situation cannot be permitted to continue forever so as to reach a point of no return, where the chaotic situation in city has already reached. The law- breakers, namely, the industries cannot be absolved of the illegalities only on the ground of inaction by the authorities." Court also rejected an argument on behalf of the industries that if they are ready to pay penalty, so long as the same is paid, they are entitled to continue with their activities. Court held "merely by payment of penalty, continued misuse cannot be permitted." Court condemned authorities for inaction and said that growth of illegal manufacturing activity in residential areas has been without any check or hindrance from the authorities. The manner in which such large scale violations had commenced, and continued, leaves no manner of doubt that it was not 268 possible without the connivance of those who are required to ensure compliance and reasons are obvious. Such activities result in putting on extra load on the infrastructure. The entire planning has gone totally haywire. The law abiders are sufferers. All this has happened at the cost of health and decent living of the citizens of the city violating their constitutional rights enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Further, it is necessary to bear in mind that the law makers repose confidence in the authorities that they will ensure implementation of the laws made by them. If the authorities breach that confidence and act in dereliction of their duties, then the plea that the observance of law will now have an adverse effect on the industry or the workers cannot be allowed. Court, in the light of the facts and pleadings, issued various directions including closure of all industries, came up in residential/non- conforming areas in Delhi on or after 01.08.1990. It also constituted a monitoring committee comprising of officials of Delhi Government, Delhi Police, local bodies and said that the said committee shall be responsible for stoppage of illegal commercial activities.
National Green Tribunal Cites 191 - Cited by 0 - A K Goel - Full Document

M/S Delhi Bhiwani Transport Co. ... vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi Through Transport ... on 21 September, 2010

In the considered view of this Court, the Petitioners should seek appropriate clarifications from the Supreme Court whether the subsequent judgment in the UPSRTC case should be read in substitution of the earlier directions issued by a larger Bench of three-Judges in the M.C. Mehta v. UOI. It is not open to this court to undertake that exercise."
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - I Kaur - Full Document

M/S Capital Bus Service (P) Ltd. & Anr. vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi Through Transport ... on 21 September, 2010

In the considered view of this Court, the Petitioners should seek appropriate clarifications from the Supreme Court whether the subsequent judgment in the UPSRTC case should be read in substitution of the earlier directions issued by a larger Bench of three-Judges in the M.C. Mehta v. UOI. It is not open to this court to undertake that exercise."
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - I Kaur - Full Document

M/S Rohtak Delhi Transport Pvt. Ltd. & ... vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi Through Transport ... on 21 September, 2010

In the considered view of this Court, the Petitioners should seek appropriate clarifications from the Supreme Court whether the subsequent judgment in the UPSRTC case should be read in substitution of the earlier directions issued by a larger Bench of three-Judges in the M.C. Mehta v. UOI. It is not open to this court to undertake that exercise."
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - I Kaur - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next