Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (1.06 seconds)
Documents citing Milkmen Colony Vikas Samiti vs State Of Rajasthan & Others on 17 January, 2007

Mcd vs Sanjay Kumar on 26 May, 2011

In Milkmen Colony Vikas Samiti v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. and Shri Ghanchi Mahasabha, Jodhpur v. Rajasthan Chapter of Indian Association of Lawyers and Ors., III (2007) SLT 325=AIR 2007 SC 1048, the Supreme Court directed the Municipal Corporation of Jodhpur to remove unattended stray animals, such as, stray cattle, bulls, dogs, pigs, etc. from the city of Jodhpur as expeditiously as possible and in any event on or before 30th April, 2007. Further, in a string of decisions by various High Courts it was observed that keeping the public streets free RFA No. 469-2010 Page 8 of 17 from the menace of stray animals is the primary duty of the municipal bodies. In the light of these decisions, it is held that the duty to maintain streets and public roads free of stray cattle is that of the MCD. This duty is owed to all members of the public, and is an absolute obligation.
Delhi High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 2 - G S Sistani - Full Document

Hardeep Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 10 January, 2014

88. At the time of taking cognizance, the court has to see whether a prima facie case is made out to proceed against the accused. Under Section 319 Cr.P.C., though the test of prima facie case is the same, the degree of satisfaction that is required is much stricter. A two- Judge Bench of this Court in Vikas v. State of Rajasthan, 2013 (11) SCALE 23, held that on the objective satisfaction of the court a person may be 'arrested' or 'summoned', as the circumstances of the case may require, if it appears from the evidence that any such person not being the accused has committed an offence for which such person could be tried together with the already arraigned accused persons.
Supreme Court of India Cites 114 - Cited by 1591 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Sartaj S/O Mihd. Husain And Another vs State Of U.P.Thru. Secy. Home And Ors. on 14 July, 2010

34. By catena of judgments, Hon'ble Supreme Court settled the law that the dignity and quality of life and privacy of citizen are fundamental rights protected by Art. 21 of the Constitution of India vide 2001(6) SCC 496 Hinch Lal Tewari versus Kamala Devi and AIR 1991 SC 1902 Banglore Medical Trust versus B.S. Mudappa, AIR 2007 SC 1046 Milkmen Colony Vikas Samiti versus State of Rajasthan and others and 2006(13) SCC 382 Nagar Nigam, Meerut versus Al Faheem Meat Exports Private Limited and others.
Allahabad High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd ... vs The Chairman Tamil Nadu Pollution ... on 8 August, 2013

In the recent times, there has been accelerated degradation of the environment, primarily on account of lack of effective enforcement of laws and non-compliance with the statutory norms. Concentrated industrialisation in some pockets has been the other reason for enhanced damage to the environment. It emerges from the desire of the people to operate from the areas where the industry presently exists. [ References: Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991) 1 SCC 598; Virendra Gaur v. State of Haryana (1995) 2 SCC 577; A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (1999) 2 SCC 718; M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (2000) 6 SCC 213; Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2000) 10 117 SCC 664; Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamla Devi (2001) 6 SCC 496; T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (2002) 10 SCC 606; M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2004) 6 SCC 588; M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2004) 12 SCC 118; In Re: Noise Pollution (2005) 5 SC 733; Milkmen Colony Vikas Samiti v. State of Rajasthan (2007) 2 SCC 413 ].
National Green Tribunal Cites 68 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

M/S. Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd ... vs The Chairman Tamil Nadu Pollution ... on 8 August, 2013

In the recent times, there has been accelerated degradation of the environment, primarily on account of lack of effective enforcement of laws and non-compliance with the statutory norms. Concentrated industrialisation in some pockets has been the other reason for enhanced damage to the environment. It emerges from the desire of the people to operate from the areas where the industry presently exists. [ References: Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991) 1 SCC 598; Virendra Gaur v. State of Haryana (1995) 2 SCC 577; A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (1999) 2 SCC 718; M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (2000) 6 SCC 213; Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2000) 10 117 SCC 664; Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamla Devi (2001) 6 SCC 496; T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (2002) 10 SCC 606; M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2004) 6 SCC 588; M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2004) 12 SCC 118; In Re: Noise Pollution (2005) 5 SC 733; Milkmen Colony Vikas Samiti v. State of Rajasthan (2007) 2 SCC 413 ].
National Green Tribunal Cites 68 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shakuntala vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 1 July, 2009

In Milkmen Colony Vikas Samiti v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. and Shri Ghanchi Mahasabha, Jodhpur v. Rajasthan Chapter of Indian Association of Lawyers and Ors. AIR 2007 SC 1048 the Supreme Court directed the Municipal Corporation of Jodhpur to remove unattended stray animals, such as, stray cattle, bulls, dogs, pigs etc. from the city of Jodhpur as expeditiously as possible and in any event on or before 30th April, 2007. Further, in a string of decisions by various High Courts it was observed that keeping the public streets free from the WP (C) 13771/2006 Page 14 menace of stray animals is the primary duty of the municipal bodies. In the light of these decisions, it is held that the duty to maintain streets and public roads free of stray cattle is that of the MCD. This duty is owed to all members of the public, and is an absolute obligation.
Delhi High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 9 - S R Bhat - Full Document

Rashid Umar S/O Badruddin Ahmad vs The Chairman L D A Lko.& 2 Ors. on 4 December, 2013

10 We are living in an era where not only life but quality and dignity of life are the fundamental rights protected by Article 21 of the Constitution of India, vide Hinch Lal Tewari versus Kamala Devi:2001(6) SCC 496 and Banglore Medical Trust versus B.S. Mudappa AIR 1991 SC 1902; Milkmen Colony Vikas Samiti versus State of Rajasthan and others AIR 2007 SC 1046 and Nagar Nigam, Meerut versus Al Faheem Meat Exports Private Limited and others 2006(13) SCC 382.
Allahabad High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vishwanath Chaturvedi S/O M.P. ... vs Union Of India Thru Secy. Rural Dev. & ... on 3 December, 2010

122. Now, it has been settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court that not only right to life but dignity and quality of life and also right to privacy are fundamental rights vide 2001(6) SCC 496 Hinch Lal Tewari versus Kamala Devi and AIR 1991 SC 1902 Banglore Medical Trust versus B.S. Mudappa, AIR 2007 SC 1046 Milkmen Colony Vikas Samiti versus State of Rajasthan and others and 2006(13) SCC 382 Nagar Nigam, Meerut versus Al Faheem Meat Exports Private Limited and others. Once, Hon'ble Supreme Court declared that the right to privacy is a fundamental right, protected by Art. 21, then a person holding public office also retain right of privacy as constitutionally protected right. A public office and right to privacy are two different things. What is correct in personal life may not be correct in public life. For example, making a false statement to a friend with regard to personal matter may not attract the public office but false statement given during discharge of official duty shall necessarily invite punitive action and may amount to mis-conduct. Corally to it, is the corrupt practices. Indulgence in corrupt practice by public servant intentionally, deliberately and planned manner is his or her private conduct and for that he cannot claim protection of Section 19 of the Act. It is his personal conduct and owing to holding public office, he will be liable to be prosecuted under the Act because of misappropriation of public fund but it shall not require any sanction from the government under Section 19 of the Act.
Allahabad High Court Cites 72 - Cited by 0 - D P Singh - Full Document
1   2 Next