Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (1.11 seconds)
Sri. Rajan K vs The Geologist on 26 August, 2025 cites

Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... vs Ankita Sinha on 14 February, 2022

2. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha and Others [2022 (13) SCC 401], etc. were relied upon to contend that the NGT even has suo moto power to take cognizance in respect of a matter falling within its jurisdiction. Inasmuch as the subject notification is one emanating from the Environment (Protection) Act, and the allegation is to the effect that Ext.P8 notification, if remain, will damage the environment, certainly the body competent to consider is the NGT; and not by invocation of WP(C) No. 23150 OF 2023 & Conn. Cases.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 57 - Full Document

Noble M Paikada vs Union Of India on 10 August, 2023

72. The above aspects are referred to herein only for the purpose of espousing the utter chaos, confusion and uncertainty created by the impugned Ext.P8 notification. The confusion created has gone to such an extent that the mechanism for fixing the validity of E.C. has become practically unworkable. This Court is of the opinion that, being vague and completely uncertain, verging on arbitrariness, the impugned notification is also liable to be interfered with on that count, as well. On the facts of Noble M. Paikada (supra) also, this issue arose, which is seen discussed in paragraph no. 25, whereby the subject notification therein was held to be very vague. For want of clarity, by giving unguided and blanket exemption, the notification was held to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14. The dictum is on all fours to the present fact situation as well.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kerala Samsthana Chethu Thozhilali ... vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 24 March, 2006

2025:KER:63722 154 Amicus that extending the validity period of E.C, so as to align the same with mining lease, hardly serves any environmental interest. Learned Amicus then pointed out that a subordinate legislation does not enjoy the same immunity as a statute and the same is liable to be struck down, if it does not conform to its parent statute or fails to reflect the legislative intent. Reliance in this regard is placed on Kerala Samsthana Chethu Thozhilali Union v. State of Kerala and Others [2006 (4) SCC 327].
Supreme Court of India Cites 37 - Cited by 348 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Deepak Kumar And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 25 February, 2011

(g) The longer the mine life/mining lease period, more scientific and systematic the mining will be, which ensures proper mineral exploration, as held in Deepak Kumar and Others v. State of Haryana and Others [2012 (4) SCC 629]. A lesser mine lease would lead to rapid exploration of minerals, without adequate measures for reclamation and rehabilitation of the mined out area.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 48 - D Chaudhary - Full Document

Pournami Oil Mills, Etc vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 19 December, 1986

2025:KER:63722 159 Non-mention of the provision under which it is issued is inconsequential, since the authority which made the Order had the statutory power to make such Order (Pournami Oil Mills and Others v. State of Kerala and Another [(1986) Supp. SCC 728]). Ext.P9 is traceable to the power conferred under Section 3, read with Section 5 of the E.P. Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 124 - M Rangnath - Full Document

M/S. Goel Ganga Developers India Pvt. ... vs Union Of India Through Secretary ... on 10 August, 2018

Nor can such a clarificatory circular expand or alter the scope of the original provision, as brought in by Ext.P8 notification. (See in this regard (1) Vanasakthi and Others (supra), (2) Goel Ganga Developers India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of environment and forests [2018 (3) KLT 782 (SC)] and (3) Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit and others v. Dr.Manu and another [(2023) 19 SCC 30]).
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 125 - D Gupta - Full Document

Tamil Nadu Polution Control Board vs Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. . on 18 February, 2019

78. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, this Court fully endorses the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Amicus. The legal position is not res integra in view of the judgment in Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (supra). When the specific prayer sought for vide relief no.2 is to quash the subject notification by issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, the jurisdiction of this Court cannot be doubted at all, for, such a relief cannot be granted by the National WP(C) No. 23150 OF 2023 & Conn. Cases.
Supreme Court of India Cites 96 - Cited by 46 - R F Nariman - Full Document
1   2 3 Next