Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.06 seconds)Indian Council And Enviro-Legal Action vs Union Of India And Others on 9 March, 1995
159. The Public Trust Doctrine requires that natural
resources such as lakes, ponds, etc., are held by the State, as a
Trustee of the Public and can be disposed of only in a manner that is
consistent with the nature of such Trust, as noted by Hon'ble
Supreme Court, in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action Vs.
Union of India (1996 5 SCC 281).
M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd vs Radhey Shyam Sahu And Others on 26 July, 1999
“59. In the light of detailed qualitative and quantitative
discussions aforesaid and notwithstanding the plea taken on behalf of the
Respondents 1 and 2 that Section 70 (1) of the Puducherry Town and
Country Planning Act, 1969 [Act 13 of 1970) permits 'Composition of
Offences' either before or after the institution of the proceedings in respect
of any offence made punishable by or under this Act etc., this Court is of
the considered view that in Law, when an offence is compounded either by
an arrangement or settlement, the same will result in an Acquittal of the
offender/Accused and as per Section 70(2) of the Puducherry Town and
Country Planning Act, 1969, when an offence was compounded and when
an offender is in custody, he shall be discharged and that no further
proceedings shall be taken against him in respect of an offence
compounded. In other words, the Composition/Compounding of an
Offence under the Puducherry Town and Country Planning Act, 1969 will
restrain a person from being prosecuted, since he had paid the necessary
charges. But, in the present case, as regards an Unauthorised
Development/Building Violation made or committed by the 3rd
Respondent, this Court keeping in mind of the dictum laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court between M.I. Builders (P) Ltd., V. Radhey Shayam
Sahu in 999 (6) SCC 464 : AIR 1999 SC 2468, the unauthorised
construction in the subject matter in issue being an illegal one cannot be
compounded by any means whatsoever. Even the Puducherry Bye Law
Zoning Regulations, 2012 issued under Section 47 of the Puducherry
Town and Country Planning Act, 1969 cannot come to rescue of the
Respondents 1 and 2 as well as the 3rd Respondent. If an unauthorised
construction/development made by the 3rd Respondent is given the seal of
approval by the Respondents 1 and 2 in passing the Impugned Order dated
25.10.2017 and the consequential order 21.11.2017 respectively, then, the
same will result in encouraging an illegality or perpetuating illegality and
the Court of Law cannot encourage the same in a Democratic Polity, based
on the 'Principle of Rule of Law'. Looking at from any angle, the
Impugned Order dated 25.10.2017 and the consequential order dated
21.11.2017 do not stand scrutiny in the eye of Law, since they are per se
illegal......” (emphasis supplied)
1 2019 (1) CWC 669
Page 22 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Article 239 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 44 in The Government Of Union Territories Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 47 in Puducherry Town and Country Planning Act, 1969 [Entire Act]
1