Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.22 seconds)

M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 March, 2004

25. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended that recourse to Article 142 of the Constitution of India cannot be taken to supplant any existing law, impose a tax or ignore the substantive rights of parties. And therefore, the orders passed by the Supreme Court for implementation of the outdoor policy cannot be read to include imposition of the impugned charges. This was disputed by the learned counsel for the MCD and it was contended that the Supreme Court had adopted a specific policy which included imposition of ―a fine as decided by MCD Commissioner‖. It was further submitted that since the outdoor policy specifically included charging regulatory fee for advertisement, such fee could be charged by virtue of the order dated 12.10.2007 passed by the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta II (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 40 - Cited by 1765 - H K Sema - Full Document
1