Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (1.40 seconds)The Himachal Pradesh Land Preservation Act, 1978
The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
Section 3 in The Industries (Development And Regulation) Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
The Himachal Pradesh Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1982
Himachal Pradesh Private Forests Act, 1954
Bakul Oil Industries & Anr vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 11 November, 1986
The divergence in approach adopted in Sri Bakul
Oil Industries v. State of Gujarat (1981 (1) S.C.C.31) and
Pournami Oil Mills v. State of Kerala (1986 Suppl.S.C.C.728)
is another instance. The fact that the recent decision in
Kasinka Trading and Ann. v. Union of India & Ors. (1995 (1)
S.C.C.274) is being reconsidered by larger Bench is yet
another affirmation of the need stressed by Lord Hailsham
for enunciating "a coherent body of doctrine by the Courts".
An aspect needing a clear exposition - and which is of
immediate relevance herein - is what is the precise meaning
of the words "the promisee.....alters his position", in the
statement of the doctrine. The doctrine has been formulated
in the following words in M/s. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills
Co. Ltd.:
Pournami Oil Mills, Etc vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 19 December, 1986
The divergence in approach adopted in Sri Bakul
Oil Industries v. State of Gujarat (1981 (1) S.C.C.31) and
Pournami Oil Mills v. State of Kerala (1986 Suppl.S.C.C.728)
is another instance. The fact that the recent decision in
Kasinka Trading and Ann. v. Union of India & Ors. (1995 (1)
S.C.C.274) is being reconsidered by larger Bench is yet
another affirmation of the need stressed by Lord Hailsham
for enunciating "a coherent body of doctrine by the Courts".
An aspect needing a clear exposition - and which is of
immediate relevance herein - is what is the precise meaning
of the words "the promisee.....alters his position", in the
statement of the doctrine. The doctrine has been formulated
in the following words in M/s. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills
Co. Ltd.:
State Of Punjab vs Khemi Ram on 6 October, 1969
The matters before us have to be approached and decided
keeping the above principles in mind. The Court should first
ascertain what precisely has each the said five respondents
(Ganesh Wood Products, Naman Wood Products, Dev Bhoomi
Industries, Indian Wood Products and Chander Katha
Industries) have done on the basis of and on the faith of
the "approval" granted by the IPARA (sub-committee of IPARA)
by the date of the communication of the decision of the
government - and IPARA in the case of two last mentioned
units. [The expression "communication" in this behalf should
be understood as explained in State of Punjab v. Khemi Ram
(A.I.R. 1970 S.C.214). After ascertaining the same, the
Court shall have to decide whether it is a case - separately
in case of each of the said respondents - where the
government should or should not be allowed to go back on the
said "approval" granted by the IPARA (sub-committee). It is
obvious that this decision has to be taken after giving an
opportunity to both the parties to adduce material in
support of their respective stands. Inasmuch as the High
Court has not approached and examined the case from the
above standpoint, the matter has to go back. While deciding
the appropriate course, it is evident that the Court shall
also have to keep in mind the plea of government that IPARA
or its sub-committee was not competent to accord approval
and that the power lay only with the government, as also the
plea of the respondents that in the circumstances they
believed and acted in good faith that IPARA is but another
name for, or a mouthpiece of, the government. It is equally
evident that while deciding where the interests of justice
and equity lie, the Court will also take into account, and
balance, public interest and the interest of the respondents
aforesaid. The Court shall also take into consideration the
estimate of raw material (khair trees) and its expected
availability - at present and in the years to come - to be
made by the Himachal Pradesh government pursuant to the
directions contained herein with the aid of an expert
committee. The High Court may give six months' time to the
government to arrive at such an estimate and to place it
before the Court.