Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 65 (0.65 seconds)

Common Cause, A Registered Society vs Union Of India & Ors on 3 August, 1999

61.The claim of the petitioner that the demand was made from 15.01.2016 39/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch to 10.01.2017 was not correct was denied by the respondents. The petitioner had actually carried on mining operations over an extent of 18.11.5 Hectares in Varagupadi Village, Kunnam Taluk, Perambalur District from 24.10.1993 without obtaining Environment Clearance. The respondents therefore justified the issuance of the demand notice, impugned in the writ petition, towards cost of minerals and the quantum of limestone mined and transported without Environment Clearance for the period from 2000-2001 based on the base year production of 1993-94 as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Common Cause Vs. Union of India and others.
Supreme Court of India Cites 105 - Cited by 756 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr vs The Chiief Election Commissioner, New ... on 2 December, 1977

216.Mr.T.Ramesh, learned counsel relied on the judgment in AIR 1978 SC 851 (Mohinder Singh Gill and others Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others) for the proposition that public orders cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officers. With due respects, I hold that the impugned notices speak for themselves. There is reference to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Common Cause (referred supra). There is reference to the notification of the Ministry of Environment, 159/179 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.26808 of 2019 and batch Forest and Climate Change (MoEF) and the period, for which the demand is made and the amount demanded. No further details are required. Therefore, there is no occasion to expand the impugned notices in the counter affidavits.
Supreme Court of India Cites 56 - Cited by 4221 - V R Iyer - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next