Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (1.06 seconds)
Sunit Kumar Mallick Chowdhury. Son Of ... vs The State Of West Bengal Service Through ... on 3 January, 2022 cites

M.K. Balakrishnan & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 26 March, 2009

17. The suggestion of the applicant is that significant wetlands need not be limited to 363 and more wetlands on examinations be added to the list from time to time for better protection by preparing appropriate action plans under the programme for protection of the significant wetlands. Further, apart from figure of 2.01 lakh wetlands already mapped, to which the Wetland Rules, 2017 are applicable even if no separate Notification in terms of 2017 Rules in view of directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.K. Balakrishnan, supra, it may be possible to identify more such wetlands. Infact, the report of the MoEF&CC itself mentions that some States have already identified larger number of wetlands than earlier mapped. In UP itself, 133484 wetlands are entered in the Revenue Records which are being protected by the State. On the same pattern, all the States/UTs need to map all available wetlands in their jurisdiction and file report with the National Wetland Authority so that National Wetland Authority can prepare an exhaustive inventory of wetlands in the country and extend protection to all such wetlands.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 78 - Full Document

Shree Nath Sharma vs Union Of India on 5 July, 2021

18. District Environment Plan of each District in terms of order of this Tribunal dated 05.07.2021 in OA 360/2018, Shree Nath Sharma vs. Union of India & Ors. should also cover the wetlands in the District. If necessary, the said plans be revised accordingly by the District Magistrates concerned by providing that the core activity for conservation and protection of wetlands may primarily focus on not discharging of sewage, disposal of solid waste and other wastes, preventing siltation, demarcation of wetlands/flood protection zone and removal of encroachments. There should be regular monitoring of water quality under water quality management programme at strategic locations (around 10 locations) to ensure that it is compliant with TC/FC norms. Water quality of the wetlands with respect to BOD needs to be less than 3 mg/l, feacal coliform should meet norms and contamination due to toxic constituents either directly or through runoff from the catchment should be prevented. Biodiversity of the wetlands needs to be maintained. Monitoring of steps for compliance of Rules in relation to such Wetlands ought to be at District level by the District Magistrate, at State level by State Wetland Authority and at National level by National Wetland Authority. We are confident that such initiatives in monitoring will go a long way in protecting the Wetlands which have significant environmental functions."
National Green Tribunal Cites 36 - Cited by 11 - A K Goel - Full Document

Metropolitan Co Operative Housing ... vs Sunit Kumar Mallick Chowdhury on 3 August, 2018

5. On 12.07.2016, the Tribunal considered the prayer for interim relief and observed that no order was necessary in the hope that status quo will be maintained in the matter of filling up of the waterbody in question. On 20.07.2016, the Tribunal appointed Surveyor for measurement of the waterbody and to ascertain the encroachments. Status quo was directed to be maintained in the meanwhile. On 07.02.2017, the Tribunal considered the grievance against violation of the order of status quo and directed jurisdictional ADM and Police Station to verify the allegation and stop any illegal construction and file an action taken report. On 06.11.2017, the application was dismissed for non-appearance of the applicant but the said order was recalled on 11.12.2017 which was reiterated on 23.04.2018. Against the order of the Tribunal dated 23.04.2018, Civil Appeal No(s). 6191-6192/2018, Metropolitan Co- operative Housing Society Limited & Anr. vs. Sunit Kumar Mallick Chowdhury & Ors. was dismissed on 03.08.2018 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and WP No. 11287(W) of 2018, In re: Smt. Supriti Saha vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. was dismissed by the Kolkata High Court on 12.09.2018.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

In Re : Smt. Supriti Saha vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 12 September, 2018

5. On 12.07.2016, the Tribunal considered the prayer for interim relief and observed that no order was necessary in the hope that status quo will be maintained in the matter of filling up of the waterbody in question. On 20.07.2016, the Tribunal appointed Surveyor for measurement of the waterbody and to ascertain the encroachments. Status quo was directed to be maintained in the meanwhile. On 07.02.2017, the Tribunal considered the grievance against violation of the order of status quo and directed jurisdictional ADM and Police Station to verify the allegation and stop any illegal construction and file an action taken report. On 06.11.2017, the application was dismissed for non-appearance of the applicant but the said order was recalled on 11.12.2017 which was reiterated on 23.04.2018. Against the order of the Tribunal dated 23.04.2018, Civil Appeal No(s). 6191-6192/2018, Metropolitan Co- operative Housing Society Limited & Anr. vs. Sunit Kumar Mallick Chowdhury & Ors. was dismissed on 03.08.2018 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and WP No. 11287(W) of 2018, In re: Smt. Supriti Saha vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. was dismissed by the Kolkata High Court on 12.09.2018.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - T Chakraborty - Full Document
1