Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.24 seconds)

Hanuman Laxman Aroskar vs Union Of India on 29 March, 2019

50. The Appellant has opposed the exemption from public hearing recommended by EAC. The Appellant has based his arguments on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Hanuman Lakshman Aroskah (supra), in (2016) 9 SCC 300, Electrotherm (India) Ltd. vs. Patel Vipulkumar Ramjibhai, and the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.9317 of 2009 and contends that the public hearing is a mandatory requirement of EIA Notification, 2006. The learned Counsel further contended that no executive order can bypass the statutory provision and public hearing is a statutory provision in the EIA Notification, 2006.
Supreme Court of India Cites 43 - Cited by 103 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

M/S Electrothem (India) Ltd vs Patel Vipulkumar Ramjibhai & Ors on 2 August, 2016

50. The Appellant has opposed the exemption from public hearing recommended by EAC. The Appellant has based his arguments on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Hanuman Lakshman Aroskah (supra), in (2016) 9 SCC 300, Electrotherm (India) Ltd. vs. Patel Vipulkumar Ramjibhai, and the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.9317 of 2009 and contends that the public hearing is a mandatory requirement of EIA Notification, 2006. The learned Counsel further contended that no executive order can bypass the statutory provision and public hearing is a statutory provision in the EIA Notification, 2006.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 12 - U U Lalit - Full Document
1