Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.37 seconds)Deepak Kumar Etc vs State Of Haryana & Ors.Etc on 27 February, 2012
9. The Tribunal, in the case of Satendra Pandey
(supra), has found that the notification dated 15th
January 2016, which provided Environmental
Clearance to be given by the District Environment
Impact Assessment Authority (hereinafter referred to as
the "DEIAA") was not in consonance with the judgment
of this Court in the case of Deepak Kumar v. State of
Haryana and Others2.
The Air (Prevention And Control Of Pollution) Act, 1981
The Mines Act, 1952
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
The Income Tax Act, 1961
The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Anjani Kumari Rai vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 24 August, 2018
The Hon'ble Supreme Court (in Deepak
Kumar, supra) noted that core group was constituted
by the MoEF&CC to examine the impact of minor
minerals on riverbeds and ground waters. A draft
report was prepared recommending mandatory
preparation of mining plan on the pattern of mining
plans for major minerals. Further recommendations
are reclamation and rehabilitation of abandoned
mines, proportion of hydro geo-logical balance for
minerals below ground water table limiting depth of
mining to 3 meter and identification on locations
where mining should be permitted was required.
There is need for identifying safety zones in the
proximity of intendments. Thus, strict regulatory
parameters were required for regulating mining of
minor minerals. It was noted that in-stream mining
lowers the stream bottom of rivers which may lead to
bank erosion. Depletion of sand in the stream bed
causes deepening of rivers which may result in
destruction of aquatic and riparian habitats. It has
impact on stream's physical habitat characteristics.