Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.34 seconds)
Dinesh Chahal vs Union Of India on 6 February, 2020 cites

M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India And Ors on 5 April, 2002

3. Vide order dated 07.01.2019, while issuing notice, this Tribunal stayed the operation of the order of the Director, Food, Civil supplies and Consumers Affairs, Government of Haryana, Chandigarh. The matter was again considered on 21.02.2019 with reference to the contention that the impugned order was only for Non-NCR to which order of CPCB or EPCA did not apply. The Tribunal held that even in Non-NCR, Standards of Ambient Air Quality laid down under Section 17 (g) of the Air Act are required to be followed. If the impugned order has been passed without undertaking any study on status of ambient air quality without any carrying capacity assessment to take the additional load at concerned areas and without any safeguards on 'Precautionary' principle, the same may not be justifiable having regard to the acknowledged adverse impact of operation of the brick kilns on the ambient air quality. Reference was made to the Judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1998) 9 SCC 149, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2000) 7 SCC 422, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2002) 4 SCC 378, K. Guruprasad Rao v. State of Karnataka, (2012) 12 SCC 736 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed closure or shifting of brick kiln industries and M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2001) 9 SCC 235 laying down that brick kilns may be allowed to operate after studying the impact on human population and vegetation. The State of Haryana sought time to show whether any exercise was undertaken as per the 'Precautionary' principle of environment while passing the order. The interim order was allowed to continue.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 63 - Full Document

M.C. Mehta vs Union Of Indi A & Ors on 1 March, 2001

3. Vide order dated 07.01.2019, while issuing notice, this Tribunal stayed the operation of the order of the Director, Food, Civil supplies and Consumers Affairs, Government of Haryana, Chandigarh. The matter was again considered on 21.02.2019 with reference to the contention that the impugned order was only for Non-NCR to which order of CPCB or EPCA did not apply. The Tribunal held that even in Non-NCR, Standards of Ambient Air Quality laid down under Section 17 (g) of the Air Act are required to be followed. If the impugned order has been passed without undertaking any study on status of ambient air quality without any carrying capacity assessment to take the additional load at concerned areas and without any safeguards on 'Precautionary' principle, the same may not be justifiable having regard to the acknowledged adverse impact of operation of the brick kilns on the ambient air quality. Reference was made to the Judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1998) 9 SCC 149, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2000) 7 SCC 422, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2002) 4 SCC 378, K. Guruprasad Rao v. State of Karnataka, (2012) 12 SCC 736 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed closure or shifting of brick kiln industries and M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2001) 9 SCC 235 laying down that brick kilns may be allowed to operate after studying the impact on human population and vegetation. The State of Haryana sought time to show whether any exercise was undertaken as per the 'Precautionary' principle of environment while passing the order. The interim order was allowed to continue.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 50 - Full Document

Tamil Nadu Polution Control Board vs Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. . on 18 February, 2019

10. As regards the objection raised on behalf of the affected brick kilns that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction in the 3 matter in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board v. Sterlite Industries, AIR 2019 SC 1074, we do not find any merit in the submission. The operation of the brick kilns impacting air quality raises a substantial question of environment and for protection of environment, this Tribunal has jurisdiction to pass orders under Section 15 of the NGT Act which also includes power to issue interim order. While Tribunal may not exercise 'judicial review' jurisdiction of High Court and Supreme Court, jurisdiction under Sections 14, 15 and 20 of the NGT Act, 2010 can certainly be exercised. Otherwise setting up of Tribunal will have no purpose.
Supreme Court of India Cites 96 - Cited by 46 - R F Nariman - Full Document

M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 30 December, 1996

3. Vide order dated 07.01.2019, while issuing notice, this Tribunal stayed the operation of the order of the Director, Food, Civil supplies and Consumers Affairs, Government of Haryana, Chandigarh. The matter was again considered on 21.02.2019 with reference to the contention that the impugned order was only for Non-NCR to which order of CPCB or EPCA did not apply. The Tribunal held that even in Non-NCR, Standards of Ambient Air Quality laid down under Section 17 (g) of the Air Act are required to be followed. If the impugned order has been passed without undertaking any study on status of ambient air quality without any carrying capacity assessment to take the additional load at concerned areas and without any safeguards on 'Precautionary' principle, the same may not be justifiable having regard to the acknowledged adverse impact of operation of the brick kilns on the ambient air quality. Reference was made to the Judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1998) 9 SCC 149, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2000) 7 SCC 422, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2002) 4 SCC 378, K. Guruprasad Rao v. State of Karnataka, (2012) 12 SCC 736 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed closure or shifting of brick kiln industries and M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2001) 9 SCC 235 laying down that brick kilns may be allowed to operate after studying the impact on human population and vegetation. The State of Haryana sought time to show whether any exercise was undertaken as per the 'Precautionary' principle of environment while passing the order. The interim order was allowed to continue.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 260 - Full Document
1   2 Next