Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.29 seconds)
Susetha vs The Union Of India on 28 July, 2010 cites

A.P. Pollution Control Board vs Prof.M.V.Nayudu (Retd.) & Others on 27 January, 1999

37. No doubt, as has been held by the Honourable Apex Court, in A.P.POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD vs. PROF.M.V.NAYUDU (RETD.) AND OTHERS [(1999) 2 SCC 718], in environmental matters, the principle of reversal of burden of proof would apply, compelling the party who wants to bring in the changes to the system, to discharge the onus of evidentiary burden. In the case on hand, the respondents/the organs of the State, by producing clinching evidence, have successfully discharged this reversal of burden of proof, by establishing that the proposed site is far away from the prohibited area and in fact, it is completely a developed area, wherein huge structures of public utility were already erected unopposed by anybody, including the petitioner, herself being a resident of the same locality. However, though the area does not fall within the prohibited limits, from the materials available on record, it is also seen that the Slum Clearance has left 100 m. wide land vacant between outer boundary line of the construction site area and the Buckhingham Canal as a buffer zone to manage flood water, if any. In fact, there seems to be a high degree danger of encroachments in the area, owing to the fact that the land values in the area have skyrocketed in the recent past as a result of development of the area, having almost all facilities required for a well being of the population living in the area. Instead of permitting another slum area to come up in the city, the State and its organs have undertaken a Herculean and patting task of providing shelters to shelterless, most of them being either slum dwellers or the victims of draconian Tsunami.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 233 - M J Rao - Full Document

Susetha vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors on 8 August, 2006

25. Citing the above judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the petitioner, as a socially conscious person, always stands in the forefront to fight such issues for the common good of all and in fact on an earlier occasion, challenging the move of the very same Panchayat for construction of a shopping complex in one of the village tanks, she has filed a writ petition in W.P.No.35942 of 2006 before this Court and since the same was dismissed by this Court by the order dated 18.1.2006, she approached the Honourable Supreme Court in S.L.P.(C)No.4502 of 2006, which was later on converted as Civil Appeal No.3418 of 2006 and the Honourable Apex Court in its reported judgment, in the above matter, in SUSETHA vs. STATE OF T.N. [(2006) 6 SCC 543], though has held that 'the doctrine of sustainable development although is not an empty slogan, it is required to be implemented taking a pragmatic view and not on ipse dixit of the court', has ultimately dismissed the said appeal of the petitioner.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 50 - S B Sinha - Full Document

State Of Uttaranchal vs Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors on 18 January, 2010

26. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also argue that very recently the Honourable Apex Court, in STATE OF UTTARANCHAL vs. BALWANT SINGH CHAUFAL AND OTHERS [(2010) 3 SCC 402], has issued guidelines relating to Public Interest Litigation and the present writ petition has complied with all the pre-requisites of such guidelines issued by the Honourable Apex Court and would pray to allow this writ petition. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the said guidelines issued by the Honourable Apex Court with regard to Public Interest Litigation are extracted hereunder:
Supreme Court of India Cites 104 - Cited by 721 - D Bhandari - Full Document
1   2 Next