Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.26 seconds)People United For Better Living In ... vs State Of West Bengal And Others on 24 September, 1992
8. It is true that nature will not tolerate. us after a certain degree of its destruction and it will have its toll, though may not be felt in present, but at a future point of time, but can the present day society afford to have such a state of affairs and allow the nature to have its toll in future - the answer cannot but be in the negative : the present day society has a responsibility towards the future generations so as to allow the posterity to breathe normally and live in a cleaner environment and consequently have a fuller development: But does that mean and imply stoppage of all developmental activities in order to preserve and maintain the environment and this is inspite of the feet that technological developments have been ascribed to be one of the major factors for environmental disorder - In our view, it is neither feasible nor practicable to have a negative approach to the development process of the country or of the society, since in a developing economy technological advancement ought not to be described at all, though, however, the same does not mean without any consideration for the environment. There shall have to be a proper balance between development and environment so that both can co-exist without affecting the other. The society shall have to prosper but not at the cost of the environment and in the similar vein the environment shall have to be protected but not at the cost of the development of the society. There shall have to be both development and proper environment and administrative actions ought to proceed in accordance therewith and not de hors the same. The observations as above obtain support from a decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Peoples United for Better Living in Calcutta v. the Stale of West Bengal, AIR 1993 Cal. 335.
Dr.B.L.Wadehra vs Union Of India & Ors on 1 March, 1996
24. Before considering the issue of locus standi as raised by Sri Ananta Babu, we deem it expedient to note that Sri Reddy in course of his arguments did place very strong reliance on two decisions of the Supreme Court, the first being the case of Dr. B.L. Wadhra v. Union of India, and the second being the oft cited decision in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (1991) 1 SCC 388. We, however, do not see any relevance of these two decisions by reason of clear factual differences and as such we need not detain ourselves on that score.
State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.Etc vs Ganesh Wood Products & Ors.Etc on 11 September, 1995
25. Turning on to the issue of locus standi, it has been contended by the private respondent that the petitioner cannot but betermed to be a busybody and the law Court ought not to pay any heed to the submissions. It is against this contention, Mr. Reddy placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of H.P. v. Ganesh Wood Products, . In the last noted decision, the Supreme Court in no uncertain terms observed that the organisations may be big or small, may be well established ones or recently started ones, but that would be immaterial insofar as the doctrine of locus is concerned ...... once it is found that he wasnot acting at the instance of or at the behest of or for protecting the interests of an individual Company, there was no reason to hold that he was not acting bonafide in approaching the Court to preserve the forest wealth of the State in the interest of environment and ecology. Incidentally, the Supreme Court was dealing with a matter in which one Sri Yogendra Chandra filed a writ petition before the High Court being No. 1155 of 1993, but by reason of the order of dismissal, the said Yogendra Chandra also filed a Special Leave Petition No.11082 of 1995 before the Supreme Court and in that perspective, the Supreme Court recorded:
P.S.Mahal & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 23 May, 1984
In this context the observation of the Supreme Court in the case of S.P. Gvpta and others v. Union of India, , ought to be noted. The Supreme Court observed :
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
Calcutta Youth Front & Anr vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 12 September, 1988
1. Global maturity in recent years in regard to the concept of ecological imbalance cannot in any way be doubted -- but what does the expression 'ecology' means : Ecology in common acceptation mean and imply the study of home or the household of nature to be kept in order. George L Clarice in his Elements of Ecology has stated that every living thing is surrounded by materials and forces which constitute its environment and from which it must derive its needs and contact with the environment is inescapable. It is on this perspective, it is to be considered as to whether on the wake of Twenty First Century when there is such an awareness and maturity throughout the Globe in regard to maintenance of ecological equilibrium, Law Courts should be justified to lend a blind eye and deaf ear in regard to this concept of ecological imbalance if raised before it. Ecological imbalance, undoubtedly, is a social problem and in this context the observations of the Calcutta High Court in Calcutta Youth Front and another v. State of West Bengal and another, 1986 (2) CLJ 26, seem to be rather apposite. In that decision, the Court held:
The Industries (Development And Regulation) Act, 1951
1