Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.26 seconds)Smt. S. R. Venkataraman vs Union Of India & Anr on 2 November, 1978
"7. As regards the justification offered by the
respondents for requiring transit passes, if at all the
respondents in reality have wished to see if the clay
extracted is being properly used for the purposes of
manufacturing bricks, then for verifying the same
they could have resorted to a simple procedure for
inspection as may be authorized by law. Having
regard to the same, it is wholly unnecessary to go in
the question of the action taken by respondents
being innocent as observed by the Apex Court in a
decision in the case of Smt. S.R. Venkataraman .vs.
Union of India and another reported in (1979) 2
Supreme Court Cases 491 wherein while
considering the question of malice in law by quoting
the observations of Viscount Haldane in the decision
in the case of Shearer Vs. Shields reported in (1914)
AC 808, it has been observed by Apex Court in
paragraph no.5 of the said decision :-
Vishal Laxman Shinde And Others vs State Of Maharashtra Through Principal ... on 29 August, 2023
6. It is, therefore, evident that metal stone or
'gitti' being finished product does not fall within the stope
of minor minerals and cannot be regulated by the Mines
and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.
Similar view is re-iterated by this Court in subsequent
judgments particularly in case of Vishal Shinde (supra).
Wayad Ali Khan vs Raj. State Road Trans. Corpn. & Ors on 13 April, 2017
In
support of his contentions, he relies upon the Division
Bench Judgment of this Court in case of Pralhad s/o
Vishnu Wayade Vs. State of Maharashtra and others dated
19.3.2010 in Writ Petition No.4077 of 2009 (Nagpur),
judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.8194 of 2022 in
case of Vishal Laxman Shinde Vs. State of Maharashtra
and others dated 25.8.2022 and similar orders passed in
writ petition Nos.13216 of 2022, 3504 of 2023 and WP
9850 of 2023 (at Aurangabad).
1