Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.19 seconds)M.C. Mehta vs Kamal Nath & Ors on 13 December, 1996
30. The Doctrine emanates from the ancient principle that certain resources (seashores, rivers and forests) are so intrinsically important to the public that they cannot be subjected to unrestricted private control. Rooted in Roman law and incorporated into English common law, this Doctrine recognizes that the Sovereign holds specific resources as a trustee for present and future generations. M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 SCC 388, para 24-25.
Centre For Public Interest Litigation vs Union Of India & Ors. on 1 June, 2012
31. In the Indian context, the Doctrine has evolved to encompass public resources meant for collective benefit, reflecting the constitutional mandate Under Article 21. As held in Natural Resources Allocation In re, while the Doctrine does not impose an absolute prohibition on transferring public trust property, it subjects such alienation to stringent judicial review to ensure legitimate public purpose and adequate safeguards. Centre for Public Interest Litigation V. Union of India (2012) 3 SCC 1
Kamla Nehru Memorial Trust Through Its ... vs U.P.State Industrial Development ... on 20 February, 2014
7. The Hon?ble Apex Court in a recent judgment of Kamla Nehru Memorial Trust and Others v. U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Limited and Others Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 31887-88/2017 has held that, in order to preserve the integrity of the allotment process, allowing deliberate and repeated defaults by an allottee to persist unchecked would undermine the entire framework of land allocation and set a harmful precedent detrimental to public interest. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced herein below:?
1