Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.27 seconds)
K.K. Abdul Rahiman vs Arakuzha Grama Panchayath cites

All Kerala River Protection Council vs State Of Kerala on 5 October, 2021

In this regard it is relevant to note that this Court in Najeeb v Shoukath Ali (2015(3) KLT 396) has clarified a previous decision of the Division Bench in All Kerala WPC No.16007/2015 7 River Protection Council v State of Kerala (2015(2) KLT 78) in which it is held that after the judgment in Deepak Kumar v Union of India(2012(4) SCC 629) and the Government notification issued on 18.5.2012, no mining operation either by mining lease or mining permit is permissible without obtaining environmental clearance. However, the Division Bench has held that in so far as mining leases which were existing at the relevant time is concerned, environmental clearance was not required till the leases come for renewal.
Kerala High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 23 - S Manikumar - Full Document

M.K.Najeeb vs Shoukath Ali on 7 July, 2015

In this regard it is relevant to note that this Court in Najeeb v Shoukath Ali (2015(3) KLT 396) has clarified a previous decision of the Division Bench in All Kerala WPC No.16007/2015 7 River Protection Council v State of Kerala (2015(2) KLT 78) in which it is held that after the judgment in Deepak Kumar v Union of India(2012(4) SCC 629) and the Government notification issued on 18.5.2012, no mining operation either by mining lease or mining permit is permissible without obtaining environmental clearance. However, the Division Bench has held that in so far as mining leases which were existing at the relevant time is concerned, environmental clearance was not required till the leases come for renewal.
Kerala High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 3 - A Bhushan - Full Document

Deepak Kumar vs Union Of India And Ors on 23 September, 2010

In this case, the mining lease obtained by the petitioner is continuing and therefore, there cannot be any question of environmental clearance as stated in the Deepak Kumar's case (supra). Here, the petitioner has obtained permission from the Government on the strength of Ext.P1 quarrying license which is valid up to 24.1.2021. He has also obtained all other clearances from the concerned authorities. The rejection of the petitioner's application for license is quite untenable in the light of what has been stated above. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get the relief as WPC No.16007/2015 8 prayed for.
Delhi High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 3 - G Mittal - Full Document
1