Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.26 seconds)Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 8 November, 2012
20. The legal doctrine cited by the appellants regarding
20/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:28 pm )
W.A.No.1791 of 2024
'aggrieved person' will not weigh much importance, when public resources
and the rights of a broader class are at stake. The judgment cited by the
appellants in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhkan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra
(supra) is distinguishable, as rightly observed by the learned Single Judge,
because the water extraction issue affects wide agriculturists' interests
beyond mere personal grievance.
Board Of Trustees Of Port Of Kandla vs Hargovind Jasraj & Anr on 9 January, 2013
11. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that
the appellants have not been tapping water illegally and they had already
obtained a Track Rent Permit from the Tahsildar. The Writ Petitioner has
not challenged the said permit before any Court of Law and any person
aggrieved must seek redressal through the due process of law. The Supreme
Court in Board of Trustees of Port of Kandla vs. Hargovind Jasraj and
another, reported in 2013 (3) SCC 182 categorically held that no
administrative or statutory order can be brushed aside or treated as otiose,
except upon a categorical judicial pronouncement.
Bhusawal Municipal Council vs Nivrutti Ramchandra Phalak & Ors on 17 December, 2013
12. Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that there
are 80 agriculturists benefitted under the Scheme, which is in operation
from 2018 and have been enjoying the water for irrigation purpose
appellants. The farmers generate income out of their cultivation in paddy
field and their livelihood are sought to be stalled by persons like that of the
Writ Petitioner. The Supreme Court, while describing the umbilical linkage
between the land and the farmer's very existence in society in the case of
15/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2025 08:32:28 pm )
W.A.No.1791 of 2024
Bhusawal Municipal Council vs. Nivrutti Ramchandra Phalak and
Others, reported in 2015 (14) SCC 327, enumerated the plight of
agriculturists, observing as under:
M.C. Mehta vs Kamal Nath & Ors on 13 December, 1996
The Apex Court in the case of
M.C.Mehra vs. Kamal Nath, reported in AIR 1997 SC 3121 set a precedent
way back in the year 1996 on the strict regulations and judicial oversight on
unauthorized use of natural resources like water to prevent harm to the
public and environment. The said ruling mandates prevention of
commercial exploitation and depletion of water resources in violation of
law.
Union Of India vs Bharat Fritz Werner Limited on 17 February, 2022
10. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there is
no proof adduced by the Writ Petitioner in support of his allegation that the
appellants have been drawing water directly from the Bhavani River. He
drew the attention of this Court to the judgment of Apex Court in the case
of Union of India vs. Bharat Fritz Werner Limited and another, reported
in 2022 (13) SCC 362, to state that general sweeping observations, which
are beyond the contours of the controversy should not be made. The
relevant passage of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:
1