Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 46 (0.41 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 3 in The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
S. L. Kapoor vs Jagmohan & Ors on 18 September, 1980
In such cases, a Court may not issue its writ to compel
49
O.A. No.53/2026-PB Nitin Saxena Vs. National Highway Authority of India & Ors.
the observance of natural justice, not because it is not necessary to
observe natural justice, but because Courts do not issue writs which
are "futile" - (S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan and Ors. (1980) 4 SCC 379 at
paragraph 24.
Rajeev Suri vs Delhi Development Authority on 26 July, 2018
"A. Rajeev Suri v. Delhi Development Authority [2021 SCC
Online SC 7]
"494. The minutes of the two meetings of EAC are self-
explanatory and reveal due application of mind, in light of the
principles relating to application of mind enunciated above. We
do not wish to repeat the same to avoid prolixity. EAC is an
expert body and it is amply clear that it has been made aware
of all relevant information relating to the project and it has
applied its mind to the proposal. Even on settled principles of
judicial review, it is clear that relevant material has been
considered by the committee and no reliance has been pointed
out on any irrelevant material. The specific recommendations
given by the committee do indicate that the committee was
aware of the need for precautionary measures in environmental
matters and accordingly, it suggested requirement of further
permissions on certain counts.
The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Compensatory Afforestation Fund Act, 2016
M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. In Re: Inder ... on 27 July, 1999
4. The Applicant has relied on M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors. (In Re:
Chairman, Board Of Mining Examination ... vs Ramjee on 3 February, 1977
In Chairman, Board of Mining Examination and Chief Inspector of
Mines & Anr. Vs. Ramjee, AIR 1977 SC 965 the Court has observed
that natural justice is not an unruly horse, no lurking landmine, nor
a judicial cure-all. If fairness is shown by the decision-maker to the
man proceeded against, the form, features and the fundamentals of
such essential processual propriety being conditioned by the facts
and circumstances of each situation, no breach of natural justice can
be complained of. Unnatural expansion of natural justice, without
reference of the administrative realities and other factors of a given
case, can be exasperating. The Courts cannot look at law in the
abstract or natural justice as a mere artefact. Nor can they fit into a
rigid mould the concept of reasonable opportunity.