Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.22 seconds)
Hem Chand And Ors. vs State Of Haryana And Ors. on 27 May, 1993 cites

M.C. Mehta & Anr. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc on 17 February, 1986

15. We find no force in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have been discriminated against in view of the fact that licence have been granted to people in village Palli. We find support in the contention of learned counsel for the respondents while refuting the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners that licences were granted in village Palli when the present parameters imposed vide notification Annexure P7 were not in existence and that stone crushers were accommodated on the alternate sites, in view of the stand taken before Hon'ble the Supreme Court and under orders of the Supreme Court. It would be categorically discernible by reading the order dated 15.5.1992 in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India. The argument of discrimination appears to be fallacious the face of it as all the stone crushers of the State cannot be accommodated at one place. In the very fitness of things and the facts, the state Government is empowered to keep the various factors, said in the earlier part of the Judgment and the object of the Act in view, to refuse the grant of licence. The very fact that different parameters are applicable when the petitioners want to obtain a licence would make the petitioners a class by itself. They cannot be treated equally or similarly as the people who applied for licence, much prior to the petitioners.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 203 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document
1