Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (0.28 seconds)
National Fishworkers Forum Thr. Its ... vs Dahanu Taluka Environment Protection ... on 18 April, 2024 cites

The Conservation Action Trust And 2 Ors vs Union Of India And 3 Ors on 16 July, 2019

12. It is also necessary to refer to the order dated 16 th July 2018 passed by the Division Bench in Conservation Action Trust (supra). While recognizing the ambit of DTEPA, it has been held that the same is an Authority created under the orders of the Supreme Court dated 31 st October 1996 and was functioning for the last almost twenty-one years. Since DTEPA had been empowered to protect the ecologically fragile areas of Dahanu Taluka, no project coming up in that area could be permitted without referring such proposal to it for it's scrutiny and clearance. In paragraph 14 of the said order, it has been observed as under :
Bombay High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 1 - P Nandrajog - Full Document

Indian Council And Enviro-Legal Action vs Union Of India And Others on 9 March, 1995

. The learned Senior Advocate submitted that the work was related to a public infrastructure project having national importance and hence all 26/53 PIL-14-2024 & WP-15320-2023.doc Dixit ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2024 16:12:34 ::: requisite statutory permissions and sanctions had to be obtained before proceeding further. The cost of the proposed Port was estimated at about Rs.76,220 crores. The same was likely to generate about one thousand direct employments and six thousand indirect employments during the construction phase. On the Port becoming functional, about one lakh direct / indirect employment opportunities would be available. The impugned order sought to balance the aspect of environmental protection and undertaking of developmental activities by following the principle of "sustainable development". Since all relevant aspects had been taken into consideration by the DTEPA, coupled with the fact that the petitioners challenging the said order of DTEPA were neither experts in the field of environment nor had they produced any scientific or technical data to counter the various studies and reports considered by DTEPA, there was no case made out to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction. To substantiate his contentions, the learned Senior Advocate referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action Vs. Union of India and Ors., (1996) 5 SCC 281; National High Speed Rail Corporation Ltd. Vs. Montecarlo Ltd. and Anr., (2022) 6 SCC 401; Raunaq International Ltd. Vs. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. and Ors., (1999) 1 SCC 492; N.G. Projects Ltd. Vs. Vinod Kumar Jain and Ors., (2022) 6 SCC 127; Union of India Vs. Kushala Shetty and Ors., (2011) 12 SCC 69 and Dahanu Taluka Environment Protection Group and Anr. Vs. Bombay 27/53 PIL-14-2024 & WP-15320-2023.doc Dixit ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2024 16:12:34 ::: Suburban Electricity Supply Company Ltd. and Ors., along with connected matter, (1991) 2 SCC 539 and submitted that both the proceedings were liable to be dismissed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 88 - Full Document

National High Speed Rail Corporation ... vs Montecarlo Limited on 31 January, 2022

. The learned Senior Advocate submitted that the work was related to a public infrastructure project having national importance and hence all 26/53 PIL-14-2024 & WP-15320-2023.doc Dixit ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2024 16:12:34 ::: requisite statutory permissions and sanctions had to be obtained before proceeding further. The cost of the proposed Port was estimated at about Rs.76,220 crores. The same was likely to generate about one thousand direct employments and six thousand indirect employments during the construction phase. On the Port becoming functional, about one lakh direct / indirect employment opportunities would be available. The impugned order sought to balance the aspect of environmental protection and undertaking of developmental activities by following the principle of "sustainable development". Since all relevant aspects had been taken into consideration by the DTEPA, coupled with the fact that the petitioners challenging the said order of DTEPA were neither experts in the field of environment nor had they produced any scientific or technical data to counter the various studies and reports considered by DTEPA, there was no case made out to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction. To substantiate his contentions, the learned Senior Advocate referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action Vs. Union of India and Ors., (1996) 5 SCC 281; National High Speed Rail Corporation Ltd. Vs. Montecarlo Ltd. and Anr., (2022) 6 SCC 401; Raunaq International Ltd. Vs. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. and Ors., (1999) 1 SCC 492; N.G. Projects Ltd. Vs. Vinod Kumar Jain and Ors., (2022) 6 SCC 127; Union of India Vs. Kushala Shetty and Ors., (2011) 12 SCC 69 and Dahanu Taluka Environment Protection Group and Anr. Vs. Bombay 27/53 PIL-14-2024 & WP-15320-2023.doc Dixit ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2024 16:12:34 ::: Suburban Electricity Supply Company Ltd. and Ors., along with connected matter, (1991) 2 SCC 539 and submitted that both the proceedings were liable to be dismissed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 91 - M R Shah - Full Document

Raunaq International Ltd vs I.V R. Construction Ltd. And Ors on 9 December, 1998

. The learned Senior Advocate submitted that the work was related to a public infrastructure project having national importance and hence all 26/53 PIL-14-2024 & WP-15320-2023.doc Dixit ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2024 16:12:34 ::: requisite statutory permissions and sanctions had to be obtained before proceeding further. The cost of the proposed Port was estimated at about Rs.76,220 crores. The same was likely to generate about one thousand direct employments and six thousand indirect employments during the construction phase. On the Port becoming functional, about one lakh direct / indirect employment opportunities would be available. The impugned order sought to balance the aspect of environmental protection and undertaking of developmental activities by following the principle of "sustainable development". Since all relevant aspects had been taken into consideration by the DTEPA, coupled with the fact that the petitioners challenging the said order of DTEPA were neither experts in the field of environment nor had they produced any scientific or technical data to counter the various studies and reports considered by DTEPA, there was no case made out to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction. To substantiate his contentions, the learned Senior Advocate referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action Vs. Union of India and Ors., (1996) 5 SCC 281; National High Speed Rail Corporation Ltd. Vs. Montecarlo Ltd. and Anr., (2022) 6 SCC 401; Raunaq International Ltd. Vs. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. and Ors., (1999) 1 SCC 492; N.G. Projects Ltd. Vs. Vinod Kumar Jain and Ors., (2022) 6 SCC 127; Union of India Vs. Kushala Shetty and Ors., (2011) 12 SCC 69 and Dahanu Taluka Environment Protection Group and Anr. Vs. Bombay 27/53 PIL-14-2024 & WP-15320-2023.doc Dixit ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2024 16:12:34 ::: Suburban Electricity Supply Company Ltd. and Ors., along with connected matter, (1991) 2 SCC 539 and submitted that both the proceedings were liable to be dismissed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 782 - S V Manohar - Full Document
1   2 3 Next