Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 29 (0.34 seconds)Centre For Public Interest Litigation vs Union Of India & Ors. on 1 June, 2012
The Constitution Bench said that findings of
this Court in (2G Case) Centre for Public Interest
Litigation & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.,
(2012) 3 SCC 1 were limited to the case of spectrum
and not beyond that and that it did not deal with the
modes of allocation for natural resources other than
spectrum.
Monnet Ispat And Energy Ltd vs Union Of India And Ors on 26 July, 2012
The Court in Monnet Ispat
and Energy Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors., (2012)
11 SCC 1 said:
Deepak Kumar Etc vs State Of Haryana & Ors.Etc on 27 February, 2012
9. The Tribunal, in the case of Satendra Pandey (supra), has found
that the notification dated 15th January 2016, which provided
Environmental Clearance to be given by the District Environment
Impact Assessment Authority (hereinafter referred to as the "DEIAA")
was not in consonance with the judgment of this Court in the case of
Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others2.
Goa Foundation vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 November, 2013
III. The Authority constituted/nominated under Section 3(3) of the
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 as envisaged by Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in Goa Foundation Vs. Union of India & Ors.
and in the matter of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union
of India & Ors. (2014) 4 SSC 61 may take further action. The
monitoring must be ensured through the Chief Secretary by
holding a meeting and issue the necessary guidelines and
actions in accordance with the order passed by this Tribunal in
O.A. No. 360/2015.
Section 2 in The Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
The Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957
Sachidananda Pandey vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 11 February, 1987
The Tribunal
therefore in Satendra Pandey (supra), had directed Ministry of
Environment, Forest and Climate Change (hereinafter referred to as
"MoEF and CC) to take steps to revise the procedure laid down in the
notification dated 15th January 2016. It is to be noted that MoEF and
CC, in accordance with the directions of the Tribunal, had issued
Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining (hereinafter
to referred to as "the 2020 guidelines") in the month of January 2020.
Chapter 4 of the 2020 guidelines deals with identification of possible
sand mining sources and preparation of DSR. It will be relevant to
refer to Clause 4.1.1 (a), (o) and (p) of the 2020 guidelines:
M.P. Oil Extraction And Anr. Etc vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors on 9 July, 1997
Extraction & Anr. v. State of M.P. & Ors., [(1997)
7 SCC 592], Netai Bag & Ors. v. State of West
Bengal & Ors., (2000) 8 SCC 262 and Villianur
Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam v. Union of India
& Ors., (2009) 7 SCC 561, which we have briefly noted
above, and it was held that there is no constitutional
mandate in favour of auction under Article 14. In the main
judgment (paras 129 to 131, pg. 92), the Constitution
Bench stated as under:
Netai Bag & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 27 September, 2000
Extraction & Anr. v. State of M.P. & Ors., [(1997)
7 SCC 592], Netai Bag & Ors. v. State of West
Bengal & Ors., (2000) 8 SCC 262 and Villianur
Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam v. Union of India
& Ors., (2009) 7 SCC 561, which we have briefly noted
above, and it was held that there is no constitutional
mandate in favour of auction under Article 14. In the main
judgment (paras 129 to 131, pg. 92), the Constitution
Bench stated as under: