C. Kenchappa And Others vs State Of Karnataka And Others on 26 September, 1999
powers in the Constitution. The amendment introduced a new entry, "Population Control and Family Planning", while "Forests" and "Protection
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 646 (1.27 seconds)Pee Kay Constructions vs Chandrasekhar Hegde on 14 December, 1988
zonal regulations are also intended to prevent congestion and to control population densities by prescribing the minimum size of plots, by providing adequate open spaces
Smt K Shobha W/O D Kenchappa vs The Princiapl Secretary on 21 February, 2025
Population control. The petitioner then after working about
21 years submitted a representation to consider their cases
for regularization. This was not considered
Smt Surekha Keera Naik vs The Principal Secretary on 21 February, 2025
Population control. The petitioner then after working about
21 years submitted a representation to consider their cases
for regularization. This was not considered
Smt Shobha W/O Hermon Tegur vs The Principal Secretary on 21 February, 2025
Population control. The petitioner then after working about
21 years submitted a representation to consider their cases
for regularization. This was not considered
Master Jishnu G vs Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike on 7 December, 2012
Organistions,
private individuals and the local authority, so as to control
the street dogs population. The said Rule reads thus:-
-: 42 :-
6. Obligations ... Municipal Corporation or the local
authority thinks it expedient to control street dog
population, it shall be incumbent upon them to
sterilise and immunize street
Shri.Yusub S/O Mohamusab Sanadi vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 June, 2022
statutory duty is vested with the respondents
to control the population of the street dogs
under the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules,
2001 which
State Of Karnataka vs Sadanand Parusharam Hosurkar on 17 January, 2000
years. The Traffic Control Department of the State Government has been cheerfully watching the fun, happy that the population problem is automatically taking care
G K Pushpa vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 September, 2012
areas of 5,000 population and 3,000 population
in hilly area. These sub-centres are under the control of
Primary Health Centres which
Maj. Gen. M.K. Paul vs Bangalore City Corporation on 23 September, 1993
aggrieved citizens of Bangalore. They want congestion to be prevented, population density to be controlled, lung spaces to be provided where people can breathe, existing