Category: Environment

N G T – It is the authorities who recommended approval in respect of only 24 hectares – Insofar as the mandatory distance from the water body is concerned, the authorities upon survey had found that the mandatory distance of 0.25 km is maintained – Tribunal has grossly erred in arriving at a finding that the appellant had reduced the area to 24 hectares only in order to avoid the rigours of public hearing and further that there was no distance of 0.25 km between the proposed mining area and the Singotham Lake – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH DHRUVA ENTERPRISES — Appellant Vs. C. SRINIVASULU AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. )…

Protection of two species of birds namely Great Indian Bustard ‘GIB’ and Lesser Florican – convert the overhead cables into underground powerlines the same shall be undertaken and completed within a period of one year and till such time the divertors shall be hung from the existing powerlines – Ordered accordingly.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M.K. RANJITSINH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. A. Bobde, CJI., A.S. Bopanna and…

Construction of Road over Bridges – Felling of trees – As per the Report of the Expert Committee submitted, primarily, about 50 trees have already been felled and potentially another 306 trees are to be felled. As per the Report, many of the trees can be called ‘historical trees’ ,

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ASSOCIATION FOR PROTECTION OF DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S.A.…

Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 – Section 2 – Restriction on the dereservation of forests or use of forest land for non-forest purpose – Relief of diversion of small extents of forest land for the purpose of carrying out certain public welfare projects – Some of the reliefs sought by the State of Himachal Pradesh can be straight away granted and some other reliefs can be granted subject to certain clearances

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S.A. Bobde, CJI, A.S. Bopanna and…

Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 – Section 8 – Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003 -It is just and proper that even if the respondents are not compensated for the value of the land, they need to be compensated for the benefits arisen out of the lands for the period they were kept out of possession by action of the respondents, treating it to be vested land under Act, 1971

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH THE CONSERVATOR AND CUSTODIAN OF FOREST AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SOBHA JOHN KOSHY AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, R.…

Construction of the Hotel-cum-Restaurant structure in the Bus Stand Complex is illegal and constitutes a brazen violation of law – Permission which was granted by MOEF was only for construction of a ‘parking place’ at McLeod Ganj – Similarly, the permission granted for constructing a ‘bus stand’ in the same area

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH HIMACHAL PRADESH BUS STAND MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (HPBSM&DA) — Appellant Vs. THE CENTRAL EMPOWERED COMMITTEE ETC. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before :…

Prior environmental clearance – It is not necessary for the Central Government or for that matter, NHAI, to apply for prior environmental/forest clearances or permissions, as the case may be, at the stage of planning or taking an in principle decision to formalize the Project of constructing a new national highway manifested in notification under Section 2(2), including until the stage of issuing notification under Section 3A of the 1956 Act.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT — Appellant Vs. P.V. KRISHNAMOORTHY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar, B.R. Gavai and Krishna…

Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016-Lessees are granted time up to end of January, 2021 for the removal of the minerals excavated/mined on or before 15.03.2018 subject to payment of royalties and other charges. HELD If within the time stipulated above, the lessees could not remove the mineral, the Government shall invoke the power under Rule 12(1)(hh) – Application disposed of.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH CHOWGULE AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. GOA FOUNDATION AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. A. Bobde, CJI., A. S. Bopanna…