SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(SC) 1232

A. S. ANAND, M. SRINIVASAN, R. C. LAHOTI
Almitra H. Patel – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent


(1) LEARNED counsel on behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu states that additional response is to be filed. Needful be done within two weeks. Other States/Union Territories who have not yet filed responses should also do the needful within the same time. It is represented on behalf of the petitioner that copies of all the responses have not been served on the petitioner. Copies of all the responses should be served within two weeks.

(2) IN the meantime, we propose to take up the question of cleaning of four metropolitan cities Mumbai, Chennai, Calcutta and Delhi as also the city of Bangalore. The learned counsel for the petitioner will prepare a chart indicating briefly, the recommendations of the Committee, the responses in respect of these four metropolitan cities and the city of Bangalore and also of the Union of India, the provisions of the local municipal laws in respect of cleaning of the cities and the officers or authorities responsible for complying with the provisions of the law. The central government should indicate as to whether it is possible to privatise some or all of the municipal services and if the privatisation takes place, what safeguards can be ens


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top