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

2003 Supreme(SC) 876

NOISE POLLUTION (III) – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Judgment

( 1 ) WE have heard the learned amicus and the learned counsel for the parties appearing in the main matter as also on the several IAs seeking some interim directions/modifications in the earlier orders passed by this Court. We do not think that any variation in the interim orders passed by this Court is called for as on the day excepting for a correction of typing error in the order dated 27-9-2001. On p. 2 of the order, in para 2, the words "between 6. 00 p. m. and 10. 00 p. m. " shall be read corrected as "between 6. 00 a. m. and 10. 00 p. m. "

( 2 ) ON 1-9-2003 an affidavit sworn by Dr. (Mrs) Sunita V. Auluck, additional Director, Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi has been filed on behalf of the Central Government. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court a meeting was held by the Government of India wherein ministries of Environment and Forests, Road Transport and Highways, industry, as also the Department of Explosives, Police Headquarters Delhi, government of NCT of Delhi and the Central Pollution Control Board participated. On the suggestions made by the learned amicus curiae the government of India have, after deliberations recorded their approva






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