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

2000 Supreme(SC) 357

B.N.KIRPAL, M.B.SHAH, V.N.KHARE
T. N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULKPAD – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent


( 1 ) MR K. N. Raval, Assistant Solicitor-General seeks four weeks time to file a reply. Reply be filed within four weeks and rejoinder within two weeks thereafter. List after six seeks. Stay of recovery by coercive process in the meantime. I. A No. . . . (filed by Mr P. K. Manohar, Advocate)

( 2 ) AN application has been filed through the amicus curiae in court, inter alia, praying for clarification that the order dated 12-12-1996 contained a ban against the removal of any fallen trees or removal of any diseased or dry standing tree from the areas notified under Section 18 or 35 of the Wild Life protection Act, 1972. Let the same be taken on record.

( 3 ) ISSUE notice to all the respondents. In the meantime, we restrain respondents 2 to 32 from ordering the removal of dead, diseased, dying or wind-fallen trees, driftwood and grasses etc. from any national park or game sanctuary or forest. If any order to this effect has already been passed by any of the respondent States, the operation of the same shall stand immediately stayed.

( 4 ) REPLY be filed within three weeks.

( 5 ) THE Union of India will also indicate in its reply-affidavit as to what safeguards or steps should be taken








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