B. R. GAVAI, K. VINOD CHANDRAN
In Re: T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. ecological significance of saranda forest area. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. concerns on socio-economic impacts of wildlife sanctuary declaration. (Para 36 , 42 , 43) |
| 3. duty of state to protect ecological zones. (Para 37 , 39 , 40) |
| 4. wii's ecological report on the saranda area. (Para 46 , 61 , 65) |
| 5. court's directives regarding declaration of wildlife sanctuary. (Para 102 , 103 , 104) |
JUDGMENT :
| INDEX | |
| I. | INTRODUCTION |
| II. | SUBMISSIONS |
| III. | DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS |
| (i) KEY PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE WP ACT | |
| (ii) REPORT BY THE WII | |
| (iii) NATIONAL FOREST POLICY, 1998 AND NATIONAL WILDLIFE ACTION PLAN, 2017 | |
| (iv) JUSTICE M.B. SHAH COMMISSION REPORT | |
| (v) STAND TAKEN BY THE STATE OF JHARKHAND | |
| IV. | CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS |
1. The issue in the present matter pertains to the Saranda forest area in the State of Jharkhand which is undisputedly one of the most pristine Sal forests in the world. It is a biodiversity hotspot, interconnected with forests in the States of Odisha and Chhattisgarh, creating a contiguous wildlife corridor. The region is rich in biodiversity and wildlife and includes within its confines the critically enda
Centre for Environmental Law, World Wide Fund-India vs. Union of India and Others
Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum vs. Union of India and Others
Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi vs. State of A.P. and Others
State of Himachal Pradesh and Others vs. Yogendera Mohan Sengupta and Another
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India and Others (In Re: Gaurav Kumar Bansal)
Orissa Mining Corporation Limited vs. Ministry of Environment and Forests and others
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.