Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
Manoj Mishra – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. legislative framework for environmental protection. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. background of the petitioner and the case specifics. (Para 6) |
| 3. petitioner's concerns regarding eac appointments. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. response from the union regarding eac member competence. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. judicial discretion in appointments is limited. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 6. judicial process in assessing public interest litigation. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 7. scope of writ of quo warranto. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 8. dismissal of the pil based on lack of grounds. (Para 26 , 27) |
JUDGMENT
Subramonium Prasad, J. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, has been filed in the style of a Public Interest Litigation (hereinafter referred to as "PIL") seeking quashing of the notification dated 10.07.2020 issued by Respondent No.1as well as seeking the issuance of a writ of quo warranto against Respondents No. 2 to 5, holding their appointment to the Expert Appraisal Committee (Thermal Power and Coal Mining Projects) as illegal.
2. In 1986, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1986 Act"), and the Environment (Pr
The Court emphasized that appointments to the Expert Appraisal Committee must meet specified qualifications to ensure environmental integrity and delineated the limited jurisdiction of the High Court....
The discretionary power of the Court in issuing a writ of quo warranto and the principles guiding the issuance of such writs.
Point of law: It is best left to the wisdom of the legislature to deal with the exigency.
The court held that the SCS Committee was properly constituted in accordance with the provisions of the JMI Act and the UGC Regulations, that the members of the SCS Committee were persons of eminence....
The court affirmed that environmental clearances' validity cannot be extended without expert assessment, deeming amendments to the Environmental Impact Assessment notification unconstitutional.
The court ruled that notifications extending environmental clearances for mining are unconstitutional due to procedural violations and conflicts with the Environment (Protection) Act.
The court ruled that amendments to environmental clearance procedures in the EIA Notification, 2006 are unconstitutional if they undermine statutory protections and fail to ensure proper environmenta....
The court emphasized the principle of not interfering with the opinion given by the experts and upheld the constitution of the Equivalence Committee and the prescribed qualifications.
The court reinforced that appointments made by a selection committee should not be judicially reviewed unless there are clear statutory violations or evidence of bad faith.
Courts must defer to expert committees' assessment of candidates' qualifications in technical selection processes, interfering only on proven mala fides, illegality or arbitrariness.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
