IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C. JAYACHANDRAN
C.P Muhammed – Appellant
Versus
Geologist – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the genesis and context of environmental clearance notifications. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. arguments presented by the affected petitioner and counsels. (Para 15 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 25 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 34 , 35) |
| 3. judicial analysis and interpretation of public interest and environmental protection. (Para 38 , 39 , 49 , 50 , 54 , 56 , 69 , 70 , 83) |
| 4. the ruling on the legality of the ext.p8 notification. (Para 85) |
| 5. final orders and conclusions of the judgment. (Para 86) |
-
JUDGMENT :
C. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF & CC) in the Central Government issued a notification, S.O. 1807(E) dated 12.04.2022 extending the validity period of the Environmental Clearance ('E.C.', for short) for certain projects and activities. A clarification, in the nature of an Official Memorandum ('O.M.', for short) dated 13.12.2022 followed. As many as 66 Writ Petitions have been filed seeking the benefit of that notification, read with the above O.M. However, one Writ Petition, W.P.(C) No.44547/2024, is filed challenging its constitutional vires. The learned Amicus appointed leans in favour of that numero uno. It appears that
T. Mathew Abraham v. State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority
Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India
Rajeev Suri v. Delhi Development Authority
Kerala Samsthana Chethu Thozhilali Union v. State of Kerala and Others
Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit and Others v. Dr. Manu and Others
Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan and Others v. Union of India and Others
Mantri Techzone Pvt. Ltd. v. Forward Foundation and Others
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha and Others
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board v Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. and Others
Raju Ramsing Vasave v. Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar and Others
Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee and Another v. C.K. Rajan and Others
Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil v. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi (DR) 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.