Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, ARUN KUMAR RAI
Nishant Roadlines, represented through it's sole proprietor namely Sri. Umlesh Ojha, son of Sri.Gupteshwar Ojha – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, through the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Environment – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.
1. The writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of following reliefs:-
“(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring that the Management Plan for Sustainable Mining in Saranda and Chaibasa of Singhbhum District, Jharkhand (Annexure-5), published by the Respondent no. 1 in the year 2018 does not have force of law and can otherwise not be made applicable to mining activities in non-forest areas;
(ii) Upon such declaration, for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly a writ of or in the nature of certiorari, quashing and setting aside the letter bearing no. 461 dated 24.03.2023 (Annexure-4), issued under the signature of respondent no.4 by which the application of petitioner for grant of Environment Clearance has been rejected;
(iii) For issuance of a further appropriate writ, order or direction particularly a writ of or in the nature of mandamus, commanding upon the respondent no.4 to forthwith grant Environment Clearance to the petitioner for operating his mines for which he has been granted a Letter of Intent dated 15.09.2022 upon submission of a fresh application;
(
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.
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
