Back
H. S. THANGKHIEW
East Jaintia Coke – Appellant
Versus
State of Meghalaya – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges notification under pollution acts. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments against board's jurisdiction to issue norms. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. respondent argues notification is within statutory powers. (Para 6 , 7 , 10) |
| 4. court evaluates notification's validity against statutes. (Para 9 , 11) |
| 5. court ruling on invalid notification and future actions. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT :
H.S. THANGKHIEW, J.
1. The petitioner being aggrieved with the notification dated 23.12.2020, issued by the respondent No. 2, State Pollution Control Board under Section 17 (1)(n) under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Section 17 (1)(h) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, whereby norms/criteria have been prescribed for siting of Coke plants of various capacities, which it is alleged is without jurisdiction and ultra vires the Air and Water Pollution Acts, is before this Court by way of the instant writ petition.
2. This Court on the challenge to the maintainability that had been made by the respondents by order dated 26.10.2022, had held this writ petition to be maintainable as the National Green Tribunal does not possess the power of ju
Section 33 of the Act provides an overriding effect to the provisions of the Act over anything inconsistent contained in any other law or in any instrument having effect by virtue of law other than t....
Appeal to NGT not maintainable absent specific direction under Water Act s.33A or State Board order under Air Act; consent required only for emitting industrial plants – no evidence of pollutant emis....
The court affirmed the Pollution Control Board's authority under the Water Act to require consent for residential constructions over 3000 sq. meters, ensuring compliance for maintaining water quality....
Existing industries established before the Eco Sensitive Zone Notification cannot be presumed to be polluting without evidence, and prohibitions against new industries do not apply retroactively.
The court established that the imposition of civil liabilities requires adherence to principles of natural justice, including proper notice and opportunity for the affected party to respond.
The decision to prosecute for contravening the provisions of the Act is the power of the State Board alone, and the non-production of the resolution and/or decision of the Board to prosecute the resp....
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
