Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-02-2005
Reported in : AIR2005SC2677; (2005)4CompLJ283(SC); JT2005(2)SC8; (2005)4SCC649
N. Santosh Hegde, J. 1. I have had the benefit of reading the judgment of Sinha, J. I regret I cannot persuade myself to agree with the conclusions recorded in the said judgment hence this separate opinion. The Judgment of Sinha, J. has elaborately, dealt with the facts, relevant rules and bye-laws of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (the Board). Hence, I consider it not necessary for me to reproduce the same including the lengthy arguments advanced on behalf of the parties except to make reference to the same to the extent necessary in the course of this judgment.2. Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel appearing for the Board has raised the preliminary issue in regard to the maintainability of this petition on the ground that under Article 32, a petition is not maintainable against the Board since the same is not 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is this issue which is being considered in this judgment.3. In support of his argumen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-12-2005
Reported in : AIR2005SC2920; JT2005(6)SC79; (2005)5SCC665
G.P. Mathur, J.1. This writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India has been filed by way of public interest litigation for declaring certain provisions of the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, (Act No. 39 of 1983) 1983 as ultra vires the Constitution of India, null and void and consequent declaration that the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Rules made thereunder shall apply to the State of Assam. The second prayer made is to declare the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Rules, 1984 as ultra vires the Constitution of India and also under Section 28 of the aforesaid Act and, therefore, null and void. Some more reliefs have been claimed which will be referred to at the appropriate stage. The respondents to the writ petition are the Union of India and the State of Assam. 2. The case set up in the writ petition is that the petitioner is a citizen of India and is ordinarily resident in the State of Assam. He is a former President of the All Assam Stu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-18-2005
Reported in : AIR2005SC3136; 2005(3)AWC2685(SC); 2005(5)BomCR553; 121(2005)DLT547(SC); [2005(4)JCR4(SC)]; JT2005(6)SC210; (2005)5SCC733
..... 2. the authorities responsible for implementing the laws are not yet fully identified. those which have been designated, do not seem to be specialised in the task of regulating noise pollution. there is dearth of necessary personnel technically qualified to act effectively. what is needed is a combination of technically qualified and administratively ..... except in exceptional circumstances.iv. awareness1. there is a need for creating general awareness towards the hazardous effects of noise pollution. suitable chapters may be added in the text-books which teach civic sense to the children and youth at the initial/early level of education ..... become more serious with the increasing trend towards industrialisation, urbanization and modernisation and is having many evil effects including danger to health. it may cause interruption of sleep, affect communication, loss of efficiency, hearing loss or deafness, high blood ..... two sources, i.e. industrial and non-industrial. the industrial source includes the noise from various industries and big machines working at a very high speed and high noise intensity. non-industrial source of noise includes the noise created by ..... had already included the prescribed noise limits for firecrackers as additional conditions of licenses issued under the explosives rules 1983. the authorities empowered to enforce the explosives rules 1983 have been clearly defined under the said rules.desirability of fixing chemical composition for the firecrackers141. the learned .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-26-2005
Reported in : AIR2006SC212; (2006)1GLR294; [2006(2)JCR272(SC)]; JT2005(12)SC580; RLW2006(1)SC705; 2005(8)SCALE661; (2005)8SCC534; 2006(1)LC240(SC)
..... v. union of india and ors., , a governmental decision to give utmost importance to the training programme of the indian administrative service selectees was upheld by deriving support from article 51-a(j) of the constitution, holding that the governmental ..... , it was held that the directive principles of state policy have to conform to and run as subsidiary to the chapter of fundamental rights. the view was reiterated in deep chand and anr. v. the state of uttar pradesh ..... gujarat amendment) act, 1994. the bombay act of 1954 referred to as 'the principal act' was further amended by section 2 of the amending act which reads as under:2. in the bombay animal preservation act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the principal act'), in section ..... own to the detriment of legal development. the resulting 'jurisprudence of concepts' produces a slot-machine approach to law whereby new points posing questions of social policy are ..... . this they cannot clearly do'.question - 5 : article 19(1)(g) : 'regulation' or 'restriction' includes total prohibition; partial restraint is not total prohibition32. respondents rely ..... ,93,227 as in 1992. a statement showing the amount of dung production for the year 1983-84 to 1996-97 and a statement showing the nature of economy of the state of gujarat is annexed ..... 2,88,084. this clearly indicates that there has been a vast change in the meat eating style of people of gujarat state. it is because of the awareness created among the public due to the threats of dangerous .....
Tag this Judgment!