Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1996AP175
ORDER1. Two practising advocates of this Court have filed this Writ Petition by way of public interest litigation, questioning the legality of the permission accorded by the 7th respondent, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests', Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, to the 11th respondent herein, namely Sri Yerri Naidu (Military Naidu), M.L.A., Chodava-ram, to carry out preliminary experiments, survey-cum-exploitation of the valuable precious stones in the districts right from Visakhapatnam to East Godavari including parts of Srikakulam and Khammam, vide letter Ref. No. 12806/95/F2,dated 19-4-1995 and seeking a direction to the second respondent, the Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, represented by its Secretary, New Delhi, to order enquiry through the Central Bureau of Investigation to ascertain the actual quantum of mineral wealth exploited by the 11th respondent and theconsequential damage to the reserved forest areas and also to fix up the responsibility on the concerned persons...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC3751; (2001)1GLR434; 2000(7)SCALE34; (2000)10SCC664; [2000]Supp4SCR94
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. Narmada is the fifth largest river in India and largest West flowing river of the Indian Peninsula. Its annual flow approximates to the combined flow of the rivers Sutlej, Beas and Ravi. Originating from the Maikala ranges at Amarkantak in Madhya Pradesh, it flows Westwards over a length of about 1312 km. before draining into the Gulf of Cambay, 50 km. West of Bharuch City. The first 1077 km. stretch is in Madhya Pradesh and the next 35 km. stretch of the river forms the boundary between the States of Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra. Again, the next 39 km. forms the boundary between Maharasthra and Gujarat and the last stretch of 161 km. lies in Gujarat.2. The Basin area of this river is about 1 lac sq. km. The utilisation of this river basin, however, is hardly about 4%. Most of the water of this peninsula river goes into the sea. Inspite of the huge potential, there was hardly any development of the Narmada water resources prior to independence.3. In 1946, the then G...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2006)102ITD1(Mum.)
2. The assessee is a Statutory Corporation set up under the Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation Ordinance, 1997 dated 12-3-1997, which was subsequently replaced by Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation Act, 1997 (Maharashtra Act No. XXVI of 1997) [for short 'VIDC Act'], which came into effect from 12-3-1997. Assessee being aggrieved by the orders of the revenue authorities, approached the Tribunal and vide its order dated 28th February, 2003, Tribunal allowed assessee's appeal partly.3. Before the Assessing Officer, assessee claimed the status as "Local Authority". It was rejected by the Assessing Officer. Assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A).4. Assessee's second plea that the assessee's income is exempted under Section 10(20A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was also rejected.5. The next objection of the assessee was against the order of the CIT(A) in holding that assessee-Corporation is not an instrumentality of the State and is not a State within the meaning of A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(3)ALLMR546; 2008(3)BomCR408; (2008)110BOMLR951
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. On 21st March, 2008, we observed world 'forest' day. On 23rd March, 2008 in Maharashtra we observed 'Tukaram Beej'. That is the day on which Saint Tukaram, a Seventeeth Century Poet, regarded by many as the greatest in Marathi language, left for his Nirvana. Eachone of us has forgotten his apt remark and observation regarding a forest, the Trees and the creatures. He says:Trees, creepers and the creatures of the forest Are my kith and kin And birds that sweetly sing This is bliss! How I love being alone! Here I am beyond good and evil Commit no sinThe sky is my canopy, the earth my throne. My mind is free to dwell wherever it will. A piece of cloth, one all purpose bow! Take care of all my bodily needs.The wind tells me the time. Translated from original Marathi by Dilip Chitre, Penguin Classics, 1991.Reciting these lines today is like talking of other world. At least, the land owners and all those claiming through them think so. We rest here and say nothing mo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. Two riparian states – Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra – of the inter-state Godavari river are principal parties in the suit filed under Article 131 of the Constitution of India read with Order XXIII Rules 1,2 and 3 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966. The suit has been filed by Andhra Pradesh (Plaintiff) complaining violations by Maharashtra (1st Defendant) of the agreements dated 06.10.1975 and 19.12.1975 which were endorsed in the report dated 27.11.1979 containing decision and final order (hereafter to be referred as “award”) and further report dated 07.07.1980 (hereafter to be referred as “further award) given by the Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal (for short, ‘Tribunal’). The violations alleged by Andhra Pradesh against Maharashtra are in respect of construction of Babhali barrage into their reservoir/water spread area of Pochampad project. The other four riparian states of the inter-state Godavari river – Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
FPC v. Union Electric Co. - 381 U.S. 90 (1965) U.S. Supreme Court FPC v. Union Electric Co., 381 U.S. 90 (1965) Federal Power Commission v. Union Electric Co. No. 123 Argued March 2, 1965 Decided May 3, 1965 381 U.S. 90 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Respondent filed a declaration of intention with the Federal Power Commission (FPC) pursuant to 23(b) of the Federal Power Act to construct a pumped storage plant on a nonnavigable tributary of a navigable stream. A pumped storage plant uses power during periods of non-peak demands to pump water to an upper pool to be used to generate peak period energy by water falling into a lower pool. The FPC found that the nonnavigable tributary is a stream over which Congress has jurisdiction, as it is a headwater of a navigable river system. The FPC held that the project would require a license under 23(b) because it would use water power for the interstate transmission of electricity a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.13 OF2015Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record - Association and another Petitioner(s) versus Union of India Respondent(s) With |WRIT PETITION (C) No.14 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.18 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.23 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.24 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.70 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.83 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.108 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.124 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.209 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.309 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.310 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.323 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.341 OF2015| |TRANSFER PETITION(C) No.391 OF2015 |TRANSFER PETITION (C) No.971 OF2015 | | JUDGMENT Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.Index |Sl.No.|Contents |Paragraphs|Pages | |1. |The Recusal Order | 1 - 18| 1 - | | | | |15 | | | | | | |2. |The Reference Order | 1 - 101| 16 - 169| |I |The Challenge | 1 - | 16 - | | | |9 |19 | |II. |The Background to the Challenge ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SUIT No.1 OF 200.State of Andhra Pradesh Plaintiff Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. Defendants WITH WRIT PETITION [C]. No.134 OF 200.WRIT PETITION [C]. No.210 OF 200.WRIT PETITION [C]. No.207 OF 200.AND CONTEMPT PETITION [C]. No.142 OF 200.IN ORIGINAL SUIT No.1 OF 200.JUDGMENT R.M. LODHA, J.Original Suit No.1 of 2006 Two riparian states Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra of the inter- state Godavari river are principal parties in the suit filed under Article 131 of the Constitution of India read with Order XXIII Rules 1,2 and 3 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966. The suit has been filed by Andhra Pradesh (Plaintiff) complaining violations by Maharashtra (1st Defendant) of the agreements dated 06.10.1975 and 19.12.1975 which were endorsed in the report dated 27.11.1979 containing decision and final order (hereafter to be referred as award) and further report dated 07.07.1980 (hereafter to be referred as further awa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2009(9)SC573; 2009(10)SCALE25; (2009)8SCC46
S.B. Sinha, J.Issue1. Effect of a writ of or in the nature of mandamus issued by a High Court directing implementation of an enactment vis-a-vis a subsequent legislation altering or modifying the right of the beneficiaries under the former Act, inter alia, is the question involved in these appeals.2. They arise out of a judgment and order dated 24th August, 2000 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam.Background Facts3. The State of Kerala enacted the Kerala Scheduled Tribes (Restriction on Transfer of Lands and Restoration of Alienated Lands) Act, 1975 (Act No. 31 of 1975) (for short 'the 1975 Act') with the object of providing restriction on transfer of land by Members of Scheduled Tribes in the State of Kerala and for restoration of possession of lands alienated by such members and for matters connected therewith.4. The said Act received the assent of the President of India. It was included in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution of India, being item No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
C & A Carbone, Inc. v. Clarkstown - 511 U.S. 383 (1994) OCTOBER TERM, 1993 Syllabus C & A CARBONE, INC., ET AL. v. TOWN OF CLARKSTOWN, NEW YORK CERTIORARI TO THE APPELLATE DIVISION, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT No. 92-1402. Argued December 7, 1993-Decided May 16, 1994 Respondent town agreed to allow a private contractor to construct within town limits a solid waste transfer station to separate recyclable from nonrecyclable items and to operate the facility for five years, at which time the town would buy it for one dollar. To finance the transfer station's cost, the town guaranteed a minimum waste flow to the facility, for which the contractor could charge the hauler a tipping fee which exceeded the disposal cost of unsorted solid waste on the private market. In order to meet the waste flow guarantee, the town adopted a flow control ordinance, requiring all nonhazardous solid waste within the town to be deposited at the transfer station. While recyclers ...
Tag this Judgment!