Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: wild life protection act 1972 section 38k definitions Court: jharkhand Page 1 of about 57 results (0.337 seconds)

Lal Ranjan Nath Shahdeo Vs. the State of Jharkhand

Court : Jharkhand

Reported in : 2009(57)BLJR2414

..... prosecution.2. the petitioner case in brief is that a case has been registered under section 25(1-b), 26, 35 of the arms act, sections 4/5 of the explosive substance act and section 4 of the wild life protection act against the petitioner and others i.e. chandwa p.s. case no. 38 of 2000. after submission of the charge sheet, the case was ..... the impugned order, it appears that in the instant case, the charge has been framed under section 25(1-b), 26/35 arms act, 4/5 explosive substance act and section 11 of prevention of cruelty to animal act. it also appears from the record that in the course of argument the defence has put reliance on the expert report available on the .....

Satyapal Verma Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.

Court : Jharkhand

Reported in : AIR2004Jhar69; [2003(4)JCR481(Jhr)]

..... and other minerals does not in any way affect the interest of labourers. the advocate general submitted that in the given situation, the authority concerned under the wild life (protection) act, has issued the present notification/order. he pointed out that it is not as if this is the only viable route. there is another route, ..... according to the petitioner, there was no justification in preventing movement of the vehicles as has been done by issuance of the said notification under the wild life (protection) act. he has also submitted that the action of preventing movement of vehicles through the said road has badly affected the people of the area and such ..... environment, the notification has been issued under section 33(b) and section 35(8) of the wild life (protection) act, 1972. it is also submitted that plying of heavily loaded vehicles through the area has caused serious threat to wild life and has restricted the movement of animals since plying of vehicles used to produce a lot of .....

Nilambar Sahu and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.

Court : Jharkhand

Reported in : 2004(2)BLJR1136; [2004(2)JCR178(Jhr)]

..... the rajasthan wild life animals and birds protection act, 1951 and the provisions of wild life (protection) act, 1972 observed :'the purpose of the notification declaring the area as a game reserve under the rajasthan wild animals and birds protection act, 1951; or the declaration of the area as a sanctuary under the wild life (protection) act, 1972 and ..... to go through the marine national park and sanctuary be permitted. the supreme court interpreting various provisions of the wild life (protection) act, 1972 the forest (conservation) act, 1980 and environment (protection) act, 1986, held :'the pivotal issue, as we have already noticed, is the interpretation of section 29 of ..... that carrying on mining activities on the land which falls within the forest area and declared as wild life sanctuary will be against the provisions of the wild life (protection) act, 1972, forest (conservation) act, 1980 and the mandate issued by the supreme court in catena of decisions including decisions referred .....

Parvati Murmu and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand

Court : Jharkhand

Reported in : [2006(3)JCR262(Jhr)]

..... and, therefore, sanction was accorded by the divisional forest officer for prosecuting the petitioners under section 3 of the indian forest act, 1927 as also under sections 27 and 29 of the wild life (protection) act, 1972. 3. from perusal of the entire petition no convincing ground has been set forth to set aside the entire cognizance ..... the chief judicial magistrate on 24.11.2003. i find that the offence was reported under section 33 of the indian forest act as well as sections 27 and 29 of the wife life (protection) act, 1972, but learned chief judicial magistrate without application of judicial mind and in mechanical manner took the cognizance of the offence ..... under sections 33, 27 and 29 of the indian forest act which is not appreciated. in view of the above illegality and irregularity, .....

Naw Chandra Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Court : Jharkhand

..... much delay. it has been submitted that the complainant was not authorized to institute the complaint and as such in terms of section 55 of the wild life (protection) act, 1972 (the act for short), the learned court below could not have taken cognizance for the offences mentioned therein. learned counsel for the state, on the other hand ..... that on the date of institution of the complaint case by the range forest officer, gumla, he was not empowered or authorized under the provisions of wild life (protection)act and rules to institute -4- a complaint and in such circumstances since the very inception of the case is an illegality the criminal proceedings against the ..... , learned judicial magistrate at simdega, whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under sections 9/44/49(a)/49(b) of the wild life (protection)act, 1972. a written report was given to the divisional forest officer, gumla forest division by the forest officer, bano, in which it was alleged that he .....

Ms Uday Prasad Through Its Partner Uday Prasad Vs. Rural Works Departm ...

Court : Jharkhand

..... without the statutory environmental clearance and permission from wild life board.7. the aforesaid state of facts therefore do not leave ..... been allotted to the petitioner. the divisional forest officer, wild life division, hazaribag has also informed respondent no.6 that petitioner along with him would be liable for contravening provisions of indian wild life (protection) act, 1972 and face penal action as no approval from the wild life board has been obtained. no work can be initiated ..... rejoinder where under correspondences between the executive engineer and chief engineer, j.s.r.r.d.a as also by the division forest officer, wild life division, hazaribag with the respondent no.6 disclose that area in question falls within the boundaries of national park. execution of any such project .....

Mahesh Rai Vs. Forest

Court : Jharkhand

..... jharkhand received on 9.10.2017. (ii) statutory provisions (i) under section 5c(1) of the wildlife protection act, 1972; (ii) section 3(2)(v) of the environment protection act, 1986; and (iii) section 5(1) of the environment protection rules, 1986 are the compliances required to be made by the moef&cc towards publication of the final esz notification ..... that as per the affidavit of respondent no.4 on 30.10.2017, it would be evident that till 25.10.2017 the proposal is pending with wild life division as the short falls required for processing for the draft notification is still under consideration. therefore, the proposal is at the stage of processing of the ..... was in the light of the serious concern shown by the petitioner in the larger public interest as despite correspondence made by the deputy inspector general of forest ( wild life), moef &cc, government of india to the chief wildlife warden, government of jharkhand dated 23.6.2016, the process for declaration of eszs had not progressed .....

Ms Dinkar Bricks Through Its Proprietor Sunil Kumar Singh Vs. The Stat ...

Court : Jharkhand

..... notification further stipulated that a zonal master plan for the dalma eco-sensitive zone shall be prepared by the state government, in such manner as are specified under the wild life (protection) act, 1972, the law relating to town and country planning for the time being in force in the state, the divisional working plans and the guidelines issued by the central government ..... bearing no.s.o.680 (e) dated 29.03.2012, whereby in exercise of the power conferred under section 3 of the environment (protection) act,1986, the area up to five kilometers from the boundary of the protected area of dalma wild life sanctuary was declared as eco-sensitive zone. the area, which were declared eco-sensitive zone, have been detailed in the notification. the .....

Ms G S Enterprises Through Its Partner Sunit Ghosh Vs. The State of Jh ...

Court : Jharkhand

..... notification further stipulated that a zonal master plan for the dalma eco-sensitive zone shall be prepared by the state government, in such manner as are specified under the wild life (protection) act, 1972, the law relating to town and country planning for the time being in force in the state, the divisional working plans and the guidelines issued by the central government ..... bearing no.s.o.680 (e) dated 29.03.2012, whereby in exercise of the power conferred under section 3 of the environment (protection) act,1986, the area up to five kilometers from the boundary of the protected area of dalma wild life sanctuary was declared as eco-sensitive zone. the area, which were declared eco-sensitive zone, have been detailed in the notification. the .....

Ms Sona Bricks Through Its Proprietor Bipendra Singh Vs. The State of ...

Court : Jharkhand

..... notification further stipulated that a zonal master plan for the dalma eco-sensitive zone shall be prepared by the state government, in such manner as are specified under the wild life (protection) act, 1972, the law relating to town and country planning for the time being in force in the state, the divisional working plans and the guidelines issued by the central government ..... bearing no.s.o.680 (e) dated 29.03.2012, whereby in exercise of the power conferred under section 3 of the environment (protection) act,1986, the area up to five kilometers from the boundary of the protected area of dalma wild life sanctuary was declared as eco-sensitive zone. the area, which were declared eco-sensitive zone, have been detailed in the notification. the .....