Swiss replica watches are crafted with all those perspectives that a watch lover appropriate in rolex replica a wristwatch. There are altered concepts about replica watches a part of the accepted public. But I just wish to ask, why you spent bags of dollars on a individual section of replica watches uk affluence cast if you could get the aforementioned actualization and address from such a watch in few dollars. Nothing bad with replica watches accurate brands but they are pricey. Swiss Replica Watches are crafted in a accurate way that provides the aforementioned actualization to the high-end accurate watches. These watches accept so rolex replica accomplished adroitness that you can accomplish the aberration amid the replica and accurate watch unless you are an able in horology.





For any queries Please
Contact :

Law Publishing House
39, Sheo Charan Lal Road
Allabahad - 211003
Ph. : 0532-2563956/3835
Email : lawpublishinghouse@gmail.com
At a Glance
About Us
Environment Minister's Words
National Green Tribunal
Sample Contents
Subscription Details
  • Only Journal of its kind
  • Contains Latest Acts, Rules and Notifications
  • Informative Articles on Environmental, Forest & Mining Laws
  • Cases relating to Environmental, Forest & Mining Laws in one convenient location

Given below are the summaries of the cases reported in Volume 1 (2011) of Environmental and Forest Law Times. These judgments deal with environmental laws in India as well as pollution laws, forest laws, wildlife laws, mining laws, etc. The full judgments are reported in the volume which is available in the market. For price details and to place orders please contact:


M/s. Law Publishing House
39, Sheo Charan Lal Road, Allahabad
Ph: (0532) 2563956; 2563835
Email: lawpublishinghouse@gmail.com

A.P. FOREST ACT, 1967—

A.P. Forest Act, 1967 —Sections 4, 6 and 7 (1) (a)—Transfer of land—Sale made by original claimant to purchasers after notification issued under section 4 and declaration under section 6 of the Act—Nothing would be acquired to a person in or over the land in question except by succession or under a grant or contract in writing. (A.P., H.C.)

AIR (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1981—

Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 —
Sections 2 (a), (b), (k) and 21 (1)—Commercial shopping complex or a shopping mall—Would be covered within the scope of section 21 (1). (Del., H.C.) Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981—
Section 19 (i)—Notification dated 17/18.7.2002—Air pollution prevention measures taken by the State Government—Government notification indicating that no stone crusher shall be established/operated within 200 meters from the State Highway and National Highway—Petitioners carrying on stone crushing business in their respective places without fulfilling sitting criteria and without obtaining consent of the Orissa Pollution Control Board—Their units generating environmental pollution and causing damage not only to agriculture fields but also causing health hazards—Cannot be allowed to run their stone crushers without fulfilling sitting criteria and consent from the Board—Notifications/orders rightly issued in discharge of statutory function. (Ori., H.C.)


Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 —
Sections 21 (1) and 31-A—Compliance with norms under—During construction phase and when it became functional—Whether commercial shopping complex or shopping mall or residential complex—Will have to comply with the norms. (Del., H.C.)
Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 —Sections 25 (1) and 21 (1)—Prior consent of D.P.C.C. to operate—Not required in respect of purely residential complex. (Del., H.C.)


Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 —
Section 31—Appeal—Against order revoking the consent to operate the stone crusher—Sustainability of—Inhabitation of plots which are Gochar land under the Government—To be treated to be unauthorized habitation—Nothing on record to establish that the habitants constructed their residences much before the establishment of the crusher unit—Crusher unit does not violate the siting criteria in regard to its location from habitation—Order impugned set aside—Appeal allowed—Board directed to consider the application pending for the grant of further consent to operate the unit. (S.P.C.B.O.)

APPEAL—
Appeal —Principles formulated with reference to—Appeal is proceeding where higher forum reconsiders the decision of the lower forum on questions of fact and questions of law—Width of appellate jurisdiction or limitation to jurisdiction—Does not depend on whether it is first appeal or second appeal but on the limitations, if any, placed by the statute conferring the right of appeal—Provisions providing for appeal may indicate Legislature's intention to limit the jurisdiction—Generally, statutory provisions for appeals—Have no limitation—Statutory provisions for appeal against the appellate order shall be restricted to question of law. (S.C.) 15


CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908—
Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Section 79 and Order XXVII, Rule 5-A—Applicability of—To a suit instituted by or against the Government. (Jhar., H.C.) Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order XXVII, Rules 5-A and 8-B—Scope of—Discussed and explained. (Jhar., H.C.)
COAL LINKAGE—
Coal Linkage - Order suspending supplies of coal—Sustainability—F.I.R. lodged by the C.B.I. against the appellants alleging that appellants entered into criminal conspiracy with General Manager of B.C.C.L. and in furtherance thereof lifted huge quantity of coal under the linkage scheme and instead of consuming it in their plants sold in open market causing heavy loss to B.C.C.L. for their corresponding wrongful gains—Under Clause 4.4 of Fuel Supply Agreement they are bound to utilize entire quantity in their plants—C.B.I. found that plants of the appellants are non-functional—Attendance register of employees and other records were forged and fabricated—F.I.R. lodged by the C.B.I. creating serious doubt that allotted coal may be diverted to open market for black marketing—B.C.C.L. within its rights to suspend the supplies of coal to appellants till the doubts are cleared—Orders passed by the Single Judge directing to resume supplies of coal to appellants rightly set aside by the Division Bench—Appeals dismissed. (S.C.)
Coal Linkage —Suspension of supply of coal—F.I.R. lodged by C.B.I. against 10 consumers including respondents alleging that they entered into criminal conspiracy with the General Manager (S.&M.) of B.C.C.L and in furtherance thereof lifted huge quantity of coal and diverted the same to open market for black marketing—As per fuel supply agreement respondents were under obligation to utilise entire quantity of coal in their plants—Raids conducted by the C.B.I. and enquiries made by it revealed that plants of respondents were non-functional—Attendance register of employees and other records were forged and fabricated—F.I.R. lodged by C.B.I. creating serious doubts that the allotted coal may be diverted to open market for black marketing—B.C.C.L. within its rights to suspend the supplies of coal to respondents till the doubts are cleared—Orders passed by the Single Judge as affirmed by the Division Bench directing to resume supplies to respondents set aside. (S.C.)

COAL MINES PROVIDENT FUND AND BONUS SCHEME ACT, 1948—
Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Scheme Act, 1948 - Section 24 (4)—Employee of the Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization—Persons appointed by Board and paid from the fund shall not be deemed to be Government servants. (Jhar., H.C.)
COAL MINES PROVIDENT FUND AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT, 1948—
Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 - Sections 3-A, 3-B and 3-C—Duty discharged as the Executive Officer of the Board—Not the duty discharged as an officer of the Central Government or State Government—Suit instituted challenging the order—Board of Trustees to be sued and not the Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner—Suit filed is not bad for non-joinder of the Central Government/Union of India—Provisions of Order XXVII, Rule 5-A, C.P.C. have no application. (Jhar., H.C.)

COAL SUPPLY—
Coal Supply - Fuel supply agreement—Government of India Ministry of Coal formulated new coal distribution policy after discontinuing coal linkage—Coal supplied under the agreement was meant for use in industry of the purchaser and not for sale, diversion or transfer for any other purpose—Violation of this condition empowered the petitioner to terminate the agreement—F.I.R. lodged by the C.B.I. showing sale of coal in open market by such industrial consumers—Their supplies suspended by the petitioner—Division Bench of the High Court suspended operation of order suspending supplies of coal—No F.I.R. lodged against industrial consumers to the effect that they have not consumed the coal issued to them—Documents in proof of end use of coal allotted to them not examined by the petitioners before suspending their supplies—Material placed before the High Court prima facie showing that suspension of supplies of coal was arbitrary and unfair—High Court justified in staying the order suspending the supplies as an interim measure—Special leave petition dismissed. (S.C.)


CONFISCATION—
Confiscation - Of tractor and trolley—Petition for release filed—Allowed by appellate authority under section 52 (2-e) of Orissa Forest Act, 1972—Sustainability of—Post of District Judge includes Additional District Judge under section 5 of the Civil Courts Act—Court of Additional Sessions Judge Rayagada is competent to hear and dispose the appeal—Authorized Officer-cum-Assistant Conservator of Forests directed to release the tractor and its trolley in favour of registered owner forthwith without further delay. (Ori., H.C.)
CONSERVATION—>
Conservation -
Forests and Mineral Wealth—Courts required to share legislative concern while issuing final or interim orders in forest/mining/environment matters—Should give sufficient time and latitude to ministries/ departments to file objections/counters—A wrong decision in such matters— May result in disastrous results in regard to public interest/financially and ecologically. (S.C.)


CONSERVATION OF WATER—
Conservation of Water - Water harvesting and ground water level management—Need for conservation and maintenance of ponds, tanks and lakes emphasized—To arrest the falling ground water level—Direction issued to concerned authorities—Divisional Level Committee under Revenue Commissioner of Division directed to be constituted to monitor implementation of water conservation schemes, for removing encroachments over land of ponds tanks and lakes and for taking effective steps with regard to water harvesting.
(M.P., H.C.-G.B.)
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950—
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32—Contempt of Courts Act, 1971—Section 2 (b)—Issue raised in the petition dealt with by a Bench of Gujarat High Court in B.K. Sharma v. Union of India—Yet petition filed before the Apex Court with intention of creating impediment in establishment and running of industrial units—Conduct of petitioner before the Gujarat High Court appearing to be contemptuous and certainly abuse of process of the Court in terms of finding recorded by that Court having attained finality—Show-cause notice directed to be issued to petitioners as to why proceeding be not initiated against them and exemplary cost be not imposed. (S.C.)
Constitution of India, 1950—Article 51-A—Fundamental duties of every citizen—To protect and improve the environment including forests, lakes, rivers, wild life and to have compassion for living creatures. (Gau., H.C.-I.B.)
Constitution of India, 1950—Article 51-A (g)—Environment (Protection) Act, 1986—Section 5—Environment and ecology—Constitutional duty on part of the State Government to take utmost care of. (Ori., H.C.)
Constitution of India, 1950—Article 226—Exercise of discretionary jurisdiction—Petitioner not found competent to invoke jurisdiction the High Court—That would not debar competent person to invoke jurisdiction of the Court if otherwise maintainable. (A.P., H.C.) Constitution of India, 1950—Article 226—Scope—High Court would interfere only when error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings and grave injustice has been caused thereby. (Del., H.C.)
Constitution of India, 1950—Article 226—Writ petition—Locus standi—Land from where ordinary sand is required to be removed, a private patta land—Writ petitioner does not have the locus standi vis-a-vis the Mineral Development Corporation in whose favour permits have been granted. (A.P., H.C.)
Constitution of India, 1950—Article 226—Writ petition—Maintainability—Availability of efficacious remedy of appeal—Non-consideration of material on vital issues—Would constitute a cause for interference by the Court—Principle of law not attracted unless averment of non-consideration of material is established. (A.P., H.C.)
Constitution of India, 1950—Articles 226, 47, 48-A and 51-A—Manipur Municipalities Act, 1984—Section 37—Pollution control and protection of environment—Discharge of untreated effluent into river Nambul—Bounden duty of the State to protect the river by evicting the encroachers on eastern bank/basin of the river—Imphal Municipal Council directed to discharge it's obligatory functions and duties under the Act. (Gau., H.C.-I.B.)


DELEGATED LEGISLATION—
Delegated Legislation - Framing of rules—Aims at giving effect to the provisions of the Act. (Kar., H.C.) DETENTION OF VEHICLE— Detention of Vehicle - By Police—Without registering a case—On ground to check illegal mining—Not permitted—Explanation and appologies tendered by the respondent No. 3 accepted. (A.P., H.C.)
DOCTRINE OF PUBLIC TRUST—
Doctrine of Public Trust - Rests on principle that certain resources like air, sea, water and forests—Have such a great importance to people as a whole—That it would be wholly unjustified to make them a subject of private ownership—Doctrine enjoins upon the Government to protect the resources for the enjoyment of the general public. (Gau., H.C.-I.B.)


ENVIRONMENT AND HUMAN HEALTH—
Environment and Human Health - Hazardous impact of use of asbestos—Writ of mandamus sought to be issued directing the Union of India and respondent States to ban all use of asbestos in any manner whatsoever and identification and certification of victims suffering from asbestosis—Matter examined by the Apex Court at great length in Consumer Education and Research Centre and certain directions stand issued—Hardly, any occasion for the petitioner to institute the petition as an independent proceeding—No data collected by the petitioner to show as to whether direction so issued are being strictly implemented or not—Averments of the States that directions are strictly adhered to not rebutted by the petitioner—Directions given to respondents concerned to ensure strict adherence to direction issued in Consumer Education and Research Centre, review safeguards in relation to primary as well as secondary exposure to asbestos, constitute committee of Experts for effective prevention and control of hazardous effects on health of workmen. (S.C.)


ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION—
Environmental Pollution - Installation of stone crushing unit on Gair Mumkin Forest Land—Carried out by the society inspite of status quo order passed by the High Court—No decision taken by the Central Government for diversion of the forest land for non-forest purpose—No permissions granted by concerned authority to carry out physical activity at the site in question—State or any other authority cannot grant permission for use of forest land for non-forest purpose—Allotment of land and grant of permission for carrying out mining activity de hors the recommendation made by the monitoring committee—To cause great environmental hazard—Respondent society directed to stop construction and remove the plant, machinery and construction raised. (H.P., H.C.)


ENVIRONMENT AND TOWN PLANNING—
Environment and Town Planning - Intervention applications filed on behalf of Jharkhand Chamber of Commerce and Industries—With regard to protection of interest of business community and society at large alleging encroachment in shape of wrong assessments—Grievance of another petitioner that person functioning as town planner is not qualified as such—R.R.D.A. and Ranchi Municipal Corporation directed to dispose of applications for sanction of plans pending with them—State Government to make policy regarding use of polythene in the State—Non-implementation of order of the Court regarding use of plastic bags required to be explained by the authorities concerned—Matter to be taken up on next date of hearing. (Jhar., H.C.)
ENVIRONMENT (PROTECTION) ACT, 1986—
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - Section 3—Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986—Rule 5—Coastal Regulation Zone Notifications issued by the Government of India—Denial of permission to change the “asbestos roof” to “concrete roof”—No increase in plinth area or density of the existing buildings—Existing buildings already numbered by the local authority and petitioner paying taxes—Replacing asbestos roof by concrete roof not to have any adverse effect with regard to scope and object of the C.R.Z. notification and the norms prescribed therein—First respondent directed to reconsider application of the petitioner—Impugned order set aside. (Ker., H.C.) Environment (Protection) Act, 1986—Section 3—Notification No. S.O. 1533 dated 14.9.2006—Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957—Section 3—U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963—Rule 3—Sand mining —Would be an “activity”—Notification dated 14.9.2006—Would cover mining which if not project, will fall within expression “activity”—Project includes an enterprise—Activity in the context would have wider meaning to include a profession or pursuit. (Alld., H.C.) Environment (Protection) Act, 1986—Section 3—Notification No. S.O. 1533 dated 14.9.2006—Requirement of necessary clearance for mining of sand—Prior clearance though mandatory, in the larger public interest direction issued to obtain environmental clearance in terms of notification dated 14.9.2006—State Government directed to ensure as on 1.7.2011 no person in the State would carry out mining activity of minor minerals including sand/silica without having obtained the clearance—State to take steps to implement report of the committee appointed in Noor Mohammad v. State of U.P. ………………..…………………………………………(Alld., H.C.)

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986—Section 3—Notification No. S.O. 1533 dated 14.9.2006—Requirement of prior environmental clearance—Section 3 (1) confers general power—Open to Central Government to issue a notification covering the entire area—Not necessary for it to issue notification statewise or areawise. (Alld., H.C.) Environment (Protection) Act, 1986—Section 3—Regulation of parking in market—Free parking facility made available to traders of petitioner association—Proposal mooted by the New Delhi Municipal Corporation to stop free facility and to go for paid parking—Observation of Supreme Court—Rates of parking charges to be “on the user pay principle” in which the user will pay the full cost of parking—Parking policy adopted by civic agencies—Would have an important bearing on issue of Control of air pollution and traffic congestion in Delhi—Extending such policy to Khan Market reasonable—Licence fee of Rs. 5,34,207/- offered by the contractor for the Khan Market parking lot of 5700 sq. m. reasonable if they want to manage parking lot on their own—Impugned decision of the N.D.M.C. to introduce paid parking in Khan Market—Not arbitrary, irrational, unreasonable or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution—Interference with the decision of the N.D.M.C. declined. (Del., H.C.) Environment (Protection) Act, 1986—Section 3 (2)—Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986—Rule 5 (3) (d)—Constitution of India, 1950—Article 253—Seventh Schedule, Entry 13—Parliament has power to make any law for whole or any part of territory of India for implementing any treaty, agreement, convention—Environment Act enacted by the Parliament to give effect to conference on Human Environment held in Stockholm—Competence of the Parliament to enact the legislation cannot be doubted. (Alld., H.C.)


Environment (Protection) Act, 1986—Section 3 (2)—Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986—Rule 5 (3) (d)—Notification No. S.O. 1533 dated 14.9.2006—Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957—Section 3 (e)—Mining of sand/silica—Sand/silica is minor mineral both within the meaning of Mines Act and M.M.D.R. Act—Notification dated 14.9.2006—Would be applicable for mining of sand—For mining of sand/silica a mining lease would be required. (Alld., H.C.)
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986—Sections 6 and 25—Bio-Medical Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 1998—Rule 8 (3)—Validity of Rule 8 (3) of the Rules—No specific provision under the Act for imposition of fee—In absence of such provision power cannot be delegated and under delegated legislation rules cannot be framed imposing fee—Notification issued by the State Government imposing fee as per Rule 8 (3) ultra vires the provisions of the 1986 Act. (Kar., H.C.)
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986—Sections 19 (a) and 15—Bio-Medical Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 1998—Rules 5, 6, 8 and 10—Orissa Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules, 1983—Rule 17 (15)—Scope of—Competency of the State Pollution Control Board to engage advocate to protect the interest of the Board—Discussed and explained—Counsel engaged by the Board permitted to conduct/prosecute the case on behalf of the Board. (Ori., H.C.)
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986—Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974—Section 25 (1) (a)—Environment Impact Assessment—Mere fact that an environment impact assessment clearance has been obtained from M.O.E.F.—Cannot be a ground to seek exemption from obtaining consent to establish under the 1974 Act and consent to operate under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. (Del., H.C.)


ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE—
Environmental Clearance - Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006—Project of urban park applying test of dominant purpose or dominant nature of the project or the common parlance test—Project can be categorised under item 8 (b) of the schedule as a “Township and Area Development Project” Total area being less than 50 hectares and built up area much below the threshold marker of 1,50,000 square meters—Project does not fall within the ambit of E.I.A. Notification dated 14.9.2006. (S.C.)


ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS IN INDIA—
Environmental Laws in India—Construction of urban park to develop and beautify the area adjacent to Okhla Bird Sanctuary—Environmental clearance—To ensure full compliance with recommendations of expert bodies and directions of the Court—Needs to be overseen by an expert Committee to be constituted—E.I.A. notification dated 14.9.2006 to have second look by the concerned authorities—Project activities under item 8 (a) and 8 (b) of the schedule to the notification need to be described with greater precision and clarity. (S.C.)
Environmental Laws in India —Natural resources—Utilization of—Has to be in a way that is consistent with principles of "sustainable development" and intergenerational equity—Decisions relating to such utilization—Have to be tested on the anvil of the well-recognised principles of judicial review—Constitutional "doctrine of proportionality" has to be applied in the matters concerning environment. (S.C.) Environmental Laws in India —Need to protect the banyan and other trees and securing them from onslaughts of anti-social elements emphasised—Orders and directions issued accordingly. (Ker., H.C.)

Environmental Laws in India —Plastic—Used only by human beings—Growth of civilization includes the requirement to grow, recognizing the rights of those who are yet to reach this earth—Present inhabitants have to manage the environment—Those who live today are undoubtedly the ancestors of tomorrow—Any arbitrary and anarchic behaviour from the civilized society in the management of waste is deplorable—Role of local self-Government institutions and various other authorities who are involved in administering issues relating to public health, hygiene and other attendant matters, highlighted with penal provisions. ..(Ker., H.C.)


Environmental Laws in India —Purity of—Not the requirement only of human beings but also the need of the entire flora and fauna—Unauthorised flex boards and other modes of advertisements placed in and around the althara platform surrounding the banyan tree—Banyan trees and other trees in the vicinity of temples have to be appropriately protected—Nails cannot be driven into such trees, except may be in connection with already existing old practices attendant to faith and religious beliefs, rituals and temple practices founded on beliefs intricately connected with religion and faith. (Ker., H.C.)


Environmental Laws in India —Water body system—Comprehends not only rivers but also lakes—Lakes form part of the environment. (Ker., H.C.) Environmental Laws in India —Land owned by the appellants identified as mangrove area—Appellants had been manufacturing salt thereon since 1959—Granted permission by the District Collector on certain conditions to repair bund without destroying mangroves or vegetation—Committee appointed for the purpose found gross violation of order of the District Collector, order of the Bombay High Court and also order of the Apex Court—Mangrove at places destroyed—New roads and new bunds and large platforms constructed—Debris, garbage, mud and stones dumped along the side of the road—Large number of mangroves died because of removal of mud and stagnation of water—Appellants knowingly and purposely damaged mangroves and other vegetation—Held guilty of wilful defiance of orders passed by the Apex Court and the District Collector—Directed to restore the height and width of the bund as existed prior to order of the District Collector and to restore all culverts, drains that existed to facilitate natural flow of sea water into the land—The District Collector directed to carry out the above direction in case of failure on part of appellants and recover the cost from them. (S.C.)


Environmental Laws in India —Project of construction of urban park—Adjacent to Okhla Bird Sanctuary—Failure on part of U.P. Government to notify eco-sensitive zones—Construction adjoining the bird sanctuary a potential hazard to the sensitive and fragile ecological balance—Notification of buffer zone around sanctuaries and National Parks to protect the sensitive and delicate ecological balance required. (S.C.) Environmental Laws in India —Salt harvesting by solar evaporation of sea-water in CRZ-1 areas—Permissible only where such area is not ecologically sensitive and important—Cannot be permitted to be carried on in an area which is home to mangrove forests. (S.C.)
Environmental Laws in India —Conversion of agricultural land into fish tanks—Permission letter granted in favour of respondents 6 to 20 revealing that District Level Committee considered the guidelines issued by the Apex Court as well as by the High Court while granting permission—Complaints made by the petitioners also taken into consideration by the Assistant Director of Agriculture who recommended the case for conversion—Contention of petitioner that guidelines contained in G.O. Ms. No. 83 dated 12.9.2007 were not taken into consideration repelled. (A.P., H.C.)

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION—
Environmental Protection - Concept of "sustainable development"—Universal human dependence on use of environmental resources—Renders it impossible to refrain from altering environment—Such conflict ineradicable—Environmental protection—Always a matter of degree—Inescapably requiring choices as to appropriate level of environmental protection—This aspect recognised by the concept of "sustainable development". (S.C.)

FOREST CONSERVATION—
Forest Conservation - U.P. Private Forests Act, 1948—Section 3 (7)—Forest produce—Includes peat, surface soil and rock. (Utt., H.C.)
FOREST CONSERVATION ACT, 1980—
Forest Conservation Act, 1980 - Section 2—A.P. Forest Act, 1967—Sections 4, 6 and 7 (1) (a)—Proceedings before the Forest Settlement Officer—Validity—Patta shown to have been issued in favour of some particular person—Such person found to be born more than seven years thereafter—Proceedings vitiated on account of fraud. (A.P., H.C.)
Forest Conservation Act, 1980—Section 2—Approval of the Central Government for elimination of land from forest block and restoration of the same to original claimant/subsequent purchasers—Collusion by the Forest Settlement Officer with original claimants evident on record—Huge extent of land excluded by the Forest Settlement Officer from forest block suppressing material facts and documents—Order passed by the Forest Settlement Officer non-est and void. (A.P., H.C.)

Forest Conservation Act, 1980—Section 2—Environment Protection Act, 1986—Mining—Writ petition seeking direction to respondents to permit petitioners to lift the dumped material after collecting requisite fee and royalty—Neither the State Government nor the Central Government allowed sufficient time to file any counter—Claim of the first respondent not conceded by them either—Order passed by the High Court on basis of report of Dy. Conservator of Forests assuming it to be admission of the Government—No averment in such report that mine dumps were mined prior to enforcement of Act of 1980—Lease period expired on 6.7.1985—Writ petition filed after twenty four years—No explanation for such inordinate delay—Admittedly writ petitioners produced fake document before the authorities in support of their claim—Contradictory stand taken by respondent No. 1 with regard to material in question as eroded soil and waste and later as low grade ore mined by it—High Court committed a serious error in hurriedly deciding the seriously disputed questions of fact—Impugned order set aside. (S.C.)

Forest Conservation Act, 1980—Section 2—Forest Conservation Rules, 1981—Rule 4—Environment (Protection) Act, 1986—Sections 3 (1), 3 (2)(v) and 3 (3)—Site clearance, EIA clearance read with revised environmental clearance and Stage-I forest clearance—Principles/guidelines mentioned in the National Forest Policy, 1988—Should be read as part of the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 read together with the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980—The Central Government should appoint a National Regulator for appraising projects, enforcing environmental conditions for approvals and impose penalties on polluters—In future cases, the User Agency (Project proponents) shall comply with the Office Memorandum dated 26.4.2011 issued by the MoEF—Claim regarding status of land being non-forest—Site to be inspected by the State Forest Department alongwith the Regional Office of MoEF—At each Regional Office there may be a Standing Site Inspection Committee to ascertain status of land—Regional Empowered Committee to be constituted under Chairmanship of Chief Conservator of Forests (Central)—Creation and regular updating of a GIS based decision support database—Public consultation or public hearing a mandatory requirement of the environment clearance process—These guidelines to be followed by the Central Government, State Government and various authorities under the 1980 Act and 1986 Act. (S.C.)
Forest Conservation Act, 1980—Section 2—Forest land—Extension of period of lease—Leasehold land surrounded by thick forest near the boundary of Kerala and Karnataka States—Lease cancelled and leasehold land ordered to be taken in possession by the Forest Department—Opinion of the Government that extension of period of lease is likely to cause problems for movement of men and vehicles—Intention of the Government to develop naturally grown forests over the land—It can be done only if possession of the land is taken back by the Government—Cancellation of the lease deed and direction to hand over possession of lease hold land to Forest Department—Not illegal………………………………………………. (S.C.)


Forest Conservation Act, 1980—Section 2—Forest land—Large tract of land forever agricultural in character—Trees planted with object of creating an urban park—Trees allowed to grow for about 12-14 years and then cut down to make the area clear for the project to set up an urban park with memorial structures and commemoration pieces—Inconceivable that trees planted would turn into forest and land would convert into forest land—Project site not forest land—Construction of project without prior permission from Central Government—Does not contravene section 2 of the Act. (S.C.)
Forest Conservation Act, 1980—Section 2—Prior approval—Use of forest land for non-forest purpose—No State Government or other authority shall make any order directing use of forest land for non-forest purpose except with the approval of the Central Government—For this prior determination of what constitutes "forest land" is required to be done. (S.C.)
Forest Conservation Act, 1980—Section 2—United Khasi Jaintia Hills Autonomous District (Management and Control of Forests) Act, 1959—Sections 2 (f) and 7—Forest—Whether a particular area is forest or not—Restriction on felling of trees exceeding 1.37 metres in girth at breast level—Indicates that trees of particular girth at breast height only have to be counted. (S.C.)
Forest Conservation Act, 1980—Sections 2 and 3—Forest Conservation Rules, 1981—Rule 4—Environment (Protection) Act, 1986—Section 3 (1) read with section 3 (2)(v)—Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986—Rule 5 (3)(d)—Grant of Stage I Forest clearance and revised environmental clearance—Despite compliances by the project proponent and despite issuance of certificates by various authorities—MoEF sought further clarifications/information by raising necessary requisitions—In view of amended EIA notification of 1994 MoEF asked for submission of applications for site clearance as well as for project clearance—Despite Certificate from DFO that mining site was not a forest area, MoEF sought further details in terms of connotation of the word forest—All conditions imposed with regard to environmental clearance substantially complied by Lafarge—Issue of mining thoroughly discussed with the village Durbar by members of HPC—Community in agreement to allow M/s Lafarge to continue mining—Parameters of inter-generational equity satisfied—No reasonable person can say that impugned decision to grant Stage-I forest clearance and revised environmental clearance stood vitiated on account of non-application of mind by MoEF. (S.C.)
Forest Conservation Act, 1980—Sections 2 and 3-A—Petitioner neither the State nor any authority of the State but an individual—No individual can be held guilty for violation of provisions of section 2 punishable under section 3-A of the Act. (Utt., H.C.)
Forest Conservation Act, 1980—Sections 2 and 3-A—U.P. Private Forests Act, 1948—Sections 5, 6, 7, 9 and 15—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 482—Quashing of proceedings of criminal case—Private forest land declared by the Government—Construction of building thereat by digging the forest land without prior permission of the State Government/Forest Department—Digging work comes within purview of forest produce—Offences punishable under sections 5, 6, 7, 9 and 15 of 1948 Act prima facie made out—Proceedings thereunder to continue before the Trial Court. (Utt., H.C.)


FOREST LAND—
Forest Land - Demand Note—For the purpose of transfer of forest land to the N.H. Authority by Forest Department—Issuance of recovery citation—Legality of—Petition disposed of with directions. (Alld., H.C.)
Forest Land—Plaintiff claiming title to suit land on basis of temporary Saguvali Chit issued by the Tahsildar—Evidence of D.W. 1 and documents through him showing the property as part and parcel of forest reserve—Plaintiff failed to prove that he is absolute owner and is in possession and enjoyment of the property—Lawful grant of the suit property not established—Declaratory decree could not have been passed—Impugned judgment of the Trial Court set aside. (Kar., H.C.) Forest Land—Suit for title and possession of—Second appeal—Filed by three appellants District Collector, Mandal Revenue Officer and District Forest Officer impleading original two plaintiffs as respondents—Other defendants not impleaded—Defendant No. 1 State of Andhra Pradesh also not impleaded—Title is also claimed by State Government—Hence, State was a necessary party—Was a party before Trial Court and First Appellate Court—State of Andhra Pradesh should be made party—Therefore judgment and order of High Court set aside—Case remanded to High Court to decide afresh. (S.C.)

Forest Land—Vesting of—Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971—Section 2 (f)—Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order XLI, Rule 27—Claim for exemption of private forest land from vesting—Held, as the matter was earlier remanded by the Apex Court, the High Court in particular facts and circumstances of the case, was not justified in relying on the decision of the Apex Court in case of State of Kerala and another v. Pullengode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd., (1999) 6 SCC 92—Further, when application for reception of additional evidence was filed by the parties under Order XLI, Rule 27 of C.P.C., it was the duty of the High Court to deal with the same on merits—Adducing of additional evidence is in the interest of justice in matters relating to subsequent happening—In the light of separate applications filed by both the parties under Order XLI, Rule 27 of C.P.C., it was for the High Court to take a decision one way or the other—Accordingly, the impugned judgment of the High Court set aside and matter remanded back to the High Court with direction to restore M.F.A. No. 537 of 1995 and cross-appeal and dispose of the same expeditiously—Appeals allowed to above extent. (S.C.)


HAZARDOUS WASTES (MANAGEMENT HANDLING AND TRANSBOUNDARY MOVEMENT) RULES, 2008—
Hazardous Wastes (Management Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008 - Legality of interim order dated 1.12.2010—Determination of a particular waste as hazardous waste—By the physical, chemical, Hazardous Wastes (Management Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008—reactive, toxic, flammable, explosive or corrosive characteristics which cause danger or are likely to cause danger to the health or environment—Facts and circumstances considered—Imported material—Old and used digital multi-functional printers—Appeal disposed by directing for examination of imported materials. (Ker., H.C.)


IMMOVABLE PROPERTY—
Immovable Property - Revenue entries—Do not give title or ownership to any party—Name recorded in the revenue records—Has nothing to do when registered sale-deed is in favour of a party—Revenue receipts also cannot give title upon a property in all cases. (Jhar., H.C.)


INDIAN FOREST ACT, 1927—
Indian Forest Act, 1927 - Section 2 (2)—Himachal Pradesh Kutlehar Forests (Acquisition of Management) Act, 1992—Section 4—Appellant appointed as a forest officer in capacity of Superintendent of Kutlehar Forests before formation of State of Himachal Pradesh—Was entitled to dispose of forest produce and entitled to retain 3/4 share of the total income from the forests and remaining 1/4 was payable to the Government—Management of said forest taken over by the State Government—Categorical claim of the appellant that section 4 of 1992 Act did not take away the vested right of appellant which accrued to him before appointed day i.e., 11.3.1995—View of the Single Judge and Division Bench that right, title and interest of appellant stood extinguished on the appointed day of 11.3.1995—That he has no right to continue in the management of the forests nor has any right to share in income arising out of produce of the forest—Appellant asked to look after the forest, still in the management—Material placed by the appellant not properly appreciated—Matter remitted to the Single Judge for disposal afresh. (S.C.)
Indian Forest Act, 1927 —Sections 2 (2) and 75—Provisions of—Restricts a Forest Officer—From doing any trade in timber—Permission required from State—Husband of licensee is employed as Assistant Clerk in the Forest Department—Cannot be sole ground to deny the licence for doing trade in timber. (Jhar., H.C.)
Indian Forest Act, 1927 —Sections 2 (3) and 52—Scope of—Initiation of confiscation proceedings—Term “reason to believe”—Distinction with the term “being satisfied”—Discussed. (Pat., H.C.)
Indian Forest Act, 1927 —Sections 4, 5, 6, 11 (1) and (2)—Conjoint analysis of—Inter se dispute between different private claimants—Cannot be decided under such provisions of the Act. (Alld., H.C.)
Indian Forest Act, 1927 —Sections 4, 6 and 9—Proposal to declare reserve forest—Objections filed—Allowed—Appeal against—Allowed—Objection rejected—Legality of—No patta alleged to have been executed by the zamindar filed—Name not mutated after zamindari abolition—No reference to receipts was made Indian Forest Act, 1927— in the oral statements and objections—No name of zamindar disclosed—Receipts were forged and manufactured—Finding of Lower Appellate Court—Just and proper—No interference warranted—Petition dismissed with damages. (Alld., H.C.)

Indian Forest Act, 1927 —Section 11 (2) (1)—U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950—Sections 229-B and 131-A—Plots in dispute excluded from limits of proposed forest by order passed by the Forest Settlement Officer—Petitioner's suit under section 229-B of 1950 Act decided in his favour on 25.10.1978—Matter again decided on 8.8.1991 by the F.S.O. in favour of the petitioner—Forest Department filed appeal against order dated 8.8.1991 which was allowed by the appellate authority on ground that grant of patta in favour of petitioner's father could not be proved and Appellate Court found the land unploughed—Earlier orders passed in favour of the petitioner never challenged by the Forest Department—Those orders could not be ignored—Presence of rocks and trees on the land cannot warrant ignoring the doctrine of res-judicata—Judgment and order passed by the F.S.O. dated 8.8.1991 restored. (Alld., H.C.)
Indian Forest Act, 1927 —Sections 13 (ii) and 53-A—Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957—Sections 4 (1) and 4 (1-A)—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 482—Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 414/120-B/34—C.J.M. recalled his earlier order releasing the trucks seized—Quashment of said order sought—Held, perusal of the impugned order shows that the C.J.M. has not recalled his earlier order but has only put the same under abeyance till the disposal of proceedings initiated for confiscation of the trucks under section 53-A of the Forest Act—No illegality in the order impugned—Petition dismissed. (Jhar., H.C.) Indian Forest Act, 1927 —Sections 30 and 31—Scope of—Explained. …(Pat., H.C.)

Indian Forest Act, 1927 —Sections 30, 31, 33, 44 and 42—Confiscation proceeding—Non-production of gazette notification under sections 30 and 31—Effect of—Discussed and explained. (Pat., H.C.)
Indian Forest Act, 1927 —Section 33—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 482—Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 414—Quashment of criminal proceeding—Seizure of 160 bags of coal being carried on equal number of bicycles—Charge-sheet filed against petitioner although coal was seized from Ramgarh Sponge Iron (P) Ltd.—No provision under the Indian Penal Code for attaching vicarious liability on Managing Director/Director—Cognizance of offence taken by the C.J.M. without application of judicial mind—Criminal proceeding against the petitioner quashed. (Jhar., H.C.)
Indian Forest Act, 1927 —Section 33—Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 414 read with 34—F.I.R. under—Trucks seized in connection with—Release refused—Legality—No dispute regarding ownership of truck with the petitioner—Trucks were seized in the year 2006—Still kept uncared and unprotected in the police station—Petition allowed with direction to release the trucks subject to proper verification and security. (Jhar., H.C.)
Indian Forest Act, 1927 —Section 33—Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 414—Release of confiscated vehicle—Petitioner owner of the vehicle acquitted from criminal charge—Order of confiscation set aside—Tractor and the trailor directed to be released. (Jhar., H.C.)
Indian Forest Act, 1927 —Sections 33, 41 and 42—Quashing of order taking cognizance—Petitioners officers of PPCL an undertaking of Government of India—Nothing disclosed against them forming basis for initiation of prosecution of the petitioners—Matter pending since long—Order taking cognizance quashed. (Pat., H.C.) Indian Forest Act, 1927 —Sections 33, 41 and 42—Release of truck seized in connection with forest case—Truck lying in open since date of its seizure—No confiscation proceeding initiated—Divisional Forest Officer directed to release the truck on such terms and conditions and on such sureties and bonds as thought proper. (Pat., H.C.)

Indian Forest Act, 1927 —Sections 33, 41, 42 and 52—Cognizance of offences taken under—Legality of—Perusal of materials available on record along with the entire order sheet—Prosecution report filed after expiry of period of limitation—Magistrate failed to consider as to whether there was any requirement to hear the prosecution on the point of limitation—No steps to condone the delay—Order impugned unsustainable—Set aside—Petition allowed. (Pat., H.C.)


Indian Forest Act, 1927 —Sections 41 and 42—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 482—Criminal proceedings—Confiscation of vehicle—No reason for—Appellate authority observed that there was no reason for confiscating the vehicle—Petitioner was not at fault in allowing transportation of forest goods—Continuation of criminal proceeding against petitioner is, therefore, misconceived and per se illegal—An abuse of process of Court—Hence quashed. (Jhar., H.C.)


Indian Forest Act, 1927 —Sections 41 and 42—H.P. Forest Produce (Transit Land Rules) Rules, 1978—Rule 11—Conviction and sentence—Sustainability—Accused found carrying 14 logs of dry Cheel tree in jeep—Such kind of logs normally used as fuel—Logs were being carried from one village to another and not out of the State—Petitioners in jail since previous day—Sentence reduced to period already undergone with fine of Rs. 500/- each. (H.P., H.C.)


Indian Forest Act, 1927 —Section 52—Confiscation proceeding—No material on record to show that the owner had any knowledge that the metal chips were being extracted from the forest area or unleased land—Truck already in seizure custody for over nine years—Offence committed without the knowledge and connivance of the owner—Orders impugned quashed—Authorities directed to release the truck in favour of owner. (Pat., H.C.)


Indian Forest Act, 1927 —Section 52 (3)—Confiscation—Of vehicle involved in an offence under section 27 read with section 41 of Forest Act and under section 379, I.P.C.—Appeal against—Dismissed—Revision too dismissed—Sustainability of—No evidence on record to establish that the owner of the vehicle was involved in the offence—Statement of S.O.-P.S. BORASA—Authorities concerned committed error in exercising powers in confiscating the offending vehicle under section 52 (3) of the Forest Act—Petition allowed—Orders impugned set aside—Authorities directed to return the offending vehicle to the owner forthwith. (M.P., H.C.-I.B.)
Indian Forest Act, 1927 —Section 61-B (as amended by the Indian Forest (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) Act, 2000—Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order1, Rules 9 and 13—Summary eviction of unauthorised occupants—State of U.P. through the Principal Secretary as well as various forest authorities including those who passed the order impugned—Impleaded as opposite parties—Writ petition does not suffer from non-joinder of parties. (Alld., H.C.-L.B.)


Indian Forest Act, 1927 —Section 61-B (as amended by the Indian Forest (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) Act, 2000—Forest Conservation Act, 1980—Section 2—Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition Forest Rights) Act, 2006—Sections 3, 4 and 13—Petitioners held to be not covered under Forest Rights Act, 2006—Cannot hit provision of section 61-B of 1927 Act—Forest Rights Act, 2006 is in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of the Indian Forest Act—Petitioners are governed by section 61-B of 1927 Act—No document of title produced by them—No lease deed brought on record—Petitioners running shops on the land in dispute not related with any forest activity—They are not depending upon any related activity of forest—Have no right to continue on count of possession as well—With their non-forest activities like doing business. (Alld., H.C.-L.B.)


INTEREST—
Interest - Quarrying lease granted for ten years—Lease area forest area and in process of declaration as reserve forest—Lease amount Rs. 44.55 lakhs refunded without interest—Direction by Writ Court to pay interest @ 18%—Reduced to 12% p.a. (S.C.)
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE—
Interpretation of Statute - Difficult to assume that Parliament while enacting an Act or delegating the legislative power to the State Government—Contemplated making of legal provisions in the Act in respect of inter-State trade or commerce—Rule made by the State Government—Has to be tested on the anvil of terms of delegation and scope and scheme of the Act—Delegated authority cannot legally be stretched to sneak into an area reserved for the Parliament. (Guj., H.C.) Interpretation of Statute —Words in the preamble—Generally a key to open the mind of the legislature in cases where there is any ambiguity—Words of the substantive provision clear—Preamble cannot control the language used in the Act. (Ker., H.C.) JURISPRUDENCE—
Jurisprudence - Principles of “finality of litigation”—Cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants—One who comes to Court must come with clean hands. (A.P., H.C.)


KARNATAKA FOREST ACT, 1963—
Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 - Sections 80 and 104-A—Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969—Rules 127-A and 134—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 438—Petition—Have sought for relief of anticipatory bail—Apprehending their arrest in non-bailable case for offences punishable under sections 80 and 104-A and Rule 127-A of Rules—There are no reasonable grounds to believe that petitioners are guilty of any offences alleged—There are no materials to indicate that the coffee land settlement of 1885 has been extended to land in question—Though their apprehension that they are likely to be arrested is well founded—Under the circumstances the personal liberty of petitioners is required to be protected by grant of anticipatory bail—Hence anticipatory bail granted with conditions. (Kar., H.C.)
KERALA ANTI-SOCIAL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT, 2007—
Karnataka Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 - Section 3—Detention order—Sustainability—Neither the sponsoring authority nor the detaining authority applied their minds to existence of proceedings under section 107, Cr.P.C. against the detenu—Detention order does not disclose application of mind—Application of mind is the most prized safeguard engrafted as duty of the detaining authority—Detention order quashed. (Ker., H.C.)
KERALA FOREST ACT, 1961—
Kerala Forest Act, 1961 - Section 12-A—Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Section 100—Appeal—Section 12-A of 1961 Act—Intended to be self contained with regard to appeals under the Act to the High Court—Appeal against order of the appellate authority—Lies without any limitation or restriction—Under section 100 of the Code—Appellant required to precisely state substantial question of law in memorandum of appeal which is not required under section 12-A of the Act—An appeal available both in respect of questions of fact and questions of law under the Act. (S.C.)


KERALA PROMOTION OF TREE GROWTH IN NON-FOREST AREAS ACT, 2005—
Kerala Promotion of Tree Growth in Non Forest Areas Act, 2005 - Sections 6, 7, 9 (3) (a) and 12—Power conferred on officer of the forest department under section 9 (1)—Not only to seize the cut tree or timber transported in contravention of the Act but also to seize the tree severed from land—Reports contemplated under sub-sections (2) and (3) (a) of section 9 of the Act—Could be in respect of the cut tree, uprooted burnt or otherwise destroyed in contravention of section 6 and seized under sub-section (1) as well. (Ker., H.C.)
Kerala Promotion of Tree Growth in Non Forest Areas Act, 2005—Section 12—Sanction for prosecution—Application of mind—Relevant records made available to the D.F.O.—Sanction accorded on basis of such records—Clearly the sanctioning authority applied his mind before issuing the order—While according sanction detailed order not required. (Ker., H.C.)
KERALA PROTECTION OF RIVER BANKS AND REGULATION OF REMOVAL OF SAND ACT, 2001—
Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 - Sections 2 (c), 12, 20 and 21—“Kandavu”—As defined in the Act—Means a river bank or water body where removal of sand is carried out—Removal of sand from the whereabouts of a lake—Will also be comprehended within the mischief of the Act. (Ker., H.C.)
Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 - Sections 7, 26 and 29—Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Rules, 2002—Rule 30—Removal of sand—Permissible only in accordance with the decision taken by the District Expert Committee constituted under the Act—Said Committee has to take decision in the light of sand audit report by the third respondent—Where no sand audit report has been submitted, no removal of sand would be permitted. (Ker., H.C.)
Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001—Section 9 (a) and 2 (c)—Removal of sand—Prohibited under the Act by necessary implication unless a water body defined as Kandavu is identified by the District Expert Committee from where removal of sand is to be permitted. (Ker., H.C.)
LEASE—
Lease- Grant of—Grant of renewal is a fresh grant—Must be consistent with law. (Alld., H.C.)


M.P. FOREST PRODUCE (CONSERVATION OF BIODIVERSITY AND SUSTAINABLE HARVESTING) RULES, 2005—
M.P. Forest Produce (Conservation of biodiversity and Sustainable Harvesting) Rules, 2005 - Rules 5 and 2 (b)—Madhya Pradesh Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyam) Adhiniyam, 1969—Section 22-A (1)—Notification No. F-25-135-2004-X-3, dated 13.5.2005—Divisional Forest Officer (Territorial and Wild life)—Posted in a Territorial Forest Division—Has authority to issue notification under Rule 5 of the Rules—Notification issued for entire protected and reserved forest in consonance with Rule 5 and does not call for interference. (M.P., H.C.)
M.P. GOVADH PRATISHED ADHINIYA
M.P. Govadh Pratished Adhiniyam - Sections 6/9—Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 279, 337, 304-A, 429, 420, 467, 468 and 471—Bail application—As per prosecution case, on 3.4.2010—Truck bearing registration No. M.P.-09-H.F.-9457 in which cows and oxen were crammed overturned due to rash and negligent driving of the driver resulting in killing of 39 cows and oxen and two men sitting in between the cattle—Facts and circumstances of the case considered—Found that the cattle were being carried in violation of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and M.P. Krishik Pashu Prirakshan Adhiniyam, 1959 as also the Transport of Animals Rules, 1978—Bail application rejected. (M.P., H.C.)


M.P. VAN UPAJ (VYAPAR VINIYAM) ADHINIYAM, 1969—
M.P. Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyam) Adhiniyam, 1969 - Section 2 (4)—M.P. Forest Produce (Conservation of Biodiversity and Sustainable Harvesting) Rules, 2005—Rule 5—Salai gum is a forest produce—Notification issued under Rule 5 of the Rules upheld.
(M.P., H.C.)
MAHARASHTRA PROJECT AFFECTED PERSONS REHABILITATION ACT, 1986—

Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986 - Section 13 (1)—Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 6—Land acquisition—Challenge to—Notification issued under section 13 (1) of the 1986 Act on 26.7.1995—Vital notification since it changed the slab—Petitioners must have challenged said notification with reasonable despatch and ought not have waited till section 6 of L.A. Act declaration for approaching the Writ Court. (Bom., H.C.)
Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986—Section 13 (1) (a), (b) (2)—Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 6—Land acquisition—Change in slab—Lands acquired from persons pursuant to earlier slab falling short of requirement for rehabilitating the project affected persons—State Government lowered the slab from 3 hectares 23 ares to 1 hectare 61 ares—No change in benefited zone—There is no requirement of issuing notice and inviting objection and suggestion. (Bom., H.C.)


MANIPUR MUNICIPALITIES ACT, 1984—
Manipur Municipalities Act, 1984 - Section 37—Obligatory functions of Imphal Municipal Council—Collection and disposal of garbage/waste generated from various sources—Non-availability of funds inadequacy or inefficiency of the staff, insufficiency of machinery—Cannot be pleaded as ground for non-performance of their statutory obligations. (Gau., H.C.-I.B.)
MINERAL CONCESSION RULES, 1960—
Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 - Rule 26—Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957—Section 11 (3)—Recommendation for grant of mining lease—Made in favour of R-7 strictly in terms of section 11 (3) of 1957 Act after giving opportunity of hearing to parties—Petitioner cannot be allowed to challenge the decision making process—Case at the stage of recommendation for grant of mining lease and not at the stage of grant thereof—Petitioner's case squarely covered by the judgment rendered in Brahmi Impex Limited—Petition dismissed with cost of Rs. 25,000/-. (Jhar., H.C.)
Mineral Concession Rules, 1960—Rules 27 (1)(b) and 27 (1) (o)—Grant of permission to permit the lessee to dispose of minor mineral obtained while mining major mineral—All parties aware of the fact that the minor mineral would be available in course of mining of major mineral—State Government may by order permit the lessee to dispose of the mineral as minor mineral—Grant of such permission imperative leaving little or no discretion in the matter. (Pat., H.C.)
Mineral Concession Rules, 1960—Rule 27 (5)—Mining lease—Cancellation of—Action of determining the lease—Has to be preceded by a notice to make good or remedy the breach—Nowhere in notice has the petitioner been asked to remedy any breach—Cancellation of lease without notice in violation of Rule 27 (5) and rules of natural justice—Order of cancellation not sustainable in law. (Pat., H.C.)


Mineral Concession Rules, 1960—Rule 29 (1) (b) Proviso and Rule 35—Surrender of mining lease—Lessee may be permitted to surrender whole or part of the leasehold area on ground that such area is barren—Or deposits of minerals have since exhausted or depleted so as to remain economical—Leasehold area has to be surveyed for the purpose and dues payable so the Government stand paid upto the date of the application—Admittedly first application and rough sketch not in conformity with Rule 35—No challan enclosed therewith—No payment of arrears of royalty and dead rent upto the date of surrender—Another application by petitioner dated 6.7.1990 in accordance with Rule 35—Surrender cannot be said to be effective from date of initial application. (A.P., H.C.)
Mineral Concession Rules, 1960—Rule 37—Creation of interest in favour of anyone by a lessee under the Rule—Without previous consent of the State Government in writing—Not permissible—Lessee cannot charge or accept from transferee any premium in addition to the sum spent by him—Appellant granted mining lease—Executed a general irrevocable power of attorney in favour of the plaintiff to raise, despatch and sell minerals apart from looking after official work and supervisory control over mining operation and all acts and deeds connected thereto—Such execution of irrevocable power of attorney in favour of the respondent—Contravention of Rule 37 (1) (a) and (b) of the Rules—Grant of order of injunction on basis of such power of attorney by the Trial Court not justified—Impugned order set aside. (Ori., H.C.)
Mineral Concession Rules, 1960—Rule 64-A—Liability of interest—Increase in royalty challenged in writ petition—Interim stay granted with regard to recovery of the amount—Writ petition ultimately rejected—Court should invariably award interest by way of restitution—Court normally to adopt the rate prescribed under the statute or contract, if any, except where it proposes to award higher or lower rate of interest for special and exceptional reasons. (S.C.)
Mineral Concession Rules, 1960—Rule 64-A—Liability to pay interest on arrears of royalty and other dues—Prescribed @ 24% p.a. under the Rules—Provision mandatory—Leaves no discretion on the State Government. (S.C.)
Mineral Concession Rules, 1960—Rule 64-A—Rate of interest on arrears of royalty and other dues—Demand notices calling the respondents to pay interest @ 24%—Challenged before the High Court—Statement of Advocate General that State Government is entitled to interest at the rate of 18% per annum and at least @ 12% in view of decision of Apex Court in South Eastern Coal- Fields—Neither an admission nor concession that State Government is entitled to interest only at the rate of 12% p.a. (S.C.)
Mineral Concession Rules, 1960—Rules 64-A, 31 and 27—Rate of interest—Lease governed by the Rules of 1960—Execution of lease deed itself in compliance of one of requirements of the Rule 31—Rule 64-A amended to raise the rate of interest at 24% p.a.—Any term in lease deed prescribing a lesser rate of interest—Shall yield to Rule 64-A. (S.C.)


MINES ACT, 1952—
Mines Act, 1952 - Section 2 (jj)—Minerals—All substances obtained from earth by various process of mining, digging, etc.—Are minerals—Ordinary earth for the purpose of M.M.D.R. Act of 1957 is mineral. (Alld., H.C.)
Mines Act, 1952—Section 9-A (5)—Acceptance of alternative employment by the labourer declared unfit to discharge his duties by Medical Board—Without any demur and without any protest—Plea that conduct of the petitioner in accepting such employment amounts to waiver of his right to seek pay protection repelled. (A.P., H.C.)
Mines Act, 1952—Section 9-A (5)—Alternative employment—Labourer declared unfit to discharge duty in mine—Obligatory on part of the owner, agent or manager of the mine to provide alternative employment to such labourer—Even without there being an accident, employee declared unfit, liable to rehabilitated. (A.P., H.C.)
Mines Act, 1952—Section 9-A (5)—Alternative employment—Re-engagement in an alternative post—Would not mean a fresh appointment. (A.P., H.C.)
Mines Act, 1952—Section 9-A (5)—Pay protection—Alternative employment to the labourer declared unfit for working in mine—Pay drawn by such labourer in the previous post—Should continue to be protected in alternative employment—He cannot lose benefit of continuity of service. (A.P., H.C.)
MINES AND MINERALS—
Mines and Minerals - Check on illegal mining—G.O. No. 84, dated 10.4.2007—Direction to police to check illegal mining—Police not empowered to detain any vehicle transporting mineral illegally extracted without registering a case. (A.P., H.C.)
Mines and Minerals —Grant of temporary permit to lift ordinary sand deposited in patta lands—In accordance with the policy decision taken by the Government—Does not in any way run contrary to the rules. (A.P., H.C.)
Mines and Minerals —Mining lease—Cancellation of—By cryptic order without assigning any reason—Impugned order suffers from infirmity—Land occupied by the petitioners allotted to respondent No. 5 after advertisement—No stay obtained by the petitioners—In the light of subsequent developments liberty granted to petitioners to apply for grant of fresh lease in respect of other land—Such prayer directed to be considered by the respondent in accordance with law. (Jhar., H.C.)
Mines and Minerals —Mining lease—Renewal of—Application for renewal not decided—Lease not renewed—Revision preferred decided without giving reasons—Commissioner ought to have applied his mind—Grievance of citizen ought to be resolved in accordance with law—Impugned order set aside—Matter directed to be decided afresh after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. (Jhar., H.C.)
Mines and Minerals —Right to mine iron ore—Suspension of mining operation—Lease areas adjoining inter-State boundary of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka State—Mining operations likely to seriously affect demarcation and determination of boundaries between the two States—Respondent-company allowed to start mining operation only with regard to undisputed area neither falling in State of Karnataka nor abutting Karnataka boundary—Committee appointed by the Court to continue to earmark the boundaries between two States—Interim order passed by the Court and extended from time to time modified accordingly. (S.C.)


MINES AND MINERALS (DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION) ACT, 1957—
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - Sections 4 and 21—U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963—Rules 3 and 70—Illegal mining—Loss caused thereby to the public exchequer—Petitioner asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 9,52,000/-—Has asserted that no notice or opportunity of hearing was given to him prior to issuing the said order —Petitioner directed to file application for disposal of his objections before the District Magistrate to be decided by him within two months. (Alld., H.C.)
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957—Sections 4/21—Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 379 and 411—Quashing of order taking cognizance—Allegation against petitioner No. 1 that he is getting pyroxinite extracted from a mine illegally—Sample collected and sent for examination by geological laboratory revealed that one sample was found to be waste product and other was pyroxinite stone mined from his own mines—Allegation subject matter of special legislation which would prevail over the provisions of the Penal Code—Petitioners cannot be said to have committed any offence under the Code or the Act—Entire proceedings quashed. (Jhar., H.C.)
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957—Section 5 Explanation—A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966—Rule 12 (5)(b), proviso—Constitution of India, 1950—Article 14—Grant of quarry lease for colour granite—Granite being minor mineral—Grant of prospecting licence and mining lease governed by Rules of 1966—Director of Mines and Geology empowered to grant prospecting licence or quarry lease to an applicant whose application is received later in preference to earlier application with prior approval of the Government for special reasons to be recorded—Consent of Gram Panchayat for grant of such lease to a particular applicant alien to the Rules—Ordinarily the Director of Mines and Geology has to dispose of the application in the order of their receipt—Not open to the State Government to make distinction between the applicant of the district where land is situated and outside the district—Such distinction not only illegal and arbitrary but also runs contrary to provisions of the Act apart from infraction of equality clause guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution. (A.P., H.C.)
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957—Sections 5 (1) and 30—Mineral Concession Rules, 1960—Rules 11 (1), 12, 54 (1) and 55—Grant of prospecting licence—Conclusion drawn by the Mines Tribunal that orders passed by the State Government and the Central Government are administrative and can be reviewed, unsustainable in law—No notice issued to petitioner prior to rejection of P.L. application resulting in grave miscarriage of justice to the petitioner—Impugned order of the Mines Tribunal set aside. (Del., H.C.)
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957—Sections 5 (1) and 50—Mineral Concession Rules, 1960—Rules 11 (1), 12, 54 (1) and 55—Prospecting licence—Applications of respondent No. 3 rejected by the Government by two separate orders as affirmed by the Mines Tribunal—Such orders not challenged—Attained finality—Order of the State Government stood merged with the order passed by the Mines Tribunal. (Del., H.C.)
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957—Sections 5(1), 11(5), 6(1) (a), 11(2), 11(3), 30—Grant of prospecting licence—In respect of non-notified areas—Priority to be accorded to an applicant applying first in time except where the State Government records special reasons in writing. (Del., H.C.)
—Sections 9, 15 (3) and 2—Constitution of India, Seventh Schedule, List II, Entries 49, 50, read with Entry 54 of List I—Whether “royalty” determined under the Act is in nature of tax—Whether State Legislature can levy tax on mining land—What is meaning of expression “taxes on mineral rights subject to any limitations imposed by Parliament by law relating to mineral development”—Whether majority decision in State of West Bengal v. Kesoram Industries Ltd. and others could be read as departing from the law laid down in seven Judge Bench decision in India Cement Ltd. and others v. State of Tamil Nadu and others—Such and some other questions of law required to be decided by Larger Bench—Matter requested to be referred to the Bench of nine Judges. (S.C.)
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957—Section 9 (3)—Notification dated 17.2.1992—Mineral Concession Rules, 1960—Rule 64-A—Liability to pay interest—Writ petition challenging levy of royalty dismissed without specific direction for payment of interest—Interim stay in favour of petitioners vacated—Appellants held liable to pay interest @ 18% p.a. till date of dismissal of the writ petition and @ 24% thereafter till date of payment. (S.C.)

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957—Section 11(2) Second Proviso, 11(3) and 11(5)—Mines and Mineral Concession Rules, 1960—Rule 35—Grant of mining lease—Discretion vested in the State Government to depart from “first-in time” principle, wide one not controlled by any other provision of the Act—But not unfettered—Reasons must be recorded to justify the departure—Such decision of the State Government justiciable and judicially reviewable. (Del., H.C.)
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957—Section 11 (3)—Mineral Concession Rules, 1960—Rules 26 and 59—Grant of mining lease—Recommendation of application for—Recommendation made in favour of Respondent 7—Comparative chart showing that Respondent 7 is much more meritorious than petitioner in technology investment and experience etc.—Decision making process cannot be challenged by the petitioner at the stage of recommendation obviously which is not the stage of grant of mining lease. (Jhar., H.C.)
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957—Section 11 (5)—Grant of prospecting licence—“First in time” principle—Right of earlier applicant in a non-notified area to be considered—Need not be for the entire area applied for—State Government may, for valid reasons, decide to recommend grant of P.L. in respect of the area in favour of more than one applicant. (Del., H.C.)
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957—Section 11(5)—M.O.M. guidelines dated 24.6.2009 and 9.2.2010—First in time principle—Special reasons mentioned in section 11 (5)—Have to be stronger than the matters referred in section 11 (3)—Guidelines prospective—At best recommendatory and supplemental to statutory provisions. (Del., H.C.)
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957—Section 15 read with sections 23-C, 2, 4 (1-A), 18—Gujarat Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2010, Rule 71—Gujarat Minor Minerals Rules, 1966—Rule 44-BB—Constitution of India, 1950—Articles 301, 304, 19 (1) (g)—Constitutional validity of Rule 44-BB of 1966 Rules and Rule 71 of 2010 Rules—Prohibition to transport sand beyond the border of the State of Gujarat imposed by Resolution No. GMR 102010-1-S-CHH dated 4.5.2010 and Rule 44-BB of 1966 Rules or Rule 71 of 2010 Rules—Illegal and ultra vires the Act of 1957 and also inconsistent with the relevant provisions of the Constitution—Impugned resolution dated 4.5.2010, Rule 44-BB of 1966 Rules and Rule 71 of the 2010 Rules—Declared null and void. (Guj., H.C.)
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957—Section 15 (1)—Use of mechanical device for mining sand—Rule only clarificatory in nature—Within powers of State Government to promulgate. (Ker., H.C.)
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957—Section 18 (1), (2)—Colliery Control Rules, 2004—Rules 2 and 6—Coal linkage—Rules do not prohibit continuance of supply of coal through linkage—Disposal of coal to linked consumers stands authorised—No material with the respondents to show that coal was not consumed by the petitioners—No verification of linkage to demonstrate any discrepancy—No case of respondents that data furnished by the petitioners was incorrect—No material on record to show that their linkage has been terminated—Action of respondent in stopping the coal supply unfair and unreasonable—Plea of laches taken by respondents unfounded—Direction given to the respondents to resume supply of coal immediately on basis of linkage advice letter to petitioners and to obtain their work status by holding physical inspection. (Alld., H.C.)
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957—Section 21—U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963—Rules 3 and 70—Illegal mining—Petitioner asked to deposit a sum of Rs.19,05,360/- into the treasury—His averment that no notice or opportunity of hearing was given to him before issuing such order—Petitioner directed to file objections before the District Magistrate to be decided by the latter by a speaking order. (Alld., H.C.)
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957—Section 21 read with section 4 (1) (a)—Mineral Concession Rules, 1960—Rule 24-A—Illegal mining of iron ore—Appellant's case that certain persons have illegally conducted mining operations and extracted iron ore and kept it on appellant's land—His complaint that instead of illegally mined iron ore respondent No. 1 was contemplating to sell the iron ore legally mined and accumulated by the appellant—Appellant's lease period expired in 1998—Working permission obtained by him not produced to show that he was legally mining—Iron ore to the tune of 1 lakh ton found on land leased to him beyond comprehension—Appellant quarried and produced iron ore several times more than permissible limit—Theory that some body had put 1 lakh ton of iron ore untenable—Not possible for any one to keep such large quantity without knowledge of the appellant—Illegal mining by appellant on massive scale established—Exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India declined. (S.C.)

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957—Sections 21, 22 and 23-A—U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963—Rules 74 and 75—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 457—Release of vehicle seized by Tehsildar for violation of provision of the Act and the Rules—Application for release rejected by the Magistrate holding that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the application—Under normal circumstances proper remedy for the petitioner was to file a revision which is now time barred—Impugned order void ab initio and patently erroneous—Magistrate has authority to release the vehicle under section 21 (4-A) of the Act as well as section 457, Cr.P.C.—Impugned order quashed. (Alld., H.C.)
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957—Section 23 (c)—U.P. Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2002—Rules 2 (b), 4 and 5—U.P. Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963—Rule 70—Form MM-11—Booklet of—Mining officer who is authorised to issue, is fully entitled to lay down the manner and procedure for issuance of Form MM-11—Quantity of mineral as well as the royalty to be paid for transportation can very well be provided for while issuing the Form-MM-11 connected with transportation of mineral—Issuance of, with certain directions after checking the minerals in several vehicles—No illegality committed—Petition dismissed. (Alld., H.C.)
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957—Section 25—Mineral Concession Rules, 1960—Rule 64-A—Royalty outstanding—Notice seeking to recover simple interest @ 24% p.a. on the arrears of difference of—Legality of—Stay order passed by a Court does not prevent running of interest—Demand in exercise of powers under Rule 64-A of the 1960 Rules upheld—Petition dismissed. (M.P., H.C.)
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957—Section 25—Punjab Mines and Minerals Concession Rules, 1964—Rule 53—Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887—Section 158—Brick-earth dug out from the land of the owners—State not entitled to charge or recover royalty from the brick-kiln owner—No error in view taken by Courts below. (P&H., H.C.)
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957—Section 30—Mineral Concession Rules, 1960—Rule 54—Mining lease—Application for grant of—Rejected by the State Government—Application invited thereafter for grant of mining lease—No application submitted by the appellant—Lease granted in favour of respondent No. 4—Appellant challenged it in writ petition—Writ Court granted liberty to the appellant to file revision under section 30 of the Act—Revision dismissed on ground of delay and laches and locus standi—Revisional order challenged in writ petition upheld by the Single Judge—No fault found with the order of the single Judge—Appellant not entitled to any relief on account of delay and laches as well as it's conduct. (M.P., H.C.) 429


MINES TRIBUNAL—
Mines Tribunal - Dispute before—Cannot be characterized as purely private dispute—Orders of the authorities assailed on ground that they are violative of statutory duty cast on the authorities—Writ petition challenging the decision of Mines Tribunal—Maintainable. (Del., H.C.)
MINING— Mining - And Stone crushing—Activities of society—Himachal Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2006—Section 1 (3)—Registration of society—Objects and purpose of the society violative of provisions of the Act—Registrar Co-operative Societies directed to investigate and enquire into affairs of the society and to take appropriate action. (H.P., H.C.)
Mining —Ban on—Prohibitory orders issued by District Collector banning mining in Taluk as a whole—Permit issued is not renewed—Since there is prohibition against mining from the river—Sand is a vital construction material—Should be allowed to be mined wherever reserve available on land—Since mining from river is banned—Mining will lead to growth in construction industry—Filling up mined land with other soil causes no environmental impact—Mining should be allowed in balance land of petitioner. (Ker., H.C.)
Mining —Continuance of mining operation and stone crushing even after expiry of mining lease—Fifteen cases of illegal mining activity and illegal transportation detected against the respondent No. 8 and a sum of Rs. 81,630/- realised from him—Another case pending in Court—Respondent No. 8 could not have assumed that he will be granted permission to extract—Order passed in his favour not to disconnect electric connection to the stone crusher—Cannot be taken to be a licence to operate the stone crusher—Directed to stop operating stone crusher or carry out any mining activity—His renewal application directed to be rejected—Not to be granted any mining lease in future—To pay Rs. 10 lacs as damages to the Government. (H.P., H.C.)
Mining —Environmental impact—When sand mined from land and land filled up with other soil—Restored to its original condition—Causing no environmental impact. (Ker., H.C.)
Mining —Of Sand—Notice inviting applications for grant of short-term permit—Person who did not make application pursuant to the said notice has no locus standi to challenge the notice or subsequent grant of short-term permit—Petition dismissed. (Alld., H.C.)


MINING AND QUARRYING—
Mining and Quarrying - Constitution of India, 1950—Article 51-A—Rich heritage of our composite culture—Preservation of—Fundamental duty cast on every citizen of India to value and preserve it. (Mad., H.C.-M.B.)
Mining and Quarrying —Tamil Nadu Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1971—Rule 33—Ancient monuments—Preservation of—Monuments endangered by continuation of quarrying operations—Notice to petitioner by the Collector to stop quarrying operations—Brahmi scripts within 100 meters of the quarrying area—Apprehension expressed by the scholars in the field—Court to come to rescue of the preservation at all costs—Interference with the impugned notice declined. (Mad., H.C.-M.B.)
MINING LEASE—
Mining Lease - Cancellation of due to non-payment of mining dues—Affirmed on revision—Legality—Premature termination of lease for non-submission of the monthly returns—Lessee is ready to deposit the dues upto date with penal interest as per the lease—Liberty given to make representation before the Assistant Mining Officer—Petition disposed of with observations and directions. (Jhar., H.C.)
Mining Lease —Holder of—Cannot commence operation without complying with other statutory provisions including environmental laws. (Alld., H.C.)
Mining Lease —Period of, restricted to 5 years by the District Collector—Lease executed for 5 years—Even though Rule 8 (8) confers a right to claim lease for 10 years—Lessee accepted the term of 5 years in the lease—Terms of lease agreement are binding. (Mad., H.C.-M.B.-F.B.)
Mining Lease —Premature cancellation—On account of non-payment of dues and non-filing of monthly returns—Petitioner failed to comply with the notice within the time allowed—Premature termination justified—Permitted to make representation before Assistant Mining Officer, deposit entire dues as calculated by him—Matter thereafter to be referred to Deputy Commissioner for reconsideration of the cancellation of the lease. (Jhar., H.C.)
Mining Lease —Show-cause to cancel—Challenged under writ jurisdiction—Period of lease expired on 29.1.2004—Petition become infructuous by lapse of time—Dismissed. (Alld., H.C.)


MINING LICENCE—
Mining Licence —Renewal of—Rejection of representation—Legality of—Rules 8 (1) (b) and 12 of U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963—Scope of—Original lease was for the period of five years—Subsequent renewal was for further five years—G.O. dated 16.8.2005—Second renewal is not permitted—No interference warranted—Petition dismissed. (Alld., H.C.)

MINOR MINERALS CONCESSION RULES, 1966 (A.P.)—
A.P. Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1966 - Rules 10 (1), 3 (6), Schedule I—Seigniorage charges—Petitioner contractor entered into agreement with the respondent for execution of work—Rates of seigniorage charges not specified in the agreement—Schedule I of the Rules revised during execution period—In absence of specific reference to seigniorage charges in the agreement—Parties shall be governed by the rules—Seigniorage fee or dead rent whichever is higher—Payable on all minor minerals despatched or consumed from the land specified in Schedules I and II by the person removing the mineral from the leased area—Right of respondent to apply revised rates during subsistence of the agreement—Cannot be curtailed. (A.P., H.C.)
MINOR MINERALS CONCESSION RULES, 1972 (BIHAR)—
Bihar Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1972 - Rules 9 and 27—Petitioners lessees of certain land—Operation of their brick-kiln stopped by the competent officer-cum-Mines Inspector on ground that land upon which brick-kiln was being run was Gairmazarua Government land—Petitioner holding valid licence from Mines Department and paying royalty and also valid clearance from Bihar State Pollution Control Board—No allegation of violation of conditions of the licence—Interference with the working of the petitioners not justified—Impugned notices set aside. (Pat., H.C.)
Bihar Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1972 —Rule 9 (8)—Grant of lease—Petitioner owner of the property—Consent given by the petitioner in favour of the lessee—Respondent having executed sale-deed in favour of the petitioner—Objection by respondent No. 5 regarding consent given by the petitioner not sustainable. (Jhar., H.C.)
Bihar Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1972—Rule 9 (8)—Mines Commissioner—Cannot go into question of ownership and possession of the property which can be decided by the Civil Court alone. (Jhar., H.C.)

MINOR MINERALS CONCESSION RULES, 1966 (GUJARAT)—
Gujarat Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1966 - Mining lease—Cancellation of—Appeal against order of cancellation before the Additional Director allowed—Matter remitted back to Collector for consideration afresh—Inspite of repeated representation no steps taken by the Collector—Collector directed to hear the petitioner and pass fresh orders in the light of the observations and directions of the appellate authority. (Guj., H.C.)
MINOR MINERALS CONCESSION RULES, 1967 (KERALA)—
Kerala Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1967 - Rule 8—Removal of ordinary soil by landowners from their land—For supply to contractor to fill up low lying area—Filling of low lying areas for construction of road and railway line in public interest—Nothing wrong in selling soil to contractors for filling low lying areas—R.D.O. directed to issue appropriate orders in consultation with Geologist at the earliest. (Ker., H.C.)
Kerala Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1967 - Rule 8 (1) (e)—Constitution of India,1950—Article 21—Provisions of—Not violative of Article 21 of Constitution—It does not permit or justify pollution during mechanised mining. (Ker., H.C.)
Kerala Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1967 —Rule 8 (1) (e)—Mechanical devices—Use of—For mining is permissible—Rule 8 (1) (e) is only clarificatory in nature—Licence holder is free to engage any mechanical device—Only restriction is that mining should be done only in accordance with terms and conditions of licence—It was perfectly within powers of Government under section 15 (1) to prescribe the rule. (Ker., H.C.)


MINOR MINERALS CONCESSION RULES, 1986 (RAJASTHAN)—
Rajasthan Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1986 - Rule 35 (g) (v)—Minor mineral contract—Tender process—Petitioners bid found to be highest and accepted—He deposited 12.5% of the bid money as per Rule 35 (g) (v) of the Rules—Director of Mines invited fresh tender on second thought at the instance of third party who never participated in the tender process—No cogent reason for cancellation of earlier process and re-initiation of tender process merely because, due to lapse of time some more price can be fetched by the department—Decision to re-constitute a committee and to invite fresh tender tainted with extraneous reasons at the instance of the third party—Respondents directed to award final sanction for contract in favour of the petitioner. (Raj., H.C.)
Rajasthan Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1986 —Rule 63—Short term permit—Can be granted to a person desirous to excavate and take away the mineral—It has no application for persons not involved in mining operations/excavation of minerals—Circular dated 6.10.2008 requiring a contractor to obtain short term permit to pay royalty irrespective of the fact whether he is engaged in mining work or not—Absolutely illegal—Conditions imposed by the circular—Contrary to law—Person not engaged in mining operations—Cannot be saddled with liability to pay royalty or to obtain permit—Circular in question quashed. (Raj., H.C.)
MINOR MINERALS CONCESSION RULES, 1959 (TAMIL NADU)—
Tamil Nadu Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1959 - Rule 8 (8)—Industries Department G.O.M. No. 391, dated 17.11.2000—Virgin quarries—Period of lease to be ten years as per the G.O.M.—Whether the Rule amended by the G.O.M. dated 17.11.2000 would operate prospectively or retrospectively—Held, amended Rule to operate prospectively—Persons who obtained the lease prior to amendment vide G.O.M. dated 17.11.2000 cannot claim further extension of ten years as a matter of right—In respect of lease granted before the amendment came into existence, the amended Rule 8 (8) would not be applicable—Reference answered accordingly—Writ appeals and writ petitions disposed of. (Mad., H.C.-M.B.-F.B.)


MINOR MINERALS CONCESSION RULES, 1963 (U.P.)—
U.P. Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1963 - Chapter II—Extension of lease—To be given to the lessee whose lease is in subsistence and had moved application during the subsistence of the lease—Extension after expiry of lease—Amounts to grant of a fresh lease—No such provision envisaged under the rules—Extention of lease after expiry of period of lease quashed. (Alld., H.C.-L.B.)
U.P. Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1963—Rules 6 and 72 (ii)—Application for grant of mining lease—Petitioner lone applicant—Number of applications being below three—District Officer bound to notify availability of the area afresh under sub-rule (i)—Number of applications still remaining below three after expiry of the period given in sub-rule (ii)—Application submitted shall be considered—Notice issued to petitioner under Rule 6 not strictly in accordance with the sub-rule (2) of Rule 6—Petitioner directed to remove deficiencies in the application within 15 days–District Magistrate directed to consider the application within 2 months. (Alld., H.C.)
U.P. Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1963—Rules 34, 40 and 41—Prayer for quashing of Government Order dated 31.5.2010—By the impugned order petitioners-mining lease holders who are excavating sand (Balu Moram and Bajari etc.) from their leased out area have been restrained from using machines for the purpose of excavating—Legality of—Petitioners established a bona fide case—Implementation and operation of the impugned Government Order dated 31.5.2010 stayed till further order—Controversy raised be dealt with and concluded by Larger Bench. (Alld., H.C.)
U.P. Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1963—Rule 72 (ii)—Nature and interpretation of—Requirement of extention of period of seven days is directory—Requirement of notifying the availability of area is mandatory when the number of applications is less than three. (Alld., H.C.)
U.P. Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1963—Rule 72 (ii)—Scope of. (Alld., H.C.)
U.P. Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1963—Rule 77—Constitution of India, 1950—Article 226—Writ petition seeking—Maintainability—Grant of mining lease to petitioner—Demand of Rs. 14,50,140/- towards additional royalty by the District Magistrate—Statutory remedy of appeal available to petitioner against the order passed by the District Magistrate—Writ petition dismissed on ground of availability of alternative remedy. (Alld., H.C.)
U.P. Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1963—Rule 77—Mining lease—Advertisement for—Applications submitted—Rejection of—Writ ju¬risdiction invoked—Existence of alternative remedy of filing appeal before the Commissioner of the Division concerned—Liberty given to avail the alternative remedy—Petition dismissed. (Alld., H.C.)

U.P. Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1963—Rule 77—Petition seeking quashment of order directing to stop mining operation on ground that petitioner is carrying on the same, without obtaining consent of the owner of the land—Remedy of statutory appeal available to petitioner—Exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 declined on account of availability of alternative remedy. (Alld., H.C.)
U.P. Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1963—Renewal of lease in the month of July, 2000 by the State of U.P.—Before creation of State of Uttarakhand—Competency—State of U.P. possesses power of renewal of lease—No illegality committed in renewing the lease—Circular dated 12.1.2001 does not provide cancellation of existing lease deeds—Order cancelling lease rightly set aside by Writ Court—Appeal dismissed. (Utt., H.C.)

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT AUTHORITY ACT, 1997—
National Environment Authority Act, 1997- Section 11—Grant of writ—Clearance granted by the State after due deliberations and application of mind—Reversal thereof depends on findings of fact not possible in writ proceeding—Not a fit case for grant of writ under Article 226 of the Constitution. (A.P., H.C.)
National Environment Authority Act, 1997—Section 11 (1)—Appeals to authority—Words any person aggrieved employed in section 11 (1)—Required to be widely >interpreted as environmental clearance is a matter concerning general public—Petitioner a society—Functional and involved in environmental activities within the area earmarked for the project—Has locus to file appeal on strength of Clause (c) of section 11 (2) of the Act. (A.P., H.C.)
National Environment Authority Act, 1997—Section 11 (3)—Exercise of writ jurisdiction—Statutory forum having competence, to grant the relief effectively and adequately seized of the subject-matter of the writ petition—Court not bound to exercise it's discretionary jurisdiction. (A.P., H.C.)

NOISE POLLUTION—>
Noise Pollution - Impact of sound—State Government does not have equipment to ascertain the impact of sound—Is unable to measure whether sound emitted in course of celebrations exceeds the permissible limit of 95 decibel—Therefore the Pollution Control Board is directed to acquire equipment to measure and report to Court—State Police has fixed speed limit of vehicles, should acquire equipment to measure speed of vehicles. (Utt., H.C.) 475
ORISSA FOREST ACT, 1972—
Orissa Forest Act, 1972- Sections 56 and 2 (g) (ii)—Seizure—Confiscation proceedings—Only when Sal leaves are found in or brought from forest, they are forest produce—Seized Sal leaf plates—Not found in or brought from the forest—Hence, the seized Sal leaf plates did not come within purview of section 2 (g) of Act—Not forest produce—Seizure made by forest officials was illegal and arbitrary. (Ori., H.C.)


ORISSA FOREST PRODUCE (CONTROL OF TRADE) ACT, 1981—
Orissa Forest Produce (Control of Trade) Act, 1981- Sections 1 (3) and 13 (1)—Tassar Cocoons seized—Release of—No notification under section 1 (3) of the Act has been made—Though Tassar Cocoon has been included in the definition of "Forest Produce"—Yet to be notified—No violation of the Act—Petitioner has been duly authorised to receive the Cocoons from Luhunipada Branch for reeling—Seizure list quashed—Petition disposed of with direction to release the seized Tassar Cocoons and original T.T. permit immediately. (Ori., H.C.)
PLASTIC WASTE (MANAGEMENT AND HANDLING) RULES, 2011—
Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011- Scope of—Orders issued by the Government of Kerala in conflict with the Rules framed by the Central Government—Effect of—Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011 will supersede such orders.
(Ker., H.C.)

POLLUTION—
Pollution - Environmental impact—Discharge of untreated effluent into river as well as disposal of waste—River bank and river basin public property—No person to encroach/cover/utilise any of it's parts—To be left open for public use—No individual allowed to discharge untreated effluents into the river. (Gau., H.C.-I.B.)
PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT, 1960—
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960- Sections 11 and 28—Environmental pollution and potent threat to forests—Slaughter of animals and illegal felling of trees—No custom or authority produced to demonstrate requirement of slaughtering of animals in the religion of “Banjara” community—No good reason to permit sacrifice of animals in the temple by the Banjara community—Protection of section 11 available to dumb animals—Illegal felling of trees hazardous to protection of environment—Cannot be permitted to continue—Respondent directed to stop slaughter of animals and illegal felling of trees and illicit sale and consumption of liquor in the vicinity of the temple. (M.P., H.C.)
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960—Section 21—Petitioner sought directions to the first respondent to grant permission for conducting cattle race—Putting of cattle to a competition as a part of any entertainment and different teams taking some prize based on success would not by itself amount to exhibition in term of Chapter V of the Act—Facts and circumstances considered—Petition ordered, accordingly. (Ker., H.C.)

PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE—
PrincipleS of Natural Justice - Person proceeded against—Must know that he is being required to meet the allegation which might lead to certain action being taken> against him.
(Pat., H.C.)

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION—
Public Interest Litigation - By unregistered society—Maintainability—Petitioner an unregistered society involved in work of welfare of animals and birds—It's petition as P.I.L.—Cannot be held not maintainable merely because it is an unregistered association. (M.P., H.C.) Public Interest Litigation —Petitioner under obligation to explain his credentials, locus and bona fides satisfactorily to the Court—Also needs to show that petition is backed up by sufficiency of public interest. (A.P., H.C.)
Public Interest Litigation —Petitions which are bona fide and in public interest alone to be entertained as P.I.L.—Abuse of process of law essentially opposed to any public interest—Every litigant approaching the Apex Court duty bound to come with clean hands—Petitions lacking bona fides or intended to settle business rivalry or augmenting business of another interested company—Nothing but abuse of process of law. (S.C.)
PUBLIC LAW— Public Law - Order obtained by fraud and misrepresentation—Cannot be allowed to stand—Judgment or decree obtained by fraud a nullity. (A.P., H.C.)
SCHEDULED TRIBES AND OTHER TRADITIONAL FOREST DWELLERS (RECOGNITION OF FOREST RIGHTS) ACT, 2006—
(FOREST RIGHTS ACT)

Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 - Sections 2 (c), (e), 3, 4 and 13—Eviction—Land in question a reserve forest land—Not meant for any commercial purpose—Petitioners illegal occupants—Documents on record not showing that they belong to the class of Scheduled Tribe or other Traditional Forest Dwellers—Protection under section 4 of the 2006 Act available only to Forest Dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers. (Alld., H.C.-L.B.)
TIMBER—
Timber - Sale of—Plantation—Over raiyati land—Disposal of Khair wood obtained from matured plants after cutting it—Khair wood after being cut with due permission of the competent author¬ity—Brought to the depot of the Forest Trading Division—Under transit pass—Never sold by the earlier entity (Forest Trading Division) or successor entity (Jharkhand Forest Development Corporation) though supposed to get it sold and to pay back pro¬ceeds to the petitioner—Petitioner directed to approach the Divisional Forest Officer for release of Khair wood with no objec¬tions of co-sharers of the landholders—D.F.O. concerned directed either to sell the wood and pay the proceeds to the petitioner or release the wood in favour of the petitioner. (Jhar., H.C.)

TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882—
Transfer of Property Act, 1882- Sections 48 and 49—Transfer of immovable property—Proof of ownership is registered sale-deed in favour of a person. (Jhar., H.C.)
TRANSIT FEES—
Transit Fees - Writ petition—Charging of transit fee from petitioner under U.P. Transit of Timber and Other Forest Produce Rules, 1978—Subsequent to filing of this writ, the petitioner has filed another writ petition—Wherein interim order was passed by a Division Bench of this Court—Petitioner, thus, has evidently abused the process of the Court—Hence this petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 20,000/-. (Alld., H.C.)

TRANSIT PASS—
Transit Pass - Assam Forest Regulation, 1891—Sections 40, 3 (2), (4), (4) (a)—Assam Control of Felling and Removal of Trees From Non-Forest Land Rules, 2002—Rules 2 (c), 9 (b) and 4 (1)—Supply of home grown bamboos outside the State of Assam—Requirement of Transit Pass (T.P.)—Communication issued by the D.F.O. Aie Valley Division Bongaigaon dated 24.8.2006—Asking Area Manager N.F. Railway to stop despatch of home grown bamboos outside the State of Assam without T.P.—Unauthorised and illegal—Rules clearly provided that no certificate of origin or other pass required for transport of home grown bamboos—No royalty to be realised on such bamboo unless they are known to have come from Government forest—Respondent authorities cannot be permitted to insist on transit pass on transportation of home grown bamboos by way of issuing executive instructions or administrative circulars. (Gau., H.C.)
U.P. MINERALS (PREVENTION OF ILLEGAL MINING, TRANSPORTATION AND STORAGE) RULES, 2002—
U.P. Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2002- Rule 8—Constitution of India, 1950—Article 226—Application under Rule 8—By petitioner for grant of license for storage of Minerals as mentioned—Nothing has so far been done in respect of the said application—Collector is directed to pass appropriate order on the application. (Alld., H.C.)
VOID ORDER—
Void Order - Not permissible for a person to ignore the same merely because in his opinion it is void—Requires to be declared so by a competent forum. (S.C.)

WATER (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1974—
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974- Section 4 (2)—Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981—Section 5 (2)—Haryana Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules, 1978—Rule 4—Appointment of Chairman of State Pollution Control Boards—Eligibility—Respondent No. 5 highly qualified and having vast experience in chemistry including environment—His role as a Chairman appreciated even by the Monitoring Committee appointed by the Supreme Court—Ineligibility has to be examined in the teeth of prescribed criteria and section 4 (2) of the 1974 Act—By no parameter respondent No. 5 can be said to be lacking knowledge and experience in the environment field—Petitioner not even in status of Engineer-in-chief or Chief Engineer and ineligible to be considered for appointment as Chairman—No violation of provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India—Petition dismissed. (P&H., H.C.)
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974—Section 25 (1) (7)—Decision of the D.P.C.C. not communicated to the applicant for four months after making the application—Deeming provision of section 25 (7) would kick in—Consent to establish would be deemed to have been granted. (Del., H.C.)
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974—Section 25 (1) (a)—Discharge of domestic sewage from residential complex or trade effluent from a commercial complex or industry—During construction phase—Would attract various provisions of the Act. (Del., H.C.)
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974—Section 25 (1) (a)—Liability under—Does not get exempted only because sewage discharged from such complexes joins the main municipal sewerage system which may or may not be treated in keeping with the water pollution norms. (Del., H.C.)
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974—Section 25 (1) (a)—Restrictions on new outlets and new discharges—Expression “sewage or trade effluent”—Wide enough to cover all kinds of sewage and not just “trade effluent”—Likewise expressions “process” and “operation” not meant to be confined to “industry” but to all kinds of processes and operations including those taking place in kitchens and bathrooms of residential complexes—Commercial shopping Complexes and shopping malls—Would stand covered—Residential complexes also would not fall outside the purview of section 25 (1) (a) of the Act. (Del., H.C.)
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974—Section 25 (5)—Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981—Constructed building in multiple ownership—Application for E.I.A. clearance or consent to establish or operate—Will be jointly made by the builder and the individual owners or occupiers. (Del., H.C.) Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974—Section 25 (5)—D.P.C.C. did not issue show-cause notice when constructions had either not begun or were in progress—D.P.C.C. should have invoked it's power under section 25 (5) of the Act. (Del., H.C.) 347
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974—Section 28—Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981—Section 31—Relaxation in maintaining requisite distance—Rice mill of petitioner at a distance of 91 meters as against stipulation of 500 meters from the scheduled road—Efficacy of anti pollution devices/measures introduced in the unit tested, analysed and monitored by Pollution Control Board—Recommendation of the Board that the unit may be allowed to recommence its operation—State Government in favour of relaxation—Petitioner entitled to benefit of relaxation. (P&H., H.C.)
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974—Section 33-A—Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981—Section 31-A—Levy of penalty on environmental damage—No provision under these statutes for such levy and collection—Power under section 31 of the Air Act and section 33-A of the Water Act cannot be invoked for such purpose. (Del., H.C.) br> Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974—Section 33-A—Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981—Section 31-A—Power of D.P.C.C. under—A coercive power—Has to be exercised with caution and after complying with due process requirements—Rules under both statutes have to be mandatorily followed. (Del., H.C.)
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974—Sections 41,43 and 44—Offence under—Cognizance taken—Legality of—Treatment Plant already started functioning on 6.11.1989—After installation of plant on regular basis Board has given consent to the industry—Continuation of twenty two years old proceeding without any progress—Not desirable—Direction issued to deposit Rs. 5,000/- with D.L.S. Authority within six weeks—Proceeding quashed subject to deposit—Petition disposed of. (Pat., H.C.)
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974—1974 Act a separate domain—It's provisions will have to be complied with notwithstanding that M.C.D. has the power to lay down a separate set of regulations and bye-laws for use of water. (Del., H.C.)

WILD LIFE—
Wild life - Illegal trade in—Discussed. (S.C.)
Wild life —Preservation of—Important for ecological balance—Our scientific understand of ecological chain and linkages is still very primitive, incomplete and fragmentary. (S.C.)
WILD LIFE (PROTECTION) ACT, 1972—
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972- Section 27—Scope of—Restrictions under—Only a public servant on duty is permitted entry in the Periyar Tiger Reserve—An area declared as a sanctuary—Even if there is a public highway through a sanctuary, it can be used only for the restricted purpose of a highway and movement through that cannot, in any manner, be utilised for further intrusion into the sanctuary or in any manner affecting faunal, floral, geomorphological, natural or zoological significance of the sanctuary—No ground to permit any movement of vehicles other than the departmental vehicles that too, only for official purposes from 4th mile to Uppufora—All concerned directed accordingly to ensure the compliance. (Ker., H.C.)
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972—Section 27—Settlement of public ferry service—Apprehension of the District Magistrate concerned that if such ferry is allowed to operate, it may violate provisions of the Act—Under provisions of the Act person passing through the sanctuary along a public highway—Exempted from restrictions of entry in the sanctuary—Ferry in question directed to be settled without any further delay. (Pat., H.C.)
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972—Sections 51 and 55—Conviction—Sustainability—Appellant having long history of criminal activities—Extra-judicial confession of co-accused leading to arrest of other co-accused persons and recovery of articles used for killing and removing skins from bodies of leopards—Written confession during judicial custody by the co-accused not procured under any pressure of police—Lot of corroborative material on record—Large number of cases pertaining to wild life pending against the accused—Appellant rightly held guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. (S.C.)
WORDS AND PHRASES—
Words and Phrases - Fraud—Meaning of—False representation of a matter of fact—Arises out of deliberate active role of representor. (A.P., H.C.)


Our other publications
Indian Factories & Labour Rep

All India Cases

Revenue Decision

Allahabad Criminal Cases

Allahabad Law Report

         
 Copyright © Law Publishing House, 39 Sheo Charan Lal Road, Allahabad - 211003
Ph : (0532) 2563956, 2563835 Email : lawpublishinghouse@gmail.com
 View Sitemap | Powered By:-Softera Group