Search:
Advance Search
Introduction | About Us | Legal Queries | Forums | Events | Campaigns | FAQ's | Contact Us | Home
CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE IS ONLY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSE
You are here: Home → Mining/Sand Mining → Case Laws → High Court
TRADE AND ENVIRONMENT
 
Document Actions

High Court

Up one level
Subhash Stone Products through its Proprietor, Subhash Chandra Agrahari son of Sri Kapoor Chandra Agrahari Vs. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Forest and Ors.: 2007 — by admin — last modified 2007-11-15 16:05
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Kinkri Devi and Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. Decided On: 29.05.1987 — by admin — last modified 2007-11-15 16:43
Citation: AIR1988HP4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
National Mineral Developmnet Corporation Vs. Government of India and Ors. Decided On: 18.02.2008 — by admin — last modified 2008-04-09 12:30
 
Appellants: Utkarsh Mandal Vs. Respondent: Union of India (UOI) — by admin — last modified 2010-02-17 16:31
Decided On: 26.11.2009
Appellant: Subramanian, S/o Parangodankutty Vs. Respondents: The State of Kerala, The District Collector, The Tahsildar & The Sub-Inspector of Police : Decided On: 19.11.2008 — by admin — last modified 2010-10-30 11:58
Background facts: The petitioner is the registered owner of a lorry which was seized by the Tahsildar, alleging unauthorized transportation of river sand. After seizure of the vehicle, there was no adjudication by the District Collector, either as to the validity of the seizure or on the plea raised by the petitioner for release of the vehicle. The District Collector passed an order imposing a fine of Rs. 50,000/- which was to be remitted to the River Management Fund and a consequential auction notice was issued. These orders are challenged in these writ petitions. The petitioner also prays for a declaration that Section 23 of the Sand Act is repugnant to the provisions contained in the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967 and consequently invalid in view of Article 254(1) of the Constitution.
Appellants: Sajeev Kumar Vs. Respondent: The District Collector and Anr.: Decided On: 05.06.2009 — by admin — last modified 2010-10-30 12:00
Background facts: The vehicle belonging to petitioner was allegedly seized for violation of the provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks (Protection and Regulation of Removal of Sand) Act, 2002. He has approached the District Collector, the 1st respondent, for release of the vehicle and is aggrieved by the non-consideration of his request for the same.
Appellants: Satyanarayan G. Agrawal Vs. Respondent: Union of India & Ors. — by admin — last modified 2012-04-23 15:10
Decided On: 16.03.2012