i n t h e h i g h c o u r t o f k e r a l a- home e l a w（我n t h e h g h c o k u r t o f e r l -家庭e l w）（1页）.docVIP

下载本文档

6
0
约3.58万字
约 11页
2017-01-19 发布于湖南
举报
版权申诉

i n t h e h i g h c o u r t o f k e r a l a- home e l a w（我n t h e h g h c o k u r t o f e r l -家庭e l w）（1页）.doc

1、原创力文档（book118）网站文档一经付费（服务费），不意味着购买了该文档的版权，仅供个人/单位学习、研究之用，不得用于商业用途，未经授权，严禁复制、发行、汇编、翻译或者网络传播等，侵权必究。。
2、本站所有内容均由合作方或网友上传，本站不对文档的完整性、权威性及其观点立场正确性做任何保证或承诺！文档内容仅供研究参考，付费前请自行鉴别。如您付费，意味着您自己接受本站规则且自行承担风险，本站不退款、不进行额外附加服务；查看《如何避免下载的几个坑》。如果您已付费下载过本站文档，您可以点击这里二次下载。
3、如文档侵犯商业秘密、侵犯著作权、侵犯人身权等，请点击“版权申诉”（推荐），也可以打举报电话：400-050-0827(电话支持时间：9:00-18:30)。
4、该文档为VIP文档，如果想要下载，成为VIP会员后，下载免费。
5、成为VIP后，下载本文档将扣除1次下载权益。下载后，不支持退款、换文档。如有疑问请联系我们。
6、成为VIP后，您将拥有八大权益，权益包括：VIP文档下载权益、阅读免打扰、文档格式转换、高级专利检索、专属身份标志、高级客服、多端互通、版权登记。
7、VIP文档为合作方或网友上传，每下载1次，网站将根据用户上传文档的质量评分、类型等，对文档贡献者给予高额补贴、流量扶持。如果你也想贡献VIP文档。上传文档

i n t h e h i g h c o u r t o f k e r a l a- home e l a w（我n t h e h g h c o k u r t o f e r l -家庭e l w）（1页）

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, AT ERNAKULAMPresent:The Honourable Mr. Justice P.K.BalasubramanyanThe Honourable Mr. Justice M. RamachandranWednesday, the 24th October, 2001/2nd Karthika, 1923.O.P.No...2 9 8 0 7...OF 2000-WBiju.V.G. Vs. Thalassery Municipality and othersThis Original Petition having been finally heard on 21-8-2001, the court on 24-10-2001 delivered the following:-J U D G M E N T? BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.1.This Original Petition is filed by the petitioner, who is the Secretary of the Kerala Sasthra Sahithya Parishad, Thalassery Unit. According to the petitione,r the Original Petition is filed in public interest and in discharge of the duties of the petitioner under Article 48A of the Constitution of India. The petitioner complains that no proper steps are taken by the State of Kerala, the Union Government and the authorities concerned to enforce strictly the notification issued by the Government of India on 19-2-1991 under Sections 3(1) and 3(2) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. the petitioner is specifically complaining of the violation of that notification by respondents 2 and 3 in the Original Petition. He is also complaining of the attidtude of respondent No.1, the Municipality, in the matter of enforcing the notification and ensuring its compliance. The prayers in the Original Petition are for setting aside the orders permitting a construction by respondents 2 and 3 in alleged violation of the Coastal Zone Regulation notification and for reliefs arising out of the quashing of those orders that are consequential thereto. There is also a contention that there has been no proper constitution of the relevant bodies under the Environment (Protection) Act and a direction is sought for to ensure that proper bodies are constituted as envisaged by the Act, the Rules and the notifications.2. The Original Petition is opposed by respondents 2 and 3, who have constructed the building, the construction of which is challenged in the