Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Supreme Court Of India
  4. /
  5. 2000
  6. /
  7. January

M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.

Supreme Court Of India|21 November, 2000

JUDGMENT / ORDER

ORDER M. Jagannadha Rao and M.B. Shah, JJ.
1. Issue notice.
2. Learned Counsel Mr. C.V. Subba Rao accepts notice on behalf of Union of India.
3. Learned Solicitor General seeks and is granted four weeks' time for filing counter affidavit.
4. Both the IAs to be taken up together.
5. List the IA for orders on 23-11-2000.
6. In the order dated November 7, 2000 for the words 'District Judge' the words 'District Magistrate' is substituted.
7. In respect of order dated November 14, 2000 the following corrections are made :
8. For the words 'Regarding the rest of the industries other than 40 foundry industries, it would be open to them to switch over to gas based cupola or to shift to other plots which are allotted to them by the ADA outside the area of Taj Trapezium' the words 'Regarding the rest of the industries other than 40 foundry industries, it would be open to them to switch over to gas based technology or electricity or any better eco friendly (other than coal, coke or diesel) non polluting technology or to shift to other plots which are allotted to them by the ADA outside the area of Taj Trapezium/' are substituted.
9. For the words 'It is however, made clear that, in as much as the foundries have already entered into an agreement, Tata Korf Ltd. will be proceeding on accepted basis that 40 foundries will necessarily take this technology' at page 3/4 starting from the last 3 lines the words 'It is however, made clear that, in as much as the Association has already entered into an agreement with Tata Korf Ltd., Tata Korf will be proceeding on accepted basis that 40 foundries will necessarily take this technology.' are substituted.
10. In the 3rd para for the words '310 per hour' the words '3 tons per hour' and for the words '210 per hour' the words '2 ton per hour' are substituted.
11. I.As 64 and 65 stand disposed of.
12. IA No. 115 does not survive in view of the orders made in IA Nos. 64 and 65.
RP No. 291/1998
13. The Review Petition is disposed of in terms of the order passed in IA Nos. 64 and 65.
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.

Court

Supreme Court Of India

JudgmentDate
21 November, 2000
Judges
  • M Rao
  • M Shah