Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2000 DIGILAW 1982 (SC)

M. C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA

2000-11-21

M.B.SHAH, M.JAGANNADHA RAO

body2000
( 1 ) ISSUE notice. ( 2 ) LEARNED counsel Mr C. V. Subba Rao accepts notice on behalf of the 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. Court Masters ia No. 111 ( 5 ) LIST the IA for orders on 23-11-2000. IAs Nos. 64 and 65 ( 6 ) IN the order dated 7-11-2000 for the words "district Judge" the words "district Magistrate" are substituted. ( 7 ) IN respect of order dated 14-11-2000 the following corrections are made: 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. ( 8 ) FOR the words "it is however, made clear that, inasmuch as the foundries have already entered into an agreement, Tata Korf Ltd. will be proceeding on an accepted basis that 40 foundries will necessarily take this technology" at pp. 3/4 starting from the last 3 lines the words "it is however, -made clear that, inasmuch as the Association has already entered into an agreement with Tata Korf Ltd. , Tata Korf will be proceeding on an accepted basis that 40 foundries will necessarily take this technology", are substituted. ( 9 ) 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. ( 10 ) IAS Nos. 64 and 65 stand disposed of. 1a No. 115 ( 11 ) IA No. 115 does not survive in view of the orders made in las Nos. 64 and 65. RP No. 291 of 1998 ( 12 ) THE review petition is disposed of in terms of the order passed in IAs nos. 64 and 65.