In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
M. Veerateswaran
v.
The Deputy Collector cum Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate Revenue (Taluk Ofice) Karaikal, Union Territory of Pondicherry.
Writ Petition No. 46138 of 2002
03.18.2003 dd.
K. Sampath J.
Order:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Justice .M.Sasidharan Nambiar
Dated 20th June, 2005
Sujatha vs A.Prema and ors
Reported in Indian Law Reports 2005 (3) Kerala Page 258
1.The nuisance sought to be removed by invoking Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is the nuisance caused by environmental pollution. Whether the onus proof is on the party who alleges the nuisance or on the person who causes the alleged nuisance. It is the interesting question to be resolved.
Click on Adobe Acrobat version
CHAPTER IX - PUBLIC NUISANCE
A.—ORDERS FOR REMOVAL OR ABATEMENT IN CASES OF NUISANCE
98. (1) Whenever a Magistrate considers on receiving a report or other information and on taking such evidence (if any) as he thinks fit—
(a) that any unlawful obstruction or nuisance should be removed from any way, harbour, lake, river, or channel which is or may be lawfully used by the public or from any public place; or
In the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad
The A.P. Gunnies Merchants Association
v.
The Govt. of A.P
Writ Petition No. 386 of 2000
21.06.2001 dd.
Sri. Satyabrata Sinha C.J. & V.V.S. Rao J.
Judgement:
1. In this writ petition, GO Rt. No. 515, dated 25-11-1999, issued by respondent No.1-Government, is called in question. The said order reads:
The orders issued earlier vide GO Rt. No. 149, dated 27-2-1999 of Environment, Forests, Science and Technology Department are reiterated.
For a properly formatted copy of this document, please click on the Adobe Acrobat link above
Click on the Acrobat Adobe link above to obtain the judgement.
MC Mehta
v.
Union of India & Others
Jan. 12, 1988
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 2 S.C.R. 530
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND K.N. SINGH. JJ.]
In re. control, prevention and abatement of pollution of Ganga water in Kanpur, U.P. Responsibility of the municipal body in respect thereof.
Judgment:
VENKATARAMIAH, J.
