https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172815 The majority held that courts should not re-evaluate a well-informed technical decision on dam safety when expert bodies and the Government have already considered competing views, and found no arbitrariness, mala fides or irrationality in declining further 3-D non-linear or dam-break studies. It also held that environmental clearance conditions for a large project must be followed pari passu with engineering works, but the material did not show proven non-compliance. To secure continued observance without reopening settled issues, the matter was transferred to the High Court for monitoring and further compliance orders. A dissent would have imposed direct monitoring, independent expert oversight, and a halt on impoundment until safeguards were completed. en-us Mon, 01 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Jun 2016 12:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172815 The majority held that courts should not re-evaluate a well-informed technical decision on dam safety when expert bodies and the Government have already considered competing views, and found no arbitrariness, mala fides or irrationality in declining further 3-D non-linear or dam-break studies. It also held that environmental clearance conditions for a large project must be followed pari passu with engineering works, but the material did not show proven non-compliance. To secure continued observance without reopening settled issues, the matter was transferred to the High Court for monitoring and further compliance orders. A dissent would have imposed direct monitoring, independent expert oversight, and a halt on impoundment until safeguards were completed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 01 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172815