<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1991 (1) TMI 458 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287662</link>
    <description>Article 32 can be invoked for environmental protection because the right to life under Article 21 includes pollution-free water and air, but only where the petition is brought in genuine public interest by affected persons or bona fide public-spirited litigants. A proceeding filed as a cloak for private vendetta or commercial advantage is an abuse of that extraordinary jurisdiction. On the materials, the pleadings and surrounding circumstances showed that the petitioner sought access to slurry for his own business interest and used the case to pressure the company, while regulatory steps were already being taken to control effluent discharge. The petition was therefore not bona fide and was liable to be dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Jan 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 Apr 2020 12:03:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=611245" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (1) TMI 458 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287662</link>
      <description>Article 32 can be invoked for environmental protection because the right to life under Article 21 includes pollution-free water and air, but only where the petition is brought in genuine public interest by affected persons or bona fide public-spirited litigants. A proceeding filed as a cloak for private vendetta or commercial advantage is an abuse of that extraordinary jurisdiction. On the materials, the pleadings and surrounding circumstances showed that the petitioner sought access to slurry for his own business interest and used the case to pressure the company, while regulatory steps were already being taken to control effluent discharge. The petition was therefore not bona fide and was liable to be dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Jan 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287662</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>