<?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>2021 (2) TMI 568 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404076</link>
    <description>Meaningful public consultation is mandatory when a planning instrument is modified under the Delhi Development Act, and the authority must follow the prescribed notice, disclosure and objection procedure; on the facts, the land-use change for the Central Vista plots was held not to comply with that process. The majority upheld the approvals of the Central Vista Committee and the Delhi Urban Art Commission, and treated prior permission of the Heritage Conservation Committee as arising at the stage of actual development, not the planning stage. Environmental clearance was sustained on expert-appraisal deference, subject to mitigation conditions. The consultant selection and decision not to require a design competition were also upheld as policy choices absent illegality or arbitrariness.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2021 15:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=636375" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (2) TMI 568 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404076</link>
      <description>Meaningful public consultation is mandatory when a planning instrument is modified under the Delhi Development Act, and the authority must follow the prescribed notice, disclosure and objection procedure; on the facts, the land-use change for the Central Vista plots was held not to comply with that process. The majority upheld the approvals of the Central Vista Committee and the Delhi Urban Art Commission, and treated prior permission of the Heritage Conservation Committee as arising at the stage of actual development, not the planning stage. Environmental clearance was sustained on expert-appraisal deference, subject to mitigation conditions. The consultant selection and decision not to require a design competition were also upheld as policy choices absent illegality or arbitrariness.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404076</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>