DK YADAV VS JMA INDUSTRIES

The appellant, a worker at the respondent company, was terminated from employment by the
respondent company on the grounds that he had wilfully absented himself from duty for more
than five days without leave or prior information of intimation or previous permission of the
management. 
The court set aside the labour court’s judgement and ordered the respondent to reinstate the
workman forthwith and pay him 50% of the back wages within a period of three months from
the date of receipt of the Court order. It held that the termination of employment of the
appellant is violative of principles of natural justice.

IN OLGA TELLIS V. BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION 

the state of Maharashtra in 1981 and the Bombay Municipal Corporation decided to evict the
pavement dwellers and those who were residing in slums in Bombay.
Pursuant to that, the then Chief Minister of Maharashtra issued an order for eviction.
On hearing about the Chief Minister’s announcement, they filed a writ petition in the High
Court of Bombay for an order of injunction restraining the officers of the State Government
and the Bombay Municipal Corporations from implementing the directive of the Chief
Minister.
The High Court of Bombay granted an ad interim injunction to be in force until July 21,
1981. Respondents agreed that the huts will not be demolished until October 15, 1981.
Contrary to agreement, on July 23, 1981, petitioners were huddled into State Transport buses
for being deported out of Bombay.
The respondent’s action was challenged by the petitioner on the grounds that it is violative
of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF BOMBAY V. DILIP KUMAR R.

NANDKARNI?
DR. HANIRAJ L. CHULANI V. BAR COUNCIL OF MAHARASHTRA & GOA
Dr. Haniraj was a medical practitioner in Mumbai and also pursued LLB degree. After that he wanted
himself to be enrolled in the bar council of Maharashtra and Goa but both his applications were
rejected, aggrieved by this order he approaching the honourable Bombay high court with a writ
petition.

Francis Coralie vs Union territory of Delhi

The petitioner, who is a British national, was arrested and detained in the Central Jail, Tihar
under an Order dated 23rd November 1979 issued under Section 3 of the COFEPOSA
Act[1]. The Petitioner filed a petition in the Court for a writ of habeas corpus challenging her
detention, but by a judgment delivered by the Court on 27th February 1980, her petition was
rejected with the result that she continued to remain under detention in the Tihar Central Jail.
CHAMELI SINGH VS STATE OF UP ?
The appellants were owners of lands in the area

The land was acquired for the housing needs of Dalits, Tribes and poor.

They were notified by publication in the State Gazette under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 on 23-7-1983 and the declaration under Section 6 was also published simultaneously
dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5-A.

There was a delay in respect of both pre-notification and post- notification on the part of the
officials to finalize and publish the notification.

Therefore, the appellants challenged the validity of the notification and appealed to the Supreme
Court through a Special Leave Petition.

KUTTISANKARAN NAIR VS. KUMARAN NAIR

This is an appeal by special leave tinder Section 417 (3), Cri. P. C., against the order of
acquittal passed by the Munsiff-Magistrate of Pattambi on a private complaint filed by the
appellant. His case was that the respondents got printed and published a leaflet Ex. P-1
containing false and baseless allegation against him with intention to harm his reputation
and to lower him in the estimate of others and thereby his reputation had been
considerably lowered and he had fallen in the estimate of his mends and the public in
general and the accused have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section
500 of the Penal Code.

TMA PAI FOUNDATION VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA

S.R. BOMMAI VS UOI

S.R. Bommai was the Chief Minister of the Janata Dal government in Karnataka between
August 13, 1988 and April 21, 1989. His government was dismissed on April 21, 1989 under
Article 356 of the Constitution and President’s Rule was imposed, in what was then a mostly
common mode to keep Opposition parties at bay. The dismissal was on grounds that the
Bommai government had lost majority following large-scale defections engineered by several
party leaders of the day. Then Governor P. Venkatasubbaiah refused to give Bommai an
opportunity to test his majority in the Assembly despite the latter presenting him with a copy
of the resolution passed by the Janata Dal Legislature Party.
What happened then?
Bommai went to court against the Governor’s decision to recommend President’s Rule. First
he moved the Karnataka High Court, which dismissed his writ petition. Then he moved the
Supreme Court.
The restricitions to Article 356 were spelled out.
AKHIL BHARTIYA UPBHOKTA CONGRESS VS. STATE OF MP
Whether the decision of the Government of Madhya Pradesh to allot 20 acres land comprised
in Khasra Nos. 82/1 and 83 of village Bawadiya Kalan, Tehsil Huzur, District Bhopal to late
Shri Kushabhau Thakre Memorial Trust (for short, "the Memorial Trust")/Shri Kushabhau
Thakre Training Institute (respondent No. 5) without any advertisement and without inviting
other similarly situated organisations/institutions to participate in the process of allotment is
contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution and the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar
Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (for short, "the Act") and whether modification of the
Bhopal Development Plan and change of land use is ultra vires the mandate of Section 23A
of the Act are the questions which arise for consideration in this appeal filed against the order
of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant.
MC MEHTA VS UOI AND MC MEHTA VS SHRI RAM FOODS & FERTILISER
INDUSTRIES
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India originated in the aftermath of oleum gas leak from Shriram
Food and Fertilisers Ltd. complex at Delhi. This gas leak occurred soon after the
infamous Bhopal gas leak and created a lot of panic in Delhi. One person died in the incident
and few were hospitalized. The case lays down the principle of absolute liability and the
concept of deep pockets.
VELLORE CITIZENS WELFARE FORUM VS UOI
In the present case the Petitioner- Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum, filed a PIL under Article
32 of the Constitution. The Petition was filed against the water pollution caused due to
excessive release of pollutants by the tanneries and other industries in the State of Tamil
Nadu into the river Palar. Palar River was the main source of water for the livelihood of the
surrounding people. Later, the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University Research Centre, Vellore
discovered that approximately 35,000 hectares of agricultural land has turned either entirely
or partially barren and not fit for cultivation. This is one of the landmark cases whereby the
Supreme Court critically analyzed the relationship between environment and industrial
development.
MC MEHTA VS KAMAL NATH
One of the Respondents, Span Hotels Pvt. Ltd. a private company had built motels on the
forest land adjacent to River Beas. The same was taken on lease from the government for a
period of 99 years. Subsequently, the respondents tried to divert the flow of Beas River using
heavy earthmovers. They also constructed heavily cemented embankments along the river
and further tried to encroach upon the surrounding barren forest land. Moreover, it transpired
that the various acts of the Respondents were authorized by the Forest Department of Kullu.
It is further alleged that Mr. Kamal Nath, one of the Respondents too was an interested party
in the deal. He was further the Minister-in-charge, Department of Environment and Forests at
the time of signing of the lease deed between Span Hotels and the Himachal Government.
The Supreme Court took suo motto notice of a news article that appeared in the Indian
Express on February 25, 1999. The article read, “Kamal Nath dares the mighty Beas to keep
his dreams afloat”. The Apex Court ordered the Central Pollution Control Board to file a
report post the inspection of the area. The Report stated that the area is a question that was
highly vulnerable with Beas being in an unstable state. It further advised a long term planning
and flood control in Kullu.
Banwasi Seva Ashram vs state of up
The dispute between the tribal, living in the Dudhi and the Robertsganj Tehsil of district
Mirzapur, and the state of Uttar Pradesh was due to the forest land. The state of UP had
declared the area where these tribals resided as “reserved forest land” under Section 20 of the
Indian Forest Act, 1927.
RESEARCH FOUNDATION FOR SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY VS UOI
 The basic grievance of the Writ Petitioner was with regard to the import of toxic wastes from
industrialized countries to India, despite such wastes being hazardous to the environment and
life of the people of this country.
T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD
Filed a writ petition with the Supreme Court of India in order to protect the Nilgiris forest
land from deforestation by illegal timber operations.
It cannot be disputed that no development is possible without some adverse effect on the
ecology and Environment, and the projects of public utility cannot be abandoned and it is
necessary to adjust the interest of the people as well as the necessity to maintain the
Environment. A balance has to be struck between the two interests. Where the commercial
venture or enterprise would bring in results which are far more useful for the people,
difficulty of a small number of people has to be bypassed.”
Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. UOI, (1996)

PIL Under article 32 was filed for large scale water pollution due to untreated sewage. The river palar
was one of the main sources of water for many people. The court ordered the tanneries to deposit
10000 rupees.

OM KUMAR V. UNION OF INDIA

Skipper Construction had got possession from Delhi Development Authority (DDA) of flats
but the consideration was only paid partly. It had collected huge sums of money from the
prospective purchasers of the flats. This was challenged.  Disciplinary proceedings were
initiated against five officers. The matter with regard to Sri Om Kumar and Sri Virendra Nath
was referred to the Department of Personnel as there was a difference in opinion between the
competent authority and the advice of the U.P.S.C. Likewise, U.P.S.C was asked to
reconsider its advice provided for the cases of Sri K.S. Baidwan and Sri R.S. Sethi. 

DELHI BOTTLING COMPANY VS CENTRAL BOARD FOR THE PREVENTION &

CONTROL OF POLLUTION

Sample of water was taken without following the Proper Procedure under Section 21 of the
Water act.
ABDUL HAMID VS GWALIOR RAYON CO.

 Circumstances giving rise to the revision petition are these. The petitioner laid information
for action under Section 133 of the Code before the learned S.D.M. on the following
allegations. The Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing & Weaving company, Indi Bhai Parikh
and 18 others connected with the Grasim, the chemical factories and the hospital run by the
Janseva Trust are responsible for polluting the air as also the water of river Chambal near
Birlagram and this has led to the death of children, animals and the water-creatures. It was
also stated that the pollution causes various deceases among the people and crops are also
damaged,

The non-applicants opposed ' the petitioner's prayer. It was contended that in respect of the
acts constituting offences under the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (for
short 'the Water Act') and the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (for short
'the Air Act') previous written sanction of the State Boards constituted thereunder is
necessary. These Acts deal with pollution by trade or industry.

It is not in controversy that on the date of which the information was laid before the learned
S.D.M. the Water Act and the Air Act had come into force.

The learned S.D.M. upheld the non-applicants' contention and rejected the petitioner's prayer.

Aggrieved by the order aforesaid the petitioner has come to this Court in revision.

MANDU DISTILLERS VS MP PRADUSHAN NIWARAN MANDAL

The petitioner No. I is a company and owns a factory located at village Sojwaya, District
Dhar. It manufactures and distributes Indian made Foreign Liquor (IMFL). It procured
registration as Small Scale Industries on 27-11-84. It constructed lagooning system of
effluent treatment plant along with the distillery. The Respondent issued show cause
notice on 28-08-93 objecting to discharge of polluted water in Pankhedi Nala (Annexure
P/16). This is replied on 06-09-93 (Annexure P/16-A). Construction of Anaerobic
Methane Gas digester plant has been started but this work suffered delay for some time
due to cancellation of permission. The Respondent passed adverse order on 16-10-93
(Annexure P/ 17).

It is this order which is challenged. Order of status quo was granted on 2.1-10-93. On 25-
03-94 this was modified with direction that' petitioners shall not pollute Mohini and ,
Chambal-rivers and shall thus keep these rivers free from pollution. The Respondent later
filed application to vacate order into toto and alleged that contamination continued and
direction was not strictly followed.