Constitutions

Suray Prasad Sharma Dhungel v. Godavari Marble Industries and others, WP 35/1992 (1995.10.31)

Supreme Court, Full Bench

Hon`ble Trilok Pratap Rana
Hon`ble Laxman Prasad Aryal
Hon`ble -Gobinda Bahadur Shrestha

Order Writ No. 35 of the year 2049 B.S (1992)

Petitioner: Suray Prasad Sharma Dhungel
Versus Respondents: Godawari Marble Industries and others

Case: Mandamus

Constitutional / Legal Issues

Whether the Constitution guarantees the right to clean: environment as the part of right to life?

Whether there is locus standi of the NGOs or individuals working for the protection of the environment?

Belize -- Aurelio Cal, et al. v. Attorney General of Belize, Supreme Court of Belize (Claims No. 171 and 172 of 2007) (18 Oct 2007) (Mayan land rights)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2007

CONSOLIDATED CLAIMS

CLAIM NO. 171 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

AURELIO CAL in his own behalf and on behalf of the MAYA VILLAGE OF SANTA CRUZ
and
BASILIO TEUL, HIGINIO TEUL, MARCELINA CAL TEUL
and SUSANO CANTI Claimants

AND

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BELIZE
and
THE MINISTER OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND
ENVIRONMENT Defendants

CLAIM NO. 172 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

Nepal -- Prakash Mani Sharma v. His Majesty’s Government Cabinet Secretariat and Others, WP 2237/1990 (2003.3.11)

Supreme Court of Nepal, Joint Bench

Hon’ble Arbinda Nath Acharya,
Hon’ble Chandra Prasad Parajuli
WP No 3440 of the year 2053 B.S (1996)

Petitioner: Advocate Prakash Mani Sharma and others

Versus

Respondents: His Majesty’s Government, Cabinet Secretariat and others,

Case: Certiorari with Mandamus

Constitutional/Legal Issues

Is the court entitled to ask the government to adopt particular measures for reducing pollution?

India -- Perumatty Grama Panchayat vs State of Kerala (2003.12.16) (Coca-Cola groundwater exploitation case)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
AT ERNAKULAM
W.P.(C) No. 34292 of 2003.
Dated this the 16th December, 2003.

Perumatty Grama Panchayat

Vs

State of Kerala .

REPORTED IN 2004 (1) KLT 731.

JUDGMENT

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.

1. The point that arises for consideration in this case in whether a Grama Panchayat can cancel the licence of a factory manufacturing non-alcoholic beverages on the ground of excessive exploitation of ground water. The brief facts of the case are the following:- .

Nepal -- Advocate Prakash Mani Sharma for Pro Public vs His Majesty Government Cabinet Secretariat and others, WP 2991/1995 (1997.06.09)

(Translation from Nepali to English by Raju Prasad Chapagai)

Advocate Prakash Mani Sharma for Pro Public vs His Majesty Government Cabinet Secretariat and others, WP 2991/1995 (1997.06.09)

Supreme Court of Nepal, Joint Bench

Hon’ble Keshab Prasad Upadhayay,
Hon’ble Kedar Nath Acharya,

WP No 2991of the year 2052 B.S (1995)

Petitioner: Advocate Prakash Mani Sharma for Pro Public

Versus

Respondents: His Majesty Government Cabinet Secretariat and others

Oposa et al. v. Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr. et al. (G.R. No. 101083)

Juan Antonio Oposa et al., v. The Honorable Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr., in his capacity as the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and the Honorable Eriberto U. Rosario, Presiding Judge of the RTC, Makati, Branch 66, respondents. [G.R. No. 101083. July 30, 1993]

EN BANC

Oposa Law Office for petitioners.
The Solicitor General for respondents.

SYLLABUS

1. INSTITUTIONAL LAW; DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES; RIGHT TO A BALANCED AND HEALTHFUL ECOLOGY, CONSTRUED. ﷓

Pages

Subscribe to Constitutions