Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY SEC. AND ORS. versus K. BALU AND ANR.

Decided
23 February 2018
Judges listed
DIPAK MISRA, AMITAVA ROY, D.Y. CHANDRACHUD (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[2018] 1 S.C.R. 661 · 2018 INSC 188

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

The States of Mizoram and Assam have filed the present MAs / IAs, which emanate from the judgment of this Court in State of Tamil Nadu v K Balu . By an order dated 31 March 2017, this Court exempted the States of Meghalaya and Sikkim from the application of the 500 meter distance requirement provided in paragraph 24(v)(iii) of the judgment dated 15 December 2016. This exemption was granted in view of the peculiar topography of the States of Sikkim and Meghalaya. The relevant part of the order dated 31 March 2017 is extracted below : “25. The third area is in relation to the States of Sikkim… and Meghalaya which have moved this Court for a suitable modification of the judgment having regard to the nature of the hilly terrain. In relation to the State of Sikkim, this Court has been apprised on behalf of the State Government that nearly 82 per cent of the area of the state is forested and 92 per cent of the shops will have to be closed as a result of the directions of this Court. Similarly, the State of Meghalaya has placed before this Court peculiar conditions prevailing in the State as a result of the hilly terrain. We are of the view that insofar as the States of Meghalaya and Sikkim are concerned, it would suffice if the two states are exempted only from the application of the 500 metre distance requirement provided in paragraph 24(v)(iii) of the judgment of this Court on 15 December 2016.” Subsequently, by an order dated 12 July 2017, this Court had also extended the same exemption to the State of Arunachal Pradesh. Mizoram

pp. 662–663, margin E

2

The State of Mizoram has submitted that the hilly terrain of the State necessitates the grant of the same exemption as was granted to the States of Meghalaya and Sikkim.

p. 663, margin C

3

In view of the peculiar topography of the State of Mizoram, the benefit of the exemption granted by the earlier order dated 31 March 2017 is extended to the State of Mizoram. Assam

p. 663, margin C

4

As regards the State of Assam, this Court had by an order dated 4 December 2017 directed the State to file an affidavit indicating “hilly areas or the districts which can be called ‘hill/hilly areas’ so that appropriate orders can be passed.”

p. 663, margin D

5

In pursuance of the order, an affidavit has been filed by the Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Department of Excise on 9 February 2018. The affidavit contains the following averments: “3. That the aforesaid application upon being moved, this Hon’ble Court vide Order dated 4.12.2017 directed the State of Assam to file an affidavit indicating the hilly areas or the districts which can be called ‘hill/hilly’ areas so that appropriate orders can be passed. 4. That in compliance of the aforesaid direction, the instant affidavit is filed indicating the following facts: A. That out of the 33 districts of the State of Assam, ‘Karbi Anglong,’ West Karbi Anglong’ and ‘Dima Hasao’ (North Cachar Hills) are there hill districts contiguous with the hills of Meghalaya and Nagaland, which constitute 20% of the land mass of the State” In view of the above disclosure on affidavit we extend the benefit of the order dated 31 March 2017 to the above districts of the State of Assam namely Karbi Anglong, West Karbi Anglong and Dima Hasao (North Cachar Hills). The State government would be at liberty to act accordingly.

pp. 663–664, margin E

6

The MAs/IAs shall accordingly stand disposed of.

p. 664, margin B