Sewage treatment plant project stokes ire of Assolda locals
At the
Assolda gram sabha
on Sunday, locals voiced strong opposition to the under-construction sewage treatment plant (STP) at Hodar, near the banks of a Zuari tributary. Locals expressed outrage that the NOC for the STP was granted by the authorities without conducting an
environmental impact assessment
(EIA) study.
The locals said that was a violation of the
EIA Notification 2006
and the orders issued by the
National Green Tribunal
(NGT).
The STP project, the locals said, is located close to a water body, and could harm ecosystems and pose health risks to people. They demanded the immediate cancellation of the NOC and a thorough environmental study before any further permissions are considered.
The gram sabha also discussed the issue of the rise in illegal constructions in the village, including encroachments on comunidade land.
The locals demanded an explanation from the panchayat over its failure to act on these illegalities despite a directive from the high court, which ordered the panchayat to act against unauthorised structures.
'The panchayat is ignoring clear directions issued by both the NGT and the HC. This gross negligence could amount to contempt of court,' a gram sabha member, Aditya Dessai, said. 'Some complaints on illegal structures have been pending for over five years without any response. This is unacceptable.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
6 hours ago
- Time of India
Centre's pick & choose policy hits HC judge appointments
Representative image NEW DELHI: Advocate Ramaswamy Neelakandan prepared for life as a high court judge by returning case files to clients after the CJI-led Supreme Court collegium on Jan 17, 2023, recommended to Union govt to appoint him, along with four other advocates, including L C Victoria Gowri, as judges of Madras high court. The Union govt appointed all of them as judges, except Neelakandan. Though names of the five advocates were sent by the SC collegium on the same day, the govt appointed them in batches - three on Feb 7, 2023, and the fourth on Feb 27, 2023. Neelakandan, who belongs to the OBC community, shares his fate with 28 other advocates, whose names were recommended to the govt by the collegium between Jan 2023 and April this year. The Centre's pick and choose policy has left them in suspense - whether to resume practice or keep waiting for the Centre's nod to become an HC judge. While Neelakandan's wait has stretched beyond 29 months, advocate Subhash Upadhyay, whose name was recommended by collegium on April 12, 2023, for judgeship in Uttarakhand HC, is waiting for his warrant of appointment for the last 26 months. Along with Upadhyay, the collegium had recommended names of three advocates and a judicial officer for appointment as judges of the HC. Only Upadhyay's name was left out. Like him, advocate Arun Kumar is awaiting action on collegium's May 9, 2023, recommendation for his appointment as Allahabad HC judge. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Birla Evara 3 and 4 BHK from ₹ 1.75 Crore* Birla Estates Learn More Undo On Oct 17, 2023, the collegium recommended the names of five advocates for appointment as judges of Madhya Pradesh HC. Among them, only advocate Amit Seth is still awaiting appointment. Of the 29 advocates still awaiting appointment as HC judges, five are women advocates. Among them, the one enduring the longest wait is advocate Shamima Jahan, whose name was recommended by the collegium on Jan 4, 2024, for appointment as a judge of Gauhati HC. Other women advocates sharing Jahan's fate are Sreeja Vijayalakshmi (name recommended on April 16, 2024), Tajal Vashi (Oct 15, 2024; Gujarat HC), Shwetasree Majumder (Aug 21, 2024; Delhi HC), and Sheetal Mirdha (March 5, 2025; Rajasthan HC). Despite successive chief justices, including the incumbent CJI B R Gavai, impressing upon the Union govt not to pick and choose from the list and avoid making staggered appointments from the same batch, the govt has not abandoned the practice which creates seniority issues in constitutional courts where merit and seniority are two crucial factors for career advancement. Interestingly, the collegium's recommendations for appointment of judges to Supreme Court have been speedily processed and implemented by the govt, in some cases the appointments have come through within three days of the recommendation. The collegium recommended to the govt on May 26 to appoint Justices N V Anjaria, Vijay Bishnoi and A S Chandurkar as judges of the SC. The three took oath as Supreme Court judges on May 30. On May 26, the collegium recommended appointments of chief justices to five HCs, transfers of four HC CJs and transfer and repatriation of 22 HC judges. More than a month later, govt is yet to give effect to the appointments and transfers of HC CJs and judges.
News18
7 hours ago
- News18
'State Can't Tap Phones Just To Prevent Corruption In Violation Of Law': Madras High Court
Last Updated: The HC said phone tapping is permitted only under Section 5(2) of Telegraph Act when there is a clear public emergency or threat to public safety, backed by reasons and due process In a significant judgment that reiterates constitutional protections in the digital age, the Madras High Court has quashed a 2011 phone-tapping order issued by the union ministry of home affairs against a private company executive, holding that the interception lacked the mandatory threshold of 'public emergency" or 'public safety" as required under Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act. The bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh opined that the Centre's authorisation to intercept the phone conversations of P Kishore—then managing director of Everonn Education Ltd—was issued without sufficient justification and in violation of the constitutional right to privacy under Article 21. A bribery FIR was registered by the CBI in August 2011 involving an IRS officer (A1), who allegedly demanded Rs 50 lakh to shield the company from tax scrutiny. Kishore (A2) was accused of arranging the bribe, and a friend of the officer (A3) was intercepted carrying the cash. However, the CBI did not apprehend Kishore in possession of the bribe or at the scene. The Centre had authorised the interception on the grounds of 'public safety" and 'preventing incitement to the commission of an offence". However, the court noted that these terms cannot be used in a vague or routine manner. Citing the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in People's Union for Civil Liberties and KS Puttaswamy, the judge held that such surveillance must meet the constitutional tests of necessity, proportionality, and legality. 'Neither the occurrence of public emergency nor interest of public safety is a secretive condition… either would be apparent to a reasonable person," the court observed, referring to the SC precedents and added that no such justification was visible in the interception order, which appeared to be 'mechanical" and 'cyclostyled". Further, the high court held that procedural safeguards under Rule 419-A of the Telegraph Rules, which require review by a committee and periodic oversight, were also not followed, thereby rendering the order illegal. Importantly, the court rejected the authorities' argument that even assuming that the order under Section 5(2) of the Act was without jurisdiction, the evidence so collected was admissible since it is a well-settled proposition of law that even illegally collected evidence is admissible provided it is relevant. The court opined that once the surveillance order was found to be unconstitutional, any material or evidence collected as a result of it would also be tainted. The HC also pointed out that in the case at hand, the petitioner was only accused of an offence; hence, the presumption of innocence still applied in his favour. Referring to the illegality of the interception, the bench held, 'Where the tapping of phones is found to have been done in violation of Section 5(2) of the Act, the order would be clearly unconstitutional. An unconstitutional order is void under Article 13 and no rights or liabilities can flow from it." First Published:
Deccan Herald
7 hours ago
- Deccan Herald
‘Raising of hand by CM' Siddaramaiah left me shocked, family disturbed: Additional Superintendent
Additional Superintendent of Police Narayan Baramani has clarified that his request for voluntary retirement from service (VRS) still stands and is currently under consideration by the home told reporters on Thursday that he had not withdrawn his VRS application and was awaiting the government's govt plea to HC: Keep stampede report under wraps till probe is over.'I have not withdrawn my request. If the government approves it, I will proceed with voluntary retirement. If it is rejected, I will decide on my future course of action,' he said adding that he had continued to perform his duties diligently in the submitted his VRS request about a month ago, citing humiliation after an incident involving CM Siddaramaiah at a protest rally organised by the Congress in Belagavi on April officer had been deputed to Belagavi from Dharwad on official duty at the letter for VRS request says the CM made the controversial hand gesture, a moment that he described in detail in his repeated 'chest-thumping' on completing term direct snub to Congress high command: Ashoka.A copy of the letter has gone viral on social media. The letter, running into three pages, is addressed to the additional chief secretary, department of home affairs (police services)..According to it, Baramani was assigned to oversee the stage arrangements during the protest Siddaramaiah's speech, four or five women showed black flags and raised slogans. The CM stopped his speech and, pointing towards Baramani, shouted, 'Hey! Who's the SP here? Come here!' In response, he went up to the stage. The CM then allegedly raised his hand in a sudden gesture..'This incident left me deeply shocked,' Baramani wrote in his letter..'My entire family has been mentally disturbed ever since. Despite this, neither the chief minister nor any other government official on his behalf, nor even senior officials from our own department, made any effort to console or address the issue. Even my colleagues did not condemn the insult I faced,' he said, 'I have been publicly humiliated and blamed for something I did not do. Left with no other option, I am submitting this request for voluntary retirement. I humbly request that it be accepted'..Following the submission of his VRS letter, Siddaramaiah and Home Minister G Parameshwara had summoned Baramani to Bengaluru. The CM is said to have urged him not to proceed with the - .Narayan BaramaniAdditional Superintendent of Police.'I have been publicly humiliated and blamed for something I did not do. Left with no other option I am submitting this request for voluntary retirement. I humbly request that it be accepted.
