Minister promises house soon to every eligible person
Visakhapatnam: A detailed investigation into irregularities in the construction of houses and development of layouts during the YSRCP rule will be launched and strict action would be taken against those responsible, said housing minister Kolusu Parthasarathy.
Visiting housing layouts in Anandapuram and Sabbavaram mandals here on Friday, he said that houses with all amenities will be built for the eligible poor in the state. He said that pending works in the colonies would be completed and they would be made ready for occupancy at the earliest.
The minister emphasised that due to lack of proper planning during the previous government's tenure,
standard of the houses went for a toss.
Further, Parthasarathy said that the BC, SC and ST communities are facing financial difficulties and this was discussed in the meeting held with the Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu recently.
He informed that Rs 50,000 will be sanctioned additionally to BC beneficiaries and SCs, and Rs.1 lakh to STs living in the tribal areas.
The housing minister assured that steps would be taken to bring shopping complexes near the colonies and that activities will be designed to increase the economic power of the poor.
He recalled that the previous government could not utilise the Jal Jeevan Mission and AMRUT schemes, and that the Centre had extended the deadline for those schemes due to the initiative of the Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister Pawan Kalyan.
The minister assured that by utilising the schemes, drinking water facility will be provided to every NTR Colony very soon and electricity would also be provided within two to three months. Further, the minister said that the housing department will temporarily take the support from GVMC and VMRDA to provide electricity and drinking water facilities in the colonies.
Speaking on the occasion, Bheemunipatnam MLA Ganta Srinivasa Rao and Pendurthi MLA Panchakarla Ramesh Babu appealed to the minister to provide infrastructure in swift manner, grant additional financial assistance and cooperate in inaugurating the houses soon.
MLC Vepada Chiranjeevi Rao, former MLC Duvvarapu Rama Rao, Housing Corporation chairman B Tatayya Babu, TDP district president Gandi Babji, housing PD Satthibabu, EE Srinivasa Rao and other public representatives were present.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
3 hours ago
- Indian Express
Why US Supreme Court decision makes it easier for Trump to implement controversial laws
The United States Supreme Court on Friday removed a significant roadblock to President Donald Trump's controversial executive order ending birthright citizenship for immigrants. The Court, in a 6:3 opinion, limited the powers of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions. Now their decisions will apply only to parties in a specific case they are hearing rather than universally to other similar cases. The US Supreme Court is yet to rule on the legality of Trump's executive order issued on January 20, the very first day of his second stint as President. However, it has removed protections granted by federal judges which have thus far hindered the implementation of the law A part of his larger anti-immigration policies, one of Trump's key poll promises was to end birthright citizenship for immigrants. Essentially, children born in the US to parents unlawfully present or present on temporary visas would not automatically be granted citizenship. Citizenship in the US is defined by the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, ratified in 1868. The provision was introduced to extend citizenship to Black Americans, who had been excluded till then. It states: 'All persons born or naturalised in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.' The 14th Amendment also bars the state from making any laws that infringe the rights of any US citizens. These protections are similar to those in Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. Trump's executive order plays on the interpretation of the words 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' to hold that certain people — undocumented immigrants or those without legal status — are not covered by the 14th Amendment, and hence not automatically eligible for birthright citizenship. Court orders blocking the move India has a unitary legal system. High Courts issue injunctions against the state but are, in some cases, limited by jurisdiction, while the SC's orders have a nationwide impact. That said, universal injunctions against non-state actors are common in certain kinds of orders, such as content takedown directions or in intellectual property disputes. In contrast, the US legal system has a complex dual structure where both federal Courts (established under Article III of the US Constitution) and state courts (established by each state's constitution and laws) operate. The federal courts are a three-tiered system, with 94 federal District Courts, 13 Courts of Appeals over them, and at the top, the US Supreme Court. These federal courts are not limited by state jurisdiction. This is what allowed several federal district courts to immediately block the enforcement of Trump's January 20 order. On January 23 itself, a federal district judge in Washington issued a temporary restraining order, followed by a preliminary injunction on February 6. And those challenging the law include state governments — a collective suit by Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon got the first injunction — and advocacy groups. The US government made an appeal to the Supreme Court against relief granted in a suit filed by advocacy groups CASA de Maryland and Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project on behalf of pregnant women whose children could be denied citizenship. Universal injunctions by federal courts have dealt a blow to several of Trump's policies — from a law requiring voter ID and proof of citizenship at the polls, freezing of federal funding to the states, to making federal funding to schools conditional on their removing all diversity and equity policies. The New York Times quoted a report by the research arm of the US Congress that currently 'more than two dozen nationwide injunctions' are in place blocking Trump's policies. Supreme Court's decision The White House appealed against the Maryland injunction, and the Supreme Court, which now has conservative judges (appointed by Republican Presidents) in majority, ruled in favour of Trump. The Court did this by limiting the power of federal judges to issue universal injunctions. Taking note of the argument that universal injunction 'give[s] the Judiciary a powerful tool to check the Executive Branch,' Justice Amy Coney Barrett said in her opinion, which is essentially the majority view in the case, that it is not for district judges to act as a check against the executive. Even when 'a (federal) court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power,' she wrote. The Supreme Court, however, said that the existing injunctions can be narrowly tailored to each plaintiff (the party who has moved court alleging violation of her rights) with standing to sue. The decision makes it difficult to block Trump's policies quickly, not just on birthright citizenship but any policy. District Courts are more accessible, and it is less time-consuming to get relief from them compared to waiting for a final verdict from the Supreme Court on controversial issues. Apurva Vishwanath is the National Legal Editor of The Indian Express in New Delhi. She graduated with a B.A., LL. B (Hons) from Dr Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow. She joined the newspaper in 2019 and in her current role, oversees the newspapers coverage of legal issues. She also closely tracks judicial appointments. Prior to her role at the Indian Express, she has worked with ThePrint and Mint. ... Read More
The Hindu
4 hours ago
- The Hindu
YSRCP's allegations are baseless: TDP
TDP Anantapur district president Venkatasivudu Yadav on Saturday (June 28) said YSRCP leaders are levelling baseless allegations against the NDA government because they are unable to digest the fact that poll promises are being fulfilled. Speaking to media persons here, Mr. Venkatasivudu Yadav said the YSRCP leaders are trying to divert the attention of the people from the scams and scandals of the previous government that are coming to light in the past one year. 'The YSRCP leaders should stop their propaganda against the government,' he said. Listing the various welfare programmes by the government, he said the government is extending 'Talliki Vandanam' to every child of the eligible beneficiary families and will implement the 'Annadata Sukhibhava' from July. He said the government increased the social security pensions and had also issued DSC notification to fill 16,347 vacancies. 'The government will soon launch the free bus ride to women scheme also,' he said. Mr. Venkatasivudu said the government repaired 20,000 km of roads at ₹1,200 crore since coming to power with an aim to make the State pothole free. On the development front, the government brought ₹4.95 lakh crore investments to the State, providing jobs to 4.50 lakh people.
Hindustan Times
7 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
SC orders release of law student from preventive detention under NSA, says wholly untenable
New Delhi, The Supreme Court has ordered immediate release of a law student in Madhya Pradesh from preventive detention after being booked under the National Security Act , saying it is "wholly untenable". SC orders release of law student from preventive detention under NSA, says wholly untenable A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and K Vinod Chandran, which found fault with the July 11, 2024 detention order passed by District Magistrate of Betul in Madhya Pradesh said it will be passing a detailed reasoned order in the case. Petitioner Annu was booked by police following an altercation at a university campus in Betul, allegedly after he clashed with a professor. An FIR was lodged against him for offences of attempt to murder and other connected offences. While in jail, a detention order under provisions of the NSA was issued against him. This order was later confirmed and extended every three months since then. "After perusal of the first detention order dated July 11, 2024, we find that the appellant has been taken into preventive detention under Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980. However, we are of the view that the reasons for which he has been taken into preventive detention does not satisfy the requirement of Sub Section of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980. Preventive detention of the appellant, therefore, becomes wholly untenable," the Supreme Court bench said in its order passed on Friday. The bench said the preventive detention has also become untenable for other grounds as well, such as representation of the appellant being decided by the district collector himself, without forwarding it to the state government and also not taken into account the factum of appellant's detention in other criminal cases and as to why he was required to be taken into preventive detention, in spite of being detained in a regular criminal proceeding. "Thus, looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that the appellant, who is presently lodged in the Central Jail at Bhopal, shall be released forthwith from custody, if not required in any other criminal case. In view of the above, the criminal appeal is disposed of. Reasoned order will follow," the bench said. It noted that Annu alias Aniket, who was a law student was first taken into preventive detention by order dated July 11, 2024 and this detention order has been extended on four occasions and as per the last extension order, his preventive detention is up to July 12, 2025. The bench said that according to the material brought on record by the state government, the court finds that nine criminal antecedents, including the present criminal case, have been cited against the law student to justify the preventive detention under provisions of the National Security Act, 1980. However, his counsel has submitted that out of the previous eight cases, Annu has been acquitted in five cases and in one case, he has been convicted, but sentence is only imposition of fine. The court was informed that the remaining two cases are presently pending and the law student was on bail in those matters. The top court also noted that in the present criminal case registered against him last year, he was granted bail on January 28, 2025. "The scenario, which thus emerges, is that the appellant continues to remain in custody only by virtue of the order of preventive detention. It is averred that the appellant is lodged in Central Jail, Bhopal," the bench noted. On February 25, the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the habeas corpus petition filed by Annu's father, observing that the petitioner had a long history of criminal cases and was a habitual offender whose presence posed a threat to public peace. The high court cited the preventive nature of NSA detention and upheld the subjective satisfaction of the district magistrate as sufficient. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
