Haryana charges 6 officials over illegal Aravalli mining in Nuh
The officials named in the government communique include Assistant Mining Officer R.S. Thakran and Mining Officers Bhupender Singh, BD Yadav, Rajender Prasad, Anil Kumar, and Anil Atwal.
The probe, ordered by Commissioner and Secretary, Mines and Geology, T.L. Satya Prakash, found that around 25 acres of Aravalli hill land in Haryana's revenue territory had been illegally mined by leaseholders from Rajasthan. The excavation spanned from November 2011 to January 2025, resulting in the loss of over 80 lakh tonnes of Aravalli stone.
'While taking strict cognisance of the illegal mining activities, Haryana Chief Minister Nayab Singh Saini has directed that six officers of the Mining Department be charge-sheeted. He has also ordered action against staff from the Panchayat and Forest Departments found complicit in the case,' the state government said in a statement.
The crackdown follows a complaint alleging excess extraction in Rawa village, located in Ferozepur Jhirka tehsil. Subsequent departmental investigations confirmed the illegal operations.
Despite multiple attempts, Satya Prakash and director general of Mining, Pandurang did not respond to HT's request for a comment.
Environmental activists have long flagged unchecked mining in fragile Aravalli zones like Nuh, warning of severe ecological consequences. A senior official, requesting anonymity, said the Rawa case could be 'just the tip of the iceberg', with more action expected in the coming weeks.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
19 minutes ago
- Time of India
Stray Menace: Can't Do Much Due To Legal Roadblocks, Cops Tell HC
Nagpur: The city police have informed the Nagpur bench of Bombay high court that while they are attempting to act on repeated judicial directives to contain the city's growing stray dog menace, existing legal provisions bar them from taking any action involving killing or culling of strays, rendering enforcement efforts largely ineffective. In an affidavit submitted on Friday, deputy commissioner of police (headquarters) Ashwini S Patil stated, "Due to the prohibition on destruction or killing of dogs, it is not possible to implement Section 44 of the Maharashtra Police Act in its true spirit." Section 44 of the Maharashtra Police Act allows police to seize or destroy stray dogs found in public places without muzzles or owner identification. However, it protects dogs wearing identifiable collars and restricts immediate action unless the animal is confirmed to be rabid. Patil reiterated that this section, though well-intended, remains toothless without changes in national and state-level regulations prohibiting destruction of dogs. The affidavit was filed in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by social activist Vijay Talewar and community representative Manoj Shakya, who have sought a coordinated and sustained crackdown on stray dog attacks in the city. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Learn More - How Watching Videos Can Boost Your Income TheDaddest Undo Represented by senior counsel Firdos Mirza, the petitioners cited the rising number of incidents, including a recent tragic case in which a minor boy in Kalamna fell from the sixth floor of a building while attempting to flee a stray dog. During the last hearing on July 14, a division bench comprising justices Anil Kilor and Manohar Nerlikar strongly rebuked both, the police and municipal authorities, for inaction. "How many times must we repeat ourselves?" the judges remarked, taking note of the fatal incident highlighted by Mirza. He warned that continued negligence could result in more avoidable deaths. To comply with court directives, the police issued circulars on November 28, 2022, deputing an assistant commissioner of police to coordinate with the Animal Birth Control (Dog) Rules, 2001 committee. The circulars also outlined awareness initiatives aimed at public cooperation in reporting and managing stray dogs. Despite these measures, the affidavit emphasised that the core obstacle remains the legal bar on killing strays, making it difficult to act beyond basic coordination or detainment. Talewar and Shakya, representing the Ramdaspeth Durga Pooja Utsav Mandal and Kachipura Kushwaha Samaj respectively, have urged the court to issue clear instructions to authorities, arguing that ambiguity in law must not be allowed to compromise public safety.
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
HC denies relief on plea to carry out excavation in Madurai village
Madurai: Madras high court has denied relief to a man who sought a direction to the authorities to carry out an archaeological excavation in Ulaipatti village, Madurai district. The court was hearing a public interest litigation filed in 2020 by an advocate, G Thirumurugan. The petitioner stated that a furnace unearthed in Ulaipatti village confirmed the existence of industrial sites in the ancient period. He stated that burial urns, hero stones, and artefacts were also unearthed in the village. If a planned and systematic excavation is carried out at this site in Ulaipatti, it would provide a better understanding of our history. Hence, the petitioner moved court. A division bench of justice S M Subramaniam and justice A D Maria Clete observed that the court cannot issue a direction to conduct such activities unless the authorities form an opinion that it is necessary in the interest of the public and in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules in force. If the court decides to take such a decision, it must follow the envisaged procedures. It is for the petitioner to pursue the pending representation, if any, before the competent authorities, the judges observed, and disposed of the petition.
The Hindu
5 hours ago
- The Hindu
Draft data protection rules have received almost 7,000 comments: IT Ministry
The draft Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, have received 6,915 inputs and comments from the public, firms, and other stakeholders, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology told Parliament on Friday (July 25, 2025). The Ministry was responding to a query by Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) MP Vaddiraju Ravichandra. The volume of comments reflects the back-to-back consultation sessions the government has held since the draft was published in January, with a lengthy written comment period, as well as sessions with State governments, private industry, and other groups of invited stakeholders. The comments are being held in confidence, the Ministry said, indicating it would not release them publicly in order to allow stakeholders to offer candid submissions. Long delay The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, enacted over two years ago, cannot come into effect until the DPDP Rules are notified. Almost seven months on, the government has long exceeded the weeks-long timeline that was indicated for the notification. The draft is not likely to be modified significantly, a key official had said in February. However, as India and the U.S. negotiate a bilateral trade agreement, with a major focus on the ease of doing business in India for technology firms, the government has held off on publishing the final Rules. In an informal interaction with reporters this month, a senior IT Ministry official declined to provide any reasons for the delay, or to provide an estimate of when the Rules can be expected to be enforced. Consent managers The DPDP Rules (and the parent Act) provide for penalties against firms that fail to take effective measures to safeguard personal information. They also put in place systems like consent managers, whereby individuals can keep watch on which firms have their data, and provide or withdraw consent for some of them. The Act draws out exclusions from penalties and key provisions for government agencies. The law's implementation has been awaited among privacy advocates, who hope that frequent data breaches will finally be met with accountability. The law has also drawn criticism from journalism bodies and transparency activists as it contains no provisions for protecting journalistic work, and amends the Right to Information Act, 2005 to prevent the disclosure of any personal information that is not already published proactively under the law.
