Now, objections to Tasmac shops predating new educational institutions also to be considered
Earlier, though there were proximity restrictions between a Tasmac shop and places of worship or educational institutions, they were applicable only if the places of worship or educational institutions had been established in a locality much before the Tasmac shop was set up there.
Though no Tasmac shop was to be established in Municipal Corporations and Municipalities within 50 metres from any place of worship or educational institutions, one of the provisos to Rule 8 on 'Location of the shop' had said the provisions of this rule shall not apply 'if any place of worship, educational institution comes into existence subsequent to the establishment of the Tasmac shop'.
The amended proviso said: 'However, if any representation is received objecting to the location of the shop established prior to the establishment of any educational institution within the distance as specified in sub-rule (1), the same shall be considered by the Collector on merits and orders passed thereon within a period of thirty days from the date of such representation'. As of March this year, the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (Tasmac) has 4,787 retail vending shops and 2,362 bars attached to the retail vending shops.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
13 hours ago
- The Hindu
DTC building bus terminal on encroached land, says NGT
The National Green Tribunal (NGT) has recently ordered the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) to halt the construction activity at the proposed bus terminal in Najafgarh, south-west Delhi, stating that the terminal is being built on the encroached water body. The DTC was instructed to respond within two weeks. The Principal Bench of the NGT comprising Chairperson Prakash Shrivastava, Judicial Member Sudhir Agarwal and Expert Member A. Senthil Vel, said, in an order dated July 4, that the DTC has encroached the water body by constructing a bus terminal and a multi-storey commercial building on the land. The District Magistrate (South West) informed the tribunal that 'no clearance had been given' for construction on the land. In an affidavit submitted to the NGT, the DM said, 'the said land is recorded as johar (water body) and at present a bus terminal constructed on it. The water body has been encroached upon by the DTC.' The affidavit also mentioned that there was no record of any change of land use or no-objection certificate from the Forest Department, which is in violation of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017. The NGT also noted that no reply has been filed by the Managing Director of the DTC and granted two-week extension to file replies.
Time of India
16 hours ago
- Time of India
Govt staff suspended for smoking in office
Ranchi: Acting on chief minister Hemant Soren's directive, the West Singhbhum district administration on Sunday suspended a 'Jan-sevak', Jagmohan Soren, for smoking inside his office while on duty. Reacting to a video on social media that had gone viral, Soren, tagging West Singhbhum DC's official handle on X, directed him to take strict action. Soon, West Singhbhum DC tweeted, "Respected Sir, as per instructions, for the indecent act displayed in the video at the govt office, 'jan sevak' (public servant) Jagmohan Soren has been suspended with immediate effect under Clause 9 (a) of the Jharkhand Govt Servant (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules-2016. The deputy development commissioner has been directed to initiate formal disciplinary action. " The suspended official was posted at the Jagannathpur block office.
Hindustan Times
3 days ago
- Hindustan Times
HC questions state over removal of prosecutor in Payal Tadvi case, seeks affidavit
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Thursday pulled up the Maharashtra government for abruptly removing special public prosecutor (SPP) Pradip Gharat from the case involving the abetment of suicide of Dr Payal Tadvi, without citing any reasons in its official order. The court directed the state to file an affidavit clarifying its stand. HC questions state over removal of prosecutor in Payal Tadvi case, seeks affidavit A division bench of Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice MM Sathaye was hearing a petition filed by Abeda Tadvi, mother of the deceased doctor, challenging the state's March 7 notification removing Gharat from the high-profile case. Dr Payal Tadvi, a 26-year-old postgraduate medical student who belonged to the oppressed Tadvi Bhil caste--an Adivasi Muslim community, died by suicide on May 22, 2019, allegedly due to caste-based harassment by three senior colleagues — Dr Hema Ahuja, Dr Bhakti Meher and Dr Ankita Khandelwal — at the Topiwala National Medical College and BYL Nair Hospital. The three were arrested under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the Maharashtra Prohibition of Ragging Act, but are currently out on bail. The trial has not yet commenced. In November 2024, while serving as SPP, Gharat moved an application seeking to implead Dr Yi Ching Ling Chung Chiang — then head of the obstetrics and gynaecology department — as a co-accused, for allegedly failing to act on repeated complaints of harassment made by Payal and her family. The application, based on the report of the college's anti-ragging committee and an early complaint by the family, was allowed by a special court on February 28, 2025. Just a week later, the state removed Gharat from the case, replacing him with advocate Mahesh Manohar Mule — a decision that was neither explained in the notification nor communicated with the victim's family, prompting Payal's mother to move the High Court. During Thursday's hearing, the bench questioned the rationale behind the government's move. 'The complainant has confidence in this special public prosecutor. Why disturb the situation?' the court asked. Responding on behalf of the state, additional public prosecutor Shreekant Gavand said Gharat had allegedly been acting independently without consulting the investigating officer or keeping them informed of court proceedings. 'He took the decision of impleading the new accused on his own,' Gavand said. He cited Rule 4(3) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, which permits the state to denotify a special public prosecutor if he fails to conduct the case with due care — provided reasons are recorded in the denotification order. But the bench noted that no such reasons were mentioned in the official order removing Gharat. 'You have simpliciter withdrawn him. The law requires you to supply reasons. Now, reasons cannot be assigned after the decision is taken,' the court observed. The state has now been asked to file an affidavit responding to the petition, explaining its decision to replace Gharat.
