Plea against using furnace oil to build roads: Madras High Court issues notice
The petitioner, S Subram of Pudukkottai, stated that Supreme Court had passed a series of orders in 2017 and 2018, directing all state governments and union territories to ban usage of pet coke and furnace oil, based on a report filed by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) that the two ingredients lead to emission of Sulphur diOxide in high concentration. A similar direction was issued by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in an identical case, he added.
The CPCB also issued a communication on August 23, 2019, directing all states and union territories to prepare policy on use of Pet Coke and Furnace Oil, following which the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB), in 2024, released revised guidelines stating that instead of fuels such as solvents, industrial wastes and firewood, all hot mix plants should use diesel and Light Diesel Oil (LDO).
While many contractors follow the guidelines, authorities of rural development and highways departments continue to float tenders by preparing estimates only based on the cost of furnace oil, instead of diesel or LDO, forcing contractors to use furnace oil instead of diesel or LDO, the price of which is 15% higher than the former. According to the petitioner, furnace oil is used to fire hot mix plants that are used for mixing stone aggregates with bitumen.
A bench of justices J Nisha Banu and S Srimathy issued notice to the authorities concerned and adjourned the case.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
a day ago
- NDTV
Delhi Breathes Easy: 5 Pollution Hotspots Log 'Good' AQI For 1st Time In July
New Delhi: In a big shift for Delhi's air quality this monsoon, five of Delhi's 13 pollution hotspots recorded 'Good' Air Quality Index (AQI) readings on Thursday - a first for the month of July. According to official Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) data, Vivek Vihar registered an AQI of 35, followed by Dwarka (40), Jahangirpuri (47), Punjabi Bagh (48), and Rohini (50). The citywide average AQI stood at 59, making it the 15th straight day of 'Satisfactory' air. Environment Minister Manjinder Singh Sirsa termed it "a historic milestone," attributing the improvement to sustained enforcement, cleaner roads, and public engagement. "After years of struggling with high pollution, Delhi's air is seeing a meaningful shift. The hotspots have shown what's possible with focused action," Mr Sirsa said. The air quality update coincided with Van Mahotsav 2025, observed with a mass plantation drive at Shastri Park City Forest. The campaign aligned with the central government's 'Ek Ped Maa Ke Naam' initiative and the Delhi government's plan to plant 70 lakh trees this year. "Van Mahotsav has become a citizen-led movement," Mr Sirsa said. "Delhi's people are central to this green push." According to the government, alongside the plantation drive, the city's pollution control measures and civic clean-up drives are ongoing. Over a 24-hour period between July 9-10, the following were reported: 11,283 MT of municipal waste cleared 2,281 MT of construction debris removed 6,497 km of roads swept 710 km of roads sprinkled with 352 KL of treated water Legacy waste removal from Delhi's landfill sites also saw major progress: Bhalaswa: 10,804 MT Okhla: 6,507 MT Ghazipur: 9,748 MT Total cleared in 24 hours: 27,059 MT Officials say the gains are part of the ongoing Environment Action Plan 2025, which focuses on dust control, mechanised sweeping, enforcement at construction sites, and real-time monitoring. Delhi's cleaner air is a notable shift - but not a guarantee. While hotspot-level improvements show what's possible with focused action, the real challenge will be sustaining this progress beyond the monsoon.
News18
3 days ago
- News18
'Receiver's Failure To Maintain Donor Not Grounds For Revocation': SC On Gift Deeds
Last Updated: The Supreme Court said emotional or moral expectations cannot substitute for express legal conditions in property transactions The Supreme Court of India has reiterated that the failure of a donee or receiver to maintain the donor cannot, by itself, constitute valid grounds for revoking a gift deed under Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, unless the right to revoke was expressly stipulated in the deed itself. A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma dismissed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by J Radha Krishna, thereby affirming the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated November 15, 2012. The high court had upheld the validity of a gift deed executed in favour of the respondent, Pagadala Bharathi, who was described as the foster daughter of the donor, KVG Murthy. The principal question before the court was whether a gift deed could be revoked due to the alleged non-fulfilment of a promise by the donee to maintain the donor. The Supreme Court answered in the negative, holding that unless the deed contains an express condition reserving the right of revocation, no such unilateral cancellation is permissible. 'The failure of the donee to maintain the donor as undertaken by him in the document is not a contingency which could defeat the gift," the court observed. 'All that could be said is that the default of the donee in that behalf amounts to want of consideration." The bench emphasised that Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act expressly bars revocation of a gift deed on the ground of failure of consideration. It clarified that in such instances, the appropriate remedy lies in filing a separate claim for maintenance, and not in attempting to unilaterally revoke the gift deed. The dispute stemmed from a gift deed executed on January 10, 1986, by KVG Murthy in favour of Pagadala Bharathi. Subsequently, the donor attempted to cancel the deed through a cancellation document dated December 30, 1986, and later executed a will in favour of his nephew on September 30, 1992. The petitioner, Radha Krishna (the nephew), contended that the deed was not an absolute gift but more in the nature of a conditional settlement, requiring Bharathi to maintain the donor. He argued that the failure to fulfil this obligation rendered the cancellation valid. However, the high court had already rejected this claim, holding that the evidence showed no binding legal condition, only a mere expectation or moral obligation that the donee would care for the donor. Agreeing with this view, the Supreme Court ruled that the findings of the high court were consistent with the legal principles governing gifts and were neither perverse nor based on a misreading of the statutory framework. 'It is not open to a settlor to revoke a settlement at his will and pleasure," the court remarked. 'Revocation must be based on legally sustainable grounds and effected through due process of law." Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act allows for revocation of a gift only under certain conditions: If the gift is subject to a condition that is expressly stated in the deed; And if such condition relates to the happening of an event that is not dependent on the will of the donor. In the absence of such express conditions or stipulations, a gift deed, once executed and accepted, cannot be revoked merely on grounds such as emotional expectations or failure of maintenance. 'In our considered view, the findings remained unimpeachable from the evidence led by the parties," the bench noted. 'It cannot be said that the same are in any manner perverse or based on incorrect reading, application, or interpretation of the statute." With no substantial question of law arising in the matter, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the high court's decision, harping on the fact that emotional or moral expectations cannot substitute for express legal conditions in property transactions, and that Section 126 TPA requires strict compliance for any revocation to hold ground. First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Hindustan Times
3 days ago
- Hindustan Times
Committee set up to study how residents are affected by Kanurmarg landfill
MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Tuesday constituted a committee to look into the consequences of the Kanjurmarg dumping ground on its surrounding large human habitation. A 2012 photo of the newly opened Kanjurmarg dumping ground where 4000 tonnes of waste was dumped everyday at Kanjurmarg (Photo by Praful Gangurde/HT Photo) (Hindustan Times) The division bench of justice GS Kulkarni and justice Arif Doctor was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) by Dayanand Stalin, director of NGO Vanashakti, challenging the civic body's move to expand the Kanjurmarg dumping ground. The bench appointed the principal secretary of the environment department, to lead the committee. It also directed the committee to brief the Urban Development Department (UDD) on creating a robust mechanism to identify suitable alternative dumping sites with modern amenities outside municipal areas. The 142-hectare Kanjurmarg plot, adjoining the Thane Flamingo Bird Sanctuary, was first identified as a potential dumping ground after the Bombay High Court ordered the closure of the Chincholi Bunder landfill site in 2001, citing health concerns raised by affected resident associations. In 2011, the Supreme Court directed using half of the Kanjurmarg plot as a dumping ground and the remaining be kept as a no-development zone. While passing this order, the Supreme Court also directed strict observation of pollution-related laws. The chief secretary of the environment department in 2009 claimed that the entire plot was a non-CRZ plot, as opposed to the observations of an environmental impact assessment (EIA) report claiming that at least 52 hectares of the plot fell under the Coastal Regulation Zone. An expert appraisal committee passed an environmental clearance in 2009 for the use of only 65.96 hectares as a dumping ground by an environmental clearance. A case challenging this clearance is pending before the high court, said the petition. Similarly, multiple clearances were granted for the project despite blatant violations of environmental norms. Multiple reports by the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority, and the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) cited several violations in the implementation of the dumping ground in 2011. 'Despite show cause notice being issued (after 2012) by the MoEF, the PP (project proponent) continued to encroach upon the CRZ areas,' the PIL stated. It added that a Bioreactor Landfill Facility was being operated on the plot despite the MPCB only sanctioning Windrows Composting The petition further claimed that a fourth environmental clearance was granted by the State EIA Authority in October 2018 for expanding the existing projects, in terms of land use, without enhancing the capacity for treating solid waste. The clearance was granted despite the knowledge that the expansion would amount to encroachment on the Thane Flamingo Bird Sanctuary, the petition claims. The court has scheduled the next hearing for July 22 to ensure compliance with its directions.
