Gururgam's Sec 29 pubs running on diesel gensets under HSPCB scanner
According to officials, over a dozen restaurants, and pubs are in violation of the environmental norms. They added that these violations have caused them to seal six of these establishments.
'Diesel gensets are a serious pollutant, and only CNG-based backup is allowed in non-attainment cities like Gurugram. These outlets are openly flouting rules,' said an HSPCB official, requesting anonymity. Under the National Clean Air Programme, diesel gensets are barred in such zones due to their impact on air quality, officials added.
Adding to the violations, several establishments are operating without occupation certificates (OC) issued by the pollution board and lack sewage treatment plants (STPs)—or have only claimed to install them on paper. According to HSPCB officials, solid and liquid waste from kitchens is being dumped in open areas including green belts, parking lots, and even stormwater drains adjacent to Leisure Valley, leading to sanitation hazards and clogged sewer lines.Officials say many of these establishments have been operating without an OC for at least two months.
HSPCB regional officer Akansha Tanwar said the department had issued multiple notices and sealed kitchens. 'We have disconnected power in certain outlets and are planning surprise inspections. Anyone found operating illegally will face strict action under the Environmental Protection Act,' she said.
'Sector 29 has become a cesspool of unchecked dumping. You can smell the decay from the main road,' said Rajeev Yadav, a Supreme Court advocate and environmental activist. 'The administration has failed miserably. Expect boats, not cars, to enter the market once the monsoon arrives,' he added.
Environmental activist Vaishali Rana echoed similar concerns. 'No pub can get CTO without an OC and an STP—yet they're all running with impunity. What example are we setting for the rest of the city?' she asked.
However, pub managers claimed they were pushed into a corner. 'The electricity disconnection has crippled us. We are operating on gensets because we've had zero business for weeks,' said one manager, requesting anonymity. Another added, 'This is peak season. Give us a window to comply instead of abruptly cutting power.'
Local RWAs and councillors are now demanding coordinated action. 'You can't have a lawless hospitality zone in the middle of the city,' said Anoop Singh, MCG councillor from Ward 25. 'This is a public health issue.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
Can the Supreme Court halt an Act passed by a State?
The story so far: Disposing of a writ and contempt petition, the Supreme Court in Nandini Sundar and Ors. versus State of Chhattisgarh held that the passing of an Act by the State of Chhattisgarh, subsequent to its order, cannot be said to be an act of contempt of the order passed by the Court. What did SC order of July 2011 state? The Supreme Court, on July 5, 2011 issued an order stating that the State of Chhattisgarh shall cease and desist from using Special Police Officers (SPOs) in any activities, directly or indirectly, aimed at controlling, countering, mitigating or otherwise eliminating Maoist activities. The Court ordered the State to recall all firearms issued to any of the SPOs. The order said that the State shall take all appropriate measures to prevent the operation of any group, including but not limited to the Salwa Judum and Koya Commandos. The Court also directed the Union of India to cease and desist from using any of its funds in supporting, directly or indirectly, the recruitment of SPOs for the purposes of engaging in any form of counter-insurgency activities against Maoists. The Court concluded that the appointment of inadequately paid and ill-trained SPOs engaged in checking Maoism was violative of Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution. Why was a contempt case filed? Consequent to the Supreme Court order of July 2011, the State of Chhattisgarh enacted the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Forces Act, 2011. Section 4(1) of the Act provides that an auxiliary force shall be constituted 'to aid and assist the security forces' in the maintenance of public order and preventing, controlling and combatting Maoist/Naxal violence and insurgency, etc. Section 5(2) of the Act further states that the members of the auxiliary force 'shall not be deployed in the front-line positions of an operation and shall always work under supervision of the security forces…'. The provision of compulsory training for a period not less than six months, is also prescribed under the Act. Only those SPOs, who would be eligible as per these prescribed yardsticks, were to be inducted into the auxiliary force (by screening committee). The legislature thus had addressed all the concerns observed by the Supreme Court. However, it was argued by the petitioners that the said enactment was not in consonance with the Court's order and therefore amounted to contempt of Court. Why was contempt prayer rejected? There were reasons for rejecting the relief sought by petitioners. One, the Supreme Court took cognisance of the fact that all the directions issued by the Court had been complied to by the State of Chhattisgarh and necessary reports were submitted. Second, the Court said that every State legislature has plenary powers to pass an enactment so long as the said enactment was not declared to be ultra vires of the Constitution. Any law made by Parliament or a State Legislature cannot be held as an act of contempt. The Court clarified that a legislature has the power to pass a law, to remove the basis of a judgment or validate a law which has been struck down by a Constitutional Court. This is the core of the doctrine of separation of powers and must always be acknowledged in a constitutional democracy. Any piece of legislation enacted by a legislature can be assailed only on the twin prongs of legislative competence or constitutional validity. In Indian Aluminium Co. versus State of Kerala (1996), the Supreme Court observed that Courts must maintain the delicate balance devised by the Constitution between the three sovereign functionaries. The Court therefore held that unless and until it is first established that the statute so enacted is in opposition to constitutional law or otherwise, it cannot be struck down. R.K. Vij is a former IPS officer and views are personal.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
3 hours ago
- Business Standard
US SC clears way for deportation of several immigrants to South Sudan
The majority halted an order that had allowed immigrants to challenge any removals to countries outside their homeland where they could be in danger AP Washington The Supreme Court on Thursday cleared the way for the deportation of several immigrants who were put on a flight in May bound for South Sudan, a war-ravaged country where they have no ties. The decision comes after the justices found that immigration officials can quickly deport people to third countries. The majority halted an order that had allowed immigrants to challenge any removals to countries outside their homeland where they could be in danger. The court's latest order makes clear that the South Sudan flight detoured weeks ago can now complete the trip. It reverses findings from federal Judge Brian Murphy in Massachusetts, who said his order on those migrants still stands even after the court lifted his broader decision. The Trump administration has called the judge's finding a lawless act of defiance. Attorneys for the eight migrants have said they could face imprisonment, torture and even death if sent to South Sudan, where escalating political tensions have threatened to devolve into another civil war. The push comes amid a sweeping immigration crackdown by Trump's Republican administration, which has pledged to deport millions of people who are living in the United States illegally. Authorities have reached agreements with other countries to house immigrants if authorities can't quickly send them back to their homelands. The eight men sent to South Sudan in May had been convicted of serious crimes in the US. Murphy, who was nominated by Democratic President Joe Biden, didn't prohibit deportations to third countries. But he found migrants must have a real chance to argue they could be in danger of torture if sent to another country. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
3 hours ago
- First Post
US Supreme Court approves deportation of 8 migrants to South Sudan
The decision by the conservative-dominated top court comes 10 days after it cleared the way for the Trump administration to deport migrants to countries that are not their own read more Journalists sit outside the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, on June 27, 2025. AFP Photo The US Supreme Court on Thursday gave the green light for the Trump administration to deport a group of migrants stranded at an American military base in Djibouti to war-torn South Sudan. The decision by the conservative-dominated top court comes 10 days after it cleared the way for the Trump administration to deport migrants to countries that are not their own. The eight migrants were being flown to South Sudan from the US in May but ended up in Djibouti when a district court imposed a stay on third-country deportations. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The court said migrants were not being given a 'meaningful opportunity' to contest removal. On June 23, the Supreme Court lifted the stay imposed by District Judge Brian Murphy, clearing the way for third-country deportations. But Murphy, an appointee of former president Joe Biden, said the case of the eight migrants who ended up in Djibouti was subject to a separate stay order he issued that had not been addressed by the Supreme Court. On Thursday, the Supreme Court said its June 23 decision applied to both of the judge's orders. Liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the decision. 'What the Government wants to do, concretely, is send the eight noncitizens it illegally removed from the United States from Djibouti to South Sudan, where they will be turned over to the local authorities without regard for the likelihood that they will face torture or death,' Sotomayor said. 'Today's order clarifies only one thing: Other litigants must follow the rules, but the administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial,' she said. The US authorities have said that the eight men – two from Myanmar, two from Cuba, and one each from Vietnam, Laos, Mexico and South Sudan – are convicted violent criminals. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The Trump administration has defended third-country deportations as necessary since the home nations of some of those who are targeted for removal sometimes refuse to accept them. Donald Trump campaigned for president promising to expel millions of undocumented migrants from the United States, and he has taken a number of actions aimed at speeding up deportations since returning to the White House in January.
