Department experts check on CRZ violations at Bheemili
Moturi Srirama Krishna Principal Scientist, National institute of Oceanography, VVS Sarma WS-chief scientist, CSIR-NIO, P.V. Mukunda Rao, environmental engineer, APPCB, scientists Soumya Duggappa, CPCB, regional directorate, Chennai, Murali Krishna Chimata, MoEF&CC Sub-Regional Office, Vijayawada made the site visit. Assessing the damage cost, restoration and compensation cost, the team will submit a report.
Earlier, following the orders of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, the officials from the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation began demolition of illegal constructions at Bheemunipatnam coast in Visakhapatnam.
During the YSRCP's tenure, the illegal construction, belonging to Neha Reddy, was taken up by Avyaan Realtors LLP in ward No:3 at Bheemunipatnam violating CRZ rules. Earlier, the Andhra Pradesh High Court directed the AP Coastal Management Authority to file a complaint with the police so that action could be initiated against the company. After the assessment, a detailed report will be submitted to the court exposing facts and the extent of violation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
8 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Andhra HC quashes 15 ACB FIRs citing lack of police station notification
VIJAYAWADA: The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Friday quashed 15 FIRs registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) against government officials on disproportionate assets charges, citing that the cases were filed at an unnotified police station. Justice N Harinath observed that the ACB's Central Investigation Unit (CIU) office in Vijayawada was not notified as a police station through a gazette notification when the FIRs were registered. Therefore, he ruled, the FIRs lacked legal validity. The 15 officials, employed across various departments, had filed separate petitions seeking to quash the FIRs. Their counsels argued that as per Section 2(s) of the Criminal Procedure Code, a gazette notification is mandatory to designate any location as a police station. They also cited Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which mandates that only a Superintendent-level officer can authorise a case related to assets disproportionate to known sources of income. The Advocate General opposed the petitions, stating that FIRs should not be dismissed on technical grounds. He cited a 2003 Government Order recognising the offices of Joint Directors in ACB divisions as police stations. He also referenced Sections 101 and 102 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, saying pre-bifurcation laws remain valid. Further, he noted that a 2022 notification designated the ACB CIU in Vijayawada as a police station, which he argued allowed temporary legitimacy to earlier FIRs. After reviewing both sides, the court quashed all FIRs registered between 2016 and 2021.
India Today
3 days ago
- India Today
Top court cancels FIR against actor Mohan Babu over student fee protest rally
The Supreme Court on Thursday invalidated the FIR filed against Telugu actor Mohan Babu and his son Vishnu Vardhan Babu in a 2019 case related to organising a rally and allegedly violating the Model Code of Conduct. The case pertains to a university rally regarding the release of funds by the government.A bench led by Justice BV Nagarathna set aside the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which had refused to quash the proceedings, stating that there were no tenable grounds to continue the to the prosecution, in 2019, Mohan Babu—Chairman of Sri Vidyaniketan Educational Institutions in A. Rangampet Village, Chandragiri Mandal—along with others, gathered staff and students to conduct a rally from the university premises towards Tirupati–Madanapalli Road. The group allegedly raised slogans against the then-ruling government of Andhra Pradesh for not granting students' fee reimbursements to their institutions. The protest, which reportedly took place between 8:30 am and 12:30 pm, allegedly obstructed the free flow of traffic and caused inconvenience and risk to the public, despite the Election Commission of India's Model Code of Conduct and Prohibitory Orders being in petitioners argued that multiple representations were made to the government for the release of reimbursement funds, but no action was taken, leading to the peaceful protest. They contended that the Model Code of Conduct could not be applied to them as they were not contesting in the 2019 Assembly Election nor aiding any political the prosecution claimed that the entire incident was videographed and that there were specific overt acts attributed to the petitioners. It was further alleged that the public and vehicles were restrained for four hours, and that the actions of the petitioners amounted to cognisable offences.- Ends
News18
3 days ago
- News18
SC Quashes FIR Against Telugu Actor Mohan Babu Over Student Fee Protest
Last Updated: The Supreme Court quashed the FIR against Telugu actor Mohan Babu and his son Vishnu Vardhan Babu related to a 2019 protest in Andhra Pradesh over student fee reimbursements. The Supreme Court on Thursday quashed the FIR registered against Telugu actor Mohan Babu and his son Vishnu Vardhan Babu. The case was related to a protest march held in 2019 in Andhra Pradesh over student fee reimbursements. The bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and KV Viswanathan allowed Mohan Babu and his son's plea, setting aside the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision refusing to quash the criminal proceedings against them. The protest took place on March 22, 2019, and was led by Mohan Babu, his sons, and senior members of Sri Vidyalaya Institution, demanding the release of pending student fee reimbursement funds by raising slogans against the then-ruling government of the state. A complaint was lodged by the then Model Code of Conduct Officer, since the Elections were scheduled in the State, that the protest involved a rally and dharna that allegedly obstructed traffic for over four hours. Basing this, the police registered FIR under Sections 290, 341, 171-F read with 34 of the IPC, and Section 34 of the Police Act, 1861. Earlier, the High Court refused to quash the FIR, saying that the allegations levelled against the Appellants required trial and that the case did not meet the exceptional conditions under the Supreme Court's ruling in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) for exercising inherent powers. view comments First Published: July 31, 2025, 16:57 IST 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.
