Create uniform policy for mobile towers: HC
Rajasthan High Court
Friday called upon the state govt to formulate a uniform policy on the installation of mobile towers on residential and commercial buildings across the state. The court's observation came while hearing a petition filed by a private company involved in the installation of mobile towers and one Chhitar Mal, who challenged a notice issued by Khandela municipality in Sikar district directing the removal of mobile towers from a building allegedly erected without permissions.
The petitioners contended that the towers were installed after due intimation to the municipality and claimed that, as per prevailing rules, no separate permission under the Municipal Act was required. They further argued that the local body permitted the erection of the tower and only later raised objections.
Justice Avneesh Jhingan, who heard the matter, observed that the issue of installing mobile towers in already constructed buildings in residential and commercial zones had serious implications for public safety.
He emphasised that it was critical to assess the structural strength and load-bearing capacity of such buildings.
The court pointed out that the municipality failed to consider the petitioners' representation before issuing notice for removal, even though the tower was erected with their knowledge.
The court directed the municipality to decide the issue of removal within 15 days of receiving the order. It also asked the petitioners or their representative to appear before the local body on Aug 1. A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the secretary (Local Self Govt).
Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with
Friendship Day wishes
,
messages
and
quotes
!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
United News of India
2 hours ago
- United News of India
SC issues notice on challenge to section 9 of Citizenship Act over automatic termination of Indian citizenship
New Delhi, Aug 4 (UNI) The Supreme Court today issued notice on a plea challenging the constitutional validity of Section 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which provides for the automatic termination of Indian citizenship upon the voluntary acquisition of foreign citizenship. A Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi tagged the matter with a pending case, Dr Radhika Thappeta v. Union of India, which raises a similar issue concerning revocation of Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI) status. The Court also issued notice on an interim application filed by the petitioner seeking protection from being required to renounce Indian citizenship in order to acquire foreign citizenship, while the constitutional challenge to Section 9 is under consideration. The petition was filed by Sanjay Gundlagutta Reddy, a US-based Economics professor of Indian origin, who, despite living in New York for several years, continues to identify as an Indian citizen. He argues that Section 9(1) is arbitrary, disproportionate, and violates fundamental constitutional rights, particularly the right to equality and personal liberty. During the hearing, Justice Surya Kant initially questioned the petitioner's counsel Advocate Warisha Farasat, asking, 'You are an eminent person. But what grievance is there…if you are so keen for Indian citizenship, you surrender the foreign citizenship and get the Indian one?' However, after hearing her submissions including reference to a previous case where the Supreme Court had granted interim relief on similar grounds the Bench agreed to issue notice and listed the matter for hearing after two weeks. Key arguments in the Petition are that Section 9 imposes a 'Hobson's choice' on Indians abroad, either acquire foreign citizenship and lose Indian nationality or retain Indian citizenship at great personal and professional cost. It fails to consider the global mobility and dual loyalty of Indian-origin individuals who maintain cultural and emotional ties with India The provision does not offer any discretionary or adjudicatory mechanism, resulting in automatic cessation of citizenship. The petitioner highlights that non-citizens globally face precarious legal status, with risks of deportation and limited access to rights. The petition, filed through Advocate-on-Record Yashwant Singh, seeks a reconsideration of India's citizenship framework to better align with contemporary realities of global Indian diaspora. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for Indian-origin individuals across the world, particularly in how India defines and regulates its citizenship laws in a globalized era. UNI SNG RN
United News of India
2 hours ago
- United News of India
SC gives Centre final four weeks to frame guidelines for pedestrian footpath safety
New Delhi, Aug 4 (UNI) The Supreme Court today granted the Union government a final four-week deadline to frame comprehensive guidelines aimed at ensuring the safety and accessibility of footpaths for pedestrians across the country. The court made it clear that if the Centre fails to act within this time, it will intervene directly to do what is necessary with the assistance of legal counsel. A bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan underscored that the issue goes to the heart of public safety and the fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. 'The instant litigation pertains to the safety of pedestrians,' the court observed, adding that proper, obstruction-free footpaths are essential and must be accessible to persons with disabilities. Senior Advocate Gaurav Agrawal, serving as amicus curiae, informed the court that the Centre had not yet formulated the required guidelines. He also pointed out that the Supreme Court had earlier constituted a monitoring committee headed by former judge Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre to oversee the implementation of road safety directives, which could begin its task once the guidelines are finalised. On behalf of the Union government, Additional Solicitor General Vikramjit Banerjee assured the court that necessary guidelines would be prepared. The court reiterated its earlier directions issued on May 14, 2025, emphasising that the lack of pedestrian walkways is a major cause of road accidents and fatalities. It had asked the states and union territories to frame their own policies to ensure safe, encroachment-free footpaths. The bench highlighted the urgency of the matter, noting that pedestrians are often forced to walk on roads due to absent or poorly maintained sidewalks, thereby increasing their vulnerability. 'This court has already acknowledged that pedestrians' right to safe footpaths is part of the right to life under Article 21,' the bench reaffirmed. It also reminded the Centre of its obligation to place on record its policies concerning pedestrian safety and to establish a National Road Safety Board within the previously granted six-month timeframe. With a firm stance, the bench concluded, 'No further extension will be granted.' UNI SNG RN
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
HC bins PIL on appointment of next DGP
1 2 Chennai/Madurai: Madras high court on Monday dismissed a public interest writ petition by a former superintendent of police seeking direction to the Tamil Nadu govt to select the next director-general of police in strict compliance with the guidelines set by the Supreme Court. The first bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan observed that it cannot interfere in the administrative functions of the state while the incumbent DGP is set to retire only on Aug 31. According to petitioner Damodaran, the Supreme Court issued detailed guidelines regarding the appointment of a DGP to a state. According to these guidelines, a list of officers with at least 30 years of service must be sent to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) at least six months before the incumbent DGP's retirement. You Can Also Check: Chennai AQI | Weather in Chennai | Bank Holidays in Chennai | Public Holidays in Chennai The UPSC is required to evaluate the list and recommend three eligible candidates to the state govt, which must appoint one among them as the DGP, he said. Although there are at least eight eligible officers in the state, the Tamil Nadu govt had not initiated any such process so far. With the assembly elections scheduled for next year, the DGP appointment holds significant administrative importance, he added. Noting that the petition is premature, the bench observed that a fresh petition can be filed if the eventual appointment of a new DGP violates Supreme Court guidelines. In a related development, Madurai bench of the Madras high court issued notice to authorities, on a similar PIL seeking a direction to the govt in the matter of appointment of new DGP of Tamil Nadu.
