Karaikudi Corporation Commissioner directed to convene special meeting
The court was hearing a petition filed by AIADMK Councillor V. Ramkumar (Ward 22) of Karaikudi. The petitioner said the Karaikudi Corporation consisted of 36 wards. Out of the 36 councillors, one had resigned. Now, there were 35 councillors in the sanctioned strength. Under these circumstances, a total of 23 councillors had expressed lack of confidence in the current Mayor due to administrative inefficiency, public dissatisfaction and failure to discharge duties.
The petitioner said that he and 22 other councillors made a representation for initiating a no confidence motion against the Mayor. Despite the valid representation with the required quorum of councillors as per the statute, no action was taken by authorities concerned to convene a special meeting or process the same.
The inaction of the authorities in not convening the meeting even after receiving a valid representation supported by more than the required number of elected councillors was arbitrary and unreasonable, the petitioner said, adding that it was violative of the mandatory procedure laid down under the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act and Rules.
He sought a direction to the Karaikudi Corporation Commissioner to convene a special meeting of the Corporation Council to consider a no confidence motion against the Mayor based on the representation made in accordance with Section 51 of the Act read/with Rule 161 (3) of the Rules.
Justice C. Saravanan directed the Karaikudi Corporation Commissioner to convene the special meeting as per the Act and the Rules. and disposed of the petition.
AIADMK functionaries headed by MLA P.R. Senthilnathan staged a protest outside the Karaikudi Corporation Office demanding the removal of Mayor S. Muthudurai of DMK.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
11 minutes ago
- Economic Times
CCI closes startup body's complaint against Google, refrains from probe
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has decided against launching a probe into the Alliance of Digital India Foundation's (ADIF's) complaint against tech giant Google's alleged anti-competitive practices in the practices in online advertising, and closed the startup body had essentially challenged Google's alleged dominant position and "purportedly abusive behaviour" in the online search advertisement and online display advertisement markets. In an order dated August 1, reviewed by ET, the antitrust regulator, however, said, 'ADIF hasn't pointed out any specific part of any policy or conduct of Google in support of its claim that the allegations made in the present matter also extend to Google's Online Display Advertising services'. 'Therefore, in light of there being no supporting evidence to such claim, the Commission does not deem fit to take cognizance of such claim of ADIF,' it for some other allegations by the ADIF, the regulator said it had addressed similar issues in certain earlier cases and 'no purpose would be served by inquiring into the same issue yet again without there being any material change in circumstances being pointed out'.The regulator added that re-investigating the same issue again 'would simply lead to a wastage of time and resources of the public exchequer'. The Commission has stressed that it has 'examined in detail the averments made by ADIF and the submissions thereto made by Google, on all the issues related to alleged unfair and discriminatory conditions imposed by Google upon advertisers as part of its Google Ads Policies' before reaching its conclusion. It also said that all the four instances of alleged unfair and discriminatory conditions imposed by Google upon advertisers as part of its Google Ads Policies as raised by ADIF in the present matter, 'have already been examined in substance and set to rest by the Commission in its previous decisions in Matrimony case (supra) and/ or Vishal Gupta case (supra)'. 'The Commission is not convinced with the reasons stated by ADIF for distinguishing its allegations from the issues examined in previous orders passed by the Commission. As per the clear language of Section 26(2A) of the Competition Act, the issues examined in the previous order may be 'the same' or 'substantially the same',' it said in the order. 'Therefore, the present matter is directed to be closed forthwith in terms of the provisions of Section 26(2A) of the Act,' it added.
Time of India
40 minutes ago
- Time of India
DMK, AIADMK make Athikadavu-Avinashi project phase- II promise to woo voters
COIMBATORE: Phase-II of the Athikadavu-Avinashi ground water recharge project has become a trending topic for the ruling DMK and the opposition AIADMK to woo voters in Erode, Tirupur, and Coimbatore districts. The previous AIADMK govt began work on the Phase-I of the Athikadavu-Avinashi groundwater recharging project in 2019. It was implemented in 2024. It was was designed as a pumping scheme to lift surplus water from the Bhavani river downstream of Kalingarayan anicut, just above its confluence point with the Cauvery river. It received a positive response from the farming community in the three districts. The DMK govt is also keen on implementing Phase-II of the project. Addressing reporters at Bhavani in Erode district, minister for housing and urban development S Muthusamy said the state government had initiated a feasibility study for implementing Phase-II of the scheme. 'Phase-II of the Athikadavu project will be completely different from Phase-I. After the feasibility study is completed by a private company, the report will be sent to the chief minister for further discussion,' said the minister. AIADMK general secretary Edappadi K Palaniswami, who started his election campaign from Mettupalayam last month, said his party would implement the Phase-II project once it comes to power after the 2026 assembly elections.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Explosive in house or on bike? Malegaon blast judgement flags gap in probe; raises torture concerns
NEW DELHI: A special NIA court's damning acquittal order in the 2008 Malegaon blast case has exposed major contradictions between the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) and the National Investigation Agency (NIA), raising serious concerns over coercion, flawed evidence, and the legality of the investigation. As per PTI, in the 1,036-page verdict, Special Judge AK Lahoti acquitted all seven accused, including BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur and Lt Col Prasad Purohit, citing a lack of reliable and conclusive evidence. Contradictory charges: House vs bike The court flagged glaring inconsistencies between ATS and NIA versions of how and where the bomb was assembled. According to the ATS, the RDX device was put together in a house in Pune and then handed to a now-absconding accused. The NIA, however, stated it was fixed onto a motorcycle in Indore and transported via the Sendhawa bus stand. "Thus, there is a material variance in their charge sheets and both the investigation agencies are not consistent with each other on the material aspects like fitting, transporting and involvement of accused," the judge observed, as reported by PTI. The court said the prosecution could not prove the ownership of the explosive-laden motorbike, nor conclusively establish that the blast was caused by the said vehicle. 'The prosecution proved that a blast occurred in Malegaon but failed to prove that bomb was placed in that motorcycle,' the judge said. Torture, coercion, and fabrication of evidence According to PTI, the judgement raised serious concerns over allegations of torture, coercion, and illegal detention of both accused and witnesses by ATS officers. Multiple witnesses testified that their statements were taken under duress and that they were physically assaulted. While prosecution argued that no formal complaints were filed, the court countered that absence of complaints does not invalidate the claims. 'This raises serious concern over the credibility of the evidence collected by the ATS,' it said, noting that similar allegations were not made against NIA officers. The court directed its judgement be sent to the Directors General of both ATS and NIA for appropriate action. Court slams use of UAPA, highlights gaps The court noted that charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) were filed without proper application of mind. The right-wing group 'Abhinav Bharat', allegedly linked to the accused, has never been banned or classified as a terror organisation. The court found no evidence that Purohit had stored or transported RDX from Kashmir, where he was posted, or that he assembled the bomb. It added that though money from Abhinav Bharat may have been used to fund construction of Purohit's home, it did not prove intent to commit terrorism. The acquittal comes 17 years after the September 29, 2008 blast, which killed six and injured over 100 people near a mosque in Malegaon, a communally sensitive town in Maharashtra. The Maharashtra government has been ordered to compensate victims' families with Rs 2 lakh each and injured persons with Rs 50,000.
