Andhra Pradesh HC seeks report on Besant Road hawkers, street vendors
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Dheeraj Singh Thakur and Justice Cheemalapati Ravi issued the directive while hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by M Venkata Vijayaprasad, president of the Besant Road Building Owners' Welfare Association.
The court sought zone-wise data on the total number of vendors, those holding valid permits, and those operating without authorisation.
It also asked for details on the number of licenses issued, permitted vending hours, and designated vending schedules.
Further, the court instructed the VMC Commissioner to prepare a comprehensive action plan for regulating street vendors.
The PIL alleged that rampant encroachments by vendors and street hawkers along Besant Road were hindering traffic flow and obstructing emergency services, including ambulances.
Appearing for the petitioner, counsel D Harshavardhan stressed the need for immediate corrective action due to public inconvenience.
ASC Bose, representing the municipal body, informed the court that the city is divided into vending zones—green (permitted), amber (restricted), and red (prohibited).
The court directed the Commissioner to personally inspect the zones and submit an affidavit with full details by July 16, the date of the next hearing.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
4 days ago
- Time of India
Law college gang rape case: Calcutta HC directs state government to file affidavit on progress of probe; next hearing on July 10
Representative Image The Calcutta high court on Thursday directed Bengal government to file affidavit on progress of probe in law college gang rape case. The division bench, led by Justice Soumen Sen, instructed the state authorities to submit the investigation's case diary during the subsequent hearing scheduled for July 10. The high court received three Public Interest Litigations (PILs) regarding the alleged sexual assault of a law student at South Calcutta Law College, where an alumnus Monojit Mishra and two senior students- Zaib Ahmed and Pramit Mukherjee- were reportedly involved, PTI reported. The court sent Monojit, Zaib and Pramit to police custody till July 8. What suspects told abut case? According to the officials, prime suspect Monojit Mishra, who allegedly "set eyes on her" the day she enrolled for the course, decided to "teach her a lesson" for repeatedly rebuffing his advances, co-accused Zaib Ahmed and Pramit Mukherjee told police. Investigators quoted the arrested duo as saying that Monojit, a former Trinamool Chhatra Parishad office-bearer whose clout on campus allegedly extended to admissions, would obsess over the survivor in conversations with his inner circle and hatch plans to make her his girlfriend. He even offered her the post of the college union's general secretary - supposedly his "final bait" - before planning the alleged assault inside the campus security guard's room on June 25 with law students Zaib and Pramit. "Zaib and Pramit said that at least two days before the crime, Monojit informed them that the survivor would be on campus to submit an exam form. They were instructed to keep her there until evening," a source said in the previous TOI copy. After the crime, Monojit allegedly asked some of his trusted aides to be on campus and keep an eye on any unusual activity at Kasba police station, about a kilometre away, through the night. He, Zaib and Pramit left around the same time as the survivor, who was picked up by her have also found out that Monojit, a temporary non-teaching staff member, called a college official the next morning. The official claimed the discussion was "confined to college-related matters". Pramit contacted a lawyer that day, police said. He and Zaib also called several college seniors, some with political links, pleading for help. They refused, telling the duo to "face the consequences", sources said.
The Hindu
4 days ago
- The Hindu
Custodial deaths: police convictions remain zero in T.N. and beyond
'Even a murderer would not have caused this much injury to a person', observed the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Tuesday during the hearing of a batch of Public Interest Litigation petitions over the custodial death of Ajith Kumar, a security guard who died in police custody in Sivaganga district last Saturday. Kumar's death is not an isolated incident but part of a broader picture in Tamil Nadu and even in the rest of the country. The pattern is clear: a significant number of custodial deaths take place, of which a considerable number of them are reported, a few of the policemen are arrested, and none of them are convicted. Kumar's death is definitely not the first instance to spark public outrage in Tamil Nadu. The Ambasamudram custodial torture in 2023 and the Sathankulam custodial torture case that led to the death of a father-son duo in 2020 are still fresh in memory. Data show that Tamil Nadu has a long history of police brutality. According to data from Parliament, 490 deaths were reported while suspects were in judicial or police custody between 2016-17 and 2021-22 (up to March 31, 2022). The map shows the deaths reported while suspects were in judicial or police custody between 2016-17 to 2021-22 (upto 31.03.2022) In the past six years, Uttar Pradesh reported the highest number of fatalities (2,630) in judicial/police custody among all the States, while Tamil Nadu reported the highest number among the southern States. In total, 11,656 deaths were recorded in India in the period considered. It is important to note, though, that not all custody deaths are due to police excess. While the five constables involved in Kumar's death were arrested, data show that no police officer has been convicted for custodial deaths between 2017 and 2022. Not just in Tamil Nadu, but across India, no police officer has been held accountable for such deaths in this period. In India, 345 magisterial/judicial enquiries were ordered into the deaths of persons in police custody/lockup between 2017 and 2022. The chart shows the magisterial/judicial enquiries ordered into the deaths in police custody/lock up, policemen chargesheeted/arrested/convicted (2017-2022)| And in these five years, 123 policemen were even arrested while such deaths were investigated. Moreover, over 79 were also chargesheeted. However, not a single policeman was convicted. Data also show that convictions of State police personnel have been rare, not just in the case of custodial deaths, but also in any human rights violations case. The chart shows the cases registered against police personnel for select human rights violations filed between 2017-2022 in India The chart shows that 74 cases of human rights violations related to illegal detention, deaths in custody, and torture/causing hurt/injury were filed against police in India between 2017 and 2022. Forty-one police personnel were chargesheeted. However, only three were convicted. Importantly, policemen arrested for human rights violations is disproportionately low compared to the actual cases. Those convicted form a negligible share of those few arrested. Worryingly, those belonging to Scheduled Castes (SCs) often bear the brunt of custodial torture in Tamil Nadu. A disproportionately higher share of detenues — persons held lawfully in custody under preventive detention laws, distinct from regular suspects charged with specific crimes — in Tamil Nadu belong to the SCs. In 2022, 38.5% of the detenues in Tamil Nadu were SC, while the community's share in the State's population was 20%. The table shows the share of SC in detenues among States with a high number of detenues as on December 31, 2022 This problem is mostly unique to Tamil Nadu and as can be seen from the table, the State police also take in a much higher number of people in detention. As on December 31, 2022, Tamil Nadu had 2,129 detenues — almost half of India's number. The data for the charts were sourced from the National Crime Records Bureau, the Parliament Questions and Answers, and the 2011 Census vignesh.r@ sambavi.p@
India Today
5 days ago
- India Today
Cannabis seeds, leaves not ganja: Andhra Pradesh High Court weeds out confusion
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that seeds and leaves of the cannabis plant do not fall under the legal definition of 'ganja' as outlined in the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, a significant ruling, the single bench of Justice K Sreenivasa Reddy observed that under the provisions of the Act, only the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant constitute 'ganja' and are thus subject to legal prohibition. The court made this observation while granting bail to two individuals who had been arrested in connection with the possession of cannabis leaves and ruling stated, 'The seeds and leaves of the cannabis plant, in the absence of the flowering or fruiting tops, do not fall within the definition of ganja under Section 2(iii)(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.' The case was based on the arrest of the petitioners under provisions of the Act for allegedly being in possession of over 1.5 kilograms of what was reported as ganja. Upon examination of the material seized, the petitioners' counsel argued that the substance consisted only of seeds and leaves, and not of the prohibited flowering or fruiting parts. The counsel further relied on previous judgments that clarified the definition of ganja under the court concurred with the argument and said that there was no material on record to show that the seized substance contained flowering or fruiting tops. In such a scenario, the seizure did not attract the penal provisions of the Act. Accordingly, the High Court granted bail to the judgment is expected to have implications for law enforcement practices and could potentially impact pending cases where the seizure consists solely of cannabis seeds or leaves without the flowering Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, provides the legal framework for controlling and regulating operations relating to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances in India. Section 2(iii)(b) of the Act defines ganja specifically as 'the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant (excluding the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops).'Justice Reddy's ruling reinforces this distinction and reiterates the legislative intent to criminalise only the possession and trade of the intoxicating parts of the plant. - EndsMust Watch IN THIS STORY#Andhra Pradesh
