Telangana HC issues notices to government over any concrete construction in GO 111 zone
: Expressing serious concerns over unbridled urbanisation around
Hyderabad's crucial water bodies
,
Telangana high court
Wednesday sought an explanation from senior officials within four weeks on how large-scale constructions—particularly convention halls—were being allowed within the eco-sensitive catchment areas of Osman Sagar and Himayat Sagar, despite explicit prohibitory orders under GO 111.
The court issued notices to the state govt, irrigation and municipal administration departments and Pollution Control Board. A bench, comprising acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara, also issued notices to the owners of five such convention centres, seeking their responses to the allegations made against their structures.
GO 111 prohibits any concrete construction activity within a 10-kilometre radius of the twin reservoirs, an area officially notified as a
bio-conservation zone
to protect the water bodies and surrounding environment.
The bench was hearing a PIL filed by Mandadi Madhava Reddy from Moinabad mandal in Rangareddy district. The petitioner questioned the inaction of the state machinery in preventing the emergence of large-scale constructions within the prohibited zone, arguing that such developments violate the provisions of GO 111 and pose a significant threat to the environment.
Petitioner's counsel, P Sasidhar Reddy, submitted to the court that five large convention centres had already come up in Janwada within Moinabad mandal, along with several others, in areas falling under GO 111 restrictions.
He pointed out that each convention hall can accommodate up to 5,000 people, generating vast amounts of waste and sewage, which ultimately find their way into the twin lakes. The influx of large crowds and vehicular traffic, he argued, would increase air and water pollution and worsen traffic congestion in the area.
The counsel further highlighted that these structures, along with their massive compound walls, have replaced significant green cover with concrete, disrupting the natural flow of water and contributing to ecological degradation.
He also criticised the govt for its alleged failure in enforcing environmental norms, claiming that even HYDRAA, the specialised agency created to protect the lakes, has been unable to curb the construction activity within the bio-conservation zone.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
2 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Tamil Nadu gets Madras HC pat for SOPs on EOW action
MADURAI: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court commended the state for issuing SOPs aimed at strengthening the Economic Offences Wing by streamlining its functions and by promoting transparent and time-bound action in financial fraud cases. Pointing to the G.O. passed to include 'economic offenders' under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 (Goondas Act), Justice B Pugalendhi called it a major policy shift that empowers the authorities to invoke preventive detention against habitual offenders operating fraudulent financial firms. Recalling that the court had earlier expressed concern over lack of preventive vigilance by the EOW, the judge acknowledged the state's submission regarding the steps being taken. However, noting that no outer time limit has been fixed for issuance of ad-interim attachment orders under Section 3 of the TNPID Act, the judge fixed 12 days from the receipt of proposal by the ADGP, EOW, as the maximum permissible period for issuing such directions. The observations were made on a contempt plea against the home secretary for non-implementation of the court's order in his petition seeking release of deposit from a frozen bank account of a firm involved in fraud.
New Indian Express
3 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Upa Lokayukta takes suo motu action over neglect of ancient Srirama temple
BENGALURU: Taking suo motu cognisance of the dilapidated condition of the Srirama temple, a protected monument situated in Kudluru of Channapatna taluk in Bengaluru South district, Upa Lokayukta Justice K N Phaneendra registered a case against all the concerned authorities and sought an explanation for their inaction. Justice Phaneendra's action came after he took note of the sorry state of affairs of the temple after he visited it while he was on his way to check the rampant pollution and encroachment of lakes on July 7, along with Deputy Commissioner of Bengaluru South District Yashavanth V Gurukar, other officials. Justice Phaneendra noted that this is one among the famous temples constructed on the bank of the river Kanva between the fourth and fifth centuries ago by the Ganga empire, and it was declared a protected monument on May 5, 1987. The compound of the wall and retaining wall on the right side of the stone pillar outside the temple are nearly collapsing, the stone wall in in the sanctum sanctorum is slipping, it also developed cracks inside the walls of the temple- all of these could led to a big disaster, if not paid attention to immediately, Justice Phaneendra noted. The Assistant Executive Engineer (AEE) of the Archaeological Department, Tarakesh, who was present, told Upa Lokayukta that the compound wall collapsed due to erosion of the bund of the river, which was exploited severely for sand mining. When enquired, Mohan, Executive Engineer (EE), CNNL, informed the Upa Lokayukta that the construction of the retaining wall will be taken up by them if the proposal comes from the state government. However, this monument has been neglected by the Department of Archaeology, Museums and Heritage, CNNL, Revenue Department, which amounts to 'Maladministration' under Section 2(10) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, he said. Therefore, in order to take action against them as well as remedial measures to protect the monument, he registered a suo motu case against officials Tarakesh, Mohan, and Mohammed Zeeshan Ali Khan, who is the Tahsildar of Muzrai Department, Bengaluru South District.
Time of India
7 hours ago
- Time of India
Ex-NIA judge moves Delhi High Court seeking arms licence for personal security
New Delhi: A former special judge of National Investigation Agency (NIA) recently approached Delhi High Court seeking directions to central govt and Delhi Police to issue him an arms licence. In his plea, the judge cited personal security concerns. Hearing the plea, Justice Sachin Dutta recorded an assurance by the govt counsel that a decision on the judge's pending application would be taken within four weeks. "The above redresses the immediate grievance of the petitioner. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of in the above terms. The pending application also stands disposed of," the court stated. Justice Dutta, however, noted that if the petitioner judge was not satisfied with the decision taken by the authorities, he could seek legal remedies. In the petition filed through advocate Sadiya Rohma Khan, the judge submitted that he served as a special NIA judge in Tripura and was currently on deputation in Delhi. You Can Also Check: Delhi AQI | Weather in Delhi | Bank Holidays in Delhi | Public Holidays in Delhi He said he applied for an arms licence in Nov 2023, but no action was taken on his request, reflecting a "casual" attitude by Delhi Police's licensing authority. According to the petition, the judge was called by the police licensing authorities for a personal assessment last year, and he appeared for the same. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Use an AI Writing Tool That Actually Understands Your Voice Grammarly Install Now Undo However, there was no development after the assessment. "It is shocking that the petitioner and his family are living with no security in New Delhi, and this potentialises both direct and indirect threats to their personal safety and security," the plea argued. Since his family is permanently stationed in Delhi, he applied for an arms licence to ensure protection and safety so that he is free from any "external criminal threats and potential risks and non-interference in free movement and is able to defend himself if a threat arises", the counsel submitted. Invoking Article 21 of the Constitution, the petitioner argued that forcing his family to live without any security amounted to a violation of their right to life and personal liberty.
