Latest news with #EconomicallyWeakerSections
Hans India
3 days ago
- Politics
- Hans India
Article 243-D authorises state govt to provide 42 pc BC quota: BJP MP Krishnaiah
Hyderabad: BJP Rajya Sabha Member R Krishnaiah stated that the Telangana High Court recently ruled that local body elections must be held by September 30. The BJP welcomes this verdict. However, 'we demand that the state government immediately conduct local body elections with 42 percent reservations for backward classes (BC), as promised by the Congress party following this ruling.' Addressing the media on Thursday, Krishnaiah said that BJP state president G Kishan Reddy has already expressed his support for BC reservations, a stance that Prime Minister Narendra Modi has also made clear. The power to grant BC reservations and to conduct local body elections lies with the state government. According to Article 243D of the Constitution, 'this authority belongs to the state. The government must exercise this power and implement BC reservations.' The Congress party promised 42 percent BC reservations in the Kamareddy BC declaration and reiterated this commitment in its manifesto. Elections must be held in line with this promise, he demanded. Some argue that the Supreme Court or the High Court will place a stay on this issue citing a '50 percent ceiling.' This is misleading and amounts to propaganda. He recalled that the Supreme Court has previously indicated that reservations could be extended up to 60 percent through the EWS (Economically Weaker Sections) reservation. In earlier cases, the Supreme Court has commented that the 50 percent ceiling is not constitutionally mandated and can be exceeded if necessary. The state government has established a dedicated commission, following the Supreme Court's guidelines, which has completed the BC population census. According to these findings, 'BCs constitute more than 42 percent of the population in the state.' A law was also passed in the assembly supporting the 42 percent reservation for BCs. There are no constitutional or legal barriers preventing this. 'Article 243D grants the state government full authority in this matter. The Supreme Court's judgments and the Constitution do not impede the implementation of these reservations.' The state government has enacted a law in the assembly, conducted a population census, and received a report from the dedicated commission. Therefore, there should be no obstacles to holding elections with 42 percent reservation. The BJP is demanding the immediate implementation of the High Court's verdict, and that elections be held with a 42 percent reservation for the BCs as promised by the state government. All BC associations, political parties, and various state governments are openly calling for local body elections to be held immediately, and there are no legal, constitutional, or procedural barriers for the state government in this issue. All parties supported the state government when it introduced the bill in the assembly concerning BC reservations. There is no need to place the blame for BC reservations on the central government. It has been made clear that it will not obstruct this matter. The responsibility for formulating and implementing laws regarding reservations rests with the state government, which holds strong constitutional authority under Article 243-D. The MP said that justice for the BCs can only be achieved if the state government immediately issues a government order (GO) on BC reservations and proceeds with elections featuring 42 percent reservations. The government must act urgently in this direction. Krishnaiah mentioned that the delay in fee reimbursement from the State government is causing colleges to struggle with paying their lecturers' salaries. As a result, college management has been withholding original certificates and pressuring students to pay their fees. He urged the government to take the initiative to release the fee reimbursement arrears in two or three phases.
New Indian Express
22-06-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
PMK leader Anbumani slams Centre over EWS reservation
CHENNAI: PMK president Anbumani Ramadoss on Saturday criticised the union government for granting 10% reservation to the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) among forward castes, despite their (forward castes) total population in India being just 7% and only 0.5% of them falling under the EWS category. Calling it a grave injustice to backward communities, he urged the Tamil Nadu government to immediately conduct a caste-based census to facilitate the restoration of the 10.5% internal reservation for the Vanniyar community. Speaking at the centenary celebrations of yesteryear leader V Aanaimuthu, who fought for social justice, Anbumani recalled the veteran's tireless efforts in securing 27% reservation for backwards classes across India. He announced that PMK would install a statue of Aanaimuthu to honour his contribution to social justice. Training his guns on the ruling DMK, Anbumani alleged that backward communities were being used merely as a vote bank. 'Despite meeting the chief minister (M K Stalin) five times over the past four years and seeking 10.5% internal reservation for Vanniyars, the government has failed to take any concrete steps in this regard,' he said. He accused the DMK's legal team of mishandling the case, leading to the court striking down the quota. While the 10% quota for EWS continues, a similar internal reservation for Vanniyars was quashed, he pointed out. Anbumani also criticised CM Stalin's claim that the state lacks powers to conduct a caste census, calling it 'a blatant lie'. 'If Karnataka, Bihar, and Odisha could carry it out using state powers, why not Tamil Nadu?' he questioned. The PMK would soon launch a massive protest demanding a caste census in Tamil Nadu, he warned, adding that proper data are crucial to ensure education and employment opportunities reach the most deprived communities.
Time of India
18-06-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Bengaluru elderly man's 9-year wait for 1BHK flat turns into legal win: BDA ordered to refund over Rs 8 lakh with 18% interest
The IV Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) to refund Rs 8.03 lakh to a 70-year-old man from Marathahalli, who waited nearly nine years for a flat promised under the EWS (Economically Weaker Sections) housing scheme. The flat was supposed to be delivered in just one year. What the Court Said On March 21, 2025, the Commission ruled that BDA must: Refund Rs 8.03 lakh with 18% interest from the date of the first payment, Pay Rs 1 lakh for service deficiency, Rs 25,000 for mental agony, And Rs 10,000 towards litigation costs. How It Began Suryaprakash H R booked a 1BHK flat at Gunjur village on March 7, 2014, paying Rs 1.12 lakh as an initial amount. Later, he was asked to pay the remaining Rs 7.87 lakh within six months. To manage this, he took a housing loan of Rs 8 lakh, which was released to BDA in four instalments. However, BDA did not provide a registration date or respond to his repeated follow-ups. At one point, officials even said they couldn't trace his file. Construction Delayed, Site Half-Done In 2016, when Suryaprakash visited the site, he found only two floors built. A letter from BDA later confirmed that the contractor, Deepak Cable India Ltd., failed to finish the work and the contract was re-tendered. Live Events Despite hunger strikes and multiple appeals to the Chief Minister and Deputy CM, there was no progress. Frustrated, Suryaprakash sent a legal notice in 2023 and filed a complaint in 2024. BDA's Defence Dismissed BDA argued in court that possession was denied due to Rs 1.16 lakh pending. But the court found that Suryaprakash had already paid 95% of the flat's cost by 2015. It also noted the flat was unfit to live in due to lack of basic amenities like drainage and parking. The court called BDA's excuse unjustified and ruled in favour of the senior citizen. Inputs from TOI
Time of India
18-06-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Long wait! 70-year-old files plaint over 9-year delay for 1BHK Bengaluru flat, wins Rs 8 lakh refund
BENGALURU: The IV Addl District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ordered Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) to refund Rs 8.03 lakh, with 18% interest, to a Marathahalli resident here, who waited for nine years for possession of a flat that BDA had promised to deliver in a year's time. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now On March 21, 2025, the Commission ordered BDA to refund Rs 8.03 lakh, along with an interest of 18% from the date the first payment was made, Rs 1 lakh for service deficiency, Rs 25,000 for mental agony, and another Rs 10,000 in litigation costs. The complainant, Suryaprakash H R, 70, had booked a 1BHK flat at Gunjur village under the housing scheme for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) on March 7, 2014, making an initial payment of Rs 1.12 lakh. According to Suryaprakash, BDA had allotted him a 1BHK flat in Gunjur through draw of lots, and on December 3, 2014, he was told to pay the remaining amount of Rs 7.87 lakh within six months. To fulfil this, Suryaprakash took out a housing loan of Rs 8 lakh, which was released to BDA in four instalments. However, thereafter, BDA neither issued a firm date for registration, nor did it respond to the complainant's repeated inquiries. Worse still, the allotment-related file could not be traced at the BDA office by its officials. Construction halted midway When Suryaprakash visited the project site in 2016, he found only the first and second floors had been built, with no further progress. On December 22, 2016, he wrote to the chief minister, who in turn directed the BDA commissioner to act. A letter from BDA's chief engineer confirmed that construction had been entrusted to Deepak Cable India Ltd., Tired of too many ads? go ad free now but due to non-completion, the contract was cancelled and re-tendered. As the delays dragged on, Suryaprakash and other EWS allottees staged a hunger strike in front of the Gunjur BDA project. On January 5, 2019, they submitted a joint representation to BDA and again approached the CM on June 15, 2019. The CMO yet again forwarded the complaint to the BDA commissioner, but work remained incomplete. Frustrated with his runs from pillar to post, on Jan 28, 2023, Suryaprakash issued a legal notice to BDA, followed by a representation to the deputy CM on October 26, 2023. The BDA deputy secretary replied on April 3, 2024, acknowledging receipt of Rs 4.73 lakh, but alleging that Rs 3.13 lakh was due. Suryaprakash countered the claim, saying he had already paid 95% of the sale amount. On June 13, 2024, he finally filed a consumer complaint, seeking a full refund. Unjustified act The BDA's legal counsel contested the claim, saying Rs 1.16 lakh was still due, and that possession was withheld because of that. The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission observed that the elderly complainant was a valid allottee who had paid 95% of the flat cost by August 2015. Rejecting BDA's claim that possession was withheld due to the pending amount, the consumer court observed that it did not justify the delay, and ruled that BDA had failed to provide proper civic amenities, parking facility, and sanitary connections at the Gunjur project, making the residential units uninhabitable.
Time of India
18-06-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Consumer court orders BDA to refund Rs 8 lakh for delay in handing over flat
Bengaluru: The IV Addl District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ordered Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) to refund Rs 8.03 lakh, with 18% interest, to a Marathahalli resident here, who waited for nine years for possession of a flat that BDA had promised to deliver in a year's time. On March 21, 2025, the Commission ordered BDA to refund Rs 8.03 lakh, along with an interest of 18% from the date the first payment was made, Rs 1 lakh for service deficiency, Rs 25,000 for mental agony, and another Rs 10,000 in litigation costs. The complainant, Suryaprakash H R, 70, had booked a 1BHK flat at Gunjur village under the housing scheme for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) on March 7, 2014, making an initial payment of Rs 1.12 lakh. According to Suryaprakash, BDA had allotted him a 1BHK flat in Gunjur through draw of lots, and On December 3, 2014, he was told to pay the remaining amount of Rs 7.87 lakh within six months. To fulfil this, Suryaprakash took out a housing loan of Rs 8 lakh, which was released to BDA in four instalments. However, thereafter, BDA neither issued a firm date for registration, nor did it respond to the complainant's repeated inquiries. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 임플란트, 지금 시작하세요 [자세히 보기] 임플란트 더 알아보기 Undo Worse still, the allotment-related file could not be traced at the BDA office by its officials. Construction halted midway When Suryaprakash visited the project site in 2016, he found only the first and second floors had been built, with no further progress. On December 22, 2016, he wrote to the chief minister, who in turn directed the BDA commissioner to act. A letter from BDA's chief engineer confirmed that construction had been entrusted to Deepak Cable India Ltd., but due to non-completion, the contract was cancelled and re-tendered. As the delays dragged on, Suryaprakash and other EWS allottees staged a hunger strike in front of the Gunjur BDA project. On January 5, 2019, they submitted a joint representation to BDA and again approached the CM on June 15, 2019. The CMO yet again forwarded the complaint to the BDA commissioner, but work remained incomplete. Frustrated with his runs from pillar to post, on Jan 28, 2023, Suryaprakash issued a legal notice to BDA, followed by a representation to the deputy CM on October 26, 2023. The BDA deputy secretary replied on April 3, 2024, acknowledging receipt of Rs 4.73 lakh, but alleging that Rs 3.13 lakh was due. Suryaprakash countered the claim, saying he had already paid 95% of the sale amount. On June 13, 2024, he finally filed a consumer complaint, seeking a full refund. Unjustified act The BDA's legal counsel contested the claim, saying Rs 1.16 lakh was still due, and that possession was withheld because of that. The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission observed that the elderly complainant was a valid allottee who had paid 95% of the flat cost by August 2015. Rejecting BDA's claim that possession was withheld due to the pending amount, the consumer court observed that it did not justify the delay, and ruled that BDA had failed to provide proper civic amenities, parking facility, and sanitary connections at the Gunjur project, making the residential units uninhabitable.
