Latest news with #SandeepMarne
Time of India
a day ago
- Politics
- Time of India
HC gives expert panel 2 months to submit report on redrawing Pune's flood lines
Pune: The Bombay high court has directed a five-member expert committee, appointed on June 26 last year, to submit within two months a report to state govt on the issue of replacing the demarcations of flood lines in 2017 development plan for Pune city and superimpose them with those demarcated in the maps, dated March 5, 2011. The panel is headed by an additional chief secretary of the state department of water resources. "The state govt on receipt of the report, submitted by the expert committee, shall take appropriate action on the committee's recommendations within a further period of two months," the bench of chief justice Alok Aradhe and justice Sandeep Marne said. "It will also be open to the petitioners to give suggestions, if so advised, to the state govt," the bench said. Architect-activist Sarang Yadvadkar, Vivek Velankar of Sajag Nagarik Manch and Vijay Kumbhar of Surajya Sangharsh Samiti filed a PIL in 2021 seeking the court's direction to PMC to replace the demarcations of flood lines in 2017 DP for Pune city and superimpose them with flood lines as demarcated in the maps of March 5, 2011. You Can Also Check: Pune AQI | Weather in Pune | Bank Holidays in Pune | Public Holidays in Pune The petitioners also sought directions to PMC and its chief engineer not to grant any permission for development in lands within 100 metres of the current flood lines, besides a direction to the respondents to revoke any permissions for development of lands within 100 metres of current flood lines demarcated in the 2017 DP. Regarding revocation of permission for development within 100 metres of flood lines, the bench said, "The petitioners have not impleaded any person who has raised any construction within 100 metres of current flood lines demarcated in 2017 DP. Therefore, this court is unable to issue any positive direction." It stated, "PMC shall examine the issue and take action in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the persons, who may be aggrieved by the proposed action, which may be taken by PMC after receipt of directions from the state govt issued after consideration of expert committee report." At a previous hearing, Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation, one of the respondents, filed an additional affidavit-in- reply, which contained a report dated Jan 2, 2024. The report stated that while determining the flood lines various important factors and considerations were not taken into account in the past. It suggested a comprehensive review of the flood line demarcation. This formed the basis for setting up the five-member expert committee. Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Doctor's Day 2025 , messages and quotes!
Time of India
2 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
High court grants Maharashtra govt three weeks more to frame policy for immersion of PoP idols
Mumbai: The Bombay high court on Monday granted the state govt a further three weeks to frame a policy for the immersion of plaster of Paris (PoP) idols. Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne passed the direction after advocate general Birendra Saraf sought "some more time to come out with a crystallised policy". On June 9, the HC had directed the state govt to take a policy decision regarding immersion of PoP idols following the May 21 recommendations of an expert committee of the Central Pollution Control Board. The committee said manufacture of PoP idols is not prohibited, but they cannot be immersed in natural water bodies such as rivers, lakes, ponds, and the sea. Hence, HC lifted the ban on making of PoP idols but directed these cannot be immersed without the leave of the court. You Can Also Check: Mumbai AQI | Weather in Mumbai | Bank Holidays in Mumbai | Public Holidays in Mumbai Saraf said that thereafter there was a meeting held by the chief minister with various departments, along with the municipal commissioner. As he sought three weeks' time, the judges deferred the hearing to July 23.
Hindustan Times
7 days ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
'The bar council has no funds' HC questions ₹5,000 stipend for junior lawyers
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Wednesday questioned the legal entitlement of young lawyers, who have practised for less than three years, to receive a monthly stipend of ₹ 5,000. Examining the legal sustainability of the cause, the court said the Bar Council has no funds to provide such financial assistance. (Shutterstock) The division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne on Wednesday was hearing the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by 12 young lawyers in 2022. The petition contended that the new lawyers were affected by COVID-19 and urgently required financial assistance. It stated the Bar Council must financially support young lawyers who have not completed three years of practice and have an annual income of less than ₹ 1 lakh. Every lawyer in Maharashtra and Goa is registered under the Bar Council of India and the Maharashtra and Goa Bar Council. They have paid ₹ 15,000 to the council towards the welfare fund for lawyers, so it becomes the responsibility of these councils to look into the welfare of the lawyers, said the petition. The petition, filed through advocate Asim Sarode, cited a survey conducted by the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy. According to the study, more than 79% of surveyed lawyers across seven high courts, with less than two years of legal practice at the Bar, earn less than ₹ 10,000 a month. The petition also referred to news reports showing several lawyers died by suicide because of the prevailing economic crisis. 'Being able to earn a livelihood is part of the right to live with dignity,' they said, adding that the high courts in Telangana, Jharkhand, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and Puducherry have already taken the initiative to provide relevant financial assistance to their young lawyers. The petitioners relied on an order passed by the Kerala High Court which granted young lawyers a monthly stipend of ₹ 5,000. The Bar Council of Delhi High Court also provided financial assistance to daily earning lawyers during the complete lockdown due to the COVID-19 outbreak, said the petition. The state government and the Bar Council are legally obligated to constitute and contribute to the Advocate's Welfare Fund, said the petition. 'It seems that the state government of Maharashtra has not taken any steps to economically support the new lawyers and to give economic aid to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa,' it added. On March 24, 2020, the Bar Council of India (BCI) appealed to Prime Minister Narendra Modi for a minimum monthly subsistence of ₹ 20,000 to lawyers who are not financially well-off so that they can support their families. BCI chairman Manan Kumar Mishra, in his letter to the PM and the CMs of all states, requested a provision that provides allowance from the Centre and state government funds, either directly or through Advocate Welfare Funds of the state bar councils. However, no economic support has been provided by the Central Government. The Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, on the other hand, submitted that implementing this policy would cost them approximately ₹ 155 crore annually. The bench observed that the petition lacks elements to entertain the cause. 'What is the statutory right? On a personal level, we support you. But principally, who will give this? The Bar Council has no funds. Will you give any funds? How is society in general concerned with the stipend to young lawyers?' it said. The bench stated that ₹ 15,000 is inadequate to sustain in Mumbai. 'We believe that in cities like Mumbai, ₹ 45,000 should be paid. But where will the funds come from?' The court directed the parties to clarify the existence of a statutory right mandating stipends for young lawyers and scheduled to hear the case after two weeks.
India Today
25-06-2025
- Politics
- India Today
Where will money come from: Court on plea for Rs 5,000 stipend for junior lawyers
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday questioned the maintainability of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a monthly stipend of Rs 5,000 for junior lawyers who have not completed three years of practice, observing that the plea lacked genuine public interest."It cannot be a public interest. 'All law candidates' does not mean the public at large. How is society in general concerned in giving stipend to you?" remarked a bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne during the court further raised practical and financial concerns about the proposal, asking, "Where will the money come from? Why Rs 5,000? You should get Rs 25,000. In Mumbai, one should get Rs 45,000. But who will give? Have you thought of it? What is the statutory duty under which the Bar Council is obliged to give the stipend? How do we give it, even if we think you should get it?" Advocate Uday Warunjikar, appearing for the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, informed the court that while some Bar Councils in other states had received support from their respective state governments, the Maharashtra government had declined a request for assistance in creating a financial bench noted that the Bar Council had estimated a requirement of Rs 1.55 crore to fund such a stipend scheme but lacked the necessary resources. "Funds are required and that is a vital aspect," the bench court also took note of the fact that the petition had been filed in 2021 by lawyers who were then within the three-year threshold but had since crossed that mark. Addressing the petitioners' counsel, the bench said, "You would have completed three years of work experience yourselves by now. You appoint three juniors and now you should pay Rs 40,000 to your juniors. Lead by example. This is a laudable object, but there is practical difficulty."Granting the petitioners two weeks' time, the court allowed them to make further submissions on the issue before proceeding with a final decision.- EndsMust Watch
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
20-06-2025
- Business Standard
HC flags rise in deaths on Mumbai local, calls for preventive measures
The Bombay High Court on Friday expressed concern over deaths of commuters on Mumbai local trains, describing the situation as "alarming," an observation coming days after five people lost their lives post-falling off a packed suburban service. The court suggested installing automatic door-closing mechanisms in Mumbai local trains to prevent commuters from falling off, but insisted this was an advice purely from a "layman" perspective and Railway expert views were needed on the issue. A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne urged authorities to take measures to ensure tragic incidents don't occur on the Mumbai suburban network in the future. Citing an affidavit filed by the Railways, the court noted that in 2024 alone over 3,588 fatalities happened on local trains (due to various accidents on the suburban network), which means on an average ten Mumbaikars die everyday. "This is an alarming situation. Though you have projected that there was a reduction (in casualties) of 49 per cent (compared to previous years)," the court added. The division bench made the observations while hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) related to deaths of commuters in accidents on Mumbai's suburban network, considered the city's lifeline. Taking note of the June 9 incident where five passengers died and eight others sustained injuries after falling off a crowded local train near Mumbra station in adjoining Thane district, the court observed measures taken by authorities to stop such untoward incidents were not sufficient. The court suggested they (trains) should be equipped with automatic doors (currently they have open doors). The bench, however, was quick to add that it was a "layman" suggestion and they were not an expert on Railway safety. The Railways informed the bench that they have set up a multi-disciplinary committee to examine the cause of the Mumbra incident and waiting for its report. The panel will give recommendations and suggestions for avoiding such untoward incidents in the future. The court directed the Railways to place on record suggestions made by the committee, along with timeline for their implementation. The committee should be open to including the suggestions made by the petitioner (a commuter) for avoiding reoccurrence of such incidents. Besides the disciplinary panel, a high-level monitoring committee has been set up separately and it is working towards a "zero death mission". Based on its suggestions, a number of steps has already been taken, the Railways told the court. One of the steps included building walls and fences between Rail tracks to stop commuters from crossing over. Also, stalls have been shifted from some platforms on suburban stations to avoid overcrowding, it said. The matter will be next heard on July 14.
