HC directs Industries Department to pay ₹20 lakh to petitioners for wilful disobedience of court orders
The court was hearing a contempt petition filed in 2015 by Babu of Tiruchi, the original petitioner. The other petitioners B. Shanthi, B. Balaji, B. Vishnuvaradan, B. Umamaheswari and D. Bhavani, his family members, were added as petitioners following the demise of Babu.
The contempt petition was filed for non compliance of the order wherein Tiruchi Collector was directed to grant permission for quarrying sand in favour of the petitioner on the basis of the pathway permission from the Forest Department with conditions stipulated by the Supreme Court.
The petitioner was granted licence to quarry sand covering an extent of 10 hectares in Srinivasanallur village at Thottiyam taluk in Tiruchi district for three years from December 2001 to December 2004. Subsequently, the State government issued a G.O. in 2003 introducing Rule 38-A to the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, thereby taking over the operation of sand quarries by the government. The court upheld the validity of the G.O. subject to certain directions in favour of the petitioner.
Aggrieved by the same, the State government preferred a Civil Appeal before the Supreme Court which upheld the validity of Rule 38-A, while permitting the lessees who were in existence as October 2, 2003, to continue quarrying operations and also directed refund of the unutilised lease amounts. A review petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court.
Pursuant to the Supreme Court order Tiruchi Collector permitted the petitioner to carry on quarrying operations for six months. However, the petitioner was unable to commence the quarrying operations as the Forest Department deferred passing an order granting permission to use the pathway for transportation. Consequently, the permission period for quarrying operations expired.
The petitioner sought extension of the quarrying period, which was rejected on the ground that the original permission period had already lapsed. The rejection order was challenged. In 2010, the court directed the petitioner to approach the Forest Department for permission to use the pathway and to approach Tiruchi Collector for extension of the quarry lease.
The petitioner submitted an application to the Forest Department and the Department granted permission to use the pathway. Subsequently, the petitioner approached Tiruchi Collector for extension of the lease period. However, the same was disregarded. by Tiruchi Collector. A contempt petition was filed before the court.
Justice K. Kumaresh Babu said the court was of the view that there has been a violation of the orders of the court. Such violation is a wilful disobedience only to deny the benefits of the order of the court to the petitioner. There was a collective bureaucratic effort in seeing to defend the violation of the orders of the court by taking protection under the umbrella of subsequent events.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
9 hours ago
- The Hindu
'Planting food, not violence or hate': Brazil's Lula razzes Donald Trump over tariff-hit grapes
Brazil President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said on Saturday (August 17, 2025) he hopes U.S. President Donald Trump can come and get to know the real Brazil, as the South American powerhouse reels from Washington's 50% tariffs. In a video taken while he planted grapes — one of the tariff-hit goods — Brazil's leftist leader addressed Mr. Trump. Brazil's Lula says proposal to regulate social media platforms is ready "I hope you can visit someday so we can talk and you can get to know the true Brazil, the Brazil of people who love samba, carnival, soccer, the United States, China, Russia, Uruguay, and Venezuela. We love everyone," Mr. Lula said. The tariffs imposed on Brazil are among the steepest to hit a U.S. trading partner. And unlike with other countries, the measures against Brazil have been framed in openly political terms, with the Republican President justifying the move by alleging Brasilia is conducting a "witch hunt" against his ally, former President Jair Bolsonaro. Mr. Bolsonaro is being tried for an alleged coup attempt against Lula in 2022, and the United States recently sanctioned the judge in the case, along with seven other Supreme Court magistrates. Mr. Lula has backed the Supreme Court and promises to defend "the sovereignty of the Brazilian people." His administration has also vowed to combat Mr. Trump's tariffs, including by lodging an appeal if necessary. India, Brazil partnership relevant to the entire world: PM Modi The levies, which affect several key exports from the largest economy in Latin America, sweep aside centuries-old trade ties and a surplus that Brasilia put at $284 million last year. In his message on X, Mr. Lula said he was giving an example of "planting food, and not planting violence, or planting hate." "I hope that someday we can talk, President Trump, so you can learn about the quality of the Brazilian people," he adds.
Time of India
16 hours ago
- Time of India
In SC's repeated rebukes of Noida, there's a recurring term: Collusion
Noida: Supreme Court's latest order setting up a special investigation team (SIT) probe into the assets of Noida Authority officials, along with its suggestion to replace it with a metropolitan council, is not an isolated censure. Over the years, the apex court has issued stern orders that often lumped Noida and Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority together, particularly when faulting them for governance failures, unlawful alliances with builders, procedural lapses in land acquisition, corruption, opacity, neglect of homebuyers' rights, misuse of statutory powers and wilful inaction in the face of wrongdoing. A word that has repeatedly found mention in the orders is collusion. DND toll You Can Also Check: Noida AQI | Weather in Noida | Bank Holidays in Noida | Public Holidays in Noida | Gold Rates Today in Noida | Silver Rates Today in Noida Among the latest is the Dec 2024 judgment, where Supreme Court upheld a 2016 Allahabad HC order to scrap toll collection on the DND Flyway. It cited that concessionaire Noida Toll Bridge Company Ltd had already recouped its investment and unfairly profited from the toll collection. Referring to a CAG report, the SC found "serious impropriety" and "blatant misuse of power and breach of public trust" in the way toll collections were allowed to continue far beyond reasonable limits. The bench noted that the public was "forced to part with hundreds of crores" under the guise of infrastructure provision. "This could not have been done but for the collusion of the then officers of the two state governments and of Noida Authority, who closed their eyes while the contractual obligations were incurred," the court order read. "This situation reflects serious impropriety not only by IL&FS and NTBCL but also by the then officers of Noida Authority, the State of UP, and the NCT of Delhi. It is inconceivable that multiple layers of govt, advised by some of the most astute financial minds, failed to foresee that this formula would impose an undue and unfair burden on the users—the general public," the court observed. It called the siphoning of project funds by senior bureaucrats for personal gain, a fit case for investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act, though possibly too late for legal action. Twin towers On Aug 31, 2021, the Supreme Court ordered the demolition of Supertech Twin Towers for violation of building norms—minimum distance requirements. The SC condemned the "nefarious complicity" between the developer and Noida Authority, harming homebuyers' rights. The judgment by Justice DY Chandrachud, who later served as Chief Justice of India, declared that "the record of this case is replete with instances which highlight the collusion between the officers of Noida Authority with the appellant and its management". The court endorsed the Allahabad High Court's view that the Authority had failed to enforce the Uttar Pradesh Apartments Act, 2010, allowing "brazen" violations of flat buyers' rights. During the penultimate hearings on August 4, 2021, just before delivering judgment, the Court verbally castigated the Authority, declaring: "You are in cohort with the builder. You are a corrupt body." The bench reprimanded Noida Authority's counsel: "Noida should take a neutral stand. It seems you are the promoter of the project… It's a business for developers, but it's not your business." These remarks remain among the harshest ever directed at a development authority in recent memory. The order came after a decade-long legal battle led by the Emerald Court residents' association. The 100-metre towers were razed on Aug 28, 2022, using controlled implosion, generating 80,000 tonnes of debris and prompting stricter scrutiny of real estate projects in Noida. Amrapali flats Two years earlier, in its July 23, 2019, judgment in the Amrapali Group case, the SC censured Noida and Greater Noida authorities by repeatedly failing to act, essentially enabling the Amrapali Group's default on dues and causing large-scale financial and emotional distress to innocent homebuyers. The real eastate group had allegedly diverted monely from homebuyers' investments into other ventures, which resulted in the delayed or stalled completion of numerous housing projects. The court found the Authorities "grossly negligent" and in "collusion with leaseholders", failing to act on non-payment of dues and ignoring buyer grievances. "They were bent upon to condone everything," the court said, calling it "absolute dereliction of duty." The inaction allowed projects to stall and funds to be siphoned off, leaving thousands of homebuyers stranded. 2011 order Even before these headline-making real estate cases, the court had found fault with the Authority's functioning. In its May 9, 2011, order in the Noida Entrepreneurs Association case, SC criticised "blatant misuse of power" in allotments and contracts, pointing to "serious irregularities by the Chief Executive Officers and other officers". It referred to "manipulation, nepotism and corruption" and ordered a CBI probe. The court noted that from the Noida's inception, there had been "a public hue and cry" about such practices, underlining that the allegations were "wild and serious… of a very high magnitude". Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area.
Time of India
17 hours ago
- Time of India
SC orders recovery of 50k cr deferred power tariffs in Raj
Jaipur: Discoms in Rajasthan have been deferring power tariff hikes as they became a political tool under successive govts. But these are not subsidies and need to be collected from the consumers. Currently, the discoms sit over Rs 50,000 crore of such deferred tariffs. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court directed all the electricity regulators and discoms in the country to find ways to realise these revenues over a period of seven years starting from 2024 and it can be done by hiking power tariffs. If the state govt does not intervene and pay the amount, the discoms will have to hike tariffs to recover the amount. According to estimates, the discoms in the state need to raise electricity tariffs by at least 90 paise per unit from all consumers to recover the amount in seven years. Additionally, the discoms pay around Rs 5,000 crore interest on the Rs 50,000 crore liability. If the future interest amount is added, the additional tariffs can cross Re 1 a unit. The problem of the deferred revenues, called regulatory assets, is particularly severe in Rajasthan as its discoms account for over 25% of country's total regulatory assets. In fact, the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission, incorporated provisions on regulatory assets in its 2025 tariff regulations that are in line with the Supreme Court's decision. Manish Kumar Mahto of Centre for Energy, Environment and People, said, "Despite these stringent measures, the discoms did not outline any liquidation plans in their annual tariff petitions, as required under the regulations. This omission underscores gaps in the regulatory framework and RERC's limited ability to enforce compliance." Mahto said the apex court also capped annual revenue shortfall of discoms at 3% of the approved revenue requirement and limited regulatory asset creation to exceptional circumstances only. Mahto said that on top of concerns about high surcharges themselves, there are questions about how they will fit within tariff structures. "In their tariff petitions for FY26, the discoms have proposed that the combined Regulatory Asset Surcharge and Fuel and Power Purchase Adjustment Surcharge (FPPAS) be capped at Re 1 per unit. With base fuel surcharges for this year being charged at 28 paise per unit and actual fuel surcharges reaching as high as 56 paise per unit in last two years, there is little scope to recover even the initial 90 paise per unit regulatory asset surcharge required for regulatory asset liquidation," he added. Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area.
