T.N. govt. will take steps to expedite drinking water project work in Palani: Minister
Minister for Municipal Administration and Water Supply K.N. Nehru on Wednesday (April 23, 2024) informed the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly that the State government will expedite measures to complete the pending work on the drinking water supply project in Palani Municipality.
He was responding to a calling attention motion moved by MLAs I.P. Senthil Kumar, V.P. Nagaimaali, and M. Chinnadurai, who sought his intervention to expedite the ongoing drinking water supply project in Palani, one of the six abodes of Lord Murugan.
The Minister said in Palani Municipality, under the State Finance Commission Incentive Fund 2023-24, work is being carried out at an estimated cost of ₹18.59 crore for the installation of additional water purification infrastructure at the municipality's summer water reservoir and for laying pipelines to pump water from the main reservoir to the overhead water tank located at the foothills.
As part of the drinking water scheme, a 450-mm diameter drinking water pipeline needs to be laid for a distance of 800 metres along the 'Girivalam' path. However, based on a request from the Devasthanam to make alternate arrangements for laying the pipeline in that area, a survey was conducted and it was decided to route the drinking water pipeline along the inner side of the retaining wall situated on the outer part of the Girivala Veethi road.
The State government will take expeditious steps to complete the pending work, he added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
5 days ago
- The Hindu
Tiruchi Corporation to establish a college, says K. N. Nehru
Minister for Municipal Administration K.N. Nehru on Wednesday said Tiruchi Corporation would establish a college on a five-acre land in the city. Inaugurating new Corporation school buildings here, the Minister also disclosed that a model school would be established at Woraiyur in the city and urged Minister for School Education Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi to establish government schools in the west constituency as there were only Corporation and private schools in the area. Later, Mr. Nehru told reporters that the integrated bus terminus at Panjapur would become operational after the tender for the annual maintenance contract was awarded. Asked about COVID-19 preparedness at schools, Mr. Poyyamozhi said the current strain of the virus was not severe. School students would be advised to wear face masks if necessary. The Ministers inaugurated a model higher secondary school at Edamalaipattipudur in Ward 57 and an additional building for Corporation Middle School at Piratiyur in Ward 55. The model school building has been constructed on a 2.91-acre site in Rajiv Gandhi Nagar at an estimate of ₹18.41 crore. The ground floor and first floor of the building will house 36 classrooms, two staff rooms, two office rooms, a library, three laboratories, and four sanitary facilities. Similarly, the Corporation Middle School at Piratiyur, which is functioning in a two-storey building with 10 classrooms, has 801 students. Considering the increase in enrolments, an additional building was constructed at an outlay of ₹4.90 crore under the Corporation's Education Fund. The three-storey building features 12 classrooms, two staff rooms, an office room, eight toilets and 12 urinals. With the additional building, around 540 would be benefitted, a press release said. Textbooks, school bags and uniforms were distributed to the students. Collector M. Pradeep Kumar, Mayor M. Anbazhagan, Corporation Commissioner V. Saravanan, Member of the Parliament K.N. Arun Nehru, Chief Educational Officer G. Krishnapriya and others were present.
The Hindu
22-05-2025
- The Hindu
Why did Madras High Court stay laws taking away T.N. Governor's power to appoint Vice-Chancellors?
The story so far: The Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly passed a series of Bills for amending the laws applicable to various State-run universities. The primary aim of the amendments was to transfer from the Governor (in his/her capacity as the Chancellor) to the State government, the power to appoint Vice Chancellors to those universities. When the Governor sat over the Bills, without granting assent, for long, the State government approached the Supreme Court and obtained an order on April 8, 2025. Taking serious note of the enormous delay in grant of assent, the top court ordered that the Bills would be deemed to have been granted assent. By virtue of the Supreme Court's order, the amendment Bills became Acts. Subsequently, Kutty alias K. Venkatachalapathy, an advocate based in Tirunelveli, filed a public interest litigation petition before the Madras High Court on May 12, 2025, challenging the constitutional validity of those amendment Acts. A summer vacation Bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and V. Lakshminarayanan entertained the PIL petition and passed an interim order on May 21, 2025. The Bench stayed the operation of the amendment Acts to the extent to which they take away the power of appointment of Vice Chancellors from the hands of the Chancellor and vest the same in the State government. What is the reasoning given by the Division Bench for staying the amended laws? Authoring the verdict for the Division Bench, Justice Swaminathan pointed out that the amendment Acts do not make any change to the position of the Governor being the Chancellor of State universities. They only take away the Chancellor's power to appoint Vice Chancellors to the Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University, Anna University, Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University and so on. The Bench found the amendment Acts to be repugnant to Regulation 7.3 of the University Grants Commission Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges, 2018. It pointed out that the UGC Regulations clearly state that only the Visitor/Chancellor could appoint a Vice Chancellor from among names recommended by a search-cum-selection committee and therefore, the amendment Acts conferring such a power on the State government, instead of the Governor, were directly in conflict with 2018 Regulations. Can UGC Regulations prevail over State Acts? The Division Bench said, the Supreme Court had already confirmed the primacy of the UGC Regulations over the State laws. In Gambhirdhan K. Gadhvi versus State of Gujarat (2022), the top court had said: 'It cannot be disputed that the UGC Regulations are enacted by the UGC in exercise of powers under Sections 26(1)(e) and 26(1)(g) of the UGC Act, 1956. Even as per the UGC Act every rule and regulation made under the said Act, shall be laid before each House of Parliament. Therefore, being a subordinate legislation, UGC Regulations become part of the Act.' A Bench of Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagaratna of the Supreme Court had also observed: 'In case of any conflict between the State legislation and the Central legislation, the Central legislation shall prevail by applying the rule/principle of repugnancy as enunciated in Article 254 of the Constitution as the subject 'education' is in the Concurrent List (List III) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Therefore, any appointment as a Vice-Chancellor contrary to the provisions of the UGC Regulations can be said to be in violation of the statutory provisions, warranting a writ of quo warranto.' The ruling was subsequently followed by former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli in State of West Bengal versus Anindya Sundar Das wherein they wrote: 'In view of the decision in Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi, even if the provisions of the Act allowed the appointment of the Vice Chancellor by the State Government, it would be in violation of the UGC Regulations. The Regulations become part of the statute framed by Parliament and will prevail.' After citing two more Supreme Court verdicts on the same lines, the Division Bench led by Justice Swaminathan said: 'When repugnancy between the impugned amendment Acts and the UGC Regulation is obvious and admitted, it is our judicial duty to apply the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in as many as four recent decisions.' Do courts have power to stay the operation of Acts? On the next question as to whether a court could stay the operation of laws passed by the legislature, Justice Swaminathan said, the answer lay in Supreme Court's 2021 decision in Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil versus State of Maharashtra. In that judgement, the Supreme Court had said: 'Normally an interim order is not passed to stultify statutory provisions. However, there is no absolute rule to restrain interim orders being passed when an enactment is ex facie unconstitutional or contrary to the law laid down by this Court.' Justice Swaminathan also recalled that the Supreme Court itself had on January 12, 2021 stayed the operation of the three farm laws, passed by the Parliament, which led to a national outcry. 'Interestingly, Shri (senior counsel representing the Tamil Nadu Higher Education department in the present PIL petition), who is now opposing the grant of interim relief was the counsel for a set of petitioners therein and welcomed the proposal to stay the implementation of the farm laws,' the judge wrote. Can a summer vacation bench pass such orders? Though Advocate General P.S. Raman as well as Mr. Wilson had urged the Division Bench to grant suffiicient time for the State government to file its counter affidavit and not take up the stay application for hearing during summer vacation sitting, the Division Bench rejected their plea. 'It is true that the High Court is on vacation and that we are sitting as Vacation Bench Judges. To us, it should not make any difference. The Hon'ble Chief Justice of India has observed that court vacation sittings should be rechristened 'partial working days'. We take inspiration from the said observation. Judges can be on vacation, courts should not be on vacation. Access to justice should always be available. When an advocate complains that an unconstitutional legislation has been passed, we cannot shut our eyes. That is why we propose to intervene then and there,' the Bench said. Pointing out that they had granted a week's time for the State to file its written response, the Bench observed: 'The unconstitutionality and repugnancy vitiating the impugned (under challenge) amendment Acts is so glaring and obvious that we cannot shut our eyes. We are convinced that the impugned amendments are ex-facie unconstitutional. If an unconstitutional process is allowed to proceed, it would cause irreparable injury and public interest would suffer.' Does the High Court order amount to reviewing Supreme Court's verdict in Governor's assent case? The Division Bench, further, took strong exception to an argument that the High Court's interference with the amendment Acts would virtually amount to reviewing Supreme Court's April 8, 2025 verdict in Governor's assent case. 'Shri made a preposterous submission that we were virtually reviewing the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in State of Tamil Nadu versus The Governor of Tamil Nadu. No submission can be more outrageous than this. We are mindful of our position. We know that we have to give the highest respect to any decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We do not need lectures from Shri on this score. We believe in judicial discipline. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision was not concerned with the constitutionality of the impugned provisions.' The Bench went on to state: 'When the learned Advocate General at one point claimed that the petitioner's Senior Counsel is merely reiterating the contentions advanced in the said decision (April 8, 2025 ruling), we called upon the learned Advocate General to draw our attention to the relevant paragraphs, where the contentions now advanced stood rejected. The learned Advocate General made a vain attempt and subsequently gave up this objection altogether.' 'When we notice that the impugned amending Acts fall foul of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are unable to mechanically adjourn the proceedings. It is this primary consideration that impels us to grant interim relief,' the Bench concluded.
Indian Express
21-05-2025
- Indian Express
Madras HC stays Tamil Nadu amendments on vice-chancellor appointments despite state's objection
In a significant intervention amid an escalating tug-of-war between the Tamil Nadu government and the Governor's office, the Madras High Court Wednesday stayed the operation of a series of amendments passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly last year that sought to make the state government, instead of the Governor, the appointing authority for vice-chancellors of state-run universities. A vacation Bench of Justices G R Swaminathan and V Lakshminarayanan issued the interim order after a marathon hearing that stretched until 7 pm, rejecting the state's request to defer the matter until after summer vacation. The ruling came in response to a PIL filed by K Venkatachalapathy, a practicing advocate from Tirunelveli and a Bharatiya Janata Party leader. The PIL challenged the constitutional validity of the state amendments to 10 university Acts on 56 grounds, primarily arguing that the changes were repugnant to Regulation 7.3 of the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, 2018, which prescribe the process for Vice-Chancellor appointments. The petitioner contended that the legislation compromised the autonomy of universities and allowed for excessive political interference. Appearing for the petitioner, senior counsel Dama Seshadri Naidu asserted that the role of the Governor—as Chancellor of State universities—ought to remain apolitical, much like the Speaker in a legislature. 'Universities must be insulated from political power,' he said. 'The chancellor, being above politics, should continue to guide the academic institutions free of government overreach.' The court's interim stay sparked strong objections from the state government. Advocate-General P S Raman and senior counsel P Wilson, representing the Chief Secretary and Higher Education Secretary, argued there was no urgency warranting a hearing during the court's vacation. 'Only the process for appointments has begun. The last date to receive applications is June 5. The apprehension that something will happen tomorrow is unfounded,' the AG said. They pointed out that the state had already filed a transfer petition in the Supreme Court, seeking to consolidate all similar PILs challenging the amendments. The apex court, according to Wilson, had orally instructed the state to inform the HC about the pending transfer plea. 'The Supreme Court has taken cognizance of the broader issue. For the High Court to press ahead despite this is judicial impropriety,' Wilson told the Bench. 'We are being compelled to argue here even as the matter awaits consideration before the CJI.' The Higher Education Secretary, C Samayamoorthy, also submitted a memo asserting that the petition was politically motivated, filed by a functionary of the opposition party. He argued that there was no grave urgency and that the State ought to have been allowed sufficient time to file a comprehensive counter-affidavit addressing the 56 points raised. Wilson went further, alleging 'forum shopping' by the petitioner, suggesting that the choice of approaching the second vacation bench was deliberate. 'Havens are not going to fall. This is a move designed only to stall the process. There is no urgency,' he said. He also noted that the amendments received de facto assent from the Governor following the intervention of the Supreme Court in earlier proceedings. Defending the legality of the amendments, the AG argued that laws enacted by the State legislature prevail over UGC regulations, so long as they do not contravene a central law. 'A state legislation can only be stayed when it is glaringly unconstitutional or manifestly arbitrary. Neither is the case here,' he said, adding that the UGC lacks the authority to constitute search committees for vice-chancellor appointments. Despite these arguments, the Division Bench held firm.
