Submit list of pending cases, trace missing letters: Mayor tells LMC property dept officials
Mayor Sushma Kharkwal, during a review meeting at the LMC head office on Monday, expressed concern over the situation and issued strict instructions to the department staff.
She directed all lekhpals and officials concerned to immediately submit an updated list of all legal cases pending in courts, especially those related to the Public Premises Eviction (PPE) Act. She also demanded a date-wise breakdown and detailed status report of each case to assess delays in proceedings and departmental response, the release stated.
The mayor warned that negligence in pursuing these cases is leading to losses to the corporation and such carelessness would not be tolerated.
One of the most serious concerns raised during the meeting was the mishandling of correspondence sent from the mayor's office. Kharkwal said several official letters have gone missing within the property department and have not reached the designated lekhpals or officials.
She directed that all missing letters be immediately traced, and going forward, a system be put in place to ensure timely written replies to all correspondence from her office. 'There must be strict accountability. No letter should go missing, and all must be responded to within a fixed time limit,' the mayor said.
The mayor instructed the department to prepare a comprehensive report of all complaints received in the last two years from public representatives—including MPs, MLAs, MLCs and corporators. This report must include action taken and the current status of each complaint.
She emphasised that grievances raised by elected representatives reflect public issues and should be resolved with top priority.
Municipal commissioner Gaurav Kumar, additional municipal commissioner Namrata Singh, property incharge Sanjay Yadav, naib tehsildars and all lekhpals of the department were present during the meeting.
Following the mayor's directives, the LMC is likely to initiate departmental audits, strengthen its legal follow-up system, and improve document tracking mechanisms to avoid such lapses in future.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Impeachment not the only route to act against judges for misconduct: SC
The Supreme Court on Thursday (August 7, 2025) declared that impeachment by Parliament is not the only formal mechanism to initiate the removal of judges from office for misbehaviour. A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih interpreted Section 3(2) of the Judges (Protection) Act to provide legal sanction to the in-house inquiry procedure and to empower the Chief Justice of India with a legal authority over High Court judges facing serious allegations of misconduct. Section 3(2) provided the Centre, State, Supreme Court, a High Court or any other authority 'to take such action [whether by way of civil, criminal, or departmental proceedings or otherwise] against any person who is or was a judge'. The court held that the in-house procedure would come under the ambit of 'otherwise' in the provision, and gave the Chief Justice of India, not only moral and ethical but also legal power to institute an inquiry against a sitting judge. The apex court said the CJI and the Supreme Court could not be left powerless to initiate any action even in the face of allegations of gross misconduct against a sitting judge of a High Court. Justice Datta said the in-house procedure was meant to address the growing concern of incidents of judicial misconduct. The Supreme Court and the CJI could not be expected to wait for the Parliament to act when technology was so advanced that complaints could come from any quarter about the inappropriate behaviour of a judge. 'Fills the yawning gap' Besides, the judgment reasoned that not all judicial misconduct might necessarily rise to the level of 'proved misbehaviour', attracting an impeachment motion under Articles 217 and 218 of the Constitution. The in-house procedure fills up the 'yawning gap' between mere bad conduct and 'proved misbehaviour', the court observed. 'The Constitution's silence on cases that do not rise to the level of proven misbehaviour creates a significant structural vulnerability, which has been addressed by the in-house procedure. The procedure acts as a check on judges' unbridled freedom of action and thereby seeks to prevent outcomes that could be harmful or unjust,' Justice Datta explained The court warned that judges should dispel the thought that they could be removed only by way of impeachment, 'which has never fructified over the years despite occasions calling for it'. 'The judiciary in India is characterised by judicial independence. However, judicial independence signifies flexibility of judicial thought and the freedom to adjudicate without external and internal pressure, and not unfettered liberty to act as one might wish. Just as judicial independence is fundamental, so too is judicial accountability. Compromising one compromises the other,' Justice Datta cautioned.
News18
an hour ago
- News18
SC criticises Allahabad HC for ignoring settled law on sentence suspension
New Delhi, Aug 7 (PTI) The Supreme Court has once again expressed its displeasure with an order of the Allahabad High Court for failing to apply settled legal principles while rejecting a plea for suspension of sentence in a fixed-term conviction. The observations from the top court came days after it pulled up an Allahabad High Court judge for allowing criminal proceedings in a civil dispute case. In an unprecedented order, a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan on August 4 stripped criminal matters of the roster of a Allahabad High Court judge 'till he demits office" after he 'erroneously" upheld summons of criminal nature in a civil dispute. The same bench came hard on the high court decision in another case. 'The impugned Order is one more from the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad with which we are disappointed," it said, adding that this plea arose from an order passed by the High Court on May 29, in a criminal appeal by which the high court declined to suspend the substantive order of sentence passed by the trial court. 'We are once again constrained to observe that such errors creep in at the level of the High Court and only because the wellsettled principles of law on the subject are not applied correctly. 'It is very important to first look into the subject-matter. Thereafter the court should look into the issue involved. In the last the court should look into the plea of the litigant and then proceed to apply the correct principles of law," Justice Pardiwala said in an order on August 6. The apex court observed that the High Court's order was legally flawed and demonstrated a disregard for established jurisprudence. It was hearing an appeal filed by a convict who had been sentenced to four years of rigorous imprisonment under various provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, Indian Penal Code (IPC), and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The convict had approached the high court with an application under Section 389 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking suspension of his sentence. However, the high court rejected the plea solely on the ground that the offence was 'heinous", without evaluating the request in light of the settled law. Setting aside the high court's order, bench cited a landmark judgment which mandates that appellate courts should adopt a liberal approach in suspending fixed-term sentences unless exceptional circumstances exist. Emphasizing the need for judicial clarity, the bench said, 'It is very important to first look into the subject matter. Thereafter, the court should examine the issues involved, and only then consider the plea of the litigant before applying the correct principles of law." The apex court took particular issue with the high court's failure to analyze the application on legal grounds. 'What the high court did was to reiterate the prosecution's case and the oral evidence, without engaging with the legal test for suspension of sentence in a fixed-term conviction," the bench observed. It has now remanded the matter back to the high court for fresh consideration, directing it to pass an appropriate order within 15 days. 'The High Court shall keep in mind that the sentence is for a fixed term, that is four years and it is only if there are compelling circumstances indicating that release would not be in public interest, that suspension may be denied," the order clarified. PTI SJK ZMN view comments First Published: August 07, 2025, 22:45 IST News agency-feeds SC criticises Allahabad HC for ignoring settled law on sentence suspension Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
No Central nod for private participation in mining of atomic minerals, clarifies ministry
The Union Ministry of Mines has termed 'misleading and factually incorrect' some media reports which suggested that the Union government has permitted private sector participation in the exploration and mining of atomic minerals such as uranium and thorium from the country's offshore regions by notifying the Offshore Areas Atomic Minerals Rules, 2025. The Offshore Areas Atomic Minerals Operating Rights Rules, 2025 provide the procedure for the grant of operating rights for atomic minerals only to the government, government companies, or corporations and not to private entities. Parliament, through the Offshore Areas Mineral (Development and Regulation) (Amendment) Act, 2023, amended the Offshore Areas Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 2002, with effect from August 17, 2023. The first provision to Section 6 of the OAMDR Act, 2002 explicitly restricts the grant of exploration licences, composite licences, or production leases for atomic minerals to the government, government companies, or corporations only, subject to prescribed conditions notified by the Union government. Further, under Section 35 of the OAMDR Act, 2002, the Union government is empowered to frame rules for the effective implementation of the Act. Accordingly, the Offshore Areas Atomic Minerals Operating Rights Rules, 2025 were notified on July 14, 2025 in consultation with the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), the nodal department for regulating atomic minerals. The rules provide the procedure for the grant of operating rights for atomic minerals only to the government, government companies, or corporations. Media reports suggesting otherwise are not factual, the statement said. The Ministry of Mines reaffirms its commitment to transparency and adherence to legislative mandates, and will ensure that the exploration and mining of atomic minerals remain under strict regulatory control in accordance with national security and policy considerations, the statement said.
