Maha govt allows transportation of excavated sand for 24 hours with valid permit
The minister, in his statement in the state Assembly, said that at present, the sand excavation is permitted from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., and transportation of excavated sand is allowed after 6 p.m. for those who have taken a valid transport permit. The sand transportation is not allowed in some cities in the wake of heavy traffic. The demand for sand is rapidly increasing to complete various development projects. But, the use of available vehicles for transporting the excavated sand was not taking place fully due to the curbs on sand transportation after 6 p.m.
He told the Assembly that such curbs are not applicable for the sand transported from other states, as they are allowed 24-hour transportation based on a zero royalty pass. 'As the sand transportation is not permitted between 6 p.m. to 6 a.m., the use of sand in the state is not done fully. Therefore, the government, in a bid to promote maximum use of the stock of sand excavated from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., has decided to allow 24-hour transportation by procuring a valid permit adhering to certain conditions. The government is providing a facility for procuring a valid permit that will be available for 24 hours,' he said.
Minister Bawankule said that geo-fencing will be done on excavated sand and its stocks, while the installation of CCTVs and GPS Services in vehicles deployed for the transportation of excavated sand under various conditions laid down by the government will also be executed.
The Minister's announcement is important as the state Sand Policy 2025 does not explicitly mention allowing or regulating 24-hour sand transportation.
Transportation is governed by permits and e-passes issued through an online portal, primarily managed by tehsildars for legal distribution. Local gram panchayats and municipal councils can access sand at royalty rates for construction, but no reference to round-the-clock operations exists in the provided data.
Further, the minister assured the opposition that the government is prepared for discussion on the recently announced new sand policy.
The policy focuses on regulating sand excavation, distribution, and transportation to curb illegal activities and ensure a sustainable supply. It includes e-auctions for sand clusters, promotion of M-Sand (artificial sand), and free sand (up to 5 bags) for rural housing beneficiaries under the Gharkul scheme.
Minister Bawankule said that in order to reduce reliance on river sand, the policy promotes M-Sand (manufactured sand), with 50 crusher units authorised per district and mandatory use in government projects (20 per cent initially, increasing to 100 per cent over three years). This indirectly impacts transportation by shifting focus to locally produced artificial sand, potentially reducing transport logistics.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
2 hours ago
- Business Standard
SC starts hearing on Presidential Reference on timeline for assent to bills
The Supreme Court on Tuesday commenced hearing on the Presidential Reference, which raised constitutional questions on whether the court can impose timelines for Governors and the President to deal with bills passed by state assemblies. A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice BR Gavai allowed state governments of Kerala and Tamil Nadu to question the maintainability of the Presidential Reference. "We will hear preliminary objections for half an hour. Thereafter, we will start hearing submissions from the Attorney General," CJI Gavai said at the outset. The bench -- also comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar -- said that after hearing preliminary objections, the court will hear arguments on the Presidential Reference itself, starting with the submission of Attorney General R Venkataramani. Senior advocate KK Venugopal, appearing for Kerala government, opposed the Presidential Reference and said the issue is covered by a series of judgments. Citing several Supreme Court verdicts, he said the Governor's powers under Article 200 has been interpreted by the apex court time and again, and it is for the first time in the Tamil Nadu (State vs Governor) case, a deadline has been fixed for assent of bills passed by the Assembly. Meanwhile, the Centre, in its written submission, has said that imposing fixed timelines on Governors and the President to act on bills passed by a state Assembly would amount to one organ of the government assuming powers not vested in it by the Constitution, and lead to "constitutional disorder". The apex court imposing fixed timelines would dissolve the delicate equilibrium that the Constitution has established and negate the rule of law, it stated. On July 29, the top court had fixed a time schedule for hearing the Presidential Reference and proposed to start the hearing from August 19. The top court had said that the Centre and the states supporting the Presidential Reference will be heard on August 19, 20, 21 and 26, while those opposing it will be heard on August 28 and September 2, 3 and 9. The bench said rejoinder submissions, if any, will be heard on September 10. On July 22, the top court observed that the issues raised in the Presidential Reference will affect the "entire country". In May, President Droupadi Murmu exercised powers under Article 143(1) to know from the top court whether timelines could be imposed by judicial orders for exercise of discretion by the President while dealing with the bills passed by state assemblies. The President's decision came in light of the April 8 verdict of the apex court, on powers of the Governor in dealing with bills passed by the Tamil Nadu government. The verdict, for the first time, prescribed that the President should decide on the bills reserved for her consideration by the Governor within three months from the date on which such reference is received. In a five-page reference, President Murmu posed 14 questions to the Supreme Court and sought to know its opinion on powers of Governor and President under Articles 200 and 201 in dealing with bills passed by the state legislature. The verdict has set a timeline for all Governors to act on the bills passed by the state assemblies and ruled that the Governor does not possess any discretion in exercise of functions under Article 200 of the Constitution in respect to any bill presented to them and must mandatorily abide by the advice tendered by the council of ministers. It had said that state governments can directly approach the Supreme Court if the President withholds assent on a bill sent by a Governor for consideration.
Hans India
3 hours ago
- Hans India
MP Congress alleges 'irregularities' in 27 Assembly seats it lost with narrow margins in 2023
Amid the ongoing high-voltage row over alleged irregularities in the electoral system in the country at the national level, the Madhya Pradesh Congress has levelled some serious allegations of 'vote theft' during the Assembly Elections held in November 2023. Senior Congress MLA and Leader of Opposition (LoP) in the State Assembly, Umang Singhar along with some other senior leaders presented graphics based on data, scanned government orders and regulations, during a Press conference at the party's headquarters in Bhopal on Tuesday. The Congress, which is the main Opposition party in Madhya Pradesh, raised apprehensions on the results of 27 Assembly seats, in which Congress candidates lost the election with very narrow margins. "The Congress lost these 27 seats by very narrow margins despite an unexpected vote growth in these Assembly constituencies, which indicates irregularities in the voter list," LoP Umang Singhar said while addressing the Press. He stated that, in those same constituencies, the increase in voter numbers was found to be much higher than the margin of defeat, "suggesting that BJP may have been given an undue advantage". Singhar said that the ECI refused to publish photos in online voter lists citing 'privacy' and 'file size', but when the government advertised its schemes, photos and videos of beneficiaries were made fully public in documents and ads. "If privacy isn't violated there, why are photos not included in the voter list, which is essential for transparency,' the Congress leader asked. He claimed that, "Whenever irregularities in the voter list are raised, the Madhya Pradesh CEO website either goes down or shows the notice 'website under maintenance'". However, despite the explosive nature of the charges by the Opposition party, the ruling BJP in Madhya Pradesh was yet to response to the Congress' allegations. In the last Assembly elections held in November 2023, the BJP had won 163 out 230 seats, while the Congress could secure only 66 seats.
News18
5 hours ago
- News18
SC starts hearing on Presidential Reference on timeline for assent to bills
Agency: New Delhi, Aug 19 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Tuesday commenced hearing on the Presidential Reference, which raised constitutional questions on whether the court can impose timelines for Governors and the President to deal with bills passed by state assemblies. A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice BR Gavai allowed state governments of Kerala and Tamil Nadu to question the maintainability of the Presidential Reference. 'We will hear preliminary objections for half an hour. Thereafter, we will start hearing submissions from the Attorney General," CJI Gavai said at the outset. The bench — also comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar — said that after hearing preliminary objections, the court will hear arguments on the Presidential Reference itself, starting with the submission of Attorney General R Venkataramani. Senior advocate KK Venugopal, appearing for Kerala government, opposed the Presidential Reference and said the issue is covered by a series of judgments. Citing several Supreme Court verdicts, he said the Governor's powers under Article 200 has been interpreted by the apex court time and again, and it is for the first time in the Tamil Nadu (State vs Governor) case, a deadline has been fixed for assent of bills passed by the Assembly. Meanwhile, the Centre, in its written submission, has said that imposing fixed timelines on Governors and the President to act on bills passed by a state Assembly would amount to one organ of the government assuming powers not vested in it by the Constitution, and lead to 'constitutional disorder". The apex court imposing fixed timelines would dissolve the delicate equilibrium that the Constitution has established and negate the rule of law, it stated. On July 29, the top court had fixed a time schedule for hearing the Presidential Reference and proposed to start the hearing from August 19. The top court had said that the Centre and the states supporting the Presidential Reference will be heard on August 19, 20, 21 and 26, while those opposing it will be heard on August 28 and September 2, 3 and 9. The bench said rejoinder submissions, if any, will be heard on September 10. On July 22, the top court observed that the issues raised in the Presidential Reference will affect the 'entire country". In May, President Droupadi Murmu exercised powers under Article 143(1) to know from the top court whether timelines could be imposed by judicial orders for exercise of discretion by the President while dealing with the bills passed by state assemblies. The President's decision came in light of the April 8 verdict of the apex court, on powers of the Governor in dealing with bills passed by the Tamil Nadu government. The verdict, for the first time, prescribed that the President should decide on the bills reserved for her consideration by the Governor within three months from the date on which such reference is received. In a five-page reference, President Murmu posed 14 questions to the Supreme Court and sought to know its opinion on powers of Governor and President under Articles 200 and 201 in dealing with bills passed by the state legislature. The verdict has set a timeline for all Governors to act on the bills passed by the state assemblies and ruled that the Governor does not possess any discretion in exercise of functions under Article 200 of the Constitution in respect to any bill presented to them and must mandatorily abide by the advice tendered by the council of ministers. It had said that state governments can directly approach the Supreme Court if the President withholds assent on a bill sent by a Governor for consideration. PTI MNL SJK MNL RUK RUK (This story has not been edited by News18 staff and is published from a syndicated news agency feed - PTI) view comments First Published: News agency-feeds SC starts hearing on Presidential Reference on timeline for assent to bills 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. Loading comments...
