Ludhiana: ‘No flying zone on June 19 aims to maintain law & order during bypoll'
District magistrate Himanshu Jain on Monday declared a No Flying Zone within the limits of district Ludhiana till completion of election process to maintain law and order. In this regard, 'the flying of any kind of drone etc. will be prohibited,' reads the order.
The order has been issued in an exercise of the powers vested under Section 163 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
Jain stated that the commissioner of police, Ludhiana, and the senior superintendent of police, Ludhiana (Rural)/Khanna, will be responsible for implementing this order. The order does not apply to drones used by these officials and the returning officer (RO) for election purposes.
Admn declares paid holiday on June 19
Administration has declared a paid holiday on June 19 (Tuesday) to allow voters of Ludhiana West assembly segment to cast their votes for the byelection.
Jain further detailed that every person employed in any business, trade, industrial undertaking or any other establishment and entitled to vote at bypoll, will be granted a paid holiday. No deduction or abatement of the wages of any such person shall be made on account of a holiday. Further, if an employer contravenes the provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), then such employer shall be punishable with a fine.
Dry day from June 17 to June 19
In accordance with the Election Commission of India's (ECI) guidelines and to ensure a fair and orderly electoral process, district election officer Himanshu Jain has declared a dry day in the Ludhiana West assembly constituency and its 3 km adjoining area from June 17 (6 pm) to June 19 (6 pm).
Jain also ordered the closure of country liquor and foreign liquor vends besides no hotel, restaurant, club, bar and other establishment will store/sell/ serve liquor in the area falling within the revenue limits of Ludhiana West and 3 km adjoining area of the respective constituency.
The liquor shops, hotels, restaurants and clubs run by anyone, even if they are issued different categories of licences for possession and supply of liquor, are also not permitted to serve liquor during the above-mentioned time. All concerned authorities and establishments are directed to enforce these restrictions diligently.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
United News of India
43 minutes ago
- United News of India
Ban on drones, laser beams around Cochin International Airport
Kochi, June 17 (UNI) The use of laser beams and various aerial devices, including drones, has been banned within a five-kilometre radius – designated as a red zone – of Cochin International Airport. The order was issued based on reports from the airport director and the Ernakulam Rural District Police Chief highlighting that the unauthorised use of such devices poses a serious threat to flight safety. Microlight aircraft, aeromodellers, paragliders, unmanned aerial systems (UAS), drones, powered hand gliders, laser devices, and hot air balloons have been prohibited in the designated red zone area, as stated in an order issued by Ernakulam District Collector N.S.K. Umesh. Operating these devices near the runway and flight paths was found to endanger aircraft during takeoff, landing, and in-flight operations. This directive has been enforced under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)-2023 to ensure the safe operation of aircraft. No individual is permitted to operate any of the banned devices within the red zone. Any such activity, if noticed, must be reported immediately to the nearest police station, the order said. UNI DS ARN
Indian Express
3 hours ago
- Indian Express
Former BJP minister's corruption allegations: Goa court tells police to register FIR
A sessions court in Goa has directed the Goa Police to register an FIR to investigate bribery allegations raised by BJP leader and former Goa transport minister Pandurang Madkaikar. In March, Madkaikar alleged that ministers in the ruling BJP government were 'busy counting money' and that he had paid a bribe of Rs 15-20 lakh to the personal assistant of a minister to process a file. Later, Madkaikar withdrew the allegations. However, a group of activists led by one Kashinath Shetye lodged a complaint with the anti-corruption branch of the Goa Police in March, seeking an investigation into the matter. The complainants also sought action against Madkaikar if the investigation proved that he had made a false statement. They then filed an application in the court of the Sessions Judge, North Goa, Tiswadi Merces, under section 175(3) of the BNSS, seeking directions for an FIR to be lodged. The police opposed the application. In an order last week, the court directed the police inspector of the anti-corruption branch 'to register FIR and proceed in accordance with law'. Shetye submitted to the court that after receiving the complaint, an FIR ought to have been registered and an inquiry ought to have been carried out by the investigating agency. The counsel for police submitted that an inquiry has been conducted and, 'since the ingredient of the offence have not been made out, the offence is not registered'. However, the court observed that a video of Madkaikar making corruption allegations, which had gone viral, 'by itself ought to have been the material for registering the FIR'. Observing that an FIR should be registered, the court said that 'whether the statements were made correctly or wrongly ought to have been decided after registering of the FIR'. 'The statements made by Pandurang Madkaikar definitely show that huge amount is required to be paid as bribe to clear the files. The applicants have alleged that the culprits ought to have been booked under section 7 and under section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,' the court said. On March 4, Madkaikar, who served as a minister in the Manohar Parrikar-led Cabinet, had told the media, 'I will tell you very frankly, it's not corruption, it's loot. Loot is going on in Goa. Rampant loot… All Ministers are busy counting money. Last week, I paid Rs 15-20 lakh to one minister for a small work (sic). He took one file, which I had processed from the department…to his home and left a message that if someone comes to inquire about that file, tell that fellow to come and meet me. So, I sent my manager to meet the minister… Then he was told to meet his PA. He met his PA, and the PA directly demanded Rs 15-20 lakh. I was also a minister. So, I know what procedures are followed in that department.'
Hindustan Times
5 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
HC grants anticipatory bail to accused in NDPS Act case
: The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court has allowed anticipatory bail to an accused in connection with an offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances( NDPS) Act, 1985. With this, the high court rejected the preliminary objection raised by the state that such relief was barred under Section 438(6) of the CrPC as amended in Uttar Pradesh. The court held that with the repeal of the CrPC and the coming into force of BNSS 2023 (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita), the amended section 482 of the BNSS has superseded the stated amendment. Justice Manish Mathur passed this order recently on an application moved by Sudhir Kumar Chaurasia of Barabanki district seeking anticipatory bail under offence of the NDPS Act. The applicant had earlier been granted anticipatory bail under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. A second anticipatory bail application was filed after Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985 was added to the FIR. The prosecution objected, relying on section 438(6) of the CrPC as amended by U.P. Act No. 4 of 2019, which prohibits anticipatory bail in NDPS and certain other serious offences. The state counsel contended that the U.P. amendment continued to apply in light of the saving clause under Section 531(2)(b) of the BNSS and Section 6A of the general clauses Act, 1897. It was argued that the amendment should be considered a notification or order under a repealed law and was thus saved. The applicant's counsel submitted that the state amendment was a legislative enactment and not protected by section 531(2)(b), and that the field was now occupied exclusively by Section 482 of the BNSS. The court held that the U.P. amendment to Section 438 CrPC, which barred anticipatory bail for NDPS offences, does not survive the repeal of the CrPC and enactment of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The court rejected the state's argument that the U.P. amendment could be saved under section 531(2)(b) BNSS or section 6 of the general clauses Act. The court also referred to Article 254(2) of the Constitution, observing that although the U.P. amendment had received Presidential assent, the enactment of Section 482 BNSS, being a central legislation enacted later, would prevail in case of repugnancy. The court said, 'Even in terms of the proviso to Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India, there being a considerable difference in the provisions of anticipatory bail between Act No. 4 of 2019 and Section 482 BNSS 2023… it is the provisions of re-enacted Section 482 BNSS 2023, which shall prevail.' Accordingly, the court allowed the anticipatory bail application moved by the applicant. MANOJ KUMAR SINGH
