Prof Jagneshwar Dandapat reappointed interim VC of Utkal University under amended Ordinance
Dandapat was appointed as the in-charge V-C on May 27 this year after Sabita Acharya's extended tenure ended on May 23. However, this was challenged by a lawyer Prabir Kumar Das who filed a PIL in Orissa High Court, alleging that the appointment violated Section 6 (10) of the Odisha Universities Amendment Act, 2024.
The Orissa High Court on Wednesday disposed of the PIL following the state government's decision to cancel the appointment.
The re-appointment is according to the Odisha Universities (Amendment) Ordinance, 2025. Section 6 (10) of the Ordinance has been amended to empower the Chancellor to appoint any person as V-C for the time being until a regular appointment is made. This also empowers the Chancellor to fix the tenure of the V-C.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Govt says no debate on SIR due to rules
New Delhi: The government on Wednesday turned down the Opposition's demand for a discussion on the Election Commission's ongoing special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in poll-bound Bihar and said in the Lok Sabha that matters pending before the judiciary cannot be discussed on the floor of the House. Opposition MPs create ruckus in Rajya Sabha during the Monsoon Session of the Parliament, in New Delhi on Wednesday. (ANI) Some Opposition leaders said that instead of SIR, they have proposed a debate on 'electoral reforms' as a way to end the deadlock in Parliament. However, government managers indicated the ruling side is unlikely to accede to any such debate. 'The government has been very open to taking up discussion on any matter... However, any discussion in the Parliament has to be in accordance with constitutional provisions and also in accordance with the rules as prescribed in the rules of procedure and conduct of business in the Lok Sabha,' parliamentary affairs minister Kiren Rijiju told the Lok Sabha. 'On the issue of intensive revision of electoral rolls in Bihar for which they (opposition members) are disturbing the House from first day of the session, we all know that the matter is under consideration of the Supreme Court and as such it is sub judice and a hence a discussion cannot be held on the subject,' he added. The minister also cited a 1988 ruling by then Lok Sabha Speaker Balram Jakhar that under the existing constitutional provisions, the House cannot comment upon the actions of the Election Commission. Jakhar, according to Rijiju, had said that he cannot break the rules by allowing a discussion on the functioning of EC. The Supreme Court is hearing a bunch of petitions challenging the ongoing SIR exercise in Bihar. On Wednesday, the top court directed EC to file a reply by August 9 in response to allegations that over 6.5 million names were deleted from Bihar's draft rolls. Rijiju underlined that the issue relates to the functioning of EC, which is an autonomous body. The minister also urged the Opposition members to participate in the debates for the passage of key legislations. 'I urge the members not to disrupt the House. There are important bills to be taken up,' he added. Meanwhile, several opposition party leaders urged Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla to refer two bills — the National Sports Governance Bill, 2025 and the National Anti-Doping (Amendment) Bill, 2025 — to a joint committee of Parliament for further scrutiny. In a joint letter to the Speaker, the opposition leaders said there is a need for a broader consensus on the two significant bills, listed for consideration and passage in the House, considering their national importance. Proceedings in both houses have been disrupted by the Opposition, which has been creating uproar in Parliament on their demand for a discussion on SIR, which they allege is aimed at disenfranchising a large number of voters. Addressing a joint press conference of the Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance (INDIA) bloc, Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge rejected the argument that the functioning of EC cannot be discussed in Parliament as it is an independent constitutional body. Kharge cited former Rajya Sabha chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar's July 21, 2023 ruling that the House is authorised to debate anything under the sun and under the planet. 'We have been urging the speaker, chairman and the government again and again that the voting rights of people should not be stolen... That is what is happening in the SIR exercise,' the Congress chief said. Alleging that government was manipulating the electoral system according to its own convenience, Kharge said that while a huge number of voters were added in the electoral list in Maharashtra, the names of voters are being deleted in assembly poll-bound Bihar.
Deccan Herald
an hour ago
- Deccan Herald
Karnataka Rent Act: Tenants who sublet without landlord's consent will attract Rs 50,000 fine
The Karnataka Rent (Amendment) Bill has been cleared by the scrutiny committee headed by Law & Parliamentary Affairs Minister H K Patil.
Hindustan Times
4 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
SC orders nationwide clean-up of ₹1.6L-cr regulatory assets
The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed electricity regulatory commissions (RCs) across the country to prepare a detailed roadmap for liquidating existing regulatory assets (RAs) within the next three years. The court also instructed the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) to ensure strict compliance with this directive by registering a suo motu petition. The court directed that if any new RA is created, it must be liquidated within three years, with the existing regulatory assets cleared within four years starting from April 1, 2024, as per Rule 23 of the Electricity Rules. (HT Archive) The direction came in response to a petition filed by Delhi's three major power distribution companies -- BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd, BSES Yamuna Power Ltd, and Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd -- challenging the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission's (DERC) approach to electricity tariff determination. The companies argued that DERC's tariff policies over the years led to a massive accumulation of regulatory assets, which as of March 31, 2024, stood at ₹27,200.37 crore across the three discoms, including carrying costs. While examining the issue, the bench of justices PS Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta widened the scope of the case, noted that the problem of increased RA was not a phenomenon limited to Delhi. For instance, Tamil Nadu reported an estimated RA of ₹89,375 crore as of FY 2021–22, while Rajasthan's cumulative RA had crossed ₹47,000 crore by FY 2024–25. In contrast, the electricity regulatory commissions of Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, Punjab, Sikkim, Telangana, and Uttar Pradesh stated that they had never created RAs. The Maharashtra commission confirmed it had not created any regulatory assets since March 2020, in compliance with the National Tariff Policy, 2016, and the Electricity (Amendment) Rules, 2024. The court directed that if any new RA is created, it must be liquidated within three years, with the existing regulatory assets cleared within four years starting from April 1, 2024, as per Rule 23 of the Electricity Rules. Rule 23 prescribes that regulatory assets should not exceed 3% of the Annual Revenue Requirement (ARR). The bench held that each RC must prepare a trajectory and roadmap for the liquidation of its regulatory assets, including provisions to deal with carrying costs. It further ordered a thorough audit to determine why discoms were allowed to accumulate RAs without recovery for extended periods. To monitor and enforce these measures, APTEL was directed to invoke its powers under Section 121 of the Electricity Act and issue orders, instructions, or directions to ensure that the RCs fulfill their duties regarding regulatory assets. APTEL must also register a suo motu petition and continue monitoring until the liquidation timelines conclude. The judgment underlined that while increasing electricity tariffs is a tool to bridge revenue gaps, it may impose a sudden 'tariff shock' on consumers. To avoid this, commissions may opt to recover part of the gap immediately and create a regulatory asset for the remainder—recoverable in subsequent years. However, this should not become a long-term practice. 'The financial health and commercial viability of distribution companies must be ensured by the regulatory commissions,' the bench said. It emphasized that tariffs must be cost-reflective, and that revenue gaps between approved ARR and projected revenue should only arise in exceptional circumstances. Highlighting the consequences of unchecked RA accumulation, the court said, 'Disproportionate increase and long pending regulatory assets depict a regulatory failure. It has serious consequences on all stakeholders, and the ultimate burden is only on the consumer.' The court found that while RCs are meant to be independent authorities having functional autonomy, their decisions give a clear impression of a lack of ability to take 'firm' decisions. 'Instead of taking strong decisions on the basis of the statutory mandate, we see instances where the Regulatory Commissions manage and manoeuvre to arrive at a tariff by creating regulatory assets over and above all permissible limits. This is where the problem lies,' the court observed. The bench reminded the RCs to call for ARR, ensure that tariffs are determined, and that truing up is conducted in a timely manner, by exercising suo motu powers if necessary. 'Ineffective and inefficient functioning of the Regulatory Commissions, coupled with acting under dictation can lead to regulatory failure. The commissions are accountable for their decisions, and they are subject to judicial review,' the bench said.
