Submit status report on applications filed under Sakala scheme: HC
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Joshi issued the direction on a petition filed by Gowrishankar S, a resident of Bengaluru.
The Bench also directed the government to provide details of date of receipt of applications and time required for disposal of pending applications in the status report.
The petitioner had complained that the authorities were not implementing the provisions of the Sakala Act properly as applications were not disposed of within time limit prescribed in the Act, which provided for guarantee of services to citizens in the State within the stipulated time limit.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
38 minutes ago
- Time of India
HC orders status quo on hutments in Gzb park, seeks rehab proposal from admin
1 2 Prayagraj: The Allahabad high court has directed to maintain the status quo on the colony of temporary houses (basti) that have come up at a public park at Ghaziabad within a span of 40 to 50 years. While directing the Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) not to demolish the houses in the park, the court directed the authority to first submit a rehabilitation plan. On June 16, the GDA had issued the petitioners notices for demolishing their houses. While passing the above directive, the court restrained the petitioners from creating any third-party interests or undertaking any development on the disputed property. While passing the above directive, the court on July 31 restrained the petitioners from creating any third-party interests or undertaking any development on the disputed property. The court granted time to the respondents – district administration and GDA – to facilitate them to place on record the rehabilitation scheme by which they intend to rehabilitate the old inhabitants. The next hearing in the case is on August 22. Hearing a writ petition filed by Naresh Kumar and eighteen others, a division bench comprising Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar observed, "In the facts and circumstances of the case, we also find that it is not in dispute that the petitioners have been occupying the place for the last more than 40–50 years. At this stage, we find that some indulgence and reprieve is to be accorded to the inhabitants who belong to the weaker sections of society, and we further direct the authorities to ensure the formulation and implementation of a rehabilitation scheme for such persons. On the next date, the scheme shall be provided by the district administration and the GDA". The petitioners filed the present writ petition for quashing the demolition notice dated June 16, 2025, issued by the GDA under section 26-A of the UP Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. The GDA initially issued notice to 172 illegal occupants of public land (park) on September 6, 2024, which is earmarked in the master plan. Consequently, 89 persons filed their objections, which was considered and an impugned order (order under challenge) was passed. During the course of hearing, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are old inhabitants who have been occupying small pieces of land for their shelter and admittedly belong to the lower sections of society. In the absence of any rehabilitation scheme as per the law, they will suffer irreparable loss, if uprooted, he argued. Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Friendship Day wishes , messages and quotes !
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
HC denies pre-arrest bail to man accused of replacing Tricolour on mosque with saffron flag
Chandigarh: Punjab and Haryana high court on Saturday refused anticipatory bail to a man accused of removing the national flag from a mosque in Gurgaon and replacing it with a saffron flag. "The gravity of the offence and its potential impact on public order and communal peace cannot be overlooked. No extraordinary or exceptional circumstance has been brought on record by the petitioner that would warrant the grant of pre-arrest bail, particularly in light of the serious communal and constitutional implications of the alleged conduct," HC observed in its order. "The fact that a deeper and proper probe is required… This court is of the considered opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is a must and no ground for granting anticipatory bail is made out," said Justice Manisha Batra in the order. The bench noted that the allegations against the petitioner were not vague or general in nature but "specific and substantiated by initial investigation", including purported conversations between the petitioner and co-accused when the alleged crime was being committed. Justice Batra dismissed the plea filed by Vikas Tomar of Gurgaon, who was booked at Bilaspur police station in Gurgaon on July 7 for hurting religious sentiments. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Is this legal? Access all TV channels without a subscription! Techno Mag Learn More Undo He faces charges under the Prevention of Insult to National Honours Act, 1971, as well. It's alleged that on July 7, Tomar and some other persons removed the national flag from atop a mosque in Gurgaon's Uton village and erected a saffron flag. Some of the accused even threw away the national flag, says the complaint. The complainant provided a video recording of the incident to police, alleging the co-accused had removed the Indian flag in connivance with Tomar. However, Tomar's counsel, while seeking anticipatory bail, argued that he was falsely implicated and had no role to play in the incident. Opposing the plea, the counsel for the state and the complainant submitted that the accused intended to stir communal tension and that he is shown to have had a conversation with the co-accused when they were involved in removing the national flag and hoisting the saffron flag. After hearing all the parties, HC dismissed the plea for anticipatory bail, keeping in view the nature of allegations and the fact that there were no exceptional circumstances for pre-arrest bail. Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Friendship Day wishes , messages and quotes !
The Hindu
3 hours ago
- The Hindu
Govt. to table private school fee Bill in Monsoon Session: CM
Chief Minister Rekha Gupta on Saturday said the Delhi government will table a Bill to regulate fee hikes by private schools during the upcoming Monsoon Session of the Assembly, beginning August 4. Amid ongoing protests by parents, the Delhi government had earlier approved a draft of the Bill and proposed bringing an Ordinance, since the Assembly was not in session. Now, it has decided to table the Delhi School Education (Transparency in Fixation and Regulation of Fees) Bill, 2025. 'The Delhi government will table the Bill to regulate fee hikes by private schools in the Monsoon Session of Assembly beginning from August 4,' Ms. Gupta said while addressing the media. The parents' groups, while pointing out issues in the Bill, said that they will send their detailed suggestions to the government on Sunday. Three-level checks A three-level verification will be implemented to regulate fee hikes, according to the Bill seen by The Hindu. First, schools will form an 11-member committee comprising the school management – a management representative and principal – three teachers, five parents from the parent-teacher association, selected by a draw of lots, and a nominee of the Directorate of Education (DoE). A District Fee Appellate Committee will hear appeals against the decisions taken by school-level committees. A similar procedure will be followed with a State-level revision committee, which will be the highest appellate authority. An aggrieved parents' group, which the Bill describes as 15% of the total strength of parents in an affected school, may appeal to the District Fee Appellate Committee within 30 days from the time the fees are approved, against the decisions of school-level committees. The Bill also specifies that if a school is found levying a fee that is not determined in the provisions of the Act, the DoE will direct the school to roll back the fee and refund the excess amount to the parents. The penalty for violators can range between ₹1 lakh and ₹10 lakh. Meanwhile, a fine of ₹50,000 will be levied on schools for harassing students over delayed payment of fees. The Bill also mentions the 10 factors that will determine the fee structure, including the location of the school, infrastructure made available, the education standardof schools, and a reasonable revenue surplus as may be prescribed. Divya Mattey, a parent of a student who studies in Delhi Public School, Dwarka, said, 'It will be difficult to get a minimum of 15% of the parent body to raise a question.' Mr. Mattey said that parents have noted that the penalties might not affect bigger schools, for whom '₹50,000 might be a small amount'. AAP, BJP at odds Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Delhi State president Saurabh Bharadwaj criticised the Bill, saying, 'Until now, even under the 1973 law, if a single parent felt that fees had been unfairly hiked, they could file a complaint with the DoE. Now, that has been scrapped. Under the new law, you'll need a minimum of 15% of parents to raise a complaint. In a school with 3,000 students, that means identifying 450 parents – a near-impossible task.' Delhi BJP chief Virendra Sachdeva said, 'It would have been better if Saurabh Bharadwaj had waited until the Bill was tabled in the upcoming session before commenting on it.'
