Ghaziabad councillors yet to receive June 30 meeting minutes
The June 30 board meeting, convened by mayor Sunita Dayal at the demand of 60–65 councillors, held a single and significant agenda item: the proposed hike in property tax. The board had overwhelmingly rejected the hike under the newly implemented structure.
Despite this, the official minutes—expected to confirm the board's rejection—have not been made public. Councillors fear that the delay is strategic, with some alleging that the minutes may never be released and could instead be quietly submitted before the Allahabad High Court, where a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against the tax hike is pending.
'There is absolutely no hint about the official minutes of the June 30 meeting, and no officer of the corporation is ready to provide a copy,' said Himanshu Sharma, councillor from Ward 75 (Rajendra Nagar – 1). 'With over 25 days passed and no minutes issued, it seems there is something fishy. A different alibi is being given each time,' Sharma added.
Adding to the accusations, Neeraj Goel, councillor from Ward 88 (Gandhinagar/Turabnagar), said, 'The officials are bent on increasing revenues through the property tax hike. With an increase in revenue, their chances of better transfers and postings improve. We feel they're hiding the board's rejection of the hike.'
Last week, councillors held a two-day round-the-clock protest at the municipal headquarters, demanding the immediate release of the minutes. The protest was later suspended after written assurances from officials, including Sanjeev Sinha, chief tax assessment officer, and Jung Bahadur Yadav, additional municipal commissioner. One of the key conditions in the letter was that the minutes would be sent to the Mayor by 10am on July 25.
That deadline has now lapsed.
'I still have not received any copy of the minutes of the June 30 board meeting from officials,' said mayor Sunita Dayal. 'On my part, I have done what was expected of me, and the hike was rejected,' she added.
When contacted for an update, Sanjeev Sinha did not respond to calls from HT. Jung Bahadur Yadav, who also serves as the House Secretary, stated, 'The minutes will be prepared soon.'
Meanwhile, three former councillors have already filed a PIL at the Allahabad High Court challenging the property tax hike. A crucial hearing is scheduled for July 29, further heightening the stakes around the missing minutes.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
21 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Banke Bihari temple: SC stays Allahabad HC orders, questions 'intemperate' language
Synopsis The Supreme Court has expressed its disapproval of the Allahabad High Court's handling of a PIL concerning the Banke Bihari Temple in Vrindavan. The apex court questioned the "intemperate language" used against the Uttar Pradesh government and stayed the observations made by the single-judge bench, further halting proceedings and requesting a division bench review. IANS Banke Bihari temple The Supreme Court on Friday expressed displeasure over the orders passed by Allahabad High Court in a PIL over historic Banke Bihari Temple in Vrindavan and questioned the use of "intemperate language" against the Uttar Pradesh government. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi perused the orders of July 21 and August 6 by a single-judge bench of the high court on a PIL which challenged the ordinance Uttar Pradesh Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025 and stayed the observations made in them. Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj, appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government pointed out to the bench that the high court conducted "parallel proceedings" on the issue and made certain "unwarranted observations" in the order. "What kind of intemperate language is being used by the high court? Like the state committed a sin by passing an ordinance. What is all this? Was the high court not informed that the Supreme Court was seized of the matter?" the bench said. Justice Kant further said the petitions challenging constitutional validity of a statute were always listed before the division bench but a single-judge passed the order in the present case. The bench ordered a stay on the observations made in the July 21 order, which appointed an amicus curiae besides the August 6 order having observations against the state. The top court also stayed further proceedings before the high court in the petition challenging the ordinance. It asked the Allahabad High Court chief justice to consider listing the petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the ordinance before a division bench along with other petitions. On August 6, the high court criticised the state government's move to bring an ordinance proposing a statutory trust to manage the historic Banke Bihari Temple and observed that the state has committed a 'sin'. During the hearing, the single judge made sharp remarks on an attempt of the state government to take over the administration of the temple and asked the government to "leave the temple alone".
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Banke Bihari temple: SC stays Allahabad HC orders, questions 'intemperate' language
New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Friday expressed displeasure over the orders passed by Allahabad High Court in a PIL over historic Banke Bihari Temple in Vrindavan and questioned the use of 'intemperate language' against the Uttar Pradesh government. Banke Bihari temple: SC stays Allahabad HC orders, questions 'intemperate' language A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi perused the orders of July 21 and August 6 by a single-judge bench of the high court on a PIL which challenged the ordinance Uttar Pradesh Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025 and stayed the observations made in them. Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj, appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government pointed out to the bench that the high court conducted "parallel proceedings" on the issue and made certain "unwarranted observations" in the order. "What kind of intemperate language is being used by the high court? Like the state committed a sin by passing an ordinance. What is all this? Was the high court not informed that the Supreme Court was seized of the matter?" the bench said. Justice Kant further said the petitions challenging constitutional validity of a statute were always listed before the division bench but a single-judge passed the order in the present case. The bench ordered a stay on the observations made in the July 21 order, which appointed an amicus curiae besides the August 6 order having observations against the state. The top court also stayed further proceedings before the high court in the petition challenging the ordinance. It asked the Allahabad High Court chief justice to consider listing the petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the ordinance before a division bench along with other petitions. On August 6, the high court criticised the state government's move to bring an ordinance proposing a statutory trust to manage the historic Banke Bihari Temple and observed that the state has committed a 'sin'. During the hearing, the single judge made sharp remarks on an attempt of the state government to take over the administration of the temple and asked the government to "leave the temple alone". This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Remarks against Allahabad HC judge: SC deletes observations after CJI intervenes
New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Friday deleted its observations criticising Allahabad High Court judge Prashant Kumar for allowing criminal proceedings in a civil dispute case, making it clear that its intention was not embarrass or cast aspersions on him. Remarks against Allahabad HC judge: SC deletes observations after CJI intervenes On August 4, A bench of Justice J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan observed it was expected of the high court to know the well-settled position of law that in cases of civil disputes a complainant cannot be permitted to resort to criminal proceedings as the same would amount to abuse of process of the law. "We request the the Chief Justice of the High Court of Allahabad to assign this matter to any other Judge of the High Court as he may deem fit. The Chief Justice of High Court shall immediately withdraw the present criminal determination from the concerned Judge. The Chief Justice shall make the concerned judge sit in a Division Bench with a seasoned senior judge of the High Court ," the top court order said. The bench on Friday said the observations were meant to ensure the dignity of the judiciary was maintained. "We reiterate, whatever we said in our order was to ensure that the dignity and the authority of the judiciary as a whole is maintained high in the minds of the people of this country. It is not just a matter of error or mistake by the judge concerned in appreciating the legal points or facts. We were concerned about the appropriate direction to be issued in the interest of justice and to protect the honour and dignity of the institution," the bench said. The bench clarified it was not its intention to cause embarrassment or cast aspersions on the judge concerned. "We would not even think of doing so. However, when the matters cross a threshold and the dignity of the institution is imperilled, it becomes the constitutional responsibility of this court to intervene even when acting under its appellate jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution," the top court said. The bench explained it was deleting the observations after a request was made by Chief Justice B R Gavai to reconsider the matter. "We have received an undated letter from the Chief Justice of India requesting the reconsideration of the observations... In such circumstances, we directed the Registry to re-notify the main matter for considering the request made by the Chief Justice of India," the bench said. The top court further noted high courts were not "separate islands" that could be disassociated from this institution. Acknowledging the high court chief justice was the master of the roster, the top court left it to him to take call in the matter. "We fully acknowledge that the Chief Justice of a High Court is the master of the roster. The directions are absolutely not interfering with the administrative power of the Chief Justice of the High Court. When matters raise institutional concerns affecting the rule of law, this court may be compelled to step in and take corrective step," the order added. The apex court further hoped not to come across such "perverse and unjust" order from any high court. "The endeavour of the high court should always be to uphold the rule of law and to maintain institutional credibility. If the rule of law is not maintained or protected within the court itself, then that would be the end of the entire justice system of the country," the bench said. The order underlined the responsibilities of judges who were expected to work "efficiently, discharge their duties diligently and always try and endeavour to fulfil their constituional oath". On August 4, the same top court bench stripped criminal matters of the roster of the Allahabad High Court judge till he demitted office after observing he "erroneously" upheld summons of criminal nature in a civil dispute. A group of judges of the Allahabad High Court wrote to Chief Justice Arun Bhansali urging him to convene a full court meeting in response to the Supreme Court's unprecedented order. The letter was written by Justice Arindam Sinha and seven judges signed the letter. In its order, the top court made strong observations against Justice Kumar's judicial reasoning and further directed the high court administration to remove him from the criminal roster. It further directed for him to be assigned a division bench alongside a senior judge until his retirement. The high court judge had refused to quash a magistrate's summoning order against a company which was accused of not paying the balance monetary sum in a business transaction of civil nature. He said asking the complainant to pursue civil remedy for recovering the amount was unreasonable being time intensive. Calling the high court judge's order "erroneous", the top court, which was hearing a challenge against it, said the judge went ahead to the extent of saying the complainant should be permitted to institute criminal proceedings for the purpose of recovery of the balance amount. The top court said the high court order was one of the "worst and most erroneous" orders that it came across in their respective tenures as judges of the top court. The high court had dismissed an application filed by one M/S Shikhar Chemicals seeking to quash summoning order in a case of commercial transaction. In the case, the complainant delivered goods in the form of threads to Shikhar Chemicals worth ₹52.34 lakh of which an amount of ₹47.75 lakh came to be paid, however, the balance amount has not been paid, till date. Lalita Textiles filed a criminal complaint for the recovery of the balance amount. Thereafter, the complainant's statement was recorded and a magisterial court issued summons against the applicant. The company moved the high court against the order, contending the dispute was purely civil in nature. The high court, however, rejected the plea. PKS AMK AMK This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
