Plea in HC against Jayanth house razing
2
Kolkata: A petitioner, claiming to be a resident of an illegal four-storey house at Ariadaha under the Kamarhati Municipality, on Tuesday challenged the demolition notice served by the civic body, as directed by the Calcutta High Court.
The house in question is White House, owned by Jayanth Singh, prime suspect in a mob violence case. The petitioner, Prasant Singh, in his application before the division bench of Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta, pleaded that the Kamarhati Municipality didn't serve him a notice to vacate the building, where he was a resident. Singh's counsel said the municipality served the notice to Jayanth, mentioning June 15 as the demolition date.
The counsel said Prasant was a resident of that house and the municipality didn't serve him a notice. when Sec 218 of West Bengal Municipal Act provided for a notice. HC gave a chance to Prasant for a hearing, provided he proved he was a genuine resident of the house.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
12 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Bombay High Court pulls up police for compelling doctors to reveal identity of minor girls seeking pregnancy termination
The Bombay High Court on Monday expressed displeasure with the Maharashtra Police for 'harassment' of doctors for compelling them to reveal the names and identity of the minor girls who desire to terminate their pregnancy, despite the Supreme Court directive that the same should not be insisted upon. A bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Neela K Gokhale passed an order on city-based gynecologist seeking direction that he was free to undertake medical termination of pregnancy (MTP) of a co-petitioner minor girl without disclosing her name and identity to the police. The petitioner through advocate Meenaz Kakalia referred to the Supreme Court judgment of 2022 which 'recognized the medical practitioner's fear of prosecution under POCSO, thereby hindering access to safe and legal abortion.' The court noted that petitioner minor girl had consensual relationship with a boy known to her and became pregnant consequent to said relations and she and her parents are desirous of terminating her 13-week pregnancy. 'Hence, well within the restriction on the length of pregnancy, termination of which is permissible under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act (MTP), 1971 subject to the conditions laid down therein. Considering the future of the minor, it is natural that she and her parents are unwilling to reveal her identity,' the HC noted. Kakalia also argued that earlier, a coordinate bench of HC had in May last year allowed the gynaecologist to undertake MTP of another minor girl without disclosing her name and identity based on SC decision. The HC permitted the doctor to undertake MTP of the minor girl 'without being compelled to disclose her name and identity.' The court said that the forensic evidence of the foetus be collected and stored by the doctor only if the minor girl and her parents consent to the same, which transmitted to the Police Officer concerned in case any criminal prosecution is launched in future. 'We are quite surprised that despite the clear finding of the Supreme Court as well as of this court, repeatedly holding that in the facts of such cases, the identity of the minor girl need not be insisted upon to be revealed, the doctors concerned are compelled to approach this court for such permissions as the police insist upon the doctors to reveal the name and identity of the minor victims. 'This is nothing but harassment of the doctors as well as the minor victims. We thus, deem it appropriate that a copy of the Supreme Court's decision as aforesaid as well as the orders passed by this court be circulated to all the police stations in Maharashtra for their information and for necessary action,' the HC noted and disposed of the plea.
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
HC asks if Centre can order cuts in Udaipur Files
NEW DELHI: Delhi High Court on Wednesday asked the Centre whether it had the authority to pass the order directing six cuts in the film 'Udaipur Files—Kanhaiya Lal Tailor Murder' while exercising its revisional powers. 'You have to exercise the powers within the four corners of the statute. You can't go beyond that,' a bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said. The court raised the issue after being informed that the Centre, using its revisional powers under the Cinematograph Act, recommended six cuts and a disclaimer for the film. Although the movie has been recertified, the certificate hasn't been issued to the producers, as the matter is still pending in the high court. The HC was hearing a plea by Mohammed Javed, one of the accused in the murder case, objecting to the release of the film.
Hindustan Times
5 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Chandigarh: HC seeks response from UT DGP on farm protesters' plea
The Punjab and Haryana high court (HC) on Wednesday sought response from the Chandigarh director general of police (DGP) on a plea filed by two dozen persons seeking directions to UT police to forward a no objection certificate (NOC) to the Union ministry of home affairs (MHA) for the withdrawals of three FIRs registered against the protesters during protests against repealed farm laws in 2020-2021. The court has sought response by August 18. (HT photo for representation) The petitions stated the Centre while repealing the three farm laws, enacted in 2020 had agreed to withdraw all the criminal cases registered against farmers and other protesters and gave a direction on December 12 2021, delegating powers to the state governments to withdraw cases under section 321 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The plea said various states including Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and others initiated withdrawal of cases and in June 2022 senior superintendent police, Chandigarh was approached with a request to withdraw three FIRs registered in Chandigarh in 2020 and 2022. Two FIRs registered at Sector-34 police station and one registered at Sector-49 police station. Following representation from the petitioners, the local police had opined that they had no objection to withdrawal of these FIRs. But the same has not been communicated to the Centre by Chandigarh police despite repeated follow ups and a delay of over 2.5 years, the plea claimed. The petition sought withdrawal of the FIRs and a stay on the proceedings of these three FIRs. The court has sought response by August 18. The Centre ushered in the new farm laws- The Farmers (Empowerment & Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act 2020, The Farmers Produce Trade & Commerce (Promotion & Facilitation) Act 2020 and The Essential Commodities Act 2020 in 2020 and were passed by the Parliament. There were widespread protests in the country by farmers as they felt laws being contrary to the interests of the farmer community in India. Thousands of farmers remained camped at the Delhi border for months together. It was on December 1, 2021, that the Centre repealed the new laws.
