Smart Meter tender probe against K J George: Karnataka High Court extends interim order
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
28 minutes ago
- News18
Karnataka HC Pushes State Govt To Act On Bike Taxi Ban, Citing Livelihood And Precedent
Last Updated: The High Court acknowledged the gravity of the situation, recognising that the ban has a direct impact on the earnings and sustenance of the operators In a major development that can bring back bike taxis on Bengaluru roads, the Karnataka High Court has issued a firm directive to the state government, urging it to decide its stance on formulating rules for these conveyances within four weeks. The court's action comes in response to a petition filed by bike taxi operators who are challenging the government's complete prohibition on their services. This legal battle highlights the growing tension between traditional transport regulations and the evolving gig economy, with the livelihoods of thousands of drivers hanging in the balance. During the hearing, the legal representatives for the bike taxi operators presented a compelling case against the ban. They underscored that a majority of Indian states—specifically, 13 of them—have already successfully formulated and implemented a policy framework for bike taxis. This fact, they argued, makes Karnataka's decision to enforce a blanket ban an outlier and an unjustified measure. The operators also pointed to the unique operational benefits of their services, noting that two-wheelers can easily navigate congested urban areas and reach locations inaccessible to cars and auto-rickshaws, thereby offering a crucial last-mile connectivity solution that doesn't significantly worsen traffic. The High Court acknowledged the gravity of the situation, recognising that the ban has a direct impact on the earnings and sustenance of the operators. Granting the government a period of four weeks to craft a clear policy, the court emphasised that a decision must be made, as 'there are lives at stake". In response, the state's advocate general, Shashikiran Shetty, assured the court that the government would comply with the directive and provide its official position within the given timeframe. The High Court has set a firm deadline of September 22 for the government to present its official stance. This directive marks a significant moment in the struggle for the formal recognition of bike taxis in Karnataka. It places the onus squarely on the government to either justify its complete ban or follow the lead of other states and create a regulatory framework. The outcome of this decision will not only impact the future of ride-sharing in the state but will also serve as a precedent for how governments approach the regulation of innovative, app-based services that are reshaping urban mobility and employment. view comments First Published: August 21, 2025, 04:46 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Loading comments...
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Sahibabad market violence: Trader held over remarks against woman
Ghaziabad: The Ghaziabad police have arrested Bijender Yadav, a trader at Sahibabad vegetable market, for allegedly making insulting remarks against a woman, the wife of a government officer, said officials on Wednesday. A spokesperson of the Congress' city unit has said that trader Yadav is not holding any party responsibility as of now. (HT Photos (Video grab)) On August 14, Yadav, along with 100-150 unidentified people, was booked in an FIR registered at the Link Road police station under the BNS sections for insulting the modesty of a woman, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace, criminal intimidation, and threats that cause fear of death, grievous hurt, destruction of property by fire, or other serious offenses. 'Yadav, named in the FIR, was arrested on Tuesday under section 151 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) (to prevent the commission of cognizable offences). The FIR was lodged by the woman. However, even after a lot of persuasion, she or her husband has not come to the police to provide their statements so far. An investigation is underway,' said assistant commissioner of police (Sahibabad circle) Shweta Yadav. The woman alleged in her FIR that Yadav allegedly gave a speech to the Sahibabad vegetable market traders on August 11, and also passed insulting remarks against her and her husband. The incidents later took an ugly turn, and a group of men allegedly opened fire at traders, leaving two men injured. Several purported videos of the speech, firing and violence also went viral on the social media. Later, eight suspects of a group were arrested on August 11 evening for rioting, attempted murder, and violence. Earlier, Yadav, who is also ex-Congress district president, told HT that due to traders' harassment he had made the remarks. A spokesperson of the Congress' city unit said that Yadav is not holding any party responsibility as of now.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Bombay High Court dismisses election petition against BJP legislator Tamil Selvan
Mumbai: Observing that the petition comprised vague and generic pleadings, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday dismissed an election petition filed against the victory of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) legislator Captain R Tamil Selvan. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now He won from the Sion-Koliwada constituency in the 2024 Maharashtra Assembly elections. Selvan petitioned the HC for the dismissal of the petition filed by Ganesh Kumar Yadav, the Indian National Congress (INC) candidate who emerged with the second-highest votes. Yadav earlier this year filed the election petition and, through his counsel Premlal Krishnan, challenged Selvan's election on grounds of non-compliance with certain rules and provisions, including those governing valid nominations under Section 33 of the Representation of People (RP) Act. Justice Milind Jadhav, who pronounced the judgment on Tuesday, said, "It is, however, prima facie seen that the Election Petition comprises vague and generic pleadings and there is a complete absence of material facts." Krishnan argued that averments in the petition were enough to lay the foundation for the challenge. Justice Jadhav noted that Krishnan "fairly argued that though what Petitioner will prove in evidence is not specifically in so many words stated in the Election Petition … Petitioner should be allowed to prove the same in trial. " Justice Jadhav, after hearing senior counsel Veerendra Tulzapurkar, who represented Selvan, said he did not subscribe to Krishnan's submission. The allegations, including "non-disclosure" of an arbitration award in favour of the Railways, were of "vague violations" by Selvan with no specific details whatsoever, the HC said, adding, "Alleged omissions do not amount to non-compliance with provisions of Section 33 or Rule 4A so as to constitute a defect of substantial character under Section 36(4) of the RP Act." Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The HC said, "It is seen that on scrutiny, the Returning Officer has not found any ambiguity or mistake, much less, non-disclosure or falsehood which can be deemed as suppression. It is in this context that when the Election Petitioner approaches the Court, he has to make a concise material statement of facts with all details in the Petition itself at the threshold. The Petitioner cannot improve his case in further pleadings, which is the attempt of Petitioner before me. " Once Selvan's nomination was held to be valid, it is deemed accepted and can only be rejected at the time of scrutiny. When the Returning Officer on scrutiny endorses each nomination, the nomination is considered valid, the HC held. The HC agreed with Tulzapurkar's submissions seeking dismissal of the EP as it does not contain a concise statement of material facts as mandated under Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act.
