Telangana HC issues notices to government over any concrete construction in GO 111 zone
: Expressing serious concerns over unbridled urbanisation around
Hyderabad's crucial water bodies
,
Telangana high court
Wednesday sought an explanation from senior officials within four weeks on how large-scale constructions—particularly convention halls—were being allowed within the eco-sensitive catchment areas of Osman Sagar and Himayat Sagar, despite explicit prohibitory orders under GO 111.
The court issued notices to the state govt, irrigation and municipal administration departments and Pollution Control Board. A bench, comprising acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara, also issued notices to the owners of five such convention centres, seeking their responses to the allegations made against their structures.
GO 111 prohibits any concrete construction activity within a 10-kilometre radius of the twin reservoirs, an area officially notified as a
bio-conservation zone
to protect the water bodies and surrounding environment.
The bench was hearing a PIL filed by Mandadi Madhava Reddy from Moinabad mandal in Rangareddy district. The petitioner questioned the inaction of the state machinery in preventing the emergence of large-scale constructions within the prohibited zone, arguing that such developments violate the provisions of GO 111 and pose a significant threat to the environment.
Petitioner's counsel, P Sasidhar Reddy, submitted to the court that five large convention centres had already come up in Janwada within Moinabad mandal, along with several others, in areas falling under GO 111 restrictions.
He pointed out that each convention hall can accommodate up to 5,000 people, generating vast amounts of waste and sewage, which ultimately find their way into the twin lakes. The influx of large crowds and vehicular traffic, he argued, would increase air and water pollution and worsen traffic congestion in the area.
The counsel further highlighted that these structures, along with their massive compound walls, have replaced significant green cover with concrete, disrupting the natural flow of water and contributing to ecological degradation.
He also criticised the govt for its alleged failure in enforcing environmental norms, claiming that even HYDRAA, the specialised agency created to protect the lakes, has been unable to curb the construction activity within the bio-conservation zone.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
5 hours ago
- Business Standard
States will be at whims of governor if nod to Bills withheld: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Wednesday said that the power of the governor to permanently withhold assent to bills would leave the state government, which is elected with majority, at his 'whims and fancies'. 'Would we not be giving total powers to the governor to sit in over an appeal. The government elected with the majority will be at (the) whims and fancies of (the) governor,' Chief Justice of India(CJI), Justice B R Gavai, said. The court was hearing the maintainability of the reference made by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143. The reference was concerning the April 8 ruling of the top court that set timelines for governors and the President to grant assent to bills passed by the legislature. In the April 8 judgment, a bench of Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan invoked its special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to fix deadlines for the President and governors to act on state bills. Replying to the query of the CJI, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, told the Constitution Bench of CJI B R Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice P S Narasimha, and Justice Atul S Chandurkar that everyone derives power from the Constitution. On the powers of the governor under Article 200, Mehta said the governor has four options- assent to the bill, withhold assent, reserve the bill for consideration of the President or send it back to the legislature. He said that when the governor withholds assent, the bill falls through. Article 200 of the Indian Constitution outlines the governor's powers regarding assent to bills passed by the state legislature. If a bill is returned, the legislature can pass it again with or without amendments, and the governor is then bound to give assent. The bench, however, remarked that the governor has to communicate his or her decision and that the focal point of the debate would be whether withholding is temporary or permanent. Mehta said the power to withhold is to be used rarely and only in the first instance, as it leads to the death of the bill. 'The governor is not just a postman. He represents the Union of India, appointed by the President. The President is elected by the entire nation by way of the entire election and that is also a way of democratic expression,' Mehta said. After the April 8 judgment, the President invoked Article 143(1) of the Constitution of India to consult the Supreme Court. This Article, commonly referred to as the power of 'Presidential Reference', empowers the President of India to seek the Supreme Court's opinion on questions of law or fact of public importance. President Murmu, on May 13, posed 14 questions to the Supreme Court of India on several aspects of law, including the ambit of the powers under Article 142. In response, the states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu filed an application questioning the maintainability of the reference. It urged the Supreme Court to return the reference unanswered and said it was an attempt by the Centre to indirectly overrule binding judgments without disclosure. Meanwhile, the central government supported the reference, arguing that the power of governors and the President to act on bills cannot be bound by judicial timelines. The hearing will continue on Thursday.
Time of India
6 hours ago
- Time of India
Stay on KJ George, officials extended till Aug 28
Bengaluru: The high court extended till Aug 28 the interim stay on further proceedings before the special court in a complaint against energy minister KJ George and some Bangalore Electricity Supply Company (Bescom) officials. This is in connection with the July 17 private complaint filed by BJP functionaries alleging irregularities in issuance of a tender for procuring and installing smart electric meters across the state. Justice MI Arun, who heard the matter for some time, adjourned the hearing. You Can Also Check: Bengaluru AQI | Weather in Bengaluru | Bank Holidays in Bengaluru | Public Holidays in Bengaluru | Gold Rates Today in Bengaluru | Silver Rates Today in Bengaluru Apart from the minister, Mahantesh Bilagi, former managing director of Bescom and presently MD of Karnataka State Minerals Development Corporation, along with HJ Ramesh, director (technical), Bescom, have sought quashing of the private complaint registered for offences under Sections 314, 316, and 61 of BNS, 2023, and Section 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(b) of Prevention of Corruption Act. Three BJP MLAs — CN Ashwath Narayan, SR Vishwanath, and D Muniraj — had lodged a complaint with Lokayukta police in April. Subsequently, they filed the private complaint before the special court for elected representatives. Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
8 hours ago
- Business Standard
Governor stalling assent to bills undermines elected state governments: SC
The Supreme Court on Wednesday said that the power of the governor to permanently withhold assent to bills would leave the state government, which is elected with majority, at his 'whims and fancies'. 'Would we not be giving total powers to the governor to sit in over an appeal. The government elected with the majority will be at (the) whims and fancies of (the) governor,' Chief Justice of India(CJI), Justice B R Gavai, said. The court was hearing the maintainability of the reference made by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143. The reference was concerning the April 8 ruling of the top court that set timelines for governors and the President to grant assent to bills passed by the legislature. In the April 8 judgment, a bench of Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan invoked its special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to fix deadlines for the President and governors to act on state bills. Replying to the query of the CJI, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, told the Constitution Bench of CJI B R Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice P S Narasimha, and Justice Atul S Chandurkar that everyone derives power from the Constitution. On the powers of the governor under Article 200, Mehta said the governor has four options- assent to the bill, withhold assent, reserve the bill for consideration of the President or send it back to the legislature. He said that when the governor withholds assent, the bill falls through. Article 200 of the Indian Constitution outlines the governor's powers regarding assent to bills passed by the state legislature. If a bill is returned, the legislature can pass it again with or without amendments, and the governor is then bound to give assent. The bench, however, remarked that the governor has to communicate his or her decision and that the focal point of the debate would be whether withholding is temporary or permanent. Mehta said the power to withhold is to be used rarely and only in the first instance, as it leads to the death of the bill. 'The governor is not just a postman. He represents the Union of India, appointed by the President. The President is elected by the entire nation by way of the entire election and that is also a way of democratic expression,' Mehta said. After the April 8 judgment, the President invoked Article 143(1) of the Constitution of India to consult the Supreme Court. This Article, commonly referred to as the power of 'Presidential Reference', empowers the President of India to seek the Supreme Court's opinion on questions of law or fact of public importance. President Murmu, on May 13, posed 14 questions to the Supreme Court of India on several aspects of law, including the ambit of the powers under Article 142. In response, the states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu filed an application questioning the maintainability of the reference. It urged the Supreme Court to return the reference unanswered and said it was an attempt by the Centre to indirectly overrule binding judgments without disclosure. Meanwhile, the central government supported the reference, arguing that the power of governors and the President to act on bills cannot be bound by judicial timelines. The hearing will continue on Thursday.
