Telangana HC issues notices to government over any concrete construction in GO 111 zone
HYDERABAD
: 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
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Cal HC to hear stay plea on new OBC list today
Kolkata: Calcutta High Court will decide on Tuesday whether to stay the state executive order that includes 140 subgroups, of which 80 are Muslims, in the new OBC list. The earlier list, struck down by the HC to a large extent, had 113 OBC subgroups with 77 Muslims and 36 others. Bengal assembly passed the new notification last week after the HC, on May 22, 2024, struck down the categorisation of the prevalent OBC A and B categories made post-2011. A host of petitions challenging the new state executive order were filed in the high court even when the matter was pending before the Supreme Court. The petitioners prayed for a stay on the executive order, calling it a "blatant violation" of a HC division bench order on May 22. A division bench of justices Tapabrata Chakraborty and Rajasekhar Mantha on Monday adjourned the hearing of the matter till 2 pm on Tuesday to decide whether the prayer for a stay by petitioner Purabi Das could be granted. Senior counsel Bansuri Swaraj, supporting the prayer for a stay, pleaded that the West Bengal Commission for Backward Classes had violated guidelines set by the division bench for determining inclusion of communities under the OBC category. Citing the division bench order, Swaraj claimed it had directed a "fair, transparent and just" procedure for the process and asked for a survey of the whole population. "The commission held that it would be an absurd and unworkable proposition to conduct a survey of the whole population on each and every occasion the commission considers inclusion of communities under OBC category. The commission instead chose Ashleyan's formula to determine the sample size for the survey," she said. Swaraj cited a nine-bench judgment of Supreme Court (Indra Sahwney vs Union of India) to argue that a survey means a survey of the whole population. Advocate general Kishore Datta submitted that the matter was pending before the Supreme Court. In the meantime, the state had to urgently make recruitments and admissions in colleges and universities under OBC category, he said. Justice Chakraborty observed that the state could make recruitments from among the 66 OBC categories before 2010, which the HC didn't touch. Justice Mantha held that the state could undertake a special recruitment drive from among the new OBC list later. "We want to examine the process and its sanctity. We also want to see whether these classes were appropriately represented in the state. Now, if the state jumps the horse before the cart, we are left nowhere," Justice Mantha observed.
Indian Express
3 hours ago
- Indian Express
Kapil Sibal: ‘Delhi Police did not do its job… What was the need for CJI to forward Justice Varma report to govt?'
Independent Rajya Sabha MP and former Congress leader Kapil Sibal has been part of two impeachment processes against senior judges. In 1993, Sibal had defended then Supreme Court judge V Ramaswami during his impeachment motion hearing in Parliament, while in 2018, he was the one who read out the impeachment motion in the House against then Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra. As the government prepares to move on an impeachment motion against Justice Yashwant Varma, Sibal speaks at length on why he does not think the case against the High Court judge stands. Excerpts: Before I answer that, why has the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha not moved on an impeachment motion signed by 55 members of Parliament (in the case of Allahabad High Court Justice Shekhar Yadav) for six months? Does it take that long to verify signatures, especially when the case against Justice Yadav is open-and-shut? The communal (speech) of the judge is evident. The speech has not been denied by the judge… The government clearly wants to save the judge… Also, why did the Rajya Sabha Chairman write to the Chief Justice not to proceed with the in-house inquiry (against Justice Yadav) based on information available in the public domain? The same logic should have been used by the Chairman to stop the in-house inquiry against Justice Varma. The Opposition should insist that impeachment proceedings be commenced against Justice Yadav before the case of Yashwant Varma is taken up. The case is unlike any other in the past. Why do I say that? In the case of Justice Ramaswami, what were the allegations? That he ordered a certain carpet of a certain dimension, but what was found in the oval dining room was not consistent with the dimensions ordered. That was a matter of record, requiring no further evidence. He had allegedly installed many air conditioners, bought new furniture, enjoyed the benefit of two residences, in Chennai and Chandigarh. Facts relating to all this were matters of record…. Whether such financial profligacy amounted to proven misconduct or not was the only question to be answered in the course of the debate on the motion (in Parliament). Take the case of Justice S K Gangele, who was accused of sexual harassment. That required an inquiry, not an investigation. The inquiry under the Judges Inquiry Act, 1964, exonerated him. So the motion failed. In the case of Justice Soumitra Sen, he resigned before the vote on the impeachment. The charge against him related to misappropriation of funds when acting as a receiver, appointed by the Calcutta High Court. Again, the facts in relation to the funds were not in dispute. In the case of Justice A K Ganguly, the Judges' Inquiry Committee found that charges of sexual harassment prima facie disclosed an act of unwelcome behaviour. But no action was taken since by then he had retired. In none of the above cases was there a requirement for an investigation for facts to be established. But in this (Justice Varma's) case, you need an investigation, because there are no established facts, other than that there are videos showing burnt cash in the outhouse of the residence allotted to the judge. First, there is no evidence to discover how much cash was there. Mainstream media alleges, without any evidence, that there were four or six sacks… Who brought these and placed them there… no evidence. No mention of this in the evidence collected by the in-house (Court) committee. Mainstream media alleges, again without any evidence, that a sum of Rs 15 crore was there… Who counted them, only the media knows. No such evidence before the committee… The outhouse was beyond the boundary wall, separating the residence from the outhouse and staff quarters. The CRPF was located at the main gate, with no direct view of the outhouse. There was also a back gate where there was no security. So who put the cash in the outhouse? How much cash was there? Whether it was genuine or fake… all that has to be investigated. What did the fire service officers do after they reached the spot; what did they do after they extinguished the fire? They should have wondered how such a fire can be the result of a short circuit in a room with only one fan and a tubelight. Did they tell the family members about the presence of cash? In fact, there is no evidence that they did… Was (Justice Varma's) daughter close enough to see what was in the outhouse? She was asked to stay a distance from the outhouse, from where she could not see what was inside. Neither personnel of the Delhi Police nor members of the Fire Service Department told any member of the family and those present in the house that they discovered burnt cash. They never told the Judge's PS. Why did the Delhi Police not seize the alleged half-burnt cash? The tape showed that remnants of cash were present. You needed only one note with a serial number to figure out which bank it came from. Much could have been inferred after that. Why did the Delhi Police not do that? Why did they not cordon off the premises? Why did they not keep a vigil throughout? Why did they not lodge an FIR?… Why was all this not done? They looked into what? They never looked into why the Delhi Police didn't do what they were supposed to do? The committee said that is not part of their remit… They didn't look into how members of the Fire Services Department conducted themselves… I have great regard for each of (the judges), but if they were asked to hold an inquiry, they should have looked into issues which (were) obvious. Without a full-fledged inquiry, they concluded that as cash was allegedly found as reflected in the taped videos, and the judge could not explain who the cash belonged to and who put it there, therefore, the cash found must have been placed there with his tacit/explicit knowledge. They do not conclude that the cash belonged to the judge… In the absence of any investigation, how do you make somebody culpable for something that he says he is not aware of? There has to be evidence to show that the cash was moved on such and such day, at such and such time… Somebody will have to unload, placing it in the outhouse… Qua the quantum too the committee has rendered no finding. On March 23, how did some television channels find some burnt notes on the road?… That is nine days after the event. I hope they have kept the notes because maybe there is a serial number which can provide some evidence of their origin. I say with some sense of responsibility that he (Justice Varma) was perhaps one of the finest judges of this court (the Delhi High Court). There was never a whiff of any wrongdoing here, or for that matter, when he was in Allahabad. No. In-house is an in-house procedure for the Supreme Court. In fact, I wonder what was the constitutional necessity for (then) Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna – an absolutely outstanding judge – to forward the report to the government. Members of Parliament have to be agitated enough, independent of the in-house procedure, about the conduct of a judge of the higher judiciary and, if they are convinced… then alone a motion for his removal should be moved. We did this in the case of Justice Misra (facing allegations of misbehaviour and misuse of authority). We Members of Parliament based our findings on facts… Such a motion should then be dealt with by a judges' inquiry committee constituted under the 1964 Act. In this case, the MPs have no facts to go by other than alleged burnt cash, without knowing its origins. You are using an in-house procedure to supplant an inquiry without a motion, and you want to remove the judge. Just look at the facts. On the 14th of March, a fire broke out around 11.30 pm. The daughter of the judge hears a blast and goes to the site along with the house staff. When the door is opened, the fire flares up, so they back off. Neither the CRPF nor anybody else comes to help… She is the one who calls the fire services people. The Delhi Police comes thereafter. The fire is doused. The police don't do a thing… They – neither the Fire Services Department nor the Delhi Police – inform the family that cash was found. The judge returns on the 15th. He goes to meet his mother, comforts her. He doesn't go to that site at that point… The committee surprisingly presumes that (this is) because he knew that cash was there and that it belonged to him. The judge is not aware that cash was found at the site till the 17th, when the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court shows him the tape. He is, of course, shocked. Thereafter on the 20th of March, the Judge (Varma) is transferred. He doesn't protest against the transfer. Again, the inquiry report holds that he should have protested and, because he did not, it is evidence of guilt. On March 25, the in-house procedure starts, which does not associate the judge in any substantial way. They examine the fire services people, the Delhi Police, CRPF… they issue him (Justice Varma) a show-cause notice. He files a reply on April 30, and requests that he be given a hearing, which was afforded to the judges concerned in all previous cases. That hearing is not given. What is said in his reply is not countered, and a report is given on the 4th of May, possibly because Chief Justice Khanna was to retire soon thereafter… They may inquire if they find the evidence sufficiently compelling. But again, this case requires an investigation. In my view, the Supreme Court itself, because he (Justice Varma) is a judge of the High Court, should direct the Secretary General to lodge an FIR and set up an investigating agency, an SIT, of chosen officers… The Delhi Police has already bungled and not done its job. Clearly, from statements made by the Law Minister and others, they wish to remove the judge even in the absence of any evidence of wrongdoing… The judge will have no confidence in any police investigation under the control of the government… There are other unanswered questions. Even the inquiry report says that the keys (of the outhouse) were accessible to anybody living on the premises… Incidentally, there was a liquor cabinet there which was locked. So you have to assume that the judge was more concerned about the liquor than the kind of cash that the mainstream media said was found there. We are not at that stage at all, and the judge has not asked me to appear for him… The issues raised by me are questions that any thinking person must ask before destroying somebody's career and reputation. The government is using this flimsy information to demoralise the judiciary, to take forward their agenda of an NJAC (National Judicial Appointments Commission) in which the final authority for appointing judges to the superior courts is the government… The whole idea seems to be to get the nation to believe that the judiciary is corrupt and therefore we need to change the system… I hope and I trust that the Opposition will not let it happen.
Hans India
6 hours ago
- Hans India
'MLAs who rode cycles now own luxury cars', Punjab BJP chief seeks HC probe into drug money trail
Seeking the High Court Chief Justice-monitored probe into the drug money trail, state BJP chief Sunil Jakhar on Monday blamed Punjab legislators who rode cycles and now own luxury cars. In a missive to Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann, the BJP chief said, 'It is imperative to follow the money to track down the powerful beneficiaries in the drug money trail if the government wants to establish its credibility and resolve to uproot the drug mafia from Punjab.' He sought the intervention of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice Sheel Nagu for setting up an appropriate 'time-bound' probe by a credible agency, or even a multi-agency probe, under the supervision of the Chief Justice to uncover the end beneficiaries in the drug money trail. 'Arresting thousands of drug addicts and small players won't make any difference in rooting out the drug menace. The flow of money has to be established to catch the big fish and arrest the end beneficiaries, be it politicians across party lines or officials. Without this, the government's claim in its fight against drugs in Punjab remains a farce,' Jakhar said, adding the drug cartels in the state cannot thrive without some or the other kind of patronage which has been there for some time now. Jakhar said the recovery of narcotics in 'Punjab goes into several thousands of crores, which underlies the rot that exists. At the same time, the fortunes of so many Punjab politicians have turned in the last few years. This raises a lot of stench and suspicion on the source of funding'. Without naming anyone, the BJP chief said, 'MLAs who would come on cycles now own luxury cars worth many crores. Many have several acres of farmhouses,' he said. 'Since the quantum of money involved in the drug trail is colossal, the money laundering case can be probed either by the Enforcement Directorate, or as deemed fit by the Chief Justice. Merely filing mandatory income tax returns by MLAs and others is not enough as there is a clear mismatch between their claims and the ground reality,' the BJP chief asserted. The ministers, MLAs, party presidents, party in-charges and leaders of all hues should be a part of the investigation by the agencies, Jakhar stressed, adding that he, as the BJP president, volunteers to be the first to be probed as a mark of his and his party's sincerity and earnestness. 'The CM should, on priority, write to the honourable Chief Justice for initiating a probe by any agency deemed appropriate. The probe should be under the supervision of the Chief Justice, without which the flow of money to end beneficiaries of the drug trade will not be possible,' the BJP president said. He said it would be prudent that the 'role of the judiciary and the executive remain separate and independent, which is why the CM should write to the Chief Justice under whose supervision the probe to establish the flow of money in the drug money trail can be initiated.' 'Not just the drug money trail, the trail of illicit money from mining and sand mafia also needs to be probed and the guilty brought to book,' Jakhar added.
