HC seeks reply from govt on appointing regular VC of Baripada univ
Cuttack:
Orissa high court
on Tuesday sought a reply from the state govt on a PIL seeking intervention for appointment of a regular vice-chancellor of
Maharaja Sriram Chandra Bhanja Deo University
, Baripada.
Accordingly, the vacation bench of Justices S K Sahoo and M S Sahoo directed the state counsel to take instructions and scheduled the matter to the week starting on June 30 for hearing.
HC lawyer Prabir Kumar Das (60), who filed the petition, appeared in-person and submitted that the university is functioning without a regular VC since Nov 2022.
Das further submitted that the governor, chancellor of state universities, had appointed the VC of Fakir Mohan University, Balasore, as in-charge VC of the
Baripada university
in a notification issued on Dec 7, 2022.
Section 6 (10) of the Odisha University Act, 1989 mandates that where it is not practicable to fill up the post of vice-chancellor, the chancellor may appoint the VC of another public university for a period not exceeding one year.
As the in-charge VC took charge on Dec 14, 2022, his appointment was valid till Dec 13, 2023. Hence his continuance is without any authority of law, Das argued.
According to the petition, though the state higher education department had issued an advertisement for the appointment of VC of Maharaja Sriram Chandra Bhanja Deo University, no follow-up action has been taken, according to information obtained under the RTI Act.
Hashtags
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
Joshimath lessons ignored: Rs 6,200cr Doon–Mussoorie elevated road may trigger another ecological disaster
Dr Rakesh Kapoor, a former special secretary to the government of Himachal Pradesh, is a geologist and an expert in integrated waste management The environmental casualties in Uttarakhand are now perhaps part of life. We haven't learnt lessons from the 2013 Kedarnath tragedy—Rishiganga, Joshimath, and Silkyara are happening repetitively. Cloudbursts and landslides have become common features. From hills to plains, the story is the same: unplanned growth, projects being conceived and implemented without envisioning the fear of environmental catastrophes. The proposal to widen VIP Road from Dila Ram Chowk to Raj Bhawan, taking a toll of 3,000 trees, and the proposed road from Rishikesh to Dehradun have been partially stalled only after thousands of citizens and environmentalists gathered to protest. The fire has still not been extinguished, but a new controversial chapter of an elevated road from Dehradun to Mussoorie—to cut travel time for tourists entering the hill state from Delhi-NCR and Western UP—has been opened. Even after a casual gaze at the proposal, it is clear that it has been mooted only with the aim of minting money through contracts. Because even today, the agency is not clear about who will finance and execute the proposal. It has raised more questions than it has answered on vital issues concerning environmental degradation, rehabilitation, and the real benefit of the project. Firstly, what is the real need for an elevated 26 km road corridor passing through part of Dehradun city? Is it just to save time for tourists from Delhi-NCR reaching Mussoorie and to attract more tourists to the Queen of Hills, especially on weekends? How much time are they going to save? At what cost is it going to be? Secondly, the Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority (MDDA) and government either do not know or do not want to disclose the position of the land bank, ie the status of land—whether it is encroached upon by dwellers, government, forest, or private land—on which the project is to be implemented. If for a 26 km elevated road, 2,614 identified families are to be displaced, it comes out to be 100 families per km, or 1 family per 10 metres. Without assessing the implication of the plan cost—besides environmental cost assessment and its inclusion into the project cost—how is it going to be implemented? The government sources have confirmed that no proposal for providing land-for-land compensation to property owners instead of acquired land has been prepared at the state government level so far. The reported dichotomic brief of the MDDA VC in a section of the press is creating more confusion, as it envisages that the displaced 2,614 identified families shall have two options—either land-for-land or monetary compensation. When no plan has been finalised, neither the land bank nor site for allotment of land to rehabilitate displaced families has been demarcated, nor is there a Section 4 notification on land acquisition prescribed under the Act, despite it being mandatory—how will the displaced families exercise the option? Now comes a very vital point. The town of Mussoorie, during normal weekends, sees the entry of 4,000 to 5,000 vehicles, especially during the summer months, ie end of March to June, which causes traffic jams for hours together and chaotic situations often. Once the elevated road comes up, another 4,000 to 5,000 vehicles are going to be added to this lot. The town, as per reports, has parking capacity of only 2,000 four-wheelers and 1,500–2,000 two-wheelers altogether. The three new parking lots to add 2,000 to the present capacity are still hanging in the fire—either due to financial crunch or facing litigation since 2019. Now comes the most vital part of the project. The very foundation of the so-called Rs 6,200 crore project is belied by simple arithmetic. No denying the fact that even today, the Volvo buses plying between Delhi and Dehradun take just 270 to 275 minutes, despite the Dehradun–Delhi expressway not being fully operational. If you add another 60 minutes to reach Mussoorie via the bypass, anybody can reach it in 5 hours and 30 minutes even today. Even after the 26 km elevated road, traffic jams are bound to happen in the absence of parking spaces for the additional 4,000 to 5,000 vehicles entering Mussoorie. If tourists have to spend 2–3 hours in traffic jams, what's the point of arriving 30 minutes earlier? The Dehradun–Mussoorie ropeway project—aimed at finding a solution to the problem of traffic jams with just Rs 300 crore investment (which is in an advanced stage of execution as per the government's own claim)—shall not only save time, reduce environmental pollution, and add adventure to the journey for tourists, but also serve as an additional attraction. It seems more credible. The claim of making tourists reach Mussoorie in 4.5 hours from Delhi is belied by the project's design itself. As the elevated road Bindal–Rispna corridor shall land at a point near Max Hospital. Don't spread this misinformation about Delhi to Mussoorie in 2.5 hours. It will still take you about 7-odd hours with all these expressways and elevated corridors, assuming normal traffic flows. Let's take this example: you stay in GK or Model Town in Delhi and are coming to Uttarakhand: 60 minutes from your home to Akshardham, Delhi. 150 minutes from Akshardham to Asarodi, Dehradun (as claimed by the government). 30 minutes from Asarodi to the entry point of the new elevated corridors (assumed). 30 minutes on 26 km elevated corridors (once they are ready). 60 minutes from Max Hospital or Nagal in Dehradun to Mussoorie (Max & Nagal are points in Dehradun where the elevated corridor ends). You will also likely take a minimum of two breaks during this long journey. Add another 60 minutes for your breaks. The grand total is coming close to 6.5 to 7 hours. Today, without all these expressways and corridors, you are still reaching in about 7 to 8 hours. If there is just one hour of time saving, is it worth it to cut thousands of trees, create these mammoth monsters of cement, kill our rivers forever, ruin the skyline of Dehradun, and displace so many people? Why this fuss? The project is going to be an environmental and ecological disaster—besides being pound-foolish, penny-wise. We are going to add another Joshimath to the list. In Rs 6,200 crore, another hill town nearby could be developed for tourism purposes—if only that is the consideration. But it's beyond that—what we actually want and what we really need. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer Views expressed above are the author's own.
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
Mumbai: No relief for six defaulter flat buyers in Chembur project
MUMBAI : In a recent order, MahaRERA granted no relief to six flat purchasers, stating that since they defaulted on payments, they were not entitled to the relief they sought under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act. Of the six flat purchasers, five sought a refund of certain amounts they paid as they wished to withdraw from the residential project in Chembur , and one wanted to continue but sought more time to pay. Godrej Developers terminated their bookings by seeking to forfeit the booking amounts. The allottees challenged the forfeiture and sought a refund under Section 18 of the RERA Act on the grounds of wanting to withdraw from the project. One of the buyers who filed the complaint before MahaRERA said he wanted to withdraw from the project and sought orders to direct the builder to refund the amount, as due to the Covid pandemic at the time, he was unable to invest huge sums in the project. All complainants said they suffered financial and personal loss during the Covid-19 pandemic, the effects of which they are facing even today. Advocate Pulkit Agarwal, representing four complainants, argued that they wished to withdraw since the builder served them termination letters, "stating that the entire amount that the complainant paid stands forfeited and the complainants were ordered to return all the documents regarding their units". For Godrej, advocate Abhijeet Mangade argued that the reliefs claimed by individual complainants were not based on any violation or non-compliance of RERA Act by the developer, but the buyers failed to pay on time. MahaRERA chairperson, Manoj Saunik, in his order, said since the allottees defaulted on their obligations by failing to make remaining payments on time as per the agreement, "the authority finds that the six complainants are not entitled to reliefs under Section 18". MahaRERA upheld the termination notice sent by the builder to the buyer with whom an agreement was made, but directed a refund of money strictly according to the terms of the agreement to the buyer in 60 days. MahaRERA said it was pertinent to note that under Section 19(6), the allottee is under obligation to make timely payments in the manner prescribed in the agreement. One of the functions of the authority is to ensure compliance with the obligations cast upon the allottees. The Chembur project got part occupancy certificates in March 2022 and Dec 2023.
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
Special court closes Powai land case against Niranjan Hiranandani, others
MUMBAI : A special court Monday closed criminal proceedings against developer Niranjan Hiranandani and others in the alleged Rs 30,000 crore Powai Area Development Scheme (PADS) land scam case. The judge observed that prosecuting the accused would not be in keeping with justice and that there was no prima facie case after the state Anti-Corruption Bureau submitted a closure report saying there was no evidence of corruption, monetary gratification, dishonest intention, or criminal conspiracy. The case relates to allegations that prime public land leased at concessional rates for affordable housing was diverted to construct luxury real estate and commercial premises by private developers, notably Niranjan Hiranandani, managing director of the Hiranandani group . "Having perused the closure report, I find that no material or anything incriminating, which could connect the accused…with the alleged crime has been found…in my opinion it would thus, be futile to unnecessarily prosecute the accused.., sans any material against them," special judge Shashikant Eknathrao Bangar said in a 119-page order made available on Tuesday. The judge said the closure reports are based on cogent investigation, verified compliance, and supported by judicial orders of the Bombay high court. Pointing to the HC's orders in three related PILs alleging breach of agreement with govt and misuse of FSI and development rights, the judge said allegations concerning breach of affordable housing obligations, amalgamation of flats, and sale of flats were conclusively examined and remedied. The judge noted that the high court had constituted a three-member joint committee to verify compliance and accepted reports in 2016 and 2017, which confirmed that out of 2,200 flats of 80 sqm, 1,337 were constructed, 12 locked, and 887 remained to be completed as per the plan and timeline. "The directions for completion of the remaining flats were passed with monitoring provisions. Any further breach or non-compliance was made subject to the court's ongoing supervision, obviating the need for separate criminal proceedings…the ACB rightly concluded that no prosecutable offence remained. There was no material to show abuse of public office or conspiracy," the judge said, adding that the probe was a 'fair' one. The ACB, through public prosecutor Ramesh Siroya, submitted before the court that sale of larger flats and amalgamation, though deviating from the spirit of the Agreement, was retrospectively regularised through the high court hearing the PILs. The agreement dated 19 Nov 1986, was executed between the state, MMRDA, and the developer for an area of 232 acres. Based on activist Santosh Daundkar's plea alleging that Hiranandani and others were involved in irregularities in the housing project, a court in 2012 ordered a probe. The ACB filed an FIR against Hiranandani and senior urban development department officer Thomas Benjamin and others under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the IPC. In 2013, the ACB sought to close the case on the grounds that there wasn't sufficient evidence. Daundkar opposed the move. The ACB's closure report, which was rejected by the court on Jan 4 2018, led to a directive for further investigations. Following this, a second closure report was submitted on Aug 30, 2019. Daundkar challenged this report too and sought a reinvestigation. He alleged malafide transfer of the investigating officer, who was purportedly preparing to file a chargesheet against top officials and the builder. Daundkar argued that the final report was a result of administrative interference and suppression of crucial material. He contended that the final report is based heavily on the HC's civil PIL orders and ignores criminal aspects. He sought a fresh probe by an independent agency. The ACB said the allegations were not supported by documentary evidence or witness statements. "There are around 8,000 residents (approx) residing in PADS. None of the residents have filed any criminal complaints over the years pertaining to the development carried out in PADS," it submitted. It also pointed out that Daundkar had neither purchased any commercial premises nor was a resident or investor in the development. The judge rejected Daundkar's plea against the closure report, saying it reiterated allegations already considered in PILs and brought no new substantive material.
