Centre Approves Rs 5,940 Crore For Revised Jharia Master Plan
The government on Wednesday approved the Rs 5,940-crore revised Jharia Master Plan (JMP) to deal with fire and rehabilitation of affected families.
The decision in this regard was taken during the Cabinet meeting under the Chairmanship of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
The total financial outlay for the implementation of the revised plan is Rs 5,940.47 crore.
The revised JMP lays a much stronger emphasis on sustainable livelihood generation for families being resettled under the plan.
Targeted skill development programmes are to be undertaken and income-generating opportunities will be created to ensure economic self-reliance of the rehabilitated families.
The Jharia Master Plan for dealing with fire, subsidence and rehabilitation in Jharkhand's Dhanbad district was approved by the Centre in August 2009, with an implementation period of 10 years and a pre-implementation period of two years with an estimated investment of Rs 7,112.11 crore. The plan expired in 2021.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
20 minutes ago
- Indian Express
GST restructure plan: In new regime, online gaming likely to be placed in top bracket
With the Government proposing to overhaul the GST regime with a special rate of 40 per cent on 'sin and demerit goods', the top slab is likely to see the inclusion of pan masala, tobacco, cigarettes, luxury cars, SUVs — and online gaming. According to sources, the Department of Revenue has kept in mind the country's 'social ethos' while tagging goods and services in the 'sin and demerit' category, and online gaming is seen to be fitting that definition. If this move is finalised, it is likely to cause an upheaval among online gaming companies, ranging from fantasy sports and real gaming platforms, which have previously complained of the 28 per cent GST levied on them. The latest consideration also comes amid growing concerns within the Central and state governments over the amount of money being spent on these platforms, and the ease with which these companies enable automatic deductions for payments, sometimes without consent, during consecutive rounds of a game. The 40 per cent rate, which is likely to be recommended by the GST Council, could also benefit the Central and state governments fiscally, with substantial revenue gains expected. The sector has shown fairly inelastic demand previously, when the GST rate was set at 28 per cent from October 1, 2023. Prior to that, many online gaming companies were not paying 28 per cent saying there were differential tax rates for games of skill and games of chance. Official data shows GST revenues jumped sharply after the Council's decision in July 2023 to impose a uniform 28 per cent levy on online gaming, horse racing and casinos with effect from October 1, 2023. Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman had said last September that revenue from online gaming 'increased by 412 per cent and reached Rs 6,909 crore in just six months… from Rs 1,349 crore before the notification issued on online gaming'. For casinos, she had said the revenue increased by 30 per cent, from Rs 164.6 crore in the six months prior to the decision to Rs 214 crore in the same period after the move. The need for a higher GST rate for online gaming may also find support among policymakers as they have been raising concerns over the amount of time being spent by users on these platforms that is resulting in them spending increasingly high amounts of money on such activities. A key consideration behind the move is concerns among policymakers over the time and increasingly higher amounts of money being spent by domestic users on online gaming platforms. The domestic spend on online games is not 'particularly small', Chief Economic Advisor V Anantha Nageswaran had said on August 14, days after the National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI) for the first time released monthly data breaking up payments made to various categories of merchants via the Unified Payments Interface (UPI). As per the data, UPI payments on digital games averaged more than Rs 10,000 crore in the first four months of 2025-26. '…take a look at how much Indians are spending on online gaming every month. And the number isn't particularly small — it is Rs 10,000 crore per month. That's Rs 1.2 trillion (in a year),' Nageswaran said at a meeting with statistical advisers in various ministries and departments, organised by the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation. The Indian Express had earlier reported that the Centre is also finalising a move that could bring online real-money gaming companies under the ambit of anti-money laundering laws and subject them to stricter obligations, such as know-your-customer (KYC) requirements, and tracking and reporting suspicious transactions. According to a report by FICCI and EY from March 2025, online gaming companies in India collectively earned a revenue of close to $2.7 billion in 2024. These companies typically make money by taking a cut from a user's winnings. As per the report, more than 155 million Indians engaged with real money gaming sub-segments such as fantasy sports, rummy, poker and other transaction-based games in 2024, marking a 10 per cent increase over 2023. On an average, around 110 million people played these games daily.
Indian Express
20 minutes ago
- Indian Express
In industrial belt near Delhi, Trump's tariffs cloud outlook for export of engineering goods
In one of the many cavernous sheds dotting Ghaziabad, the industrial suburb on the outskirts of the Capital, a giant stands silent. The massive metal forging machine, hauled from China only months ago at a cost of Rs 20 crore, glints under the dim factory lights, its steel body collecting a fine coat of dust. It was meant to be the future: sleek, electric-powered, capable of shaping metal with precision and scale. Yet, in its shadow, the old ritual continues. A knot of workers, sleeves rolled, faces flushed with heat, gather around a much smaller press, striking molten metal with steady, rhythmic blows. The clangs echo through the workshop like the heartbeat of an older era. For Ghaziabad-based CD Industries, a manufacturer of metal flanges feeding oil and gas exploration rigs across the US, the dormant machinery was supposed to answer the shifting demands of its overseas clients. Instead, it waits, inert. 'Baal mundwaate hi ole padne lage (It started raining hail stones as soon as one got his hair shaved),' Pankaj Agarwal, Director, CD Industries, told The Indian Express at his manufacturing plant in one of Ghaziabad's biggest industrial belts on the Bulandshahr Road. Agarwal had purchased the electric metal forge to exclusively service client requests from the US, who had asked him to make flanges of up to 16 inches, as opposed to his current capacity of eight-inch flanges. But, with US President Donald Trump's decision to raise tariffs on several Indian goods – to 25 per cent, with a further 25 per cent increase threatened by August 27 – new orders have dried up for Agarwal, and many engineering goods exporters like him. Increasingly, several US-based vendors are even cancelling earlier orders, resulting in significant financial losses for several Indian medium and small enterprises. Engineering is the largest industrial sector in India and accounts for 3.53 per cent of the country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The engineering goods export of India had a share of 25.22 per cent out of the total exports during the financial year FY24, as they jumped to $109.22 billion as compared to $106.93 billion during FY23. In FY25 (April to December), India's top five export destinations in the sector were the US (15.82%), the UAE (7.36%), Saudi Arabia (5.24%), Singapore (4.46%) and Germany (3.52%). Industries like auto components and metal works are particularly at a disadvantage. For CD Industries, the US is its exclusive export market, accounting for 50 per cent of the company's turnover. 'While we are continuing to deliver the previously placed orders, new enquiries have stopped coming in. For some companies, their previous orders have been cancelled, as importers are seeking a discount, which many manufacturers are not in a position to accept,' Agarwal said. His products are supplied across the length and breadth of the US, from the West Coast to the East Coast, and Texas to New York. 'The tariff situation is bothering us, haunting us, and we are really, really worried,' he said. His plant in Ghaziabad employs 225 people, including floor workers, project managers and quality control managers. For now, he says the older orders not getting cancelled – a fact he attributes to his long-standing relationship with his vendors, dating back 20 to 30 years – has allowed him to not trim the workforce. But if the situation continues for a longer time, he may have to let go of some workers, Agarwal said. Sanjeev Sachdev, general secretary of the Industrial Area Manufacturers' Association in Ghaziabad, said there are more than 400 manufacturing plants in the belt, which employ over 75,000 people. 'If the tariff situation is not resolved, and the government does not alternatively help the industry financially in the meantime, easily 5,000-7,000 people will lose their jobs. Many companies, who have purchased raw material and made finished goods, are staring at generations getting into debt,' Sachdev said. Pankaj Chadha, chairman of the Engineering Export Promotion Council (EEPC) of India, said about $5 billion worth of engineering goods exports are at risk due to US tariffs. 'Unlike other sectors, for us the pain started early on when the US announced 50 per cent tariffs on steel and aluminium. At this tariff rate, we cannot be competitive and we are not in a position to retain our market share in the US,' he said. Sachdev speaks with the quiet fatalism of someone who is anticipating to see too many balance sheets bleed red. Between raw metal and a gleaming finished part lies a steep markup – not just in price, but in labour, skill, and the hours of heat and noise that shape it. Yet that value can vanish in an instant. If an overseas buyer pulls the plug, the goods, tailored to a single client's specifications, are suddenly orphaned, with no other market to call home. In that moment, there are only two doors left open: swallow the buyer's demand for a deep discount, or consign the work to the scrap heap, where months of craft and capital dissolve into a fraction of their worth. For some manufacturers, it is not just a bad deal – it is the slow tightening of a noose. One too many of such blows, and the factory floor falls silent. Many in the industry, who spoke on condition of anonymity, warned that the real weight of the new tariffs will fall not on the industry's giants, but on the small and medium enterprises. The big players can simply pivot, scouting for new markets, absorbing the shock with the comfort of deep reserves. For the smaller firms, there is no such cushion, no easy escape route. The blow, when it lands, goes straight to the bone. Agarwal, Chadha and Sachdev, all said that the government's help to support companies in distress is the need of the hour. 'We expect the government to extend Remission of Duties and Taxes on Exported Products (RoDTEP) to the steel sector and restart the interest subvention scheme to ease the pain,' Chadha said. Vinod Kumar, president of the India SME Forum, said that export-focused countries like China have heavily invested in promoting their products globally. 'India has not done that over the years. This is a systemic problem. The nature of trade has changed over the years. Only production is not going to solve your problem, we have to market them effectively,' he said.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
President, not SC, decides when to seek court's opinion: Centre
Supreme Court NEW DELHI: Objecting to the judgment mandating the President to seek Supreme Court's opinion on constitutionality of bills, Union govt has said the judiciary cannot dictate to the President how and when to exercise her unfettered discretion to seek the apex court's opinion and on which issues. Faulting the April 8 judgment of a bench of justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, the Centre, through solicitor general Tushar Mehta, said a plain reading of the President's powers under Article 143 "shows that an absolute discretion lies with the President to seek advice. The term 'consult' means the act of asking for advice and indicates that the President is not bound to do so". The judgment had advised the President that whenever a governor reserves a bill for her consideration on the ground that it is patently unconstitutional, the President ought to make a reference to SC under Article 143 "as a measure of prudence", given that it is for the apex court to determine the constitutionality and legality of orders and laws. Ahead of Tuesday's hearing on the Presidential Reference before a five-judge bench led by CJI B R Gavai, the Centre said, "Any constitutional proposition of law that there exists a constitutional expectation for the President to refer every reserved bill to the Supreme Court is contrary to the constitutional scheme". It gave three reasons to repudiate the SC bench's proposition to this effect: Articles 200 and 201 envisage that the President will apply his/her own mind to decide whether to assent or withhold assent, and these provisions do not mention any role of Supreme Court under Article 143. Such a proposition presupposes that only the judiciary can decide questions related to the Constitution, whereas the Constitution contemplates that the legislature, the executive and the judiciary each is competent and authorised to interpret the Constitution within their own domain. The legislature considers the constitutionality of a bill during debate, the President or governor applies their mind while deciding whether to withhold, assent or refer a bill and the judiciary decides the legality of an Act in appropriate proceedings. Such a proposition converts a constitutional prerogative into a judicial mandate in the nature of a continuing mandamus, which is impermissible. Union govt said the Constitution does not empower the judiciary to examine the contents of a bill that is yet to become a legislation, sans assent granted by a governor or the President. "The constitutional courts cannot undertake judicial adjudication over the contents of a pending bill. It is not possible for the constitutional courts to look behind the contents of the bill at a stage wherein it is a pending decision before the governor and adjudicate whether it requires a reference to the President or not," it said. It further said a state is barred from filing petitions under Article 32, which is a preserve of citizens to seek redress of violations of their fundamental rights by directly approaching the SC. For any dispute between the state and the Centre, the parties concerned need to approach the SC through a suit under Article 131. The Centre held, "A state govt cannot file a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution against essentially the governor of the state..."
