Latest news with #A.D.MariaClete
The Hindu
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
High Court reiterates creation of ‘leaders parks' for installation of statues instead of public places
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has reiterated the creation of 'leaders parks' across Tamil Nadu for installation of new statues and relocation of existing statues for which permission was already granted. A Division Bench of Justices S.M. Subramaniam and A.D. Maria Clete observed that instead of installing statues of leaders in public places, the court had elaborately considered the issue and directed the government to identify lands for creation of the required number of 'leaders parks' across the State. Accordingly, permissions have already been granted and statues are to be relocated in the 'leaders parks'. The formation of 'leaders parks' would be of much benefit to youth as they can learn about the ideas and ideologies of the leaders. Instead of making concrete efforts for the formation of 'leaders parks', the government cannot issue orders granting permission to install statues in public places, the court observed. On account of heavy traffic congestion and other mitigating factors, the general public are put to hardship in the event of granting such permission to install statues in public places. The rights of citizens in all respects guaranteed under the Constitution are to be protected by the State, the court observed. The Supreme Court had passed an order directing no further installation of statue or construction of any structure on public roads, pavements, sideways and other public utility places are to be permitted. A Division Bench of Madras High Court also passed orders. When the Supreme Court passed an order not to grant permission to install statues in public places, the State government cannot pass orders granting such permission, the court observed. The court was hearing a petition filed by Palsamy of Tirunelveli district who had sought a direction to restrain the authorities from installing a bronze statue and name board of the former Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi near the entrance of Valliyoor daily vegetable market in Valliyoor in Tirunelveli district. The State submitted that instruction had been issued to the Collector not to install the statue of the former Chief Minister and action will be taken to withdraw the G.O. issued. The court posted the matter for reporting compliance on July 16.
The Hindu
6 days ago
- Health
- The Hindu
Contradictory for welfare government to establish more hospitals on and simultaneously open TASMAC liquor shops, says HC
It is contradictory for a welfare government to establish more hospitals on the one hand and simultaneously establish Tasmac liquor shops on the other hand. This is not in consonance with Constitutional ethos, observed the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court while directing the closure of a Tasmac shop in Dindigul. A Division Bench of Justices S.M. Subramaniam and A.D. Maria Clete said when Right to Health is a fundamental right, the State must ensure that the prohibition is slowly implemented in a phased manner to reduce harm to public health. The court was hearing the public interest litigation petition filed by K. Kannan of Dindigul. The petitioner sought a direction to the authorities to close a Tasmac shop located on Tiruchi road in Dindigul. He said the road was used by school children. The children and other road users were finding it difficult to use the road freely and peacefully, he said. In the counter affidavit, Dindigul District Tasmac Manager submitted that the claim the liquor shop was located close to school, health and religious institutions was incorrect. The shop was located within Corporation limits, where the prohibited distance was 50 meters as per Rule 8 of Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (in Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003. Since the Tasmac shop was situated in a commercial area, the proviso to Rule 8 of the Rules states that the distance restriction shall not apply. The court said it was of the considered view that mere guidelines and rules fixing certain distances cannot be the sole criterion. In the present case, the road was used by children to reach their school and it served as a direct pathway. Consequently, the Tasmac shop would undoubtedly cause public nuisance to the road users, children attending the school and persons going to the Church. The judges said, the rules setting minimum distances are regulatory thresholds, but they do not exhaust all public health and welfare concerns. Mere compliance with the distance rule does not validate a location if the broader environment is harmful. Undoubtedly, a Tasmac shop may cause nuisance to the road users in the locality, particularly, to the children during school hours. It is the duty of the State to ensure that no such nuisance is caused to the citizens and road users. Besides, Article 47 of the Constitution directs that the State shall regard raising the level of nutrition and standard of living of its people and improvement of public health as among its primary duties and in particular the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medical purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health. It is a Constitutional philosophy and the Directive principles insist that a welfare government should strive wholeheartedly to enforce prohibition, rather than establish more Tasmac shops which adversely affect public health. Closure of one Tasmac shop would not cause any prejudice but would rather benefit the public at large, the court observed and directed the authorities to close the Tasmac shop in two weeks. The judges posted the matter for reporting compliance on June 18.
The Hindu
6 days ago
- General
- The Hindu
HC disposes of suo motu proceedings to declare Samanatham tank as bird sanctuary
Disposing of the suo motu proceedings initiated to declare Samanatham tank in Madurai as a bird sanctuary, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Wednesday observed that such decisions have to be taken by the government on the recommendation of the competent authorities and after obtaining expert reports from the authorities concerned. A Division Bench of Justices S. M. Subramaniam and A. D. Maria Clete observed that no doubt bird migration activities were going on in Samanatham tank in Tirupparankundram. However such decisions have to be taken by the government. For declaration of the tank as a sanctuary it requires certain procedures to be followed. The High Court may not be in a position to issue a positive direction in the nature of a declaration to declare Samantnam tank as a sanctuary in terms of Section 18 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, the court observed. The court observed that it was of the considered view that authorities may take note of the facts reiterated by the Division Bench of the court while initiating the suo motu proceedings. The Act contemplates various conditions and circumstances warranting such declaration in public interest. The court, not being an expert body, cannot substitute the expert views and directives of the executives, the court observed and disposed of the petition. The court in February initiated suo motu proceedings to declare Samanatham tank as a bird sanctuary. The Registrar (Judicial) said that Samanatham tank was a habitat to more than 150 species of birds. These birds species were declared as nearly threatened as per the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN-Red List). The tank was under the control and maintenance of the Public Works Department. Owing to the biodiversity and unique natural birds habitat, there has been an appeal to protect the waterbody by declaring it as a bird sanctuary under Section 18 of Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, the Registrar said. The action was necessitated in light of the fact that the birds coming to the waterbody were vulnerable to poaching and easily accessible to the public which gravely threatened the natural habitat of the birds. If the waterbody was declared as a sanctuary, it would be subjected to restriction as to entry in terms of Section 27 of the Act and various other protective measures as envisaged under Chapter IV of the Act, as a protected area, the Registrar said. Article 48 A of the Constitution ordains that the State should endeavour to protect and improve the environment and safeguard the forest and wildlife of the country. There was also a fundamental duty cast on every Citizen under Article 51 A (g) to protect and improve the natural environment and wildlife, the Registrar said.
The Hindu
6 days ago
- Business
- The Hindu
HC restrains NHAI from collecting toll at two plazas on Madurai -Thoothukudi Highway road
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Tuesday restrained National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) from collecting toll at two toll plazas on Madurai-Thoothukudi road for not maintaining the road in a proper manner and ensuring that trees were planted on both sides of the highway. A Division Bench of Justices S.M. Subramaniam and A.D. Maria Clete was hearing the public interest litigation petition filed by V. Balakrishnan of Thoothukudi, a retired Tangedco Assistant Executive Engineer. He complained there were serious lapses and irregularities in laying and maintaining Madurai-Thoothukudi National Highway. In 2006, the road contract was awarded. It was thrown open for public use in 2011. As per the contract, the contractor had to plant trees on both sides of the highway and maintain plants on the median. But, the work was only carried out partially. The contractor had collected toll from two toll plazas from the date of the usage of the road. But, failed to maintain the road in a proper manner. NHAI had remained a silent spectator to the lapses and the irregularities committed by the contractor without initiating any action. Sensing the seriousness and lapses, the agreement was terminated in 2023, he said. It is seen from an RTI Act reply that about Rs.563.83 crore was recoverable from the contractor for his failure to plant roadside avenues and maintenance of road. NHAI after taking over the road continued to collect the toll fees previously collected by the contractor. The action of NHAI was illogical as it did not spend any money towards the construction of the road which was fully spent by the contractor, he said. He said the NHAI had miserably and deliberately failed to take timely action against the contractor and allowed the contractor to continue with the violations and the irregularities for more than 10 years, thereby causing a loss of Rs. 563.83 crore, besides causing inconvenience and suffering to the road users. Road maintenance is the statutory duty of the authorities. They ought to follow it strictly. Right to proper road connectivity is a fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution, he said. Ends
The Hindu
7 days ago
- General
- The Hindu
Plea to conduct 10-day Brahmotsavam festival at Ramanathaswamy Temple
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Tuesday directed the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department to file a counter affidavit to a public interest litigation petition that sought a direction to authorities to conduct the Brahmotsavam festival at Ramanathaswamy Temple in Rameswaram for 10 days instead of three days. A Division Bench of Justices S.M. Subramaniam and A.D. Maria Clete was hearing the petition filed by an advocate Elephant Rajendran of Chennai. The petitioner said that Brahmotsavam festival is conducted in all temples in the State. However, it was not conducted for 10 years in Ramanathaswamy temple in Rameswaram. The Brahmotsavam festival is conducted for 10 days. However, this year it is going to be held for only three days. The modification of the ancient temple practice is hurting the religious sentiments of the devotees, he said. The Brahmotsavam festival should be conducted for 10 days instead of three days. The petition was filed seeking relief in ensuring the age-old traditions of the temple were not tampered with, he said. He said that to curtail the 10-day festival to three days was arbitrary. The authorities cannot interfere with religious affairs. He sought a direction to authorities to extend the festival by seven more days and conduct a 10-day festival at the temple. During the course of the hearing, the temple authorities submitted that the Brahmotsavam festival had already commenced on June 3 and the authorities will take a decision with regard to conducting the festival for the coming years. The court posted the matter for hearing after two weeks.
