Latest news with #AGMasih
NDTV
15 hours ago
- Politics
- NDTV
Top Court Refuses To Interfere With High Court Order In Temple Consecration Case
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to entertain a plea challenging the constitution of a committee by the Madras High Court to decide the schedule for Kumbhabhishekam (consecration ceremony) for Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple in Tamil Nadu's Thoothukudi district. The court, however, allowed the petitioner to file a review plea in the High Court against its order. A bench of Justices PK Mishra and AG Masih was hearing a plea by the Vidhayahar of the temple when it passed the directives. It noted that the petitioner had already participated in the committee that, he claimed, was biased. In his plea, the petitioner argued the High Court had failed to address the core constitutional and religious grievance that state authorities cannot override religious autonomy and temple customs, particularly when he is the only recognised figure competent to chalk out the schedule. "The order under challenge is thus arbitrary, devoid of impartiality, and suffers from a manifest error of law," the plea said. Appearing for the petitioner in the top court, senior advocate K Parameshwar also said the state's interference was unwarranted. "The prescription of a 'mahurat' is purely a religious function. It has nothing to do with regulation of the state," he said. The lawyer said the temple in question is considered one of the six largest temples of Lord Karthikay in Tamil Nadu. He said the petitioner belongs to a family that was traditionally tasked to decide the schedules for religious ceremonies at the temple. The High Court's move has led the state to completely take over the temple's essential functions, he added. "It is pertinent to note that three out of five members of the committee had, even prior to the present proceedings, gave an opinion at the instance of the Respondents/Govt authorities, suggesting a time different than what was recommended by the Petitioner, thereby making the constitution of the committee, biased, prejudicial and a futile exercise," the plea said. Instead of adjudicating upon the matter, the High Court created a committee, failing to address the issue of constitutional religious rights of the petitioner, it added.
Indian Express
29-05-2025
- Business
- Indian Express
Thane-Bhayandar mega infra projects: Why L&T, MMRDA are in Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Thursday (May 29) asked Mumbai's infrastructure development authority whether it was willing to carry out a re-tendering process for two major projects in the financial capital – and warned that failure to do so might lead to the court to stay the current tenders. A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) B R Gavai and Justice A G Masih had asked this question to Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) first on May 26. The Bench had said it was difficult to comprehend that the technical bids submitted by Larsen and Toubro (L&T) Ltd – the company which had been chosen to execute the Central Vista project in New Delhi – had been rejected for the Thane-Ghodbunder to Bhayandar tunnel and elevated road projects. The Bench is hearing a challenge by L&T to orders passed by the Bombay High Court on May 20 upholding MMRDA's position that the reasons for rejecting the technical bids need not be communicated to the company before the projects are awarded. The two projects will link Thane with Mira-Bhayandar. They are part of an extension of the Mumbai Coastal Road project. The first project is a 5-km twin tunnel of 14.6-metre diameter, connecting Gaimukh near the mouth of Vasai Creek in Mira-Bhayandar to the Fountain Hotel junction at Shilphata in Thane. The project cost is estimated at Rs 8,000 crore. The second project, a 9.8-km elevated creek road bridge, will connect Bhayandar with Ghodbunder Road in Thane. The cost of this project is estimated at Rs 6,000 crore. The elevated bridge is likely to be second in length only to the Mumbai Trans Harbour Link (MTHL) bridge, also called Atal Setu, which, at almost 22 km, is both the longest bridge and the longest sea bridge in India. L&T's contention MMRDA invited tenders for the two projects on July 27, 2024. L&T approached the HC claiming not enough time had been allowed to collect geotechnical data. On October 8, MMRDA assured that the last date for the submission of bids would be extended by 60 days. Earlier this month, L&T filed two petitions before the HC, contending that MMRDA did not follow a fair and transparent tender process. The company said that it had submitted its technical bid on December 13, 2024, and the bid was opened on January 1, 2025 – however, it had received no communication about the outcome of the evaluation. After learning that MMRDA had scheduled the opening of financial bids on May 13 and invited select bidders for it, L&T suspected that it had been excluded from the process, the company submitted. This, L&T said, violated the principles of natural justice. The Instructions to Bidders (ITB) – which are detailed guidelines for potential bidders to prepare and submit their bids for a specific project – are discriminatory, L&T said. MMRDA's stand MMRDA claimed that as per the clauses of ITB, it was not required to intimate L&T that its technical bid had been found unresponsive before the opening of financial bids. Once L&T had accepted the terms of the tender, it could not oppose the opening of the financial bids, MMRDA submitted. It argued that public infrastructure projects should not be delayed, and L&T's pleas deserved to be dismissed. High Court ruling A Vacation Bench of the court dismissed L&T's pleas and declined to continue the stay on opening of financial bids for the elevated road. In the case of the tunnel project, the Bench rejected L&T's plea, noting a 'suppression of material facts'. The HC said it had to be 'mindful' that the matter involved 'mega infrastructure projects of significant public importance', and 'any delay…would adversely impact the execution of the project'. The court gave L&T the opportunity to approach the Supreme Court in appeal. In Supreme Court L&T submitted before the SC that there was an arbitrary declaration of the L1 (Lowest one) bid for both projects to Hyderabad-based Megha Engineering and Infrastructure Ltd (MEIL), even though its bid was at a substantially higher project cost compared to L&T's. L&T claimed that compared to MEIL, its price bid was almost Rs 2,521 crore less in case of the tunnel project, and Rs 609 crore less for the elevated road project. MMRDA argued that the question of price did not arise if the petitioner was disqualified. However, the Bench disagreed, and said it shall be considered in case of 'public interest matters' and 'public money would be saved'. On Thursday (May 29), the SC reiterated that the difference of nearly Rs 3,100 crore between the two bidders was 'not a small amount'. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta representing MMRDA submitted that the disqualification was not on 'flimsy or fanciful grounds' and the authority would justify its decision and respond to the court's queries during the next hearing. The matter will come up for hearing on May 30.
Hindustan Times
28-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
‘Last opportunity': SC warns govt on Aravalli definition
The Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed serious concern over continuing illegal mining in the Aravalli hills and gave the Centre a final two-month deadline to arrive at a common definition of the ecologically crucial mountain ranges. A bench headed by chief justice Bhushan R Gavai told a Centre-led committee that it had already missed its original deadline of July 2024 and gave it a 'last opportunity' to complete the task, with no further extensions. The matter has been listed for hearing in July. 'The order is of May 9, 2024. Meanwhile, the states must tell us what action you are taking to ensure illegal mining does not take place,' said the bench, which also comprised justice AG Masih. Senior advocate K Parmeshwar, assisting the court as amicus curiae, painted a grim picture of the situation. 'There is rampant illegal mining going on in Aravalli hills. The regulatory mechanism is messed up. If the states had any interest to protect the Aravalli hills, they should have come out with the report by now.' The committee, comprising the Union environment ministry secretary, forest department secretaries from Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan and Gujarat, and representatives of the Forest Survey of India, Geological Survey of India and Central Empowered Committee, has sought extensions three times since the original two-month deadline laid down through the May 9, 2024 order. Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Centre, said the committee had held joint meetings and the report was in its 'last leg of preparations.' The need for a uniform definition arose after the Central Empowered Committee submitted a report showing how the Aravalli hills are either undefined or defined in ways that facilitate illegal mining. A glaring example is Rajasthan's definition that includes only hills above 100 metres as part of the Aravallis, enabling mining activities between 0-99 metres. The court had earlier criticised this '100-metre rule' as very problematic, remarking: 'If the area does not have the support of slopes, the land will become barren. What is the purpose of having some structure as Aravalli with other slopes all ruined.' A 2018 Forest Survey of India report revealed that 31 hillocks had disappeared due to rampant illegal mining, while over 3,000 illegal mining sites were discovered across the Aravallis in Rajasthan and Haryana. The court also addressed applications from miners seeking lease renewals. Senior advocate Maninder Singh, representing marble producers in Rajasthan, said their leases had expired in March and the state had refused renewals citing the May 9 order. 'We are in favour of the report being produced at the earliest. But till then, our livelihoods have stopped,' Singh said. The court clarified that restrictions applied only to new licences, not renewals, and directed states to respond to the miners' applications. Parmeshwar suggested that once the definition is finalised, individual mining applications should consider the carrying capacity of the entire Aravalli range for the next 50-100 years. He also recommended enforcing a ban across the entire range and ensuring no new mining leases are granted. The Aravalli range serves as a crucial climate barrier, blocking eastward winds from the Thar desert and preventing Delhi from experiencing dry, arid conditions. The Supreme Court had banned mining activities across the entire Aravalli region in Haryana and Rajasthan in 2002 after Central Empowered Committee reports indicated that illegal mining had consumed 25% of the range. The court has previously indicated that a balance must be struck between sustainable development and environmental protection.
Time of India
27-05-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Tunnel project: Are you willing to re-tender, SC asks MMRDA
Mumbai: Supreme Court on Monday expressed surprise that MMRDA considered Larsen & Toubro (L&T) technically non-responsive for the Thane-Ghodbunder-Bhayander twin tunnel and elevated road project despite the construction major having executed iconic large public infrastructure projects. While hearing L&T's challenge against Bombay high court vacation bench's dismissal on May 20 of its petitions seeking a stay on the opening of financial bids for the Rs 14,000-crore project, a bench of CJI Bhushan Gavai and Justice A G Masih asked solicitor general Tushar Mehta and senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for MMRDA, to consult the state govt and take instructions on whether the public authority was willing to re-tender. It did not pass any order but asked MMRDA to re-think its next steps, adding that it would otherwise pass interim orders on Thursday, pending the bidding process. The CJI noted that the firm—"the very name of the bidder"—had been selected by the Centre to execute Central Vista's construction. Once executed, the twin tunnel and elevated road, collectively stretching around 16km, would become the second longest such project after the 21km Atal Setu (which L&T, as the largest engineering company, helped build). by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Adidas Three Shorts With 60% Discount, Limited Stock Available Original Adidas Shop Now Undo In HC, MMRDA said L&T and two others among five bidders were held non-responsive, and that it was not obliged under the tender terms to inform bidders of the result during the bidding process and would do so once the winner was awarded the contract. L&T argued that guidelines of the state's public works department (PWD) required bidders to be informed of the technical rounds as well. MMRDA said it was not mandatory. HC cited the public importance of the project, the delay that may ensue and SC orders in the bullet train project to not stay the opening of the price bids, but asked MMRDA to keep all bids sealed for two weeks to enable L&T to go in for an appeal. It said the firm suppressed certain bid clauses when it came to court and said the petitioner must come to court with full disclosure. Senior counsel Janak Dwarkadas for L&T argued in HC that MMRDA had flouted central vigilance commission's (CVC) guidelines on transparency and accountability. HC found "much merit" in the submission of senior counsel A M Singhvi for L&T that the tender terms were contrary to PWD and CVC guidelines. It observed that the tender conditions were prima facie "opaque and could give rise to the tendering authority acting in an arbitrary and non-transparent manner", but it noted that L&T accepted the terms and participated without challenging them.
News18
27-05-2025
- Politics
- News18
What's The Difference Between 'Aamchi' And 'Thyamchi' Mumbai? CJI Gavai Says…
Last Updated: The bench of CJI Gavai Justice AG Masih refused to entertain the petition considering the fact that the Bombay High Court is already considering the issue. A debate on the meanings of two popular Marathi epithets, ' Aamchi Mumbai' and ' Thyamchi Mumbai' was witnessed in the Supreme Court during a hearing on a petition challenging the Maharashtra Government's decision to construct a passenger jetty and terminal near the Gateway of India. Typically in Marathi, ' Aamchi ' means ours, and ' Thyamchi ' means theirs. But for Mumbai, ' Aamchi ', is where common people live, and ' Thyamchi ' means where the elite live. Chief Justice BR Gavai, while hearing the petition opined his take when senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, in a lighter vein, said, 'It's between ' Aamchi Mumbai' and ' Thyamchi Mumbai'- sometimes that is where the difference is," reported LiveLaw. ' Aamchi Mumbai doesn't live in Colaba. It is only ' Thyamchi Mumbai' which lives in Colaba. Aamchi Mumbai lives in Malad, Thane, Ghatkoppar," the CJI remarked. The bench of CJI Gavai Justice AG Masih refused to entertain the petition considering the fact that the Bombay High Court is already considering the issue. 'It is like this – everyone wants a sewage treatment plant, but not behind my house. In the city, when something good is happening, everybody approaches the Supreme Court," the top court said. At the same time, the apex court urged Bombay High Court to decide the matter before the end of the monsoon. Hegde informed the bench that no public hearing was afforded before implementing the project plan. The project is 'nearly 10 acres of project right into the sea. He further stressed that it was not a 'stand alone jetty' as portrayed to be, where 5-10 boats are tied. ASG Aishwarya Bhati appearing for the State, termed the submissions by the petitioner as 'misleading' and informed the bench that 7 specific permissions/ clearances have been taken by the authorities, which the petitioner has not placed on record. The permissions began back in 2021. She further added that 'it's absolutely wrong to say it's being created as a VIP terminal". The petition was filed by the Clean and Heritage Colaba Residents Association, an association of over 400 residents of Colaba, along with the petitioner. Why The Jetty Project Is Under Challenge? Before the High Court, the petition states that the proposed construction, from a promenade 280 meters from the Gateway of India and located near the Radio Club, is ex facie illegal, irrational, arbitrary and destructive of the heritage area, LiveLaw reported. The petition states that construction involves setting up a Terminal Platform for providing parking of 150 cars, VIP lounges/ waiting areas and ticket counters/ administrative areas along with a huge tennis racquet shaped jetty. Watch India Pakistan Breaking News on CNN-News18. Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated!
