Latest news with #AmitendraKishorePrasad
Time of India
24-05-2025
- Time of India
Land owner's nod not needed for projects of public interest: HC
Raipur: Chhattisgarh high court has ruled that a landowner's consent is not required for installation of electricity transmission lines, reiterating that such infrastructure projects serve a larger public interest and landowners are entitled only to compensation and cannot seek an injunction to halt the project. The bench of Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad observed that while Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Limited (CSPTCL) is required to inform the petitioner before entering his land, prior consent is not mandated by Electricity Act, 2003, or Telegraph Act, 1885. It said CSPTCL would not claim ownership of the land where the tower is situated. Justice Prasad ordered CSPTCL and other respondents to provide adequate compensation to the petitioner, a 94-year-old farmer. He owns over 8.7 acres of farmland in Korbi village in Baloda tehsil of Janjgir-Champa district. He alleged that CSPTCL had dug 16 large pits and begun construction of transmission towers on his land without notice, consent, or compliance with mandatory conditions of the approval order dated March 11, 2024, issued by state govt. The Petitioner's Side The petitioner sought a court direction to immediately stop the construction work, arguing that the permission granted by Chhattisgarh govt had become void due to non-compliance with its conditions by CSPTCL. He also sought restoration of his land to its original condition, removal of erected structures, and exemplary damages for mental harassment. The petitioner submitted that over 4.8 acres (55.7%) of his land had been "illegally encroached upon and disturbed" as 16 pits were dug initially, followed by eight more on March 8, 2025, despite statutory requirements mandating prior identification of affected land in the landowner's presence, payment of compensation, and formal permission from the competent authority upon objection. The petitioner had raised objections through a legal notice dated Dec 31, 2024, which he said were disregarded by the authorities. He alleged that 'arbitrary compensation notices' were issued without site inspection or his presence, and no compensation was provided for Khasra Nos. 730/5 and 658/8. The State's Side Counsel for the respondents argued that the claim of sanction order being cancelled due to non-compliance was baseless. They said compensation had been duly calculated and offered to the petitioner on June 24, 2024, and Jan 22, 2025, but he refused to accept it. They emphasised that under the law, consent from landowner is not a requisite for erecting transmission lines, as it is a project of national importance. The respondents' counsel cited a previous HC order, which, in similar circumstances and for the same project, granted landowners liberty to raise grievances before appropriate forums. They also highlighted a govt notification of Dec 13, 2006, which authorises CSPTCL officers to act as 'telegraph authority' for laying electricity transmission lines. Court Cites SC Rulings In its order, HC referenced Supreme Court rulings, which underscore the necessity of unobstructed access for laying electricity transmission lines in larger public interest for national development. The court noted that Chhattisgarh serves as a power hub, and electricity generation and supply from the state are of paramount importance. The bench asked the petitioner not to obstruct construction of electricity transmission towers, and directed authorities to disburse the compensation within 60 days.
Time of India
24-05-2025
- General
- Time of India
Chhattisgarh HC rules no prior consent required for electricity transmission lines
Chhattisgarh HC RAIPUR: The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that prior consent from a landowner is not required for the installation of electricity transmission lines, reiterating that such infrastructure projects serve a larger public interest. The court stated that landowners are entitled only to compensation and cannot seek an injunction to halt construction. The court noted that Chhattisgarh serves as a power hub, and electricity generation and supply from the state are of paramount importance. It clarified that CSPTCL would not claim ownership of the land where the tower is situated, with ownership remaining with the petitioner. The interim order granted by the court on 15 April 2025 has been vacated. The High Court observed that while CSPTCL is required to inform the petitioner before entering his land, prior consent is not mandated by the Electricity Act, 2003, and the Telegraph Act, 1885. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, presiding over a Single Bench, issued the directive to the Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Limited (CSPTCL) and other respondents to provide adequate compensation to the petitioner after a hearing. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like This Device Made My Power Bill Drop Overnight elecTrick - Save upto 80% on Power Bill Pre-Order Undo The court also directed the petitioner not to obstruct the construction of electricity transmission towers. Authorities have been instructed to disburse the compensation within 60 days of receiving the order. The petitioner, a 94-year-old agriculturist, owns 8.73 acres of agricultural land in Korbi village, Baloda tehsil, Janjgir-Champa district. He alleged that CSPTCL had dug 16 large pits and commenced construction of transmission towers on his land without prior notice, consent, or compliance with the mandatory conditions of the approval order dated 11 March 2024 issued by the State Government. The petitioner had sought a court direction to immediately stop the construction work, arguing that the permission granted by the Chhattisgarh State Government had become void due to non-compliance with its conditions by CSPTCL. He also sought restoration of his land to its original condition, removal of erected structures, and exemplary damages for mental harassment. The petitioner submitted that approximately 4.86 acres (55.7%) of his land had been "illegally encroached upon and disturbed." He stated that CSPTCL initiated construction as part of a diversion project necessitated by the construction of National Highway No. 130A. He claimed that 16 pits were dug initially, followed by eight more on 8 March 2025, despite statutory requirements mandating prior identification of affected land in the landowner's presence, payment of compensation, and formal permission from the competent authority upon objection. The petitioner had raised objections through a legal notice dated 31 December 2024, which he said were disregarded. He further claimed that arbitrary compensation notices were issued without site inspection or his presence, and no compensation was provided for Khasra Nos. 730/5 and 658/8. Counsels for the respondents argued that the claim of the sanction order being cancelled due to non-compliance was baseless. They stated that compensation had been duly calculated and offered to the petitioner on 24 June 2024 and 22 January 2025, but the petitioner refused to accept it. They emphasised that under the Electricity Act, 2003, and Section 10 of the Telegraph Act, 1885, prior consent from the landowner is not a requisite for erecting transmission lines, as it is a project of national importance. The respondents' counsel cited a previous High Court order in Manikant Agrawal and Ors. v. State of CG and others, which, in similar circumstances and for the same project, granted landowners liberty to raise grievances before appropriate forums. They also highlighted the State Government's notification dated 13 December 2006, which generally authorises CSPTCL officers under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, to act as Telegraph Authority for laying electricity transmission lines. The court referenced Supreme Court rulings in Power Grid Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Century Textiles and Industries Ltd. and Century Rayon Limited v. IVP Limited, which underscore the necessity of unobstructed access for laying electricity transmission lines in the larger public interest for national development. Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Brother's Day wishes , messages and quotes !
India Gazette
17-05-2025
- Sport
- India Gazette
Chhattisgarh High Court gives relief to skill gaming platform SportsBaazi
Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) [India], May 17 (ANI): The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur has granted interim relief to SBN Gaming Network Pvt. Ltd., the operator of SportsBaazi, in response to its legal challenge. The Court issued an interim directive restraining the petitioner from operating its website within Chhattisgarh. The court ordered the platform to be blocked in the state through 'Gio block.' However, SportsBaazi remains permitted to function in other parts of India until the next hearing, said the court. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, presiding over the case, observed that the petitioner's app, which offers 'Rummy,' qualifies as a skill-based gaming platform and is not prohibited under the IT Act or IT Rules. The Court also noted that the app was blocked nationwide without prior notice or an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard, raising concerns over procedural fairness. Additionally, the ruling highlighted that while betting and gambling fall under List-2 (State List), skill-based gaming is governed by the IT Act, which falls under List-1 (Union List). This distinction suggests that state authorities may not have jurisdiction to impose restrictions on such platforms. The Court acknowledged that the app's gameplay involves elements of strategy, mutation, and combination, reinforcing its classification as a 'Game of Skill' rather than a 'Game of Chance.' The company's petition contests a directive dated May 5, 2025, issued by the Inspector General of Police (Technical Service), Chhattisgarh. This directive had instructed telecom and internet providers to restrict access to specific platforms, including SportsBaazi, citing provisions under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act and regional gambling laws. Represented by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, the petitioner argued that SportsBaazi operates a legally compliant, skill-based fantasy gaming platform, and that the action taken 'was arbitrary, lacked due process', and extended beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the state. (ANI)
Time of India
29-04-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Deliver records to kid's dad: HC overrules that RTI doesn't cover pvt schools in case
Raipur: Overruling the argument that private schools do not come under the ambit of the RTI act, the Chhattisgarh High Court directed a Ambikapur school to provide copies of a student's transfer certificate and admission form to the child's biological father within 15 days. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad issued the order after the father, Rahul Gupta, moved court citing denial of information by the school despite multiple applications and complaints. The school's counsel had also argued in court that the application was denied due to a dispute between the child's mother and father. The court held that the petitioner, as the biological father, had the right to access his child's educational records and directed the Holy Cross Convent Senior Secondary School, Ambikapur, to deliver the documents to his provided address, email, and mobile number, overruling the school's objection that private schools are not covered under the RTI Act. The order of the Single Bench of Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad came in response to a petition filed by the father, Rahul Gupta, who sought copies of his son's Dakhil-Kharij (transfer certificate) and admission form. The petitioner stated that he applied to the CBSE-affiliated school on April 27, 2024, for the documents but received no response. Subsequently, he filed an application under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, with the district education office, Surguja, on April 29, 2024. However, this request was denied on the grounds that private schools are not covered under the RTI Act. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed a first appeal to the district education officer (DEO) and first appellate authority, citing a previous letter from the office and decisions of the Central Information Commission indicating that private schools are indeed covered under Sections 2(g) and 2(h) of the RTI Act. The first appellate authority upheld the denial. The petitioner then filed complaints with the district collector of Surguja, the chief minister, the secretary of school education, and the district collector. The DEO, acting on the chief minister's office's response, directed the petitioner to communicate with the school. On Oct 25, 2024, the petitioner reapplied to Holy Cross Convent Senior Secondary School, with an intimation to the DEO, but the school again denied the request on Oct 29, 2024. However, the high court, considering the petitioner's right to information as the biological father, directed the school to provide the requested information within 15 days of receiving a certified copy of the order. The court also instructed the school to provide the information to the petitioner's address, email, and mobile number as listed in the petition.
Time of India
29-04-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Chhattisgarh HC orders Holy Cross School to share student records with biological father in 15 days
RAIPUR: The Chhattisgarh High Court has directed Holy Cross Convent Senior Secondary School , Ambikapur, to provide information to the biological father of a student within 15 days. The order of the Single Bench of Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad came in response to a petition filed by the father, Rahul Gupta, who sought copies of his son's Dakhil-Kharij ( transfer certificate ) and admission form. The petitioner stated that he applied to the CBSE-affiliated school on April 27, 2024, for the documents but received no response. Subsequently, he filed an application under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, with the district education office, Surguja, on April 29, 2024. However, this request was denied on the grounds that private schools are not covered under the RTI Act. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed a first appeal to the District Education Officer and First Appellate Authority, citing a previous letter from the office and decisions of the Central Information Commission indicating that private schools are indeed covered under Sections 2(g) and 2(h) of the RTI Act. The First Appellate Authority upheld the denial. The petitioner then filed complaints with the District Collector of Surguja, the Chief Minister, the Secretary of School Education, and the District Collector. The District Education Officer, acting on the Chief Minister's Office's response, directed the petitioner to communicate with the school. On October 25, 2024, the petitioner reapplied to Holy Cross Convent Senior Secondary School, with an intimation to the District Education Officer, but the school again denied the request on October 29, 2024. The school's counsel argued in court that the application was denied due to a dispute between the child's mother and father. However, the High Court, considering the petitioner's right to information as the biological father, directed the school to provide the requested information within 15 days of receiving a certified copy of the order. The court also instructed the school to provide the information to the petitioner's address, email, and mobile number as listed in the petition.
