Latest news with #AppellateAuthority
Time of India
5 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
PSIEC announces policy for clubbing and de-clubbing of plots
1 2 Chandigarh: The Punjab govt has unveiled a comprehensive policy for the clubbing and de-clubbing of industrial plots, while also establishing a long-awaited appellate authority to handle appeals over cancelled allotments, industries minister Tarunpreet Singh Sond announced on Saturday here. The new policy, notified on May 19 and which the cabinet approved on April 24, aims to bring procedural clarity and land-use efficiency across the state's industrial estates and focal points under the Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation (PSIEC). Sond said the policy responds to years of demands from industrialists seeking a streamlined mechanism to merge or divide adjoining plots to support business expansion, improve operational efficiency and optimise land utilisation. The rules apply to all PSIEC-controlled plots, excluding booths and sheds. To be eligible for clubbing or de-clubbing, plots must be owned by the same entity and be of the same type — either leasehold or freehold — with all dues cleared. Applications must be supported by valid lease or conveyance deeds. A fee of 1% of the current reserve price of the total plot area — capped at ₹50 lakh — will apply. De-clubbing will only be allowed in line with the original layout plan and subject to zoning laws, building codes and environmental regulations, the minister said. "This step will not only streamline industrial development but also create opportunities for project growth in a regulated and transparent manner," Sond said. Separately, the PSIEC has also operationalised an Appellate Authority — notified on May 7 — to address grievances related to cancelled plots. The authority will offer relief to affected allottees whose plots were cancelled for reasons such as failing to begin production, violating zoning rules, or defaulting on instalments. The govt had cancelled 700-odd plots in recent years, and efforts to restore those stalled after a previous restoration scheme lapsed in March 2022. Affected allottees now have until Sept 30 to appeal for reinstatement. In future cases, appeals must be filed within six months of the cancellation date. "This authority will reduce unnecessary litigation, provide applicants with fair hearing opportunities, and bring transparency to the reinstatement process," Sond said. MSID:: 121536934 413 |
New Indian Express
22-04-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Reclassify Balajiga, Banajiga under Group B for education, job: Karnataka HC
BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court declared that classification of Balajiga/Banajiga community for employment purpose being different from educational purpose is discriminatory, illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The court directed the state government to reclassify the Balajiga/Banajiga community as Group B for educational purpose, and retain the classification as Group B for employment purpose, and not as Group D. Allowing the petition filed by V Sumitra, a resident of Gejjalamatta village in Kollegal taluk of Mysuru district, Justice Suraj Govindaraj directed the state government to reclassify the Balajiga/Banajiga community under Article 16(4) as Group B instead of Group D. 'It is declared that the petitioner belonging to Balagiga/Banajiga community would be entitled to reservation for employment under Group B, and as such her employment as a primary school teacher is directed to be continued by availing such benefit,' the court said. The court stated that a particular community cannot be classified differently for educational and employment purposes, and quashed the order dated April 8, 1996, passed by the Caste and Income Verification Committee, and the order dated June 15, 1999, by the Appellate Authority in the petitioner's case. The petitioner, who belongs to the Balajiga/Banajiga community, after being selected as teacher in a primary school, obtained a certificate from the tahsildar that she belongs to Group B category. After obtaining a provisional appointment letter dated January 17, 1993, the petitioner continued to render services. In February 1996, she received a notice alleging that for purpose of employment, she would belong to Group D and not Group B, and that the caste certificate issued was not proper or applicable for reservation. The Caste and Income Verification Committee cancelled the caste certificate in April 1996. Therefore, her case was not considered by the Administrative Tribunal, prompting her to move the high court in 2013 against the tribunal order.
