Latest news with #GOs
Hans India
a day ago
- Politics
- Hans India
Sarpanches demand release of Rs 1,121 cr Central funds
Guntur: Sarpanches from across Andhra Pradesh on Monday submitted petitions to district collectors, appealing for the release of Rs 1,121 crore in 15th Finance Commission funds from the Central government, which have been pending since December last year. They said that despite repeated appeals to Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu, Deputy Chief Minister Pawan Kalyan, and senior officials in the panchayat raj department, their pleas have gone unanswered for the past seven months. Under the leadership of Dr Jasti Veeranjaneyulu, national vice-president of All India Panchayat Parishad and chief advisor to the Andhra Pradesh Sarpanches Welfare Association, sarpanchs from Guntur district, cutting across party lines, submitted a memorandum to district collector S Nagalakshmi during the 'Spandana' grievances redressal programme. The sarpanches appealed to collector Nagalakshmi to facilitate the immediate release of the Central government's 15th Finance Commission funds, sent in December last year, to support the development of the panchayats. Speaking to the media outside the collector's office, Dr Jasti Veeranjanelu expressed dismay that the Rs 1,121 crore released by the central government in December last year has yet to be credited to the panchayat accounts. He criticised the practice of merely issuing government orders (GOs) and administrative approvals without disbursing the funds, calling it unreasonable. He also stated that there is little hope of receiving another Rs 1,000 crore expected from the Central government in July of the current financial year. Dr Veeranjanelu revealed that during a recent meeting with senior officials of the Union ministry of panchayat raj in Delhi, he was informed that the next tranche of Rs 1,000 crore would only be transferred if gram panchayats spent the funds received last year and submitted the utilisation certificates. Collector Nagalakshmi responded positively to the sarpanches' concerns, assuring them that she would bring the matter to the attention of the government and take immediate steps for a resolution.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
11-07-2025
- Business
- Business Standard
BookMyShow, PVR win: HC allows convenience fees on online movie tickets
The Bombay High Court on Thursday struck down the Maharashtra government's orders prohibiting multiplexes and cinema operators from charging convenience fees on online ticket bookings. The court ruled that the state lacked legal authority under the Maharashtra Entertainment Duty (MED) Act to impose such a restriction, according to a report by Bar and Bench. A Division Bench comprising Justice MS Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain held that the prohibition violated Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, which guarantees citizens the right to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business. The court observed that the government orders (GOs) — issued between April 2013 and March 2014 — had no legislative backing. 'The impugned GOs, to the extent that they prohibit collection of convenience fees on tickets booked online, violate Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution,' the Bench noted, adding that the orders must be 'quashed and set aside'. Court calls online booking a commercial decision The judges clarified that opting to book tickets online was a matter of consumer choice and that charging a convenience fee for the service was a legitimate business practice. 'If the customer feels it is convenient… the respondents cannot restrain the petitioners from collecting the convenience fees, since for providing this facility… petitioners have to invest in the technology,' the court said. The Bench cautioned against excessive government interference in commercial decisions, noting, 'If business owners are not permitted to determine the various facets of their business… economic activity would come to a grinding halt.' BookMyShow and PVR had challenged the orders The petitions were filed by PVR Ltd, Big Tree Entertainment (which operates BookMyShow), and other cinema operators. They argued that convenience fees were a commercial service charge, covering costs like payment gateways, internet infrastructure, and customer support—not subject to the MED Act. The Maharashtra government contended that such charges were not permitted under the MED Act and invoked Article 162 of the Constitution to defend its executive orders. It claimed that the convenience fee amounted to an excess charge not factored into the entertainment tax structure. Rejecting this argument, the court said that executive powers under Article 162 cannot function in a legislative vacuum. It underscored that there was no provision in the MED Act empowering the government to prohibit the collection of such fees.
Indian Express
11-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Indian Express
Bombay HC sets aside Maha Govt's decision to prohibit levying of convenience fees on online movie tickets
The Bombay High Court Thursday quashed and set aside the Maharashtra Government's decision that prohibited cinema theatre owners, exhibitors, and agents from charging additional amounts from viewers as service charges or convenience fees on movie tickets booked through online platforms. The high court said the decisions of the Revenue Department were violative of the fundamental right of carrying out business, and that the authorities did not have the power to issue the same under the Maharashtra Entertainment Duty (MED) Act. On July 9, 2014, the HC had stayed the operation and implementation of portions of the impugned government orders (GOs), which continued from time to time, keeping the decision in abeyance for over a decade. A division bench of Justices Mahesh S Sonak and Jitendra Jain on July 10 passed a judgement on pleas by PVR Limited, FICCI-Multiplex Association of India, and Big Tree Entertainment Private Limited, which operates the online ticketing platform, BookMyShow, that challenged portions of two GOs of 2013 and 2014. Through a GO in April 2013, the Maharashtra Government had prohibited operators, owners, and agents from levying any additional service charge on viewers. The March 2014 GO provided that theatre conductors across the state should set up their own service or machinery for online ticket sales and no additional service charges should be recovered from viewers for the same. Advocate Naresh Thacker, for PVR and FICCI-Multiplex Association, argued that convenience fees charged for online booking platforms were a separate component agreed between private parties, and it was not under the purview of the MED Act. BookMyShow, through advocate Rohan Rajadhyaksha, argued that service providers such as IRCTC, MakeMyTrip, etc, who also charge additional service charges, are not subject to any restrictions; therefore, the GOs were discriminatory. He also argued that the platforms were not covered by GOs as they were not agents of cinema hall exhibitors or owners. 'We are of the view that the impugned GO transgressed the fundamental rights under Article (19)(1)(g) granted to the petitioners by prohibiting theatre owners and others from collecting the convenience fees from their customers,' the HC observed. The court added that without any statutory regulation to oversee the petitioner's right to conduct business, 'the imposition of such a restraint would infringe the legitimate rights of theatre owners,' therefore, the impugned prohibition was contrary to Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. 'If business owners are not permitted to determine the various facets of their business (in accordance with law), economic activity would come to a grinding halt. The choice of whether to book the ticket online or purchase it at the theatre is left to the customers,' the bench said 'Suppose the customer feels it is convenient to book the tickets online by not going to the theatre and paying the convenience fees. In that case, the Respondents (authorities) cannot restrain the Petitioners from collecting the convenience fees since, for providing this facility of online booking, the theatre Owners/Petitioners have to invest in the technology,' the bench also noted. The Bombay High Court also clarified that it had not gone into the issue of whether an entertainment duty is liable to be paid on such convenience fees.
NDTV
09-07-2025
- General
- NDTV
AP POLYCET Counselling 2025: Seat Allotment Result Tomorrow, Here's How To Check
AP POLYCET Counselling 2025: The Department of Technical Education, Andhra Pradesh, will release the AP POLYCET 2025 seat allotment result tomorrow, July 10. Candidates who participated in the counselling round can check their results on the official website - To access the result, candidates will need to log in using their login ID, hall ticket number, password, and date of birth. Those allotted seats based on the merit list must report to their respective colleges between July 10 and July 14, 2025. "Candidates claiming minority or special reservation categories must submit relevant documents during counselling. Priority and merit within special reservation categories are governed by the applicable Government Orders (GOs) and guidelines," the official notice stated. AP POLYCET 2025 Seat Allotment: How To Download Visit the official website, Click on the Seat Allotment link on the homepage. Enter your hall ticket number, ICR form number, password, and date of birth. Once logged in, the seat allotment letter will appear on the screen. Download and save a copy for future reference. Tuition fee Students enrolling in government and aided polytechnic colleges are required to pay an annual tuition fee of Rs 4,700, while those joining private unaided polytechnics and second-shift engineering institutions must pay Rs 25,000 per year. Eligible students may receive tuition fee reimbursement as per the directives issued periodically by the Andhra Pradesh state government. The Andhra Pradesh Polytechnic Common Entrance Test (AP POLYCET) is conducted every year by the State Board of Technical Education and Training, Vijayawada. Admission to a wide range of diploma programmes in engineering and non-engineering fields across government and private institutions in the state is granted based on performance in the AP POLYCET 2025 exam.
New Indian Express
24-06-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Andhra HC seeks explanation on staff rationalisation
VIJAYAWADA: The AP High Court sought an explanation from the State government regarding GO No. 1, issued on January 25, and GO No. 4, issued on April 10, which reduced staff in village and ward secretariats, and introduced a rationalisation system categorising secretariats into A, B and C. The petition challenging the GOs was filed by the Village Horticulture Assistant Welfare Association. Justice Challa Gunaranjan directed the Principal Secretary of Agriculture and Horticulture, the Secretary of Village and Ward Secretariats, and the Horticulture Commissioner to submit a counter affidavit within four weeks. Perni's petition dismissed The HC dismissed a petition filed by YSRCP leader Perni Venkataramaiah (Nani) and his son, stating legal action cannot be based solely on news articles in the fake house deeds case. They were permitted to approach the court if an FIR is filed. Krishnam Raju's case The High Court directed Thulluru police to treat the case against journalist VVR Krishnam Raju—accused of making vile remarks against Amaravati women—as the primary case. Related FIRs across the State were deemed as statements under CrPC Section 162. It cited SC ruling prohibiting multiple FIRs for the same incident. Mithun Reddy's anticipatory bail plea The anticipatory bail plea of YSRCP MP Mithun Reddy in the liquor scam case was referred to the Chief Justice due to procedural overlap. The prosecution assured that no arrest would be made until further orders.
