Latest news with #LeavePetition
Time of India
09-08-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Haji Ali dargah's beautification plan faces delay
On a recent drive down the Coastal Road, sculptor Sunil Deore gazed at the iconic Haji Ali Dargah in despair. "The pathway leading to the dargah gate and the area surrounding the shrine need an urgent revamp. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The monument deserves to be beautified," commented Deore, whose famous works include the replica of the national emblem crowning the new parliament building. Deore is not alone in emphasising that the area around the 500-year-old monument of Pir Haji Ali Shah Bukhari, including the pathway that gets submerged at high tide, needs an urgent facelift. After Congress MLA Amin Patel raised the subject of the shrine's beautification in the state assembly recently, the issue is back in the spotlight. "I have written letters to a dozen authorities, including CM Devendra Fadnavis, the guardian minister, the finance minister, and the municipal commissioner. I reiterated in the House that Haji Ali Dargah draws thousands of pilgrims from India and abroad daily," says Patel. "The beautification plan, which has been in abeyance, needs to be kicked off." Here's a recap of the chronology of events: Responding to a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the Haji Ali Dargah Trust, the Supreme Court, on August 14, 2017, ordered the removal of encroachments, saying: "We hope and expect that the beautification plan will be carried out under all circumstances before December 31, 2017, so that the visitors to the Haji Ali Dargah, in the new year, will experience the efforts of all concerned in upgrading the existing structure and its environment. " Eight years later, the apex court's hope is yet to be fulfilled. While the Haji Ali Dargah Trust—which is responsible for improving the infrastructure—is carrying out the restoration work, the revamp of the shrine's surroundings is stuck in a bureaucratic logjam. After restoring the mosque and the minaret in two phases, the trust is halfway through restoring the tomb of the Sufi saint, using marble sourced from Makrana in Rajasthan. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Incidentally, the mine owner is a descendant of the trader who supplied the Taj Mahal its marble. "But the marble we are using is better quality than what was used for the Taj Mahal," says Sohail Khandwani, Managing Trustee of the Haji Ali and Mahim dargahs. The task of beautifying the area surrounding the dargah, including the pathway, lies with the state govt. Khandwani says soon after the SC order a task force was formed, comprising the municipal commissioner, the police commissioner, the collector, and the Dargah Trust. Subsequently, the project was awarded to architect Abha Narain Lambah and Egis India Engineers through a govt tender. Union Road Transport Minister Nitin Gadkari lent his support by issuing clearances. The beautification plan includes widening the pathway from 20ft to 40ft, creating a 30,000 sq ft Mughal Garden, laying anti-erosion tetrapods, building an archway called Buland Darwaza at the entrance, and setting up a healthcare centre, langar khana, and an area for women. The causeway will have a pedestrian underpass, an elevated pathway and a canopy to protect pilgrims from inclement weather. The entire area will be illuminated. The project's cost was initially estimated at Rs 19 crore (for road widening ) and Rs 35 crore for overall beautification. "The cost is now over Rs 68 crore, as the design has been modified," says a source. "We want the govt to release the funds so that the work can start," says Lambah. Former guardian minister Aslam Shaikh says ruefully, "I pushed the project, and the work was about to start when my govt fell."
NDTV
30-07-2025
- Politics
- NDTV
Top Court Declines To Defer Framing Of Charges Against Lalu Prasad Yadav In Land-For-Job Scam
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to direct a Delhi trial court to defer proceedings on the framing of charges against Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) leader Lalu Prasad in the alleged land-for-job scam case. In his latest application before the top court, Lalu Prasad Yadav sought a direction to the trial court to postpone proceedings until August 12, when his petition seeking quashing of the FIR filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is scheduled for hearing before the Delhi High Court. Refusing to issue any directions, a Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh remarked that the petition pending before the Delhi High Court would not turn "infructuous" even if the trial court proceeds to frame charges. It added that the trial court proceedings, including the framing of charges, are naturally subject to the outcome of the quashing petition pending before the Delhi High Court. Earlier, on July 18, the Justice Sundresh-led Bench had refused to stay the trial proceedings against Lalu Prasad Yadav, observing that it would not retain such a small matter for its own consideration and that the Delhi High Court should decide his plea. Lalu Prasad Yadav moved a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the top court after the Delhi HC had rejected his application to stay the trial proceedings based on the charge sheets filed against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act. In his application before the Delhi High Court, the former Railway Minister argued that no police officer can investigate offences allegedly committed by a public servant where the offence is related to any recommendation made or decision taken in discharge of his public functions without approval of the competent authority. He contended that the registration of the FIR without such approval was illegal, rendering all subsequent actions - including the investigation, filing of charge sheets, and cognisance taken by the trial court - void ab initio (from the very beginning). After hearing the submissions, the Delhi High Court had granted liberty to Lalu Prasad Yadav to urge all his contentions before the trial court at the stage of framing of the charge and dismissed his plea seeking a stay on trial proceedings in the land-for-job case, prompting him to approach the Supreme Court. As per the CBI case registered on May 18, 2022, during the period between 2004-2009, then Railway Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav had obtained pecuniary advantages in the form of transfer of landed property in the name of his family members in lieu of appointment of substitutes in Group 'D' posts in different Zones of the Railways. Several people themselves or through their family members, allegedly sold or gifted their land in favour of the family members of Lalu Prasad Yadav and a private company controlled by him and his family. "No advertisement or any public notice was issued for such appointment of substitutes in Zonal Railways, yet the appointees, who were residents of Patna, were appointed as substitutes in different Zonal Railways located in Mumbai, Jabalpur, Kolkata, Jaipur and Hajipur," the CBI had said.
Time of India
28-07-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Now, SC dismisses residents' plea, paves way for G'gaon land redvpt
Mumbai: The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by residents against a recent Bombay High Court order, paving the way for redevelopment of 141 acres of Goregaon land by Mhada-appointed developer. The Housing Authority recently appointed Adani Realty through bids, for what is touted as the largest residential rehab project. The SC bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard counsel Siddharth Bhatnagar for the residents, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Chirag Shroff for Mhada, and former Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi for Adani before dismissing the SLP, which sought permission to appeal against the HC order. The dismissal put to rest the issue of 51% consent of tenants before the appointment of a developer by Mhada, lawyers said. The society formed by residents had three main contentions. Firstly, as a society, they ought to be allowed to self-develop the premises under the govt policy. Secondly, the society of residents can, under rule 33 (5) (2) of the Development Control and Promotion Regulations (DCPR), appoint a developer of their choice. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Discover Top Creams for Deep Wrinkles and Sagging Skin in South Africa Creams | Search Ads Search Now Undo Thirdly, any development undertaken by such a society, with Mhada NOC, by appointing a developer, requires 51% consent of the members, which Mhada did not take. Mhada, through senior counsel Darius Khambata, had before the HC argued that no new points were raised in the review plea and that the HC had recognised rights of Mhada as owner of the land to redevelop the premises through private builders by inviting bids. You Can Also Check: Mumbai AQI | Weather in Mumbai | Bank Holidays in Mumbai | Public Holidays in Mumbai Under the amended law, Mhada as owner can on its own undertake redevelopment of the property, the courts were informed. Last Friday, the HC bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Bharati Dangre dismissed a review plea filed by Motilal Nagar Vikas Samiti, a residents' group that sought self-development rights and challenged the court nod to Mhada appointing a consultant and Development Agency for the project through bids. The project envisages houses of 1,600 sq ft each, a host of amenities, and will rehouse almost 4,000 families on Mhada land. By its March judgment, the HC allowed Mhada's 2021 application to ensure redevelopment gets done via private developers' bids and disposed of PIL filed in 2013, seeking action against illegal construction.
Hindustan Times
30-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
SC clarifies that Bombay HC to decide Gateway of India jetty case on merits
MUMBAI: The Supreme Court on Thursday clarified that the Bombay High Court is free to proceed uninfluenced by its earlier observations in the ongoing case against the ₹299-crore passenger jetty project near the Gateway of India, a heritage monument. Declining to intervene, the apex court directed the High Court to hear the matter expeditiously and adjudicate all issues raised, including the legality of piling work into the seabed. The clarification comes two days after the top court declined to stay the contentious project, observing on Tuesday that the jetty served a larger public interest. Instead of passing interim orders, the court urged the High Court to swiftly conclude hearings on pending petitions challenging the development. The latest Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed by the Clean and Heritage Colaba Residents Association (CHCRA) through advocates Ayush Anand and Prerak Choudhary. The association challenged the High Court's May 7 interim order allowing the Maharashtra Maritime Board (MMB) to continue concrete piling work near the Radio Club area. CHCRA contended that the construction poses a serious risk to the historic seaside heritage wall adjacent to the Gateway of India. The petition questioned whether the High Court had erred in failing to weigh the balance of convenience and the potential for irreversible damage to the site. Earlier, on May 2, the High Court had recorded an assurance from the Advocate General of Maharashtra that the heritage wall would not be disturbed until June 20. The court scheduled the next hearing for June 16. However, piling activity reportedly began the very next day, on May 3, prompting CHCRA to seek an urgent stay, which the High Court declined on May 7. Accusing the authorities of attempting to bypass the court's interim protections, CHCRA approached the Supreme Court, seeking an ex parte interim stay and a direction restraining the state government from initiating any coercive action against petitioners. The Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice of India Bhushan Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih rejected the challenge without commenting on the merits of the case. It noted that the observations made in a related petition filed earlier by Dr Laura D'Souza would apply equally in this matter. Dr D'Souza's petition—filed through advocate Anagha S Desai of Desai Legal LLP—had similarly contested the High Court's refusal to stay the preparatory works, arguing that the project commenced without adequate public consultation and would adversely affect over 2.1 lakh residents in the Colaba area.
Hindustan Times
26-05-2025
- General
- Hindustan Times
Second residents' body moves SC against jetty project at Gateway of India
MUMBAI: A second residents' association has approached the Supreme Court, challenging the Bombay High Court's refusal to halt the construction of a jetty project near the Gateway of India. The Clean and Heritage Colaba Residents Association (CHCRA) has filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the High Court's interim order dated May 7, 2025, which allowed concrete piling work at the seabed near Radio Club to proceed. This comes a week after the Cuffe Parade Residents' Association president moved the apex court with a similar petition. CHCRA's petition, filed through advocates Ayush Anand and Prerak Choudhary, argues that the construction work poses a serious threat to the seaside heritage wall near the Gateway of India and questions whether the High Court erred in failing to weigh the balance of convenience and the potential for irreparable damage. Earlier, in its May 2 order, the High Court had recorded an assurance from the Advocate General of Maharashtra that the heritage wall would not be touched before June 20, 2025. The court had scheduled the next hearing for June 16. However, the Maharashtra Maritime Board (MMB) began piling work—a process involving fixing concrete piles into the seabed—the very next day, on May 3. CHCRA has alleged that this move was aimed at bypassing the interim protection granted by the court. The association subsequently filed an application seeking a stay on all piling activity, but the High Court dismissed it on May 7. The petition also challenges the project's compliance with environmental regulations. It points out that the 2022 Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) notification only permits 'stand-alone jetties' in CRZ-I and CRZ-IV areas. In contrast, the current proposal seeks clearance for 10 jetties, which CHCRA describes as 'ex facie illegal and impermissible'. The petition further contends that the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA) and the MMB have approved the Passenger Jetty and Terminal Facilities project without adequately considering objections from local residents and stakeholders. It cites Rule 8(V) of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Rules, which requires that public concerns be addressed before such approvals are granted. Additionally, the association has raised concerns over the MCZMA's alleged failure to acknowledge the presence of the heritage seawall—a significant feature of the Gateway of India precinct. Demolition of this wall, the petition argues, would cause irreversible harm to the city's architectural legacy. Accusing the High Court of overlooking the heritage concerns, CHCRA has urged the Supreme Court to grant an ex parte interim stay on the May 7 order and to restrain the state government from taking any coercive action against the petitioners.
