Latest news with #PankajBhatia
Time of India
03-08-2025
- Business
- Time of India
High Court stays YEIDA order to cancel land allotted to company over Rs 118 crore dues
Noida: Allahabad high court's Lucknow bench has restrained the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (YEIDA) from cancelling the land allotment of Greenbay Infrastructure for its 100-acre township project in Sector 22D. YEIDA has been restrained from cancellation until the company's two revision applications before the state govt — seeking relief under the "zero period" policy due to non-possession of 30–35% of the land — are disposed of. The zero period policy refers to a period during which developers are granted relief from interest and penalties on land dues for stalled projects. You Can Also Check: Noida AQI | Weather in Noida | Bank Holidays in Noida | Public Holidays in Noida The court's interim order came on July 30, just a day before YEIDA's July 31 deadline for the builder to pay Rs 118 crore in pending dues or face cancellation of the land parcel. Justice Pankaj Bhatia, who heard the matter, directed that no coercive action be taken based on YEIDA's July 8 plot cancellation notice. Since the realtor filed a revision application before the state govt in Jan, the court observed that while the issue remains under review, YEIDA cannot cancel the land allotment. The court instructed the state govt to decide on the interim relief application within 10 days and complete proceedings on the revision application filed by Greenbay within four weeks. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Access all TV channels anywhere, anytime Techno Mag Learn More Undo Greenbay said it has so far deposited Rs 60 crore out of the Rs 118 crore and has sought "zero period" relief from the date of allotment till now, citing incomplete land possession and stalled construction due to farmers' unwillingness to vacate around one-third of the land. The dispute stems from a prolonged standoff between the developer and YEIDA. The land was allotted to Greenbay in Feb 2011, with a lease deed executed in March 2012. In Jan 2014, Greenbay subleased a portion of the land to Emerald Properties for a group housing society. The company later launched the Golf Village township project, comprising 691 plots. However, the developer said it could not take possession of two-thirds of the land until 2019 and about one-third still remains outside its control. According to YEIDA officials, the latest ultimatum followed repeated defaults by the developer under the UP govt's "legacy stalled projects" policy introduced on Dec 21, 2023, which aims to revive long-pending housing projects and ensure timely possession for homebuyers. After the developer gave its consent, the dues were recalculated to Rs 441 crore, of which Greenbay was required to pay 25% (Rs 110 crore) by April 28, 2024. After it deposited the 25% amount, YEIDA in July 2024 issued a revised payment schedule for the remaining 75% dues. The Authority further revised this schedule a month later when the developer requested a recalculation of the amount with 10% simple interest and inclusion of Rs 2.4 crore in unpaid lease rent from 2021. Under the new payment schedule, the first instalment was due on Jan 15 and the last by July 15, 2026. Based on the initial amount paid, YEIDA allowed the developer to proceed with tripartite sublease registrations for proportionate land areas. In Oct 2024, Greenbay requested another extension for paying the remaining dues, citing continued difficulty in obtaining full physical possession of the plot. The company claimed that about 30% of the land remained under cultivation by farmers, preventing access. Taking this into account, YEIDA granted a three-month extension in Nov 2024, pushing the deadline from Jan 15 to April 15, 2025. However, Greenbay again failed to meet the extended deadline of April 15, 2025. Instead of clearing dues, it submitted a letter on April 15 seeking permission to sublease a 4,330-square metre commercial plot within the township and requested another revision of its payment schedule. During a board meeting on June 18, YEIDA issued a final deadline of June 30, asking Greenbay to deposit around Rs 118 crore or face cancellation of its township project in Sector later extended the deadline by one month, giving Greenbay until July 31 to clear the dues. In a letter dated July 8, the Authority made it clear this was the final ultimatum. The company said it has deposited Rs 60 crore and plans to pay the remaining amount, but it wants its grievances to be heard. Project director of the company Amit Kumar Sharma said, "To fulfil these financial transactions, we need immediate permission to proceed with the sublease of the commercial plot. This authorisation is critical for us to take the necessary steps towards fulfilling our payment obligations. Should we fail to adhere to the agreed timeline for payment, we accept that the sublease may be cancelled without any objection on our part. " Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Friendship Day wishes , messages and quotes !
Time of India
22-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
HC stays action taken on basis of alleged letter from ‘RSS HQ'
Lucknow: The Lucknow bench of Allahabad high court recently stayed the suspension of licence of a fair price shop, questioning the authenticity of a letter allegedly written by the "RSS headquarters", on the basis of which the UP food and civil supplies department allegedly passed the order. Justice Pankaj Bhatia stayed the department's order on a writ petition filed by a Gonda resident, Manoj Kumar, and directed state govt to file its reply in the matter, fixing the next hearing after six weeks. The bench also directed the petitioner to implead one Dinesh Shukla, on whose complaint the department had initiated the proceedings. The sub divisional magistrate concerned suspended the licence of the petitioner's PDS outlet on June 30 on charges of distribution of poor quality food grains. He challenged the suspension order before the high court, alleging that the commissioner, food and civil supplies, had initiated the proceedings against him on the basis of an e-mail received purportedly from Nagpur-based RSS headquarters on Sept 5, 2024. The petitioner contended that state functionaries could not take any action against him on an RSS functionary's recommendation. The department's action of suspending his licence was mala fide and liable to be set aside, he argued. On perusal of the email and other documents, the bench expressed serious concern and questioned the govt counsel on how a letter written on a plain paper on behalf of a top RSS functionary could be taken to be authentic.
Time of India
08-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Noida, Ghaziabad teachers association join statewide protest against school merger
Noida: Over 2,000 teachers from Noida and Ghaziabad staged a sit-in at the district basic education offices and collectorate on Tuesday, stating that the state's decision to merge primary and upper primary schools, which have less than 50 students, with nearby institutions would deprive children, aged 6 to 14, from getting education in their neighbourhood in violation of Article 21A of the Constitution of India. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Protesters claimed the policy would also reduce vacancies for teaching staff in the state and would deepen the job crisis, especially for DElEd candidates. Teachers in Noida also claimed that the policy is contradictory to campaigns such as School Chalo Abhiyaan, as after pairing, several students stopped going to schools due to increased distance. The protest comes just a day after the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court upheld UP govt's June 16 order. A bench of justice Pankaj Bhatia dismissed two separate writ petitions filed by Krishna Kumari and others seeking the cancellation of the govt order. The court, however, observed the state govt is bound to ensure that no child is left out because of any action taken by it. Teachers argued that the policy will severely impact children's access to education, particularly in rural areas where schools are often the only accessible learning centres within walking distance. "This policy is not welcome at all," said Amit Goswami, president of Ghaziabad Teachers' Association. "It will reduce teaching positions, eliminate principal posts, and worsen the job crisis, especially for DElEd graduates. Currently, so many students pursue DElEd courses from private colleges too. Where will they go if there's no job in teaching services? It's demoralising for both students and teachers." According to officials, around 1.89 lakh candidates enrolled for the DElEd course in the admission process for the 2024 session. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The last advertisement for assistant teachers' recruitment in primary schools was issued in 2018. Pointing out that the merger goes against campaigns such as School Chalo Abhiyan, which aim to boost enrolment, Noida Teachers Association president Praveen Sharma said, "Many students have already stopped going to school after these mergers because the distance has increased. How can we expect class 1 and 2 children to walk 4-5 km daily? Moreover, in the past few years, teachers have been conducting door-to-door surveys to enrol these kids, encouraging their parents. Rather than increasing the number of schools and recruiting more teachers, the govt is reducing the schools count, which is a bad step." Parents also expressed frustration after finding their children's schools shut following summer vacations. "We were shocked to see the school gates locked. My kids were left standing outside. They can't travel several kilometres every day," said Jayveer Singh, a parent from Kheda Dujana village Teachers also said that the decision could push dropout rates higher, particularly among girls. "These schools are like second homes for children. Forcing them to shift to distant schools disrupts their comfort and learning," said another teacher. In Noida, 72 such schools have been merged, while in Ghaziabad, 60 schools are listed to be merged. "The schools are paired as per state order. The existing buildings will be converted into Bal Vatikas (playschools)," said Rahul Panwar, BSA, Noida.
News18
08-07-2025
- Politics
- News18
'No Violation Of Children's Right To Education': Allahabad HC Upholds UP School Pairing Policy
Last Updated: The bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia held that the move to merge low-enrolment government primary and upper primary schools does not violate the Right To Education. The Allahabad High Court on July 7, 2025, upheld the Uttar Pradesh government's school pairing policy introduced as part of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020. Dismissing two writ petitions filed by more than 50 students challenging the policy, the bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia held that the move to merge low-enrolment government primary and upper primary schools does not violate the constitutional guarantee under Article 21-A or the mandates of the Right to Education (RTE) Act and associated rules. Students from Gautam Buddha Nagar district filed the petitions through their parents and guardians, who argued that the government order dated 16 June 2025, and a follow-up communication dated 24 June 2025 violated their children's right to elementary education by mandating the merger of 105 government schools. The petitioners contended that the pairing would force young children to walk more than one kilometre to school, exceeding the prescribed limits under Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh RTE Rules, 2011 (UP Rules), and would result in school closures in their villages. Counsel for the petitioners in one petition, Dr LP Mishra, submitted that the merger policy effectively deprived children of their right to access education in a neighborhood school as required under Section 6 of the RTE Act. Referring to Rule 4(a) of the UP Rules, he argued that the state government has to establish a school in a habitation that has no school within a distance of one kilometre and has a population of at least 300. Advocate Gaurav Mehrotra, appearing for other petitioners, argued that the executive instructions are neither a government order nor come within the definition of law as prescribed under Article 13. 'The fundamental rights cannot be amended except in accordance with law and certainly not through the executive instructions," he stated. On the other hand, the State, represented by Additional Advocate General Anuj Kudesia, defended the policy as a rational and necessary reform to optimize educational infrastructure and teacher resources. It was pointed out that 58 schools had zero students and many others had minimal enrolment, leading to underutilized buildings and skewed pupil-teacher ratios. The policy, the state argued, was not a closure of schools but a rationalization exercise aligned with NEP 2020 goals. 'Even after the paring, the state government is bound to ensure that free and compulsory education is provided to all children," he emphasised. He further argued that as per the Rules of Business, the Additional Chief Secretary had full authority to issue the order, and therefore the petitioner's claim that it was merely an executive instruction and not a valid government order should be rejected. He further highlighted that the petitioners could not demonstrate by any verified data that the implementation of the policy of pairing would in effect result in negating the rights that are vested by Article 21-A of the Constitution. The single judge bench rejected the plea that the pairing policy was arbitrary or violative of children's rights. Court noted that the policy explicitly provided for exceptions in cases where a child may need to travel beyond the 1 km or 3 km distance, and that Rule 4(2) of the UP RTE Rules allows such relaxation if transportation or other facilities are provided. Court pointed out that the NEP, 2020, authorises and prescribes for consolidation of small schools which have been rendered economically suboptimal and operationally complex to run and are posing a systematic challenge to governance and management. Court also highlighted that although the government's decision was nothing but an action in furtherance of the NEP, 2020, the petitioners had not made any challenge to the policy itself. Moreover, court noted that the approximate population of the State is 24 crore and if the petitioners' argument that for every 300 inhabitants one school should be available within 1 Km range, the state will have to provide for about 8 lakh schools; which would render the entire Rule 4(1)(a) to an absurdity. Court added that on a conjoint reading of Rule 4(1), Rule 4(2) and Rule 4(3), it is the duty of the state government to establish schools as far as practical at a distance which is closest to the habitation, and if the same is not possible, to ensure that the children are provided facilities such as transportation. Therefore, finding no material to the contrary in respect of guidelines of pairing in the NEP, 2020, the high court dismissed the petitions. However, court directed that 'it will be the duty of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari to ensure that no child is left out for being educated and all steps as are necessary shall be taken… in accordance with law". 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! tags : National Education Policy (NEP) Right to Education (RTE) Act view comments Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: July 08, 2025, 16:45 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Hindustan Times
08-07-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Allahabad HC dismisses pleas against Uttar Pradesh govt's school merger order
In a major relief to the Uttar Pradesh government, the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court on Monday dismissed both the writ petitions challenging the state government's June 16 order for the merger of government-run primary schools and upper primary schools. The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court began hearing the case on July 3. (FILE PHOTO) The court asserted that pairing (merger) of schools does not violate Article 21A of the Constitution. Article 21A guarantees the right to education as a fundamental right for children between the ages of 6 and 14 years. A single judge bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia passed the order on Monday, observing: 'The mandate of Article 21A of Constitution cannot be presumed to be decided to hold that the free and compulsory education to the children in between the age of six and fourteen years have to be provided by the State within a distance of 1 km, as is being argued.' The court added that just because the distance of the educational institutions after the merger would result in the school being established at a distance of more than one kilometre from a population of 300, the argument of the petitioners that it would be a violation of rights conferred under Article 21A of the Constitution, cannot be justified. Elaborating on the issue, the court pointed out that the duty to establish a school within one km has to be interpreted in a manner that it does not become absolutely unworkable and in the present case, the distances range from one km to approximately 2- 2.5 km. The court observed that the rules are applicable throughout the state from rural areas to semi-urban areas and to urban areas where there are limitations of the availability of land and other resources. 'The approximate population of the state is 24 crore and if the arguments of the petitioner are to be accepted that for every 300 inhabitants one school should be available at a distance of 1 km, the state will have to provide for about 8 lakh schools,' the court said. The high court added that literal interpretation of Rule 4(1)(a) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009, would render the entire rule to be an absurdity. Rule 4(1)(a) of RTE Act, 2009, pertains to the admission of children into age-appropriate classes. Specifically, it addresses situations where a child over six years old has not been admitted to school or has dropped out. This rule ensures such children are admitted to a class that matches their age, enabling them to continue their elementary education. The rule is to be interpreted adopting the principles of interpretation so as to make it workable and not a dead letter, the court said. 'A purposive interpretation of the rule is required which mandates that the same must be construed in a manner that advances the object and purpose for which it was enacted,' the court observed. The court also pointed out that it is the duty of the state government to establish schools at a distance which is closest to the habitation and in case it is not possible then the government must provide transportation facilities. Interpretation of a rule should be done keeping in consideration the fact that Uttar Pradesh is a large state, availability of land and other resources, including financial, pointed out by the court. The court added that the government is bound to establish a school on the nearest possible place from a habitation and, in absence, it is obliged to ensure transportation facilities. The court pointed out that the neighbourhood schools would also include other than government schools. 'The obligation cast upon the State shall be scrupulously followed and the State is bound to ensure that no child is left out because of any action taken by the State,' the court said. 'It will be the duty of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari to ensure that no child is left out for being educated and all steps as are necessary shall be taken as and when required in accordance with law,' the court said. The case Fifty-one students from Sitapur – 50 from a primary school and one from the upper primary section – approached the high court challenging the June 16 order of the state government for the merger of primary schools across Uttar Pradesh. They moved the court through their guardian. A separate petition was filed by another primary student through his mother. The court clubbed both the petitions and delivered the common judgment. The petitioners opposed the merger of schools, stating that it will cause difficulties for children who will have to travel farther to reach their new schools, affecting their right to free and compulsory education. Additional advocate general (AAG) Anuj Kudesia and chief standing counsel (CSC) Shailendra Kumar Singh presented the state government's views in court. Senior advocate LP Mishra appeared on behalf of the petitioners.
