Latest news with #RajendraVerma
Time of India
01-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Seeing through noise? Panel's report in HC reply recommends amending 1985 law
Raipur: An affidavit submitted by the Chhattisgarh environment environment conservation board (CECB) in the high court recommended that the state govt should consider amending the Kolahal Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1985, taking in view the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000. Through a report submitted in compliance with earlier court orders, the board indicated that after a comparative analysis, the 2000 rules were found to be more stringent and the 1985 act should be aligned with them. On Monday, the Chhattisgarh high court took a suo motu cognizance concerning noise pollution, initiated after a news report. The court reviewed an application from the assistant legal officer, Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board (CECB), Bilaspur, detailing the work of a committee formed to address the issue. The report highlighted key differences between the two enactments. While the 1985 act permits loudspeaker use with authority permission, it does not specify noise limits. The 2000 Rules, in contrast, require permission and establish clear noise limits. The penalties and noise limits under the 2000 Rules are significantly stricter. Furthermore, Section 14 of the 1985 act categorises violations as non-cognizable and bailable offences. The committee's affidavit proposes amending this section of the 1985 act for more effective implementation by the administration. The committee, established by a January 29, 2025 order from the general administration department, Govt of Chhattisgarh, held its third meeting on May 29. It sought a report from the law department regarding the overlap between the two sets of regulations. The law department's comparative analysis revealed several inconsistencies. The classification of noise-prohibited zones differs in both enactments, as do the permitted time and area limits for loudspeaker use. The Kolahal Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1985, offers greater flexibility, with section 13 allowing free use of loudspeakers for 29 religious festivals. However, the Madhya Pradesh High Court declared this section unconstitutional in Rajendra Verma vs. State of MP and Umesh Sharma vs. Housing and Environment Department (2018). Conversely, Rule 5(3) of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, restricts loudspeaker use to 15 days annually. Regarding penalties, Section 15 of the 1985 act provides for a minimum punishment for violations, while rule 6 of the 2000 rules prescribes greater penalties, thereby enhancing enforceability. Section 19 of the 1985 act empowers the state govt to frame rules for its implementation, a provision absent in the 2000 Rules. The report suggests that the state govt can amend the 1985 act, taking into account the comparative analysis, and also frame rules under Section 19 of the act. It clarifies that in cases of conflict, central law prevails over state law. Since the 1985 act is a state enactment and the 2000 rules are a central enactment, the 2000 rules will take precedence. The committee has accepted the law department's report and recommended that the state govt consider amending the Kolahal Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1985, based on the department's suggestions. Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Doctor's Day 2025 , messages and quotes!
Time of India
10-06-2025
- Time of India
Panchayat secretary booked on bribery charges in Ujjain
Ujjain: Lokayukta team in Ujjain on Tuesday booked the panchayat secretary of Jagoti village in Mahidpur tehsil on bribery charges. Lokayukta inspector Rajendra Verma said that on Friday, the applicant Ashok Dabi, a resident of Belkheda in Mahidpur tehsil, came to the Lokayukta office in Ujjain and lodged a complaint with superintendent of police Anil Vishwakarma. He reported that a house under the chief minister's housing scheme was approved in the name of his grandmother, Kanchan Bai, in Jagoti village and the first instalment was received in their account a month ago. When he approached the panchayat secretary, Dilip Sharma, for the next instalment, Sharma demanded a bribe of Rs 10,000. After confirming the complaint, the team sent the complainant with the bribe money to Sharma on Tuesday. The panchayat secretary was at his home in Mahudipura, where he asked Dabi to come. As Sharma took the bribe money and placed it in his trouser pocket, Lokayukta team apprehended him. The team seized his trousers along with the bribe money.
