Latest news with #SumeetGoel
Hindustan Times
19 hours ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Construct verandah outside chief justice's court in 4 weeks: HC to Chandigarh admn
The Punjab and Haryana high court has given the Chandigarh administration four weeks to construct a verandah outside the chief justice's court. The order was passed by the bench presided over by chief justice Sheel Nagu and justice Sumeet Goel during the hearing of a public interest litigation (PIL). '...in the face of ensuing monsoon season, which will start in a month's time, urgency arises and therefore, the UT administration is directed to construct the verandah in front of Court Room No. 1, preferably within a period of four weeks,' the bench ordered while fixing the next date of hearing on July 4. On May 28, the Supreme Court had upheld a November 2024 order of the high court directing the Chandigarh administration to construct the verandah, saying it will not violate the UNESCO guidelines. The apex court order came on the petition filed by the UT administration that construction of the verandah without UNESCO's nod could result in the loss of World Heritage status of Capitol Complex, which included the assembly, the high court and the secretariat, designed by celebrated architect Le Corbusier, who planned the entire city of Chandigarh. Currently, a verandah exists only in front of court room numbers 2 to number 9, while visitors to court room number 1 are left to brave harsh summer heat and monsoon rains in the absence of any protective cover. Construction at a heritage site is prohibited without approval from the UNESCO World Heritage Committee. The committee has already stalled three ambitious projects at the Capitol Complex, including the underground multi-level parking lot, high court's holistic development plan and an AC chiller plant. However, SC said the verandah in front of court room number 1, in alignment with the design of the pre-existing verandahs in front of court room numbers 2 to 9, was absolutely justified and would not violate the UNESCO guidelines. Court seeks proposal for green paver blocks in parking area The high court has also directed UT to submit a proposal for laying green paver blocks in kutcha parking area, established on a green belt, within one week before the building committee of the high court. If due to summer vacations, the committee cannot meet (physically or virtually), the proposals be placed before the chief justice, the bench further directed. The issue of paver blocks in the green belt area was also dealt with by the apex court following UT's reservations. However, SC said the requirement of a proper parking space for the lawyers and the litigants was 'imperative because the pre-existing facility in the high court has fallen woefully short'. The high court was hearing a PIL filed by Vinod Dhaterwal, an office-bearer of the high court employees' association, demanding infrastructure development at the HC complex in the wake of increasing traffic congestion, space crunch and implementation of the holistic development plan. The order regarding construction of verandah and laying of paver blocks had also come during these proceedings.
Hindustan Times
28-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
NEET PG counselling: HC upholds UT's move on 18 seats
The Punjab and Haryana high court has upheld the UT administration's decision converting 18 domicile seats under state quota to institutional preference for the third counselling of postgraduate courses (MD/MS) at Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32. These admissions for the session 2024-25 are being carried out on the basis of rank obtained in NEET (PG) 2024. No domicile quota will be there for these admissions, the bench of chief justice Sheel Nagu and justice Sumeet Goel held. The court was dealing with a clutch of petitions challenging UT's move. The state quota seats are further divided into two categories, i.e institutional preference and UT Chandigarh pool. For third counselling, around 35 state quota seats were left with 18 under UT Chandigarh pool (residence/domicile based) and remaining of institutional preference. On April 9, the administration issued a public notice to convert the seats under domicile category to institutional preference, which was under challenge. GMCH-32 director Ashok Atri said 'We held a committee meeting today and we are yet to get the hard copy of the decision. Things are in pipeline. We will conduct the third counselling accordingly.'
Time of India
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
BBMB row: In high court, Punjab accuses Haryana govt, Centre of concealing fact
1 2 Chandigarh: Punjab govt on Thursday submitted before the Punjab and Haryana high court that the Centre and Haryana govt had concealed facts before it with regard to a meeting called by the Union home secretary on May 2. A division bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel was hearing arguments on Punjab govt's plea seeking a review or modification of its May 6 order pertaining to Union home secretary Govind Mohan's May 2 decision to release 4,500 cusecs of extra water to Haryana. The high court on May 6 had directed Punjab to abide by the decision of the May 2 meeting held under the chairmanship of Mohan. Punjab submitted that the May 2 meeting was called on the issue of law and order, and not on the water-sharing matter, and this "fact was concealed" from the court. Senior advocate Gurminder Singh, who appeared in the high court on Punjab's behalf, later said, "The BBMB held a meeting on April 28 where no decision could be taken. Haryana govt made a representation to the BBMB chairman to refer the matter to the Centre under Rule 7 of the BBMB Rules, 1974. On April 29, on the basis of the letter, and on the basis of a letter by CM Haryana Nayab Singh Saini to Union minister Manohar Lal Khattar, the issue was referred to the Centre. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Trade Bitcoin & Ethereum – No Wallet Needed! IC Markets Start Now Undo However, the meeting referred to before the court was convened by Union home secretary on the issue of law and order. This fact was concealed from the court. The court was also not told that the matter had been referred on April 29." He added the Centre had earlier told the court that on May 2, it had taken the decision to release an additional 4,500 cusecs to Haryana. This decision was to be taken by the competent authority and was "illegal", he said. "There was misrepresentation of facts collectively by Haryana, BBMB and Centre against Punjab. Secondly, the decision of May 2 (to release water to Haryana) has been placed on record on May 9 and its compliance could not have been given on May 6," he said, adding that minutes of the May 2 meeting have still not been provided and only records of discussion have been given, which have no legal parlance,' he said. The case is listed for further hearing on Friday. As per the resolution passed by BBMB on April 30 by "majority vote", it had resolved to release 8,500 cusecs of water for eight days (April 24 to May 1), "as a one-time exception/relaxation" without "placing of indent" by Punjab. BBMB chairman Manoj Tripathi had, meanwhile, assured to look after the needs of Punjab during the filling period. Later, at a meeting with the Union home secretary in New Delhi on May 2, the BBMB chairman claimed that the board's decision of April 30 could not be implemented due to "deployment of police force" by Punjab.
Hindustan Times
21-05-2025
- Health
- Hindustan Times
Mental Health Care Act, 2017: HC tells Punjab, Haryana to notify rules within sixty days
The high court (HC) has come down heavily on the failure of the Punjab and Haryana governments in framing rules for the implementation of mental health care law-- Mental Health Care Act, 2017. 'It is unfortunate to note that even after expiry of 7-8 years since promulgation of the Act of 2017, rules have not yet been notified even by both the states of Punjab and Haryana. Considering the fact that the Act of 2017 is a welfare legislation, both the states are obliged to frame the rules to give effect to various provisions of the Act,' the bench of chief justice Sheel Nagu and justice Sumeet Goel observed when informed that both the states are yet to frame the rules. The court underlined that in the absence of framing of the rules by both governments, the Act of 2017 will not be able to achieve its objective for which it has been promulgated. 'Since much time has elapsed, this court directs both the states, especially the departments of health and family welfare, to ensure that rules be notified within a period of sixty days,' the court said while seeking a compliance report by July 24. The court was hearing a public interest litigation filed by Pushpanjali Trust, a welfare society seeking implementation of 2017 Act. During the hearing, petitioner Aditya Rametra of Chandigarh, in person provided points to be achieved by the implementation of the 2017 Act. He told the court that law provides for the availability of basic and emergency mental healthcare services at all community centres in the state, budgetary provisions for effective implementation, establishment of half-way homes and group homes, educational and training programs for the education of persons with mental illness.
Indian Express
19-05-2025
- Health
- Indian Express
Punjab and Haryana High Court slams Chandigarh Administration over Rs 20 lakh fee for disabled home
The Punjab and Haryana High Court Friday pulled up the Chandigarh Administration over the Rs 20 lakh security deposit condition for admission to a newly-built group home for people with mental disabilities in Sector 31, terming the amount 'exorbitant' and potentially exclusionary for many deserving applicants. The interim order on May 16 by a division bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel was in response to a civil writ petition filed by four parents and guardians of mentally disabled people — Satish Kumar, G K Jaggi, B K Chadha and Barkhu Ram, all residents of the Union Territory — whose wards are prospective applicants for the facility. The bench, after hearing counsel for the parties, observed that the demand for such a high deposit stood in contrast to the principles enshrined under Sections 18 to 21 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, which stress treatment of persons with mental illness with dignity, reasonableness and without discrimination. It noted that the governing body managing the mental illness home at Sector 31 comprises 13 members, the majority of whom are functionaries of the UT Administration, and thus the society managing the facility qualifies as 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution. The UT Administration is directed to apply its mind on the aspect of quantum of security amount of Rs 20 lakh, which deprives admission into the mental illness home, even to the deserving mental health patients merely because of paucity of funds, the bench stated, directing the governing body to hold an emergent meeting to reconsider the deposit requirement. The case will next be heard on July 24. The petitioners have also challenged several other terms and conditions for admission to the Sector 31 group home. They have sought a direction to quash the Rs 20 lakh deposit requirement and instead limit the security amount to one year's fee, based on room type, in line with the norms followed by the government-run senior citizens home in Chandigarh. They further asked for a waiver of additional charges such as air-conditioning, electricity, and cross-subsidy fees, pointing to the already high monthly costs. The petition advocates for greater inclusivity by seeking 25 per cent reservation of twin-sharing seats for applicants from the economically weaker section (EWS) category with annual family incomes between Rs 1.5 lakh and Rs 8 lakh, and a 50 per cent concession in both the deposit and monthly fees for this income group. The petitioners have also urged the court to waive the mandatory requirement of furnishing the second and third guardians in the admission form. The petitioners have also pressed for the immediate operationalisation of the facility, which has remained locked since July 2024 despite being fully constructed and furnished. Additional prayers include the recruitment of professional staff such as counsellors and social workers trained in mental healthcare, simplification of the admission process by conducting assessments within the group home itself to reduce stress on applicants, and public awareness campaigns to ensure that eligible candidates are informed about the facility and its services. Senior advocate R S Bains represented the petitioners with advocate Sarabjeet Singh Cheema. Additional standing counsel Aman Bahri represented the Chandigarh Administration with advocate Shubreet Kaur.
