Telangana HC seeks replies on illegal buildings near Osmansagar, Himayatsagar eco-zones
HYDERABAD: The Telangana High Court on Thursday directed various departments of the state government and some private individuals to submit within four weeks their responses to a PIL challenging illegal constructions in the eco-sensitive zones surrounding the Osmansagar and Himayatsagar reservoirs.
A bench of Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara was hearing the PIL filed by Mandadi Madhava Reddy, a resident of Pedda Mangalaram village in Moinabad mandal of Rangareddy district, alleging inaction by the departments concerned in curbing unauthorised constructions in areas protected under Government Order 111 (GO 111) dated March 8, 1996. These areas fall within a 10km radius of the catchment regions of the twin reservoirs, which play a crucial role in Hyderabad's water supply and ecological balance.
The bench issued notices to the Chief Secretary, principal secretaries of the Irrigation & CAD department and the MAUD department, the state Pollution Control Board, HMWSSB, HMDA, GHMC and several other authorities. Notices were also served on the private respondents, and the matter was adjourned until after the summer vacation in 2025.
In his petition, Madhava Reddy argued that rampant illegal constructions are taking place in the bio-conservation zone in blatant violation of environmental and constitutional mandates, including the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and binding judicial pronouncements by the National Green Tribunal and the Supreme Court of India.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
39 minutes ago
- Hans India
Intimidating laws will be used against political rivals despite SC ruling
Slamming the authorities of gross misuse of state laws like the UP Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, a Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, has made it clear that the Act was not an instrument to target individuals, who are guilty of involvement in a single incident of anti-social activity. While warning governments against invoking such stringent laws as a tool of harassment or intimidation, the bench asserted that it was tantamount to extreme abuse of the governing laws when such an Act is used as a means of oppression, especially when political motivations are suspected. In a veiled attack, the apex court has sent across a message loud and clear that they cannot be used to settle political scores. By definition, the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, is designed to prevent and combat gangsters and related anti-social activities. It defines 'gangster' and provides for the punishment of individuals involved in organized crime, including imprisonment and fines, especially if the offence is committed against a public servant but not for staging demonstrations, when used as an expression of right to expression that had no other ulterior motives. Mere involvement in a demonstration or protest after a communal clash cannot be reason enough to invoke the provisions of the Gangster Act, was made clear by the Supreme Court. Putting to rest many self-satisfactory interpretations about the provisions of the Act, most of which were invoked for serving political interests in violation of the law, the apex court drove home the point that the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty acquires greater emphasis when extraordinary legislation with stringent provisions, such as the UP Gangsters Act, is invoked. In unequivocal terms, it stated, 'When a statute creates serious fetters on personal liberty, the evidentiary foundation for its invocation must be commensurately strong, supported by concrete, verifiable facts rather than vague assertions.' This, in essence, implies that the Act cannot be invoked to stifle voices and silence dissent. Quashing an FIR lodged on April 30, 2023 against an 'organised gang', based on a social media post that cried foul of a particular religion, which led to violent protests 'involving' the appellants Lal Mohd and others, the court maintained that the complaint provided no evidence to substantiate systematic planning or coordinated criminal activities against the group. It discarded the FIR on the grounds that it was a conjectural statement by the complainant and one that was not corroborated with facts to establish 'provocative' motivations of those named in the FIR or to establish that it was a premeditated gang activity meant to create serious law and order disturbances. On their part, the appellants held that the allegations do not meet the threshold to justify invoking the UP Gangsters Act. The Supreme Court said that the accused were arrested and booked under provisions of IPC for vandalising a shop and wondered the need for lodging a second FIR by invoking Gangsters Act six months after the incident. However, the ground reality is that for decades together, many state governments have taken undue advantage of the loopholes that exist in certain laws as a means to harass political antagonists and their supporters. It is even more tragic that they get away even without coming up with any concrete proof to justify such acts of victimisation. Police and law and order are, after all, state subjects and hence none dares to beard the lion.
Indian Express
4 hours ago
- Indian Express
Daily subject-wise quiz : Environment and Geography MCQs on human-wildlife conflict, International Big Cat Alliance and more (Week 115)
UPSC Essentials brings to you its initiative of subject-wise quizzes. These quizzes are designed to help you revise some of the most important topics from the static part of the syllabus. Attempt today's subject quiz on Environment and Geography to check your progress. 🚨 Click Here to read the UPSC Essentials magazine for June 2025. Share your views and suggestions in the comment box or at With reference to the International Big Cat Alliance, consider the following statements: 1. There are 95 range countries which fall within the natural distribution of the big cats. 2. All UN member countries can become members after the framework agreement is signed. 3. The first Assembly of the International Big Cat Alliance (IBCA) was held in Moscow. How many of the statements given above are correct? (a) Only one (b) Only two (c) All three (d) None Explanation — The first Assembly of the International Big Cat Alliance (IBCA) was held in New Delhi, presided over by the Union Minister for Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Bhupender Yadav. Hence, statement 3 is not correct. — In March 2024, the Indian government established the IBCA through the National Tiger Conservation Authority, which reports to the Ministry of Environment, Forests, and Climate Change. Its mandate is to protect seven big cats: the tiger, lion, leopard, snow leopard, cheetah, jaguar, and puma. — It was created 'to facilitate collaboration and synergy among stakeholders, consolidating successful conservation practices and expertise and replicating them in range countries.' The Union government has set aside Rs 150 crore for the purpose from 2023-24 to 2027-28. — The big cats have 95 range countries (those within a species' natural distribution), which include Canada, China, Congo, Ghana, Brazil, Iran, Nepal, Pakistan, Russia, and the United States. Hence, statement 1 is correct. — All UN member countries can become members after the framework agreement is signed and conveyed through a Note Verbale, a method of formal diplomatic communication. Hence, statement 2 is correct. Therefore, option (b) is the correct answer. Which of the following is/are the reason which led to the increase in human-wildlife conflict? 1. Fluctuations in wildlife population 2. Animals forced to move out of their habitats 3. Grazing of domestic cattle in forest areas 4. Changes in cropping pattern Select the correct answer using the codes given below: (a) 1, 2 and 3 (b) 2, 3 and 4 (c) 1 and 3 only (d) 1, 2, 3 and 4 Explanation — Kerala has sought the Union government's nod to kill wild animals that pose a threat to human life and properties. The state wants the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 amended so it can be allowed to kill wild animals that foray into human habitats. — The primary problem animals include tigers, leopards, elephants, bison, wild boar, bonnet macaques, and peafowl. Although bonnet macaques (a monkey species) and peafowl pose little threat to humans, their regular raids have driven farmers to abandon enormous swaths of agricultural land. — Major reasons include regional fluctuations in wildlife populations, animals forced to relocate when the quality of their habitats deteriorates, domestic cattle grazing in forest regions, changes in cropping patterns, and so on. But, more crucially, the population growth of wild pigs and various monkey species is causing havoc on human habitats. Therefore, option (d) is the correct answer. With reference to the National Mission for a Green India, consider the following statements: 1. It was launched in 2014. 2. Its main objective is to protect, restore, and enhance India's forest and tree cover, using a blend of climate adaptation and mitigation strategies. 3. The Western Ghats mountain ranges are not included in the Green India Mission. How many of the statements given above are correct? (a) Only one (b) Only two (c) All three (d) None Explanation — According to the new Green India Mission (GIM) whitepaper, the Ministry of Environment, Forests, and Climate Change would prioritise the restoration of sensitive landscapes such as the Aravallis and Western Ghats mountain ranges, mangroves, and the Indian Himalayan area. — The amended document claimed that a'micro-ecosystem' approach will be used to make interventions in sensitive landscapes such as the Aravallis, Western Ghats, arid parts of North West India, mangroves, and the Indian Himalayan region. Hence, statement 3 is not correct. — The National Mission for a Green India was established in February 2014 as one of the eight main missions of India's National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC). Hence, statement 1 is correct. — GIM's primary goal is to maintain, restore, and improve India's forest and tree cover using a combination of climate adaptation and mitigation techniques. Hence, statement 2 is correct. — One of the mission's primary goals was to expand forest and tree cover on 5 million hectares of forest and non-forest land, as well as improve the quality of forest cover on an additional 5 million hectares. Therefore, option (b) is the correct answer. With reference to the Indian Flapshell Turtle, consider the following statements: 1. It is a small softshell turtle with a carapace length of up to 350 mm. 2. These species live only in the oceans. 3. They are found only in the Indian Subcontinent. How many of the statements given above are correct? (a) Only one (b) Only two (c) All three (d) None Explanation — The Indian Flapshell Turtle is a small softshell turtle with a carapace length of up to 350 mm. Nesting often begins in late summer and continues through the monsoon season, which lasts from July to November. Hence, statement 1 is correct. — These species live in a wide range of aquatic habitats, including rivers and streams, reservoirs, marshes, ponds, lakes, and even salt marshes, rice fields, gutters, and canals in urban areas. Hence, statement 2 is not correct. — It is ubiquitous in brackish water lagoons on India's east coast and is frequently seen in irrigation canals and tanks, as well as stagnant paddy fields. — Distribution: India, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Nepal and Pakistan. The Indian Flapshell Turtle is native to the Indian Subcontinent, and it's also found in some parts of Myanmar (not considered part of the Indian subcontinent). Hence, statement 3 is not correct. Therefore, option (a) is the correct answer. Which of the following species exhibit bioluminescence? 1. Jellyfish 2. Worms 3. Sea stars 4. Sharks Select the correct answer using the codes given below: (a) 1 and 2 only (b) 2, 3 and 4 (c) 1, 2, 3 and 4 (d) 3 and 4 only Explanation — Bioluminescence is the ability of a living creature to generate and radiate light. This phenomenon is unusual in terrestrial ecosystems but prevalent in marine environments. — Many marine animals, including bacteria, algae, jellyfish, worms, crabs, sea stars, fish, and sharks, can create their own light. Deep-living and planktonic creatures exhibit higher luminescence than shallow species. Furthermore, the appearance of bioluminescent light varies depending on the environment and the creature in which it is present. — According to NOAA, bioluminescence is the product of an enzyme reaction. An enzyme accelerates a chemical reaction by assisting a substrate in reacting. The enzyme is reused in the process rather than being converted into another molecule Therefore, option (c) is the correct answer. Daily Subject-wise quiz — History, Culture, and Social Issues (Week 114) Daily subject-wise quiz — Polity and Governance (Week 115) Daily subject-wise quiz — Science and Technology (Week 115) Daily subject-wise quiz — Economy (Week 115) Daily subject-wise quiz — Environment and Geography (Week 114) Daily subject-wise quiz – International Relations (Week 114) Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week. Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – IndianExpress UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X.
The Hindu
5 hours ago
- The Hindu
Declare wild pigs as vermin in conflict zones, Kerala asks Centre in fresh appeal
Forest Minister A.K. Saseendran has once again written to Union Minister for Environment, Forest and Climate Change Bhupender Yadav reiterating the State's key demands to address the increasing incidents of human-wildlife conflict in Kerala. The State's demands chiefly include an amendment to the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, and the declaration of wild pigs as vermin, at least temporarily in identified hotspots. The renewed appeal comes in the light of a letter from the Union Ministry, explaining the provisions of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, particularly those pertaining to hunting animals listed under Schedules I and II. 'Limits powers' Arguing that these limited the powers of the Chief Wildlife Warden and hampered timely action, Mr. Saseendran also flagged the ambiguity in the definition of the term 'dangerous animal' in the Act. Highlighting the growing threats posed by wild animals in human habitats, he emphasised the impracticality of the current procedures. He pointed out that due to these constraints, the Forest department had been unable to act swiftly, thereby intensifying the conflict and endangering human lives and livelihoods. He also proposed simplifying the Standard Operating Procedures for eliminating dangerous animals. The State has also called for declaring wild pigs as vermin in villages identified as hotspots. 'Such a declaration, even if limited to a duration of six months, would greatly facilitate site-specific management of the species in these areas and contribute significantly to mitigate the ongoing human-wildlife conflicts,' the letter states. The government also renewed its demand for an assistance of ₹620 crore to implement preventive measures to tackle the unfolding crisis.
