Latest news with #PublicInterest
Time of India
10 hours ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Himachal HC imposes penalty for delay in RERA appointment
SHIMLA : The Himachal Pradesh High Court came down heavily on the state government on Friday for its failure to act on two major administrative concerns the delay in appointments to the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) and the controversial six-month extension granted to Chief Secretary Prabodh Saxena , despite a pending CBI charge sheet against him. "The government is playing hide and seek, Himachal High Court remarked as the court pulls up the state for defiance, seeking notification by June 25. In a strong rebuke during the resumed hearing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), the division bench of Chief Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma imposed a penalty (Cost Amount in orders later) on the state government, directing that the amount be deposited with the Himachal Pradesh High Court Bar Association by June 25. "The government is playing hide and seek first, citing the relocation of RERA headquarters to Dharamshala, and now delaying appointments under the pretext of procedural issues," the bench remarked, expressing its frustration with what it termed a deliberate attempt to stall justice. The court also said that despite a query on May 9 regarding whether the appointments had been notified, the government had taken no concrete action. The bench termed the state's conduct as "administrative apathy" and said the explanation submitted by the government was "unsatisfactory." The court directed the state to issue the notification for the posts of Chairman and Member of RERA by June 25, warning, "If the notification for appointment of the Chairman and Member is not issued by June 25, it shall be deemed a deliberate obstruction of justice," the Court said. The state government, during Friday's proceedings, submitted that one member of RERA had been appointed, and the appointments of the Chairman and another member were still under process. The bench rejected this argument, saying that such repeated excuses were unacceptable. The PIL has been filed by Atul Sharma, who has also challenged the March 28, 2025 order of the state government extending Prabodh Saxena's tenure as Chief Secretary by six months, even though he is an accused in a corruption case being investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The petitioner informed the court that a CBI chargesheet against Saxena was acknowledged by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Court, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi, on October 21, 2019, and the CBI reaffirmed the pendency of the case in a letter dated January 23, 2025. Sharma argued that the extension granted to Saxena violates the Central Civil Services Rules and guidelines of the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), which do not permit vigilance clearance to officers facing charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The PIL noted that Saxena had already been chargesheeted in the infamous INX Media scam, where former Union Finance Minister P. Chidambaram and his son Karti Chidambaram are also named accused. The petition further stated that on September 30, 2022, Saxena was granted an exemption from personal appearance in the case. Between April 2008 and July 2010, Saxena had served as Director in the Department of Economic Affairs (DEA), which included the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) the body responsible for approving Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) proposals during the period in question. The High Court had earlier, on May 9, sought a detailed affidavit from the state government explaining the "specific reasons" for not notifying the recommendations of the Selection Committee for RERA appointments. The bench had said, "Keeping in view the larger public interest, if the appointment has not been notified, an affidavit be filed as to why it has not been done and what is the specific reason that the state has withheld the recommendations of the Selection Committee," the court directs. The court clarified on Friday that interim relief against Saxena's extension will be considered in the next hearing on June 25. Meanwhile, former Chief Minister and Leader of Opposition Jai Ram Thakur also lashed out at the state government during a press conference in Shimla, saying: "The Himachal Pradesh government stands totally exposed... be it appointments to RERA, the police recruitment scam, or the nursery teacher training selections. Even in the RERA matter, the selection committee sent its recommendation, but the government did not act. Now, the High Court has imposed a Rs 5 lakh cost this has never happened before. The government is answerable to the people for this level of administrative failure."
United News of India
3 days ago
- Entertainment
- United News of India
SC closes plea on ‘Thug Life' ban; says films with CBFC OK cannot be stopped by mobs
New Delhi, June 19 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Thursday closed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the unofficial ban on the Tamil film 'Thug Life' in Karnataka, after the state government assured the court that no official ban had been imposed and that full protection would be provided for the film's release if the producers chose to screen it. A bench comprising justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan recorded the Karnataka government's affidavit stating that it would ensure law and order during the film's screening and found no need to pass further directions or impose costs. However, the court strongly criticised the increasing trend of artistic expression being suppressed by protest groups. "Just because someone is offended, should a movie, a stand-up act, or a poem be stopped?" the bench asked during the hearing, expressing concern over rising instances of mob threats stalling lawful artistic work. The PIL was filed by Mahesh Reddy, who sought directions for the release of 'Thug Life' in Karnataka. The film, featuring and co-produced by Kamal Haasan, was withheld from release in the state after backlash over his alleged comment that Kannada originated from Tamil. Protest threats were reportedly issued by various groups, prompting the producers to delay the release. The court reminded the state that a film certified by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) cannot be prevented from release due to mob pressure. It added that such disruptions undermine the rule of law. While the state agreed to provide protection, the petitioner's counsel argued that no action had been taken against individuals or groups who issued threats. The state countered that there was no official ban, and hence, judgments related to state-imposed bans did not apply. Justice Bhuyan questioned the state's silence on threats: 'What action are you taking against those who issued threats?' The state replied that it was duty-bound to act and would do so. The Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce (KFCC), which was also made a party, denied issuing threats and said it had only written to the producers highlighting the public protests and suggesting an apology. Justice Bhuyan sharply criticised the KFCC for not reporting mob entry into their premises. 'You succumbed to mob pressure. You are hiding behind them,' he observed. Senior advocate Sanjay Nuli, appearing for Kannada Sahitya Parishad, argued that language is an emotional issue and that an apology by the actor would help ease tensions. The court, however, firmly rejected the idea that artistic work must be subjected to such conditions. 'If someone is hurt, file a defamation case. You can't take the law into your hands,' Justice Manmohan said. Raj Kamal Films' counsel Satish Parasaran pointed out that a state minister had also made inflammatory statements and said the production company had suffered financial losses of around Rs 30 crore due to the delay. In its order, the court stated it was unnecessary to frame new guidelines or impose penalties in light of the State's assurance. However, it directed the Karnataka government to take swift legal action, both civil and criminal, against anyone attempting to block a certified film's release through threats or violence. 'The rule of law demands that any CBFC-cleared film must be released, and the state must ensure this,' the court said. It also transferred a related petition pending before the Karnataka High Court to itself for better coordination of legal proceedings. Though the petitioner's counsel urged the court to direct the state to act against those who had issued threats, the bench declined, noting that those individuals were not party to the current proceedings and that it could not pass orders based on media reports alone. The court also disapproved of the Karnataka High Court's earlier suggestion that Kamal Haasan should apologise. 'It is none of the business of the High Court to demand an apology. This is a matter of fundamental rights,' Justice Bhuyan said. 'The Supreme Court's role is to protect those rights and uphold the rule of law.' The film 'Thug Life' was released globally on June 5, 2025, except in Karnataka. The PIL had requested police protection for theatres screening the film and sought action against those issuing threats.
India Gazette
13-06-2025
- Politics
- India Gazette
Delhi HC stays demolition of 11 properties in Batla House
ANI 14 Jun 2025, 00:22 GMT+10 New Delhi [India], June 13 (ANI): The Delhi High Court granted an interim stay on Friday for the proposed demolition of 11 properties in the Batla House area of Okhla. Residents of these properties have challenged the notices issued by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA). The residents of properties situated at Muradi Road, Batla House, have challenged the notices issued by DDA on May 24 and 26. Single judge bench of Justice Tejas Karia on Friday granted interim stay on proposed demolition till next date. Delhi HC has issued notice to DDA and sought a response. The matter has been listed on July 10 for hearing before the roster bench. Delhi High Court agreed to stay the DDA notice of demolition in Batla House area subject to the petitioner filling an affidavit to withdraw their application from Supreme Court. Mohammad Tamsil Quddusi and 10 other residents have moved a petition through advocate Fahad Khan. It is stated that 9 properties don't fall within the Khasra Number 279. Two properties of Qademul Faraz and Nassu Ahmed fall within the Khasra Number 279 but are eligible under PM Uday Scheme. It was also stated that before pasting notices on the premises of petitioners by the DDA, they were not given an opportunity to be heard or redressal. Petitioner Badruddin has even not received the notice. He was orally informed by the DDA officials that his property will also be demolished. The Delhi High court' division bench on Wednesday allowed Aam Aadmi Party MLA Amanatullah Khan to withdraw his Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed against the proposed demolition. The Division bench had noted that the petitioner would inform the residents of his area to file an appropriate petition before the single judge bench which have already granted protection to some petitioners. (ANI)
India Gazette
12-06-2025
- Politics
- India Gazette
"Will move SC to challenge DDA's demarcation of properties in Batla House area": AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan
New Delhi [India], June 12 (ANI): Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Amanatullah Khan on Thursday said he would move the Supreme Court to challenge the Delhi Development Authority's (DDA) demarcation of properties in the Batla House area of Okhla. The move followed directions from the High Court's Division Bench, which granted affected residents three days to file individual writ petitions. This comes a day after Khan withdrew his Public Interest Litigation (PIL) from the Delhi High Court that had sought to stop demolition action initiated by the DDA. Speaking to ANI, the AAP MLA said, 'The Division Bench has given time for the affected parties to file their writ individually within three days. We have also withdrawn our PIL. People have been living there since 1971, and you suddenly declared it unauthorised and separated it from the PM-UDAY scheme.' '...The manner in which DDA wants to demolish this entire area is beyond my demarcation done by them is not accurate. I withdrew my plea because I will challenge the demarcation before the Supreme Court,' he said. Khan withdrew the PIL on Wednesday to inform the residents of his area to file an appropriate petition before the court. The withdrawal was allowed by a division bench of Justices Girish Kathpalia and Tejas Karia of the Delhi High Court, which suggested that individual residents approach the court with their grievances. 'In furtherance of the last order, senior counsel on the instructions of briefing counsel seeks permission to withdraw the petition filed by the petitioner, who is a public-spirited person, so he can inform the residents of Batla House to file an appropriate petition before the court,' the High Court said. At the outset of the hearing, the High Court noted that some aggrieved individuals have already been given protection by the court after hearing their individual petitions. The High Court at the beginning emphasised that any adverse order while deciding the PIL may affect the rights of the individuals who are already before the single-judge bench. The court has also emphasised that any aggrieved individual may approach the court like other people who have already approached the court. This issue is not a subject matter of the PIL. Khan had filed a PIL challenging the notice issued by the DDA for the demolition of alleged illegal properties in the area of Batla House in Okhla. The High Court on Monday had refused to grant an immediate interim stay on the demolition, which was proposed for June 11. Earlier, the apex court on May 7 refused to grant relief and directed the demolition of the illegal properties. Senior advocate Salman Khurshid appeared for the petitioner and argued that they (DDA) are pasting notices on the properties which fall beyond the khasra no. 279. The order of the Supreme Court was regarding the illegal properties within this khasra. The counsel for respondents contended, on the other hand, that the PIL is not maintainable as the Supreme Court specifically directed that the individual aggrieved persons adopt the legal remedy. DDA's counsel also said that the notices issued by the DDA are not generic and are in compliance with the Supreme Court. All the notices were given 15 days to respond. No demolition was carried out during the notice period. (ANI)
India Gazette
11-06-2025
- Politics
- India Gazette
AAP MLA withdraws PIL against DDA demolition notices in Batla House
New Delhi [India], June 11 (ANI): Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Amanat Ullah Khan on Wednesday withdrew his Public Interest Litigation (PIL) from the Delhi High Court challenging the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) notices proposing demolition in the Batla House area of Okhla. Khan withdrew the PIL to inform the residents of his area to file an appropriate petition before the court. The withdrawal was allowed by a division bench Justices Girish Kathpalia and Tejas Karia of the Delhi High Court, which suggested that individual residents approach the court with their grievances. 'In furtherance of the last order, senior counsel on the instructions of briefing counsel seeks permission to withdraw the petition filed by the petitioner, who is a public-spirited person, so he can inform the residents of Batla House to file an appropriate petition before the court,' the High Court said. At the outset of the hearing, the High court noted that some aggrieved individuals have already been given protection by the court after hearing their individual petitions. The High Court at the beginning emphasised that any adverse order while deciding the PIL may affect the rights of the individuals who are already before the single-judge bench. The court has also emphasised that any aggrieved individual may approach the court like other people who have already approached the court. This issue is not a subject matter of the PIL. Khan had filed a PIL challenging the notice issued by the DDA for the demolition of alleged illegal properties in the area of Batla House in Okhla. The High Court on Monday had refused to grant an immediate interim stay on the demolition, which was proposed for June 11. Earlier, the apex court on May 7 refused to grant relief and directed the demolition of the illegal properties. Senior advocate Salman Khurshid appeared for the petitioner and argued that they (DDA) are pasting notices on the properties which fall beyond the khasra no. 279. The order of the supreme court was regarding the illegal properties within this khasra. 'If they are breaching the order of the Supreme Court, then the remedy lies with the supreme court,' the court said. Senior advocate Khurshid said that the Supreme Court order is very clear; it is for houses within the Khasra Number: 279. Demarcation has not been done, Khurshid added. It was further submitted that the notice mentioned Khasra Number 279, but these are pasted on houses beyond this khasra. The court said that it is not a matter of PIL. 'If this is not a PIL, then treat it as a writ petition. Refer it to the bench already hearing the matters,' the senior advocate said. The High Court said,'If the Supreme Court order is not followed, then the remedy is in contempt. If any person is aggrieved, he can come before the single bench. He (Petitioner) should tell people to approach the court with an appropriate petition.' 'We gave a representation; the same was rejected,' Khurshid said. 'All I need is time to go to the court. For a week they (DDA) hold their hand,' he added. The bench said that overall justice needs to be kept in mind, supreme court didn't say to bulldoze everything. Any adverse observation by this court will impact the individual petitioners. If the petitioner withdraws the petition, I will give three days to approach the court, the division bench said. 'I am only asking for seven days,' Khurshid insisted. 'Let do it in three days,' the bench said. 'Then 3 working days,' Khurshid argued. The court said, at this point the counsel appearing for DDA did not give their consent and assurance that they are ready to give three days. Thereafter, the court proceeded with the matter on merit. The High Court also raised a query: How is it maintainable as a PIL? In the response, senior advocate Khurshid said, 'I am asking for demarcation as per the order of the court. We said that the notice is to be given to every individual, and an opportunity is given to everyone.' The court said that it can not pass a blanket order. 'Individuals can approach the single-judge bench. If the DDA is not willing to give any assurance.' We want a solution not violating the order of the Supreme Court, the High Court said. 'It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petition is maintainable as a PIL as the general public of the area is concerned. Some of the innocent persons approached this court and were given protection by the single judge of this court,' the petitioner argued. Residents of the area of Batla House were not aware of their legal rights to challenge the notice of demolition, Senior advocate submitted. It was also submitted that the respondent (DDA) issued a generic notice and pasted it outside the house, which does not fall within the Khasra Number 279. The counsel for respondents contended, on the other hand, that the PIL is not maintainable as the Supreme Court specifically directed that the individual aggrieved persons adopt the legal remedy. DDA's counsel also said that the notices issued by the DDA are not generic and are in compliance with the Supreme Court. All the notices were given 15 days to respond. No demolition was carried out during the notice period. (ANI)
