Shut units illegally drawing groundwater within 20 days: Madras high court by Sekar Reporter · February 10, 2020 XStart your day smart with stories curated specially for youMk StalinRajinikanthChennai weatherElections 2020Chennai CITI Bank IFSC CodeChennai Axis Bank IFSC CodeSBI Chennai IFSC CodeTOINO ADSOPEN APPCITYShut units illegally drawing groundwater within 20 days: Madras high courtTNN | Updated: Feb 9, 2020, 10:48 ISTAAMadras high courtCHENNAI: Giving a 20-day ultimatum for officials to shut down water units illegally drawing groundwater without valid licence, the Madras high court said in case of failure, officials concerned would be required to deposit ‘substantial amounts’ from their personal resources.REMOVE ADSA division bench of Justices Vineet Kothari and R Sureshkumar, making it clear that it intended to fix personal responsibility on district collectors and PWD chief engineers concerned, pointed out a large number of illegal water purifying units were operating in Kancheepuram and Tiruvallur districts.Relying on data submitted by special government pleader in court, the bench said while 111 water units functioned in Tiruvallur, there were 110 units in Kancheepuram. About 40 units in the districts have not renewed liecences, the bench said, “The district collectors concerned will take action against the respondent-units as well as all other such units which do not possess valid licence…Our order dated January 9, 2020 made it clear that the respondents shall take steps for immediately closing down the water purifying units which do not have valid license to draw underground water. If any non-compliance is brought to our notice on the next date of hearing the said officials will remain present in the court, without fail.”The bench was passing orders on a PIL filed by MV Sivamuthu of Neat India Organization seeking action against such industries that exploit groundwater without appropriate licence under the Chennai Metropolitan Ground Water Regulation Act, 1987. On Friday, when the case came up for hearing, S Prabakaran, PWD chief engineer, S Raja, deputy director, state ground & surface water resource data centre, and P Subramanian, hydrogeologist, Metrowater, were present in court, as directed by the bench earlier.In their status report to the bench, the officials said as per the assessment of the groundwater reserve made in 2017, out of the total 1,166 firkas in the state, 462 firkas lie in over-exploited zones, 79 in critical zones, 163 lie in semi-critical zone, 427 in safe zone and 35 in saline/poor quality zone. Special government pleader J Pothiraj, representing the government, submitted that excluding Chennai, which came under CMDA, the districts had 567 water purifying units with no-objection certificates (NOCs), whereas 261 units either do not have any NOCs or their NOCs have not been renewed by competent authorities.The bench, which posted the case to February 26, for further hearing, has already asked the government to furnish its policy decision on the matter, besides the cap on the number ofwater purifying units depending upon the availability of ground water in the state.“If no such policy decision has been already taken by the state government, such a decision deserves to be taken by them taking into account the scarcity of water resources in the state. Competent authorities may take such a policy decision and produce it before this court on the next date of hearing,” the bench said.
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.(MD).No.10272 of 2014 and29.This Court is of the opinion that, the respondent Board has got every powers to enhance or modify the educational qualifications for the higher posts and even as per the settlement, the protection for service conditions are provided only for the post in which the employees are working and not in respect of any amendment or November 2, 2020 by Sekar Reporter · Published November 2, 2020
Tips for Judicial exams. Today – 11.1.2020 *” Definition of Contract “* Section 2(h) – A Contract is an agreement enforceable by law. *”Definition of Void “* Section 2(j) – An agreement not enforceable by law is void. – By Chandru Law Academy. January 11, 2020 by Sekar Reporter · Published January 11, 2020
17.When it is clearly established that petitioner had no role in the bank operations and statutory transaction of the first accused company and when there is no specific averment in the complaint that petitioner was in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company and when that the impugned cheques were not signed by him and he is neither the Managing Director nor the Joint Director, this Court is of the considered view that there is absolutely no ground to prosecute petitioner for the offence under Section 138 NI Act. 18.In this view of the matter, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.787/2019, pending on the file of Fast Track III, Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai–600015 is quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 29.03.2023 sli Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order To: 1.The Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Fast Track III, Saidapet, Chennai – 600015. 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. G.CHANDRASEKHARAN, J. sli Pre-delivery Order in Crl.O.P.No.7559 of 2022 29.03.2023 April 6, 2023 by Sekar Reporter · Published April 6, 2023