Skip to main content

Ban construction on wetlands: HC

Its earlier order not yet complied with, the Bombay High Court Monday asked the state's urban development department (UDD) to issue a circular within a week to all municipal corporations and zilla parishads instructing them to disallow construction on wetlands. The court had on October 14 this year directed the UDD to issue the circular.

A division bench of Justice V M Kanade and Justice M S Sonak was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by a group of NGOs on violations of Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) notifications and rules on safeguarding the wetlands.

The petitioners had said they were aggrieved by the callous attitude of the authorities concerned in protecting areas consisting of intertidal currents, wetlands

and mangroves, in the Mumbai Metropolitan Region.

Appearing for the petitioners, advocate Gayatri Singh pointed out that the state government had failed to constitute the state wetland authority. The bench directed the state to file its reply in this regard by December 23.

The bench also asked to be informed, at the next date of hearing, the timeframe within which the principal secretaries of both the environment and forest departments would adopt the Centre's Wetland Atlas or whether they would like to prepare their own maps.

The bench also directed the chief conservator of forests (mangrove cell) to conduct an inspection of all sites within the MMR listed in the petition and submit a report to the court.

The petition alleged that the wetlands were undergoing severe environmental and ecological damage due to activities of illegal reclamation and construction.

"The respondents have failed in their statutory duty to protect wetlands including mangroves, despite directions given by the Ministry of Environment and Forests to prepare both wetland and CRZ maps in a time-bound manner and take action against those persons violating provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act,1986," stated the petition.

Article referred: w.indianexpress.com/news/ban-construction-on-wetlands-hc/1205634/2

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more