Take the pledge to vote

For a better tommorow#AajSawaroApnaKal
  • I agree to receive emails from News18

  • I promise to vote in this year's elections no matter what the odds are.
  • Please check above checkbox.

    SUBMIT

Thank you for
taking the pledge

Vote responsibly as each vote counts
and makes a diffrence

Disclaimer:

Issued in public interest by HDFC Life. HDFC Life Insurance Company Limited (Formerly HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited) (“HDFC Life”). CIN: L65110MH2000PLC128245, IRDAI Reg. No. 101 . The name/letters "HDFC" in the name/logo of the company belongs to Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited ("HDFC Limited") and is used by HDFC Life under an agreement entered into with HDFC Limited. ARN EU/04/19/13618
LIVE TV DownloadNews18 App
News18 English
»
3-min read

Builders Must Have Gone After States Following Stay Order on Construction: SC

The apex court had on August 31 castigated some states and union territories for their "pathetic" attitude in not framing a solid waste management policy as per the 2016 Rules on the issue and stayed construction activities till they brought it out.

PTI

Updated:September 5, 2018, 7:00 PM IST
facebookTwitterskypewhatsapp
Builders Must Have Gone After States Following Stay Order on Construction: SC
A file image of the Supreme Court of India.
Loading...

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed the plea of Uttarakhand government seeking vacation of its order staying further construction activities there and observed that the states have rushed to the court as the builders may have "gone after them".

A bench of Justices Madan B Lokur, S Abdul Nazeer and Deepak Gupta also allowed the prayer of Maharashtra government seeking a clarification that there was no stay on construction activity in that state.

The apex court had on August 31 castigated some states and union territories for their "pathetic" attitude in not framing a solid waste management policy as per the 2016 Rules on the issue and stayed construction activities till they brought it out.

It had slapped a cost of Rs three lakh each on Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Uttarakhand and the union territory of Chandigarh.

It had also imposed a cost of Rs five lakh on Andhra Pradesh for not filing an affidavit as per the court's July 10 direction and observed that even the Centre was not aware whether the state had framed the policy.

At the hearing today, Andhra Pradesh, Odisha and Chandigarh also moved the apex court on the issue, which led the bench to observe: "All the builders must have gone after you after our order (staying further construction)."

It asked the counsel for Andhra Pradesh, Odisha and Chandigarh to file their applications in this regard.

At the outset, the counsel for Uttarakhand told the bench that they have framed the policy as per the 2016 Rule which would now go before the cabinet for approval.

"We are facing a calamity-like situation," the counsel said while referring to the landslides and formation of an artificial lake in Tehri Garhwal area in the state.

He said that due to the formation of artificial lake owing to landslides, around 13 villages were in danger.

The counsel also urged the bench that cost of Rs three lakh imposed on them should go for the relief and rescue operations going on in the state.

The court allowed the request of the Uttarakhand government.

However, the counsel also told the bench that cost were imposed on states for not framing the policy under the Rule, but the Centre has not yet framed a national policy in this regard.

Additional Solicitor General A N S Nadkarni, appearing for Centre, countered the claim and referred to the 'Swachh Bharat Abhiyan' launched earlier by the government.

Senior advocate Shekhar Naphade and advocate Nishant R Katneshwarkar, appearing for Maharashtra, told the bench that the state had framed the policy in 2017 itself but due to some "communication gap", it was not conveyed to the court.

The bench questioned Maharashtra about utilisation of cess collected under the Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 and asked whether the money was being used on workers' welfare.

"You have collected crore of rupees under this and you are not giving it to these persons (construction workers)," the bench said and directed Maharashtra to give details about it on September 11 with regard to construction workers in Mumbai.

When Odisha's counsel said there was some "confusion" on their part during August 31 hearing due to which they could not apprise the apex court about framing of the policy, the bench said "everybody is confused when it come to implementation of law".

The issue of waste management had cropped up when the court was dealing with a tragic incident of 2015 in which it had taken cognisance of the death of a seven-year-old boy due to dengue in Delhi. The victim was allegedly denied treatment by five private hospitals here and his distraught parents had subsequently committed suicide.

The apex court had earlier taken strong note of non-implementation of solid waste management rules in the country and observed that "India will one day go down under the garbage".

Read full article
Loading...
Next Story
Next Story

Also Watch

facebookTwitterskypewhatsapp
 
 

Live TV

Loading...
Countdown To Elections Results
  • 01 d
  • 12 h
  • 38 m
  • 09 s
To Assembly Elections 2018 Results