No renewal of insurance for vehicles without PUC, says SC

News Network
August 11, 2017

New Delhi, Aug 11: In a crackdown on polluting vehicles, the Supreme Court on Thursday directed that no annual insurance renewal would be allowed without a valid Pollution Under Control (PUC) certificate for all types of automobiles.

A bench of Justices Madan B Lokur and Deepak Gupta ordered the insurance companies to refuse renewal requests for vehicles without pollution certificates.

The court accepted the recommendations of the Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority (EPCA) to ensure mandatory linking of PUC certificate with the issuance of annual vehicle insurance.

“This is a development with far-reaching consequences for the battle to stop air pollution in the country,” said Sunita Narain, director general, Centre for Science and Environment (CSE).

The court acted on a report prepared by the EPCA that showed a very poor level of compliance with the PUC programme.

In Delhi, only 23% of vehicles come for PUC tests. With mandatory linking of annual vehicle insurance with valid PUC certificate, the compliance level can improve significantly, especially as the Supreme Court has directed its enforcement nationwide, the CSE said.

The court also directed for establishing PUC centres in all fuel stations. It directed for putting in place an all-India real time online system to ensure pollution certificates would not be manipulated.

The EPCA has suggested for limiting the number of PUC centres in Delhi and theNCR as these are very difficult to supervise to prevent malpractices. The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, represented by Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar, said it would issue an advisory to state transportation departments to have PUC centres in all fuel stations.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
January 16,2020

New Delhi, Jan 16: In trouble brewing for the Gautam Adani-led M/S Adani Enterprises, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Thursday said that it has registered a case against former officials of the National Co-operative Consumer Federation (NCCF) and others over alleged irregularities in supply of coal to the Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation (APGENCO) in 2010.

The CBI in its FIR has named Virendra Singh, the then Chairman of the NCCF, G P Gupta, the then MD of the NCCF, S C Singhal, the then Senior Advisor of NCCF, Adani Enterprises Ltd and other unknown public servants and others for criminal conspiracy, cheating and criminal misconduct by public servants.

According to CBI, the case was filed on Wednesday after the preliminary enquiry revealed the crime by the officials named in the FIR and the Adani Enterprises was found to be true.

The FIR alleged that on June 26, 2010, APGENCO floated a tender enquiry for supply of six lakh metric tonnes of imported coal "on free on rail destination" basis to Dr Narla Tata Rao Thermal Station (NTTPS), Vijaywada and Rayalasaleema Thermal Power Plant (RTTP), Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh/RTPP via Kakinada-Vizag-Chennai-Krishnapatnam or any other ports

The same was forwarded by the Chief Engineer, APGENCO to seven PSUs -- PEC Limited, STC Limited, MSTC Limited, NCCF, MMTC, Coal India Limited and SCCL Limited.

The FIR alleged that during the probe, the Adani Enterprises used a proxy company to get the supply contract. It said, "NCCF received bids from six companies -- Adani Enterprises Ltd, Maheshwari Brothers Coal Limited (MBCL), Vyom Trade Links Pvt. Ltd, Swarana Projects Pvt. Ltd, Gupta Coal India Ltd and Kyori Oremen Ltd.

During investigation it was found that Gupta Coal India Ltd had quoted the NCCF margin of 11.3 percent, while the MBCL quoted the margin of 2.25 percent and rest did not quote any margin to the NCCF.

The FIR said the quotes of the Gupta Coal India Ltd, Kyori Oremen Ltd and Swarana Projects Pvt. Ltd were rejected by the NCCF as they were not found to be fulfilling the tender conditions.

"Post tender negotiation was done by senior officials of NCCF to give undue favour to Adani Enterprises Ltd despite it not qualifing the tender (terms)," the FIR said, adding instead of cancelling the bid of Adani Enterprise Ltd, senior management of NCCF conveyed the offer margin to the company through one of its representative -- Munish Sehgal, who was sitting in the NCCF head office. It is prima facie evident that when the bids were being processed at NCCF head office in Delhi, a representative of Adani Enterprises Ltd. was informed regarding their imminent rejection due to non-submission of NCCF margin and also that MBCL was eligible bidder quoted 2.25 percent margin," it alleged.

The CBI in its FIR, further alleged that Adani Enterprises Ltd. had given an unsecured loan of Rs 16.81 crore to Vyom Trade Links Ltd in 2008-09. "And further it was revealed that the bank guarantees of the Adani Enterprises Ltd. and Vyom Trade Links Ltd. were issues by the same branch of the State Bank of India and at the same time," it said.

"It was clear that Adani Enterprises Ltd. presented Vyom Trade Links Ltd. as a proxy company in this particular tender and Vyom Trade Links Ltd. later withdrew its offer on flimsy ground," the CBI FIR said.

"The aforesaid acts of commissions and omissions on the part of the senior management of the NCCF disclose that during their tenure, they acted in a manner unbecoming of public servants and committed irregularities by way of manipulation in the selection of bidders, thereby giving undue favours to Adani Enterprises Ltd. in award of work for supply of coal to APGENCO despite its disqualification," it added.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
March 3,2020

Chennai, Mar 3: The Madras High Court has ruled that if a working woman gives birth to a child in the second delivery after twins in the first, she is not entitled to maternity benefits as it should be treated as third child.

"As per existing rules, a woman can avail such benefits only for her first two deliveries. Even otherwise it is debatable as to whether the delivery is not a second delivery but a third one, in as much as ordinarily when twins are born they are delivered one after another, and their age and their inter-se elderly status is also determined by virtue of the gap of time between their arrivals, which amounts to two deliveries and not one simultaneous act," the court said.

The first bench, comprising Chief Justice A P Sahi and Justice Subramonium Prasad stated this while allowing the appeal from Ministry of Home Affairs.

It set aside the order June 18 2019 order of a single Judge, who extended 180 days of maternity leave and other benefits to a woman member of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) under the rules governing the Tamil Nadu government servants.

The issue pertains to an appeal moved by the ministry, which contended that the leave claim is by a member of CISF to whom the maternity rules of Tamil Nadu would not apply.

She would be covered by the maternity benefits as provided under the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, the ministry said.

When the appeal came up for hearing, the bench said it found that a second delivery, which, in the present case, resulted in a third child, cannot be interpreted so as to add to the mathematical precision that is defined in the rules.

The admissibility of benefits would be limited if the claimant has not more than two children, the bench said "This fact therefore changes the entire nature of the relief which is sought for by the woman petitioner, which aspect has been completely overlooked by the single judge", the bench said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
June 17,2020

New Delhi, Jun 17: Petrol and diesel prices were increased in metros on Wednesday, marking the eleventh straight day of increase since state-owned oil companies returned to the normal practice of daily reviews following a 12-week pause. With effect from 6 am, the price of petrol was increased by 55 paise per litre, and diesel by 69 paise per litre in Delhi, compared to the previous day. While the price of petrol was revised to Rs 77.28 per litre in the national capital from Rs 76.73 per litre the previous day, the diesel rate was increased to Rs 75.79 per litre from Rs 75.19 per litre, according to notifications from state-run Indian Oil Corporation, the country's largest fuel retailer. In the 11-day period, the price of petrol has been increased by a cumulative Rs 6.02 per litre, and diesel by Rs 6.49 per litre.

International crude oil prices retreated on Wednesday, weighed down by an increase in US crude inventories and worries about a potential second wave of the coronavirus pandemic. Brent crude futures - the global benchmark for crude oil - were last seen trading 1.0 per cent lower at $40.56 per barrel.

State-run oil marketing companies revise the prices of petrol and diesel from time to time, besides aviation turbine fuel (ATF) - or jet fuel - and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). However, since March 16, the oil companies had kept petrol and diesel prices on hold, possibly due to the volatility in global oil markets.

Fuel retailing in the country is dominated by state refiners - Indian Oil Corporation, Bharat Petroleum Corporation and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation. The three own about 90 per cent of the retail fuel outlets in the country.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.