Separate lanes for VIPs, judges at toll plazas across India: Court orders NHA

Agencies
August 30, 2018

Chennai, Aug 30: The Madras High Court on Wednesday directed the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) to take steps for providing a separate lane at toll plazas for VIPs, including sitting judges, across the country.

"It is disheartening to note that the vehicles of VIPs and sitting Judges are stopped at toll plazas... It is very unfortunate that sitting judges are also compelled to wait in the toll plaza for 10 to 15 minutes," it said.

A bench comprising justices Huluvadi G Ramesh and MV Muralidharan passed the interim order directing the NHAI to issue the circular to all toll plazas to provide separate lane so that vehicles of VIPs and sitting judges can pass through without any hindrance.

It warned that the court would issue a show cause notice to the authorities concerned unless a circular was issued and any violation of the order would be viewed seriously.

The bench was hearing a batch petitions related to toll plazas, including a plea by the L&T Krishnagiri-Wallajapet Tollway Limited seeking a direction to the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited's Villupuram and Salem divisions to pay the user fee.

Unless a separate lane was formed at every toll plaza for VIPs, there would be unnecessary harassment, it said posting the matter after four weeks.

Comments

SR
 - 
Thursday, 30 Aug 2018

All these perks for VIP's and sitting judges are only in Indi,  that too at the cost of poor taxpayers money.

These judges and VIP's think waiting for 10 to 15 minutes is too long.

Common man has to wait for hours for everything.

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 23,2020

New Delhi, Jun 23: In an unexpected development, the pump price of diesel is all set to surpass the petrol price in the capital, making it the most expensive transport fuel for the first time in a long time.

Globally, diesel is priced slightly above petrol prices due to the very nature of the product that has a higher cost of production. But in India, due to the lopsided taxation structure, diesel attracts lesser of the tax between the two auto fuels keeping its prices lower than petrol for last several years.

Diesel is currently priced at Rs 79.40 a litre in the Capital, just 36 paise short of petrol price that is being retailed at Rs 79.76 a litre. Going by the trend of price movement in the two products for the last few days where diesel prices have consistently increased by 50-60 paise per litre while the daily increase in petrol prices have fallen to just 20 paise on Tuesday, it is set to surpass petrol prices in next few days.

"Diesel price movement is sharper in international market and if oil companies follow the global price trend, diesel prices will surpass that of petrol later this week. It will be after many years that this would happen and is expected to sustain for some time unless government changes the tax structure of the petroleum products again," said an oil sector expert from one of the big four audit and advisory firms asking not to be named.

Interestingly, even in India the base price of diesel is expensive than petrol. According to the Indian Oil Corporation (IOC), while the base price of petrol in Delhi currently comes to Rs 22.11 per litre, the same for diesel is higher at Rs 22.93 per litre (effective from June 16, 2020). This has been the case for a long time, but retail price of petrol can be higher than diesel due to central and state taxes.

What has now brought diesel prices to a whisker of petrol prices in the capital is the Delhi government's decision early May to increase the Value Added Tax on diesel from 16.75 per cent to 30 per cent and on petrol from 27 per cent to 30 per cent. This increased the retail price of diesel and petrol in Delhi by Rs 7.10 and Rs 1.67 a litre respectively. With Central taxes on the two products already reaching identical levels, the Delhi governments move hastened price parity between petrol and diesel.

Currently, the Central excise on petrol is Rs 32.98 a litre while that on diesel it is Rs 31.83 a litre. The VAT on petrol in Delhi is Rs 17.71 a litre and that on diesel is Rs 17.60 a litre.

While the movement of retail pricing is being seen with a sigh of relief by vehicle owners whose cars run on petrol, those buying the relatively expensive diesel cars are now repenting on their decision. The development is also being seen with caution by automobile companies who have spent millions to ramp up their facilities for diesel run vehicles. The expectation is that demand for such cars will now fall, causing more damage to companies where sales are already impacted due to persistent economic slowdown and now the spread of COVID-19 pandemic.

"The pricing development would push automobile companies to strategies being followed by companies in the western markets where diesel run cars are not sold on fuel pricing differential, but on overall make and quality that puts them ahead of petrol run cars," the expert quoted earlier.

Yes, but for commercial vehicle sector the rising price of diesel had not been welcomed. In fact, the commercial transport sector had time an again threatened strike against the move to raise fuel prices.

With petrol and diesel retail prices closing, the case for adultering fuel has also gone down much to the relief of vehicle owners.

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
July 20,2020

Mumbai, Jul 20: The Bombay High Court on Monday asked the NIA and the Maharashtra government to inform it about the health condition of poet Varavara Rao, an accused in the Elgar Parishad-Maoists links case, and if his family could be allowed to see him "from a reasonable distance".

The directions came after Rao's lawyer told the court that the activist was "almost on his deathbed".

Rao, 81, is currently admitted in the Nanavati Hospital here. He tested positive for coronavirus earlier this month and is also suffering from several other ailments.

A division bench of Justices S S Shinde and S P Tavade asked the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and the state to inform the court about Rao's health condition and clarify by July 22 whether his family members could be permitted to see him.

Rao's lawyer Sudeep Pasbola told the court that the activist was "almost on his deathbed" and that if he were to die, it should be in the presence of his family.

"His condition is very serious. He hit his head against the hospital bed while he was at the J J hospital and sustained severe injuries. Besides COVID-19, he suffers from several ailments, he is hallucinating and is delirious," Pasbola said.

"His days are numbered and if he is to die, at least let him die in the presence of his family members," the lawyer said while seeking that Rao be granted bail. Pasbola said Rao was in no condition to cause any prejudice to the probe in the case and even the NIA could not dispute this fact.

The bench, however, asked if Rao was in such a critical condition, wouldn't it be counterproductive to move him out of the hospital, and take him to any other place? "Also, if he has COVID-19, then how can he meet his family?" the court asked.

To this, Pasbola said if permitted, Rao's family could take precautions, and see him from a distance. The state's counsel, Deepak Thakare, told the high court that it could arrange for video-conferencing facilities for Rao's family.

Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh, who appeared for the NIA, said as far as he knew, "COVID-19 patients could not be permitted to meet anyone". He also said Rao had been admitted to "one of the best multi-speciality hospitals in the city," and that he was being taken care of in accordance with guidelines of the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR).

"We are providing the best treatment to him, all his medical needs are being attended to and we are following ICMR guidelines in treating him for COVID-19," Singh said. The court, while seeking details from the NIA and the state, said, "Can his family members see him from a reasonable distance in the hospital?"

Rao earlier filed two pleas in HC through his lawyer. One was to direct the state to produce all his medical reports from the state-run J J Hospital, where he was admitted in May but discharged hurriedly on June 2 and sent back to Taloja jail in neighbouring Navi Mumbai.

The other plea sought bail on health grounds.

The same bench also heard a petition filed by Rao's co-accused in the case, activists Vernon Gonsalves and Anand Teltumbde, seeking that they be tested for COVID-19 as they had been in close contact with Rao in the jail.

The court directed the prison authorities and the NIA to respond to the plea by July 23. "The prayer in the petition is limited. You (authorities) carry out the test for COVID-19 and see. If they are negative then good," the court said.

It noted that they (Gonsalves and Teltumbde) are lodged in the Taloja jail where there have been cases of inmates testing positive for coronavirus. Besides, the hearing on the plea of activist Sudha Bharadwaj, also an accused in the case, seeking bail on health grounds was adjourned after the court found the Byculla women prison superintendent's report on her health to be "illegible".

Her plea will also be heard on July 23.

Bharadwaj has been in jail since September 2018. She applied for bail on health grounds after an inmate at the Byculla prison tested positive for coronavirus last month.

Rao and nine other activists were arrested in the Elgar Parishad-Maoist links case, which was initially probed by the Pune Police and later transferred to the NIA.

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.