Connect with us

CITIES

Bull owner killed, 24 injured in jallikattu in Pudukottai district

Published

on

Bull owner killed, 24 injured in jallikattu in Pudukottai district


A bull owner was gored to death by a bull and 24 others were injured during a jallikattu organised at Meenampatti village in the district on Sunday. The nearly six-hour-long event saw the release of 571 bulls with the number of participating tamers being 300.

Police sources said R. Marimuthu, 23, of Porpanaikottai near Pudukottai, a bull owner was gored by one of the jallikattu bulls in his chest at the collection point.

Marimuthu, who was grievously wounded, was rushed to the spot where a health department team was deployed at the venue. However, he died and his body was taken to the Pudukottai Government Medical College Hospital for autopsy. 

Thirteen of the injured persons were referred to the Pudukottai Government Medical College Hospital and the remaining 11 injured were treated as out-patients at the event venue, the sources added.



Source link

CITIES

HC closes plea to clean water channel that passes through reserve forest

Published

on


The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has closed the public interest litigation petition filed in 2019 by Tamil Nadu Assembly Speaker M. Appavu who had sought a direction to the authorities concerned to clean a high level water supply channel situated in a reserve forest area.

Mr. Appavu had sought a direction to the authorities to clean the channel that connected Alanthurai river and Suravali dam in the Western Ghats. The petitioner said that the water channel passed through a reserve forest in Kanniyakumari district.

Alanthurai river ran through Kanniyakumari district for most part. In 1969, the State government formulated a scheme for using its water. A small dam was constructed across the river at Kanjipparai. The high level channel connected Alanthurai river and Suravali dam, from where water was distributed to tanks in Tirunelveli and Kanniyakumari districts in the ratio of 60:40, he said.

With the channel not having been cleaned up, free passage of water to the village tanks was disrupted, he said. If the channel was not cleaned, the livelihood of the farmers would be affected, the petitioner added.

A Division Bench of Justices G. R. Swaminathan and B. Pugalendhi took note of the status report submitted by the authorities which stated that the works had already been executed and completed. The court observed that nothing survives for further adjudication and closed the petition.



Source link

Continue Reading

CITIES

JNU lab assistant held for Rs 12 lakh job fraud | Bhubaneswar News – The Times of India

Published

on


Rourkela: A laboratory assistant from Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), New Delhi, was arrested on Wednesday for allegedly duping his friend of Rs 12 lakh with a false job promise.
The accused, Rajiv Sethi (55) of Sector-1, Rourkela, was caught by Sector-7 police while attending a wedding in the city. Sethi had taken the money between 2022 and 2023 from complainant Ranjan Nayak, promising a job for Nayak’s brother-in-law at JNU. However, after receiving the money, Sethi kept delaying the promised placement with various excuses.
“When confronted in Delhi six months ago, Sethi not only refused to return the money but also verbally abused the complainant,” said a police official.
Following this, Nayak lodged an FIR at Sector-7 police station in March. Sub inspector R K Swain said, “The accused was arrested by us and we are further investigating the case.” Sethi was produced in court on Wednesday evening and sent to judicial custody.





Source link

Continue Reading

CITIES

Karnataka HC clears BBMP engineer of inaction charges, says he followed tribunal order | Bengaluru News – The Times of India

Published

on


The Karnataka High Court quashed an enquiry and charge sheet against BBMP Assistant Engineer BC Sandeep, stating that officials cannot be faulted for not acting on unauthorized constructions when a court-ordered status quo is in place.

BENGALURU: An officer of the state is required to abide by the orders of courts and tribunals. If there is an order from such a court or tribunal restraining the officer from performing any particular action, the non-performance thereof cannot be said to be a dereliction of duty, the Karnataka High Court has observed in a recent order.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj made this observation while quashing the order of entrustment of enquiry to Upa Lokayukta in March 2016 and the charge sheet issued against petitioner BC Sandeep, an Assistant Engineer with the BBMP, in July 2016.
The case against the petitioner was that in 2013, he, along with other officials of the BBMP, failed to take action against an unauthorised construction in 7th Cross, Jayanagar 1st Block, in terms of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, despite the issuance of provisional and confirmatory orders in 2013.
Though his name was in the promotion list, it was not considered, citing a pending enquiry taken up suo motu by the Lokayukta.
Challenging the orders issued against him, Sandeep argued that during the three years he worked, there was an interim order of status quo issued by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal on November 25, 2013, based on an appeal filed by the owner of the said property.
Hence, he and his superiors could not take any further action vis-a-vis the unauthorised construction/deviation in the subject property. He further claimed that he is duty-bound to follow the orders issued by the courts/tribunals as an official.
On the other hand, the Lokayukta argued that the proceedings against the petitioner needed to be continued as no action was initiated in the matter when violations were noticed.
After perusing the materials on record, Justice Suraj Govindaraj noted that both on the date of entrustment of the enquiry to Upa Lokayukta and on the date of issuance of the charge sheet, the interim order of the KAT was in operation. Hence, the petitioner could not take further action in pursuance of the confirmation order issued under Section 321(3) of the KMC Act, and the same cannot be held against him.
Quashing the proceedings against the petitioner, the judge clarified that the court has not expressed any opinion regarding the other seven persons against whom a charge sheet has been filed.





Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2025 Republic Diary. All rights reserved.

Exit mobile version