Tuesday, November 10, 2015

பிஹார் ஓட்டுக்கணக்கு

 

கட்சிகள்

போட்டியிட்ட இடங்கள்

வெற்றி பெற்ற இடங்கள்

ராஷ்;ட்ரிய ஜனதா தளமும்

101

80

ஐக்கிய ஜனதா தளமும்

101

71

காங்கிரஸ்

41

27

பாஜக

160

53

லோக் ஜனசக்தி

40

02

இந்துஸ்தான் அவாம் மோர்ச்சா

20

01

ராஷ்;ட்ரிய லோக் சமதா

23

02

image

Saturday, January 31, 2015

Acceptance of the Order of the High Court of Bombay in the case of Vodafone India Services Private Limited

The Union Cabinet, chaired by the Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi, in a major decision, has decided to accept the order of the High Court of Bombay in the case of Vodafone India Services Private Limited (VISPL) dated 10.10.2014. This is a major correction of a tax matter which has adversely affected investor sentiment.
Based on the opinion of Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (International Taxation), Chairperson (CBDT) and the Attorney General of India, the Cabinet decided to:
i. accept the order of the High Court of Bombay in WP No. 871 of 2014, dated 10.10.2014; and not to file SLP against it before the Supreme Court of India;
ii. accept of orders of Courts/ IT AT/ DRP in cases of other taxpayers where similar transfer pricing adjustments have been made and the Courts/ IT AT/ DRP have decided/decide in favour of the taxpayer.
The Cabinet decision will bring greater clarity and predictability for taxpayers as well as tax authorities, thereby facilitating tax compliance and reducing litigation on similar issues. This will also set at rest the uncertainty prevailing in the minds of foreign investors and taxpayers in respect of possible transfer pricing adjustments in India on transactions related to issuance of shares, and thereby improve the investment climate in the country.
The Cabinet came to this view as this is a transaction on the capital account and there is no income to be chargeable to tax. So applying any pricing formula is irrelevant.
VISPL is a wholly owned subsidiary of a non-resident company, Vodafone Tele-Services (India) Holdings Limited, Mauritius. On 21.8.2008, VISPL issued shares (at a premium of Rs.8509/-) which resulted in VISPL receiving a total consideration of Rs.246.39 crore from Vodafone Mauritius, on issue of shares and this was shown as "Capital Receipts" in the books of accounts. VISPL reported this transaction as an "International Transaction" and stated that this transaction does not affect its income.
The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), vide order dated 28.01.2013, determined the Arm's Length Price of the shares issued by VISPL on the basis of Net Asset Value, at Rs.53,775/- per share and made an upward adjustment of Rs.1,308.91 crore. In addition, the difference Rs.1,308.91 crore between the transaction price and the Arm's Length Price was treated as 'deemed loan' given by VISPL to the holding company; and interest that would have been payable on the loan in an arm's length transaction was computed at Rs.88.35 crore. In total, transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.1,397.26 crore was proposed by the TPO for Assessment Year 2009-10. The matter was agitated by VISPL at the stage of Draft AO itself and therefore the tax payable could not be crystallized. However, the tax rate of 33 percent was applicable for Assessment Year 2009-10.
The DRP, on 11.2.2014, held that the premium determined by the TPO, to the extent not received, is an income arising from issue of shares, and that the AO and the TPO have jurisdiction.
VISPL filed a 2nd Writ Petition in the High Court of Bombay. The High Court, on 10.10.2014, has amongst other things observed:
a) "Section 92(2) of the Act deals with a situation where two or more AEs enter into an arrangement whereby they receive a benefit, service or facility then the allocation, apportionment or contribution towards the cost or expenditure is to be determined in respect of each AE having regard to ALP. It would have no application in the cases like the present one, where there is no occasion to, allocate, apportion or contribute any cost and/ or expenses between the Petitioner and the holding company."
b) The crucial words “shall be chargeable to income tax” which are found in Section 42(2) of the 1922 Act are absent in Chapter X of the Act..... Therefore it is clear that the deemed income which was charged to tax under Section 42(2) of 1922 Act was done away with under this Act."
c) The tax can be charged only on income and in the absence of any income arising, the issue of applying the measure of Arm's Length Pricing to transactional value/ consideration itself does not arise."
d) If its income which is chargeable to tax, under the normal provisions of the Act, then alone Chapter X of the Act could be invoked. Sections 4 and 5 of the Act brings /charges to tax total income of the previous year. This would take us to the meaning of the word income under the Act as defined in Section 2 (24) of the Act. The amount received on issue of shares is admittedly a capital account transaction not separately brought within the definition of Income, except in cases covered by Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. Thus such capital account cannot be brought to tax as already discussed herein above while considering the challenge to the grounds as mentioned in impugned order."
e) The issue of shares at a premium is on Capital account and gives rise to no income. The submission on behalf of the revenue that the shortfall in the ALP as computed for the purposes of Chapter X of the Act is misplaced. The ALP is meant to determine the real value of the transaction entered into between AEs. It is a re-computation exercise to be carried out only when income arises in case of an International transaction between AEs. It does not warrant re-computation of a consideration received / given on capital account.
The Bombay High Court quashed the reference dated 11.7.2011 by the AO to the TPO, order dated 28.1.2013 of the TPO, draft AO dated 22.3.2013 of the AO and order dated 11.2.2014 of the DRP on the preliminary issue of jurisdiction to tax, setting them aside as being without jurisdiction, null and void.

Spectrum Auction for 2100 MHz Band in February 2015

The Union Cabinet, chaired by the Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi, has approved the proposal of the Department of Telecommunication (DoT) to proceed with auction in 2100 MHz band alongwith 800, 900 and 1800 MHz bands.
The Reserve price approved for 2100 MHz Band is Rs 3705 crore pan-India per MHz.
A 5 MHz Block will be offered in all service areas except Jammu & Kashmir, Bihar, Himachal Pradesh, West Bengal and Punjab. Thus a total of 85 MHz in 17 Licensed Service Areas (LSAs) is being put to auction.
Salient condition of payment terms and eligibility criteria are given in the Annexure.
The estimated revenues from the auction of 2100 MHz Band are Rs.17555 crore of which Rs.5793 crore is expected to be realized in the current financial year.
Annexure
Eligibility Criterion
(i) Any licensee that holds a Unified Access Service (UAS)/ Cellular Mobile Telephone Service (CMTS) / Unified License (Access Service) UL(AS) / UL licence with authorization for Access Services for that Service Area; or
(ii) any licensee that fulfils the eligibility for obtaining a UL with authorization for AS; or
(iii) any entity that gives an undertaking to obtain a UL for access service authorisation through a New Entrant Nominee as per the DoT guidelines/licence conditions.
can bid for the Spectrum (subject to other provisions of the Notice).
Payment Terms
Successful Bidders shall make the payment in any of the following two options:
(a) Full upfront payment within 10 days of declaration of final price or pre-payment of one or more annual instalments; or
(b) deferred payment, subject to the following conditions:
(i) An upfront payment; of 33 percent in the case of 2100 MHz band.
(ii) There shall be a moratorium of two years for payment of balance amount of one time charges for the spectrum, which shall be recovered in 10 equal annual instalments.
(iii) The first instalment of the balance due shall become due on the third anniversary of the scheduled date of the first payment. Subsequent instalment shall become due on the same date of each following year. Prepayment of one or more instalments will be allowed on each annual anniversary date of the first upfront payment, based upon the principle that the Net Present Value of the payment is protected.

Grant of subsidy to Jute Corporation of India to maintain its infrastructure for MSP operations

The Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs, chaired by the Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi, has approved providing financial support to the JCI, it has been decided to provide subsidy to Jute Corporation of India (JCI) on a continuous basis to off-set the losses on account of Minimum Support Price (MSP) operations by JCI. The quantum of subsidy will include the difference between the Purchase and Sale Price of MSP Raw Jute. The quantum of subsidy will also include fixed overhead costs incurred by JCI in maintaining its infrastructure for MSP operation. The reimbursement of fixed overhead cost would be maintained albeit at a reducing amount as per the details given below:

In Rs. Crore

 

2014-15

2015-16

2016-17

2017-18

Annual subsidy/ Grant for maintaining its infrastructure for MSP operations.

55.00

52.11

49.38

46.78

The decision will provide financial support to Jute Corporation of India to protect the interest of the Jute Growers through procurement of Raw Jute under the MSP fixed by the Government of India and also to stabilize the raw jute market for the benefit of the 40 lakh farm families and the jute economy as a whole.

JCI is the Price Support Agency of the Govt. of India for jute to protect the interest of the Jute Growers through procurement of Raw Jute under the MSP fixed by the Govt. of India from time to time and also to stabilize the raw jute market for the benefit of the jute farmers and the jute economy as a whole. To enable JCI to conduct MSP operation and be in preparedness for MSP at the start of every year, yearly grant is provided to the JCI to meet its operational expenditure & overheads for MSP preparedness.

Sunday, May 18, 2014

Educational Scholarship , Shree Vijayalakshmi public trust, Coimbatore

ஸ்ரீ விஜயலட்சுமி பொது நல அறக்கட்டளை கோவை / Shree vijayalakshmi public trust, Coimbatore

vijayalakshmi scholarship கோவை, திருப்பூர், ஈரோடு, நீலகிரி மாவட்ட அரசுப் பள்ளியில் பயின்று 12 ம் வகுப்பு படித்து முடித்து கல்லூரி படிப்பு பயில உதவித் தொகை வழங்கப்படுகிறது. இந்த உதவித்தொகையை பேற தகுதி மதிப்பெண் – 960/1200.

Shree vijayalakshmi public trust, Coimbatore offers to provide scholarship for Higher studies to Government School Students who are hailing from Coimbatore, Tirupur & The Nilgiri District and have secured a minimum mark of 960 out 1200 in plus 2 public exams

அரசுப் பள்ளியில் பயின்று 12 ம் வகுப்பு படித்து முடித்து அரசு நடத்தும் கவுன்சிலிங் மூலம் மருத்துவம் மற்றும் பொறியியல் பயிலும் மணவர்களுக்கு ரூ.25,000/- உதவித்தொகை வழங்கப்படும்

Shree vijayalakshmi public trust, Coimbatore offers to provide scholarship of Rs.25,000/- for Higher studies to Medical and Engineering students who have secured admissions through counseling.

அரசுப் பள்ளியில் பயின்று 12 ம் வகுப்பு படித்து முடித்து கலை மற்றும் அறிவியல் கல்லூரிகளில் செரும் மாணவர்களுக்கு ரூ.12500 /- உதவித்தொகை வழங்கப்படும். உதவித்தொகை பெற மாணவர்கள் உரிய ஆவணங்களை கொடுத்து ஜூன் 9 ம் முதல் ஸ்ரீ விஜயலட்சுமி பொது நல அறக்கட்டளையில் பதிவு செய்து உதவித்தொகையை பெற்றுக்கொள்ளாம்

Shree vijayalakshmi public trust, Coimbatore offers to provide scholarship of Rs.12,500/- for Higher studies to Arts and science college students. The Interested student shall register with the Trust from 09/6/2014

இந்த ஆண்டு (2013 -2014) அரசுப் பள்ளியில் பயின்று 1080 / 1200 மதிப்பெண்கள் பெற்றிருந்தால் முழு கல்லூரி படிப்பிற்கான் தொகை வழங்கப்படும் ( அதிகபட்சம் ரூ.1,00,000 வரை வழங்கப்படும்)

முகவரி:

ஆறுமுகசாமி,

நிறுவனர், ஸ்ரீ விஜயலட்சுமி பொது நல அறக்கட்டளை,

107/ஏ, சென்குப்தா வீதி, ராம் நகர், கோவை

போன்: 0422 – 2207500

Contact:

Arumugasamy,

Shree vijayalakshmi public trust,

107/A, Sengupta street, Ram Nagar,

Coimbatore

Saturday, May 17, 2014

Comments on The Tamil Nadu Groundwater (Development and Management) Act, 2003

http://archives.deccanchronicle.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_node_view/public/03GROUND%20WATER_0_0_0_0_0_0_0_0_0_0_0_0_0_0_0_0_0.jpg The Tamil Nadu Groundwater (Development and Management) Act, 2003  has been repealed by  the Tamil Nadu Ordinance No.4 of 2013 dated 14th September, 2013, where under, the Tamil Nadu Groundwater (Development and Management) Act, 2003 is now sought to be repealed. The ordinance is called as the Tamil Nadu Groundwater (Development and Management) Repeal Ordinance, 2013. The Explanatory statement reads as under:

"The Tamil Nadu Groundwater (Development and Management) Act, 2003 was enacted taking into consideration the circumstances prevailed in the year 2003. However, in the past 10 years, the following factors have drastically changed the scenario:-

(i) Certain definitions like marginal and small farmers, etc., have not been clearly defined to carry out the purport of the Act preventing groundwater drawal for Agricultural purposes and thereby causing hardship to farmers.

(ii) The people at large are to be ensured minimum potable water from groundwater sources when other sources are not sufficient especially in a drought affected year.

(iii) The provisions in the Act require that all individuals should be registered with the Groundwater Authority and licence should be obtained by all persons having over 1 Horse Power motor. If the Act in the present form was implemented and groundwater was not allowed to be tapped, it would have led to a public outcry.

(iv) Since 2003, the Municipal Corporations like Chennai, Coimbatore, Madurai, etc., have expanded, Piped water supply is not adequately available in the extended portions. Therefore, for supply to households by the Corporations and Private lorries, tapping of groundwater is being resorted to. As per the Act, a permit has to be obtained for transport of groundwater by means of lorry, trailer etc., from the notified areas for any purpose. This would result in unnecessary difficulties to the general public as each and every lorry or trailer in the State has to obtain a permit from the State Groundwater Authority even for supply of drinking water causing difficulties to the general public.

(v) The manner in which the drawal of groundwater has to be regulated for construction of multistoried buildings and for commercial exploitation of water, where water is used as raw material has not been addressed in the Act."

The  Madras High court has issued directions based on government  G.O.Ms.No.52, Public Works  Department, dated 02.03.2012 directing the general public approach the authorities of the Public Works Department for necessary approval  for commercial usage of ground water based on the category to which they fall.

The power of Revenue Department has been taken away and they no longer can take cognizance of illegal ground water trade.  Even after this judgement may revenue authorities with out any legal mandate have taken action with the help of police.

<<click to download full judgement>>

<< click to download  G.O.Ms.No.52, Public Works (R2) Department, dated 02.03.2012 >>

Judgement :

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

Dated: 18.09.2013

Coram

The Honourable Mrs.JUSTICE CHITRA VENKATARAMAN

and

The Honourable Mr.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

Writ Appeal Nos.923 to 926 of 2009, W.P.Nos.23116 of 2006, 23896 to 23900 of 2006, 4711 of 2004 and 12375 of 2008 & Connected Miscellaneous Petitions

Writ Appeal Nos.923 to 926 of 2009:

New Tirupur Area Development Corporation Ltd.,

represented by its Authorised Signatory

having its office at 'Anurag',

No.15, Murray's Gate Road,

Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. .... Appellant in the above W.A.s

Vs.

1. Tmt. K.Poomani .... Respondent in W.A.Nos.923 & 924/2009

1. Sri.K.Paramasivam .... Respondent in W.A.Nos.925 & 926/2009

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,

Tiruppur, Coimbatore District.

3. The Inspector of Police,

Tiruppur Rural Police Station,

Coimbatore District.

4. The Secretary,

Government of Tamil Nadu,

Public Works Department (Groundwater),

Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

.... Respondents in W.A.Nos.923 to 926 of 2009

5. KRNR Aqua Industries,

rep. by its Proprietor,

Opp. Jaya Theatre,

Mallaooppampatti Village,

Ayyamperumampatti Post,

Salem 636 005.

(R4 impleaded vide order dated 28.7.2009,

R5 impleaded vide order dated 1.7.2013 &

R6 impleaded vide order dated 18.9.2013)

.... Respondents in W.A.No.923 of 2009

6. M/s.Kamala Corporation,

rep. by its Proprietor,

S.Pazhamalai, No.353, Main Road,

Pennadam 606 105

Cuddalore District.

(R4 impleaded vide order dated 28.7.2009,

R5 impleaded vide order dated 1.7.2013 &

R6 impleaded vide order dated 18.9.2013)

.... Respondents in W.A.Nos.923 & 926 of 2009

APPEALs under Clause XV of the Letters Patent against the order dated 12.1.2009 made in W.P.M.P.No.2 of 2008 in W.P.No.25352 of 2008; W.P.No.25352 of 2008; W.P.M.P.No.2 of 2008 in W.P.No.25353 of 2008; W.P.No.25353 of 2008 on the file of this Court.

Writ Petition Nos.23116, 23896 to 23900 of 2006:

Tmt.Rukmani .... Petitioner in W.P.No.23116 of 2006

N.Eswaramoorthy .... Petitioner in W.P.No.23896 of 2006

N.Manonmani .... Petitioner in W.P.No.23897 of 2006

K.Narayanasamy .... Petitioner in W.P.No.23898 of 2006

O.Subramanian .... Petitioner in W.P.No.23899 of 2006

Tiruppur Water Lorry Owner Association,

Regd. No.3/2006,

73/3, Thanner Pandal Colony,

Avinashi Road, Tiruppur 641 652

rep. by its Chairman

R.M.Vadivel

.... Petitioner in W.P.No.23900 of 2006

Vs.

1. The Commissioner,

Tiruppur Municipality,

Tiruppur.

2. The Collector,

Coimbatore District,

Coimbatore.

.... Respondents in the above W.Ps

PETITIONs under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from obstructing the supply of water taking from the borewell of the petitioners situated in S.No.96/2B2, Ganapathypalayam Village, Palladam Taluk; S.No.518 in 19A Rakkiapalayam Village, Majara Vijayapuram, Tiruppur Taluk; S.No.75/2 in Naranapuram Village Palladam Taluk; S.No.455/3D in 19A, Rakkiapalayam, Nallur Village, Tiruppur Taluk; S.No.369/1B, Ganapathypalayam Village, Palladam Taluk, through tanker lorries for domestic and industrial purposes in and around Tiruppur and Palladam by the petitioners.

Writ Petition No.4711 of 2004:

N.Ramamurthy

.... Petitioner

Vs.

1. The District Collector,

Coimbatore District,

Coimbatore.

2. The Tahsildar,

Palladam Taluk, Palladam,

Coimbatore District.

3. The Asst. Engineer,

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,

Kulathupalayam, Palladam Taluk,

Coimbatore District.

.... Respondents

PETITION under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from preventing the petitioner from taking water from his borewell situated in S.F.no.54/3 of Karaipudur Village, Palladam Taluk, Coimbatore District and transporting the water through the lorry to his Banian factory viz., 'Saranya Colours' near the Tiruppur situated in Kunnagalapalaym, Chinnakarai, Arulpalayam Post, Palladam Taluk, Coimbatore District.

Writ Petition No.12375 of 2008:

Appusamy Gounder .... Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Revenue Divisional Officer,

Tiruppur, Coimbatore District,

2. The Inspector of Police,

Palladam Police Station,

Palladam Taluk,

Coimbatore District.

3. New Tirupur Area Development Corporation Ltd.,

represented by its Authorised Signatory

having its office at 'Anurag',

No.15, Murray's Gate Road,

Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. .... Respondents

PETITION under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from obstructing the supply of water taking from the open well of the petitioner situated in S.No.386 in 30, Karaipudur Village, Palladam Taluk, Coimbatore District for domestic and industrial purposes in and around Tiruppur and Palladam by the petitioner.

For Appellant in W.A.Nos.923 to 926 of 2009: Mr.S.Raghunathan

For R1 in W.A.Nos.923 to 926 of 2009 and for Petitioner in W.P.Nos.23116 of 2006, 23896 to 23900 of 2006, 4711 of 2004 and 12375 of 2008 : Mr.S.Doraisamy

For R2 to R4 in W.A.Nos.923 to 926 of 2009 & For Respondents in W.P.Nos.23116 of 2006 23896 to 23900 of 2006, 4711 of 2004 and 12375 of 2008 :Mr.A.L.Somayaji, Advocate General Assisted by Mr.R.Ravichandran, AGP Mr.P.Karthikeyan, G.A.

For R5 in W.A.No.923 of 2009: Mr.A.S.Rajkumar

For R6 in W.A.Nos.923 & 926 of 2009: Mrs.Hema Sampath, S.C. For M/s.K.V.Muthuvisakan

-----------------

C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J.)

The present Writ Appeals are filed by New Tirupur Area Development Corporation Limited, who sought to implead itself in Writ Petitions filed by one Poomani in W.P.No.23532 of 2008 and one Paramasivam in W.P.No.25353 of 2008. The said Writ Petitions were filed before this Court for issuance of writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents therein from obstructing the supply of water taking from the open well of the petitioners through tanker lorries for domestic and drinking purposes in and around Tiruppur and Palladam by the petitioners.

2. Learned single Judge rejected the impleading petitions filed by the Writ Appellant taking the view that for deciding the issue, the presence of the impleading party was not at all necessary. Thus, the petitions to implead the Writ Appellant were dismissed. Aggrieved by this, Writ Appeal Nos.925 and 926 of 2009 are filed before this Court. Apart from this, the Writ Appellant also filed Writ Appeals as against the main order passed in W.P.Nos.25352 and 25353 of 2008, wherein learned single Judge, by order dated 12.01.2009 held that in the absence of any order issued by the Government under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Groundwater (Development and Management) Act 2003, neither the Revenue Authorities nor the Police Authorities got any power to obstruct the petitioner from drawing ground water from open wells and bore wells and transporting the same. Learned single Judge also pointed out that the order would not stand in the way of the Government issuing appropriate order under Section 9 of the said Act.

3. It is seen from the averment made in the affidavit filed by Paramasivam - Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.25353 of 2005 that on account of the development of knit wear industries resulting in serious set back in the agricultural activity in and around Tiruppur and leading to the shortage of manpower, the petitioner and other similarly placed persons had started selling water to the dyeing factories. However, with the formation of New Tiruppur Area Development Corporation Limited, wherein a Scheme was introduced for drawing water from Bhavani river to Tiruppur for the industrial purpose only, the petitioner felt that his business got offended. Apart from that, the introduction of the Tamil Nadu Groundwater (Development and Management) Act, 2003 to regulate the development and management of groundwater, which was yet to be notified, was further seen as an obstruction to the business. He contended that for sinking a well or bore well, no permission was necessary from the authorities. However, on instruction from the Revenue Divisional Officer, the Inspector of Police started obstructing the lorries taking water from the well and supplying the same to the dyeing factories. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court for a writ of mandamus to forbear the respondents from obstructing the supply of water taken from the open well of the petitioner.

4. In the background of the said contention and with the New Tiruppur Area Development Corporation Limited not being a main party in the Writ Petition, the present appellant filed a petition in M.P.No.2 of 2008 contending that the impleading party was created as a special purpose vehicle under the support of Government of Tamil Nadu to implement the project on drawing water from Bhavani River to Tiruppur, which would not only be beneficial for the public at large and to the industries located in and around Tiruppur but also for the supply of drinking water to the Tiruppur township as well as to the villages in and around Tiruppur. Since the project was implemented at enormous cost, the petitioner thought it fit to move the Court for impleading itself in the Writ Petitions. The appellant contended that on account of the use of groundwater for industrial purpose, the purpose for which the impleading party was constituted would be totally defeated; hence, the appellant had to be impleaded as party and heard in the Writ Petition.

5. As already pointed out, learned single Judge rejected the impleading petitions. The appellant filed Writ Appeals against this order and as well as against the order in the Writ Petitions stating that the Authorities had no jurisdiction to obstruct anybody from drawing water. It is seen further that this Court passed an interim order on 31.01.2011 in the Writ Appeals, wherein the Division Bench of this Court directed the State Government not to allow any person to draw and sell the groundwater until the Tamil Nadu Groundwater (Development and Management) Act, 2013 was notified. This led to the impleading of the sixth respondent M/s.Kamala Corporation in the Writ Appeals. Since one of the contentions raised by the Writ Petitioner and other impleading party related to the non-notification of the Tamil Nadu Groundwater (Development and Management) Act, 2003 and hence on the jurisdiction of the Authorities to obstruct anyone from drawing water from the wells to trade therein, we requested the learned Advocate General to appear in this matter to get proper instructions. Accordingly, learned Advocate General has placed before this Court the copy of the Tamil Nadu Ordinance No.4 of 2013 dated 14th September, 2013, where under, the Tamil Nadu Groundwater (Development and Management) Act, 2003 is now sought to be repealed. The ordinance is called as the Tamil Nadu Groundwater (Development and Management) Repeal Ordinance, 2013. The Explanatory statement reads as under:

"The Tamil Nadu Groundwater (Development and Management) Act, 2003 was enacted taking into consideration the circumstances prevailed in the year 2003. However, in the past 10 years, the following factors have drastically changed the scenario:-

(i) Certain definitions like marginal and small farmers, etc., have not been clearly defined to carry out the purport of the Act preventing groundwater drawal for Agricultural purposes and thereby causing hardship to farmers.

(ii) The people at large are to be ensured minimum potable water from groundwater sources when other sources are not sufficient especially in a drought affected year.

(iii) The provisions in the Act require that all individuals should be registered with the Groundwater Authority and licence should be obtained by all persons having over 1 Horse Power motor. If the Act in the present form was implemented and groundwater was not allowed to be tapped, it would have led to a public outcry.

(iv) Since 2003, the Municipal Corporations like Chennai, Coimbatore, Madurai, etc., have expanded, Piped water supply is not adequately available in the extended portions. Therefore, for supply to households by the Corporations and Private lorries, tapping of groundwater is being resorted to. As per the Act, a permit has to be obtained for transport of groundwater by means of lorry, trailer etc., from the notified areas for any purpose. This would result in unnecessary difficulties to the general public as each and every lorry or trailer in the State has to obtain a permit from the State Groundwater Authority even for supply of drinking water causing difficulties to the general public.

(v) The manner in which the drawal of groundwater has to be regulated for construction of multistoried buildings and for commercial exploitation of water, where water is used as raw material has not been addressed in the Act."

6. Paragraph No.2 of the Explanatory Statement further states that the Tamil Nadu Groundwater (Development and Management) Act, 2003 has to be comprehensively changed taking into account the present demand, need and supply. Consequently, while repealing the Tamil Nadu Groundwater (Development and Management) Act, 2003, the note further expressed its decision to regulate the drawing of water on commercial basis.

7. Learned senior counsel appearing for the impleading party viz., M/s.Kamala Corporation in Writ Appeal Nos.923 and 926 of 2009 placed before us G.O.(Ms) No.52, Public Works (R2) Department dated 02.03.2012. The letter written by the Chief Engineer, State Ground and Surface Water Resources Data Centre, Tharamani to the Secretary to Government dated 02.07.2013 points out that it is an executive order passed in the interests of the State, for equitable availability of groundwater to every one and all the water connecting Departments were consulted on this subject.

8. On a reading of G.O.Ms.No.52, Public Works (R2) Department, dated 02.03.2012, we find that the Chief Engineer, State Ground and Surface Water Resources Data Centre, Tharamani had submitted certain proposals to the Government for notifying blocks based on the categorization made as on March, 2009 for all the Districts in Tamil Nadu on the exploitation of groundwater. Based on the recommendation, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.52, Public Works (R2) Department dated 02.03.2012 approving the categorization of over exploited blocks; critical blocks; semi critical blocks; safe blocks and saline/poor quality blocks. Thus, all the over exploited blocks and critical blocks are notified as 'A' category stage of groundwater extraction is 90% and above and all the semi critical and safe blocks are notified as 'B' category stage of groundwater extraction is below 89%. The Government further notified in paragraph Nos.9 to 12 as follows:

"9. The Government further direct that no schemes should be formulated in over exploited and critical blocks Notified as A category blocks. In Semi Critical and Safe blocks Notified as B category blocks, all the schemes should be formulated through State Ground and Surface Water Resources Data Centre of Water Resources Department and the Chief Engineer / State Ground and Surface Water Resources Data Centre will issue No Objection Certificate for Ground Water Clearance.

10. The Government further direct to exclude the Ground Water drawal for domestic purpose by individual household; domestic infrastructure project (Housing); Governments Drinking Water Supply Schemes and; non water based industries, (i.e. the industries which do not require and use water, either as raw material or for other processing). The Chief Engineer, State Ground and Surface Water Resources Data Centre will permit for domestic use of water by this non water based industries by issuing No Objection Certificate based on the hydro geological conditions. The list of non water based industries will be issued by the Industries Department of Government of Tamil Nadu separately.

11. The Government further direct that appropriate rain water harvesting and Artificial Recharge Schemes shall be carried out in the catefories viz. Over exploited, Critical, Semi Critical and Safe blocks of Tamil Nadu. While carrying out the above schemes, priority shall be given to marginal quality and bad quality areas so as to avoid further deterioration.

12. The Government further direct that all the schemes and proposals based on Ground Water will have to be adhered the Government orders and conditions as detailed in the Annexure II of this order."

9. Thus, in the background of the Government Order, in exercise of executive power and which has nothing to do with the passing of the repealing of the Act, we feel, the proper course herein would be to set aside the order of the learned single Judge in the Writ Petitions as well as the order rejecting the impleading petitions and direct the parties to approach the authorities of the Public Works Department for necessary approval based on the category to which they fall. Accordingly, the order dated 12.01.2009 made in W.P.Nos.25352 and 25353 of 2008 and M.P.Nos.2 and 2 of 2008 stands set aside. We make it clear that even with the repealing of the Act, G.O.Ms.No.52 Public Works (R2) Department dated 02.03.2012 will govern the interests of the parties and the State in the matter of regulating the business of the Writ Appellant herein.

10. In view of the order passed setting aside the orders of the learned single Judge passed in the Miscellaneous Petitions as well as in the Writ Petitions, all the Writ Appeals and the Writ Petitions are disposed of in terms of what we have stated in the preceding paragraphs. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

Index :Yes (C.V.,J) (T.S.S.,J)

NOSJSS law journal. An open source judgement search system

- See more at: http://indianlegalclub.blogspot.in/2014/05/public-works-department-authorised-to.html#sthash.QTtpO7T1.dpuf

Sunday, September 16, 2012

கூடங்குளம் அணு உலை போராட்டத்தை எதிர்ப்பவரா நீங்கள்?

கூடங்குளம் அணு உலை போராட்டத்தை எதிர்ப்பவரா நீங்கள்? இதோ உங்களுக்காக ஓர் செய்தி, உலகின் அணுசக்தி உற்பத்தியில் மூன்றாம் hindu news on japan energy planஇடம் பிடித்துள்ள நாடு ஜப்பான். அது (ஜப்பான்) ஒரு முக்கிய முடிவை எடுத்துள்ளது, அதாவது 2040ல் அணு உலைகளே இல்லாத நாடாக மாற்ற திட்டமிட்டுள்ளது. ஏன் தொழில்நுற்பத்தில் வளர்ச்சிவுற்ற நாடு இந்த முடிவை எடுக்க வேண்டும்? சற்று சிந்தியுங்கள்….

Saturday, February 11, 2012

EC censures Salman Khurshid’s Election promises of 9% quota

salam ec censure war 11 feb 2012

Community certificate form in Tamil

image It has been found that  the community certificate application form that are available in tamilnadu revenue department website (http://www.tn.gov.in/appforms/cert-community.pdf ) is an out date one so Kindly click the below  link to download the right community certificate application form, This form is in Tamil and applicable fro Tamilnadu only.

Click to download the right community certificate application form in Tamil

Monday, February 6, 2012

At the doorsteps of the PM

image The country has witnessed a lot of large scale scams in the recent years especially the ones during the UPA government. The UPA has been defending itself with PM as the shield. The UPA government has made some very wrong moves when it comes to prevention or curbing of legal protest by ordinary citizens against the corruption. The UPA  led government  has been projecting Prime Minister as the man of impeccable integrity.  may be he is a honest person but  is he a responsible Prime minister and doesn't he hold any moral responsibility for the scam that took place under his tenure as the prime minister or head of the government.

 

Appointment of Chief Vigilance commissioner:

The prime minister and the home minister went ahead to appoint Mr.P.J.Thomas as the Chief Vigilance commissioner of central vigilance Commission despite opposition from the leader of opposition. The matter was then taken to court and the court held that the appointment as null and void since there was a corruption case pending against Mr.P.J.Thomas. The Government first claim that there was no information provide to prime minister office and home ministry regarding the pending corruption case and claimed innocent but later in the parliament PM accept the responsibility for appointment.

 

2G Scam:

The 2G scam is a well know scam in the country, did the Prime minister act responsibly enough to prevent the loss of revenue to the government though he acted prudently during the issue of  3G licensing. The PM had several time defended Mr.Raja the then telecom minister. PM also act imprudently by not making a decision on sanction for the crime prosecution of Mr.A.Raja the then minister of his cabinet. PM could have denied sanction but his failure to take decision is what makes it be foul play. The PM has sought legal opinion and upon obtaining legal opinion he should have made a decision and should have communicated it to the petitioner/applicant.The whole story in nut shell is he failed to prevent the scam, later defended the licensing decision and Mr.Raja, failed decide on sanction for prosecution application  and no action was taken against the telecom company which benefitted from 2G licensing scam-

 

Devas – Antrix S-Band spectrum Contract:

Antrix , the marketing wing of ISRO gave way a rare spectrum at throw away price for a company called devas for a period of 20 year. What transpired this contract and who were all behind the deal is still under probe.  It’s to be noted that the Antrix is under the control of the PMO office  and murky deal right under the Prime ministers office  is yet an another failure of Prime minister.

 

Lack of leadership:

The Prime minster in case of the Lokpal protest by Shri.Anna hazare and anticorruption protest by Shri. Baba ram dev has show lack leadership. he has allowed other legally qualified ministers of his cabinet to handle such sensitive issue. Those ministers tried to tackle the issue insensitively by adopting legal solution to a political problem there by the country was brought to stand still for few days. The prime minister then promised to introduce and pass the bill during the winter session (2012) but failed to pass the bill. He clearly lacked the leadership in this particular case of Lokpal and anticorruption protest.

 

All the above mentioned scams and issue straight away lead to the doorsteps of the PM’s office. How can a prudent man after all these scams and incidents still believe that he is a responsible prime minister though Dr.Manmohan singh has very good personal record as an honest, hard working, straight forward and simple person but as prime minister of the country has he delivered, i leave it to you to decide ….