The National Green Tribunal directed the  State of Himachal Pradesh  to consider the desirability of initiating proposal for enactment of appropriate legislation for protection of trees in rural areas also as may be considered appropriate.
The Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi and Dr. Afroz Ahmad heard an application filed with the  grievance regarding illegal pruning of all branches of 200 fruit bearing mango trees standing on DaulatpurGagret Guglehad road done by PWD through a contractor without obtaining requisite permission from the Forest Department and without any tender or work order in violation of protective prohibition order passed by  High Court of Himachal Pradesh.

In compliance with the order dated 04.11.2022  IAS, Deputy Commissioner, Una, HP,  Superintending Engineer and IFS, Deputy Conservator of Forest, Una have appeared through VC and NGT have interacted with them.   

In the present case , from  the report of the Joint Committee and replies filed , the NGT noted the illegal pruning of a large number of mango trees in violation of the environmental norms. 
It has been stated that the enactment by the State of Himachal Pradesh covers protection of trees within Municipal areas only. 
“Respondents no. 1 and 2 are directed to consider desirability of initiating proposal for enactment of appropriate legislation for protection of trees in rural areas also as may be considered appropriate.”
In the meanwhile the Bench directed that the  steps be taken for issuance of Government order/administrative instructions prescribing the norms regarding pruning of trees in municipal as well as rural areas. Action taken report along with the copies of the Government orders/administrative instructions so issued may be filed before the Tribunal.   

Further the Tribunal directed the Respondents to file their reports regarding present status of each of the mango trees illegally pruned and also regarding assessment, in monetary terms, of the damage caused by the illegal pruning of mango trees.
The matter is listed for further consideration on 20.07.2023.

The Delhi High Court on Saturday dismissed a plea challenging the appointment of Dr. Najma Akhtar as the Vice-Chancellor of the Jamia Millia Islamia University while finding no merit in the petition the bench called the appointment of Dr. Najma as justified.

Highlighting the position of law, a single-judge bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao noted that “ the Court can not sit in appeal over the decision taken by the Search Committee.”

The petition has been filed by M. Ehtesham-Ul-Haque an alumnus of Faculty of Law, Jamia Millia Islamia University challenging the appointment of Dr. Najma Akhtar to the post of Vice-Chancellor of the University alleging that there is a flagrant violation and total non-compliance of the statutory provisions and regulations of statute 2(1) of the Jamia Millia Islamia Act, 1988 read with clause 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2010.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Search Committee has recommended 3 names out of the 13 shortlisted names, without giving any reason which is in violation of clause 7.3 (ii) of the UGC regulations read with statute 2(1) of the Jamia Millia Islamia Act.

Also Read: Policing digital media, OTT content

Whereas, the bench while referring to the Supreme Court Judgment in the case of the National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences noted that

“it is not necessary for a selection committee to give reasons of its conclusion unless the rule governing the appointment to a particular post stipulates so. In the case in hand, Clause 7.3 (ii) of the UGC Regulations does not contemplate reasons to be given against each name, so recommended.”

The bench while further justifying the position of law and referring to the case of R.K. Jain noted that

“the court can not sit in appeal over the decision taken by the Search Committee. Rather the scope is limited to judicial review of the decision whereby the court is only concerned with whether the incumbent possessed qualifications for the appointment and the manner in which the appointment came to be made or whether the procedure adopted was fair, just and reasonable.”

A petition has been filed in the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Monday challenging the Vice-Chancellor (VC) order deferring the Panjab University Senate election indefinitely.

The High Court has ordered the Punjab Government and the University to file replies on the petition.

According to the petition, the term of the Syndicate is going to end on December 31, in which case extension should be given to the Syndicate while the petition is under consideration.

During the hearing, Panjab University stated that there is no need to issue orders by the High Court, because in case of emergency, VC cannot take decision as per Panjab University calendar.

The University laid emphasis that the decision can be placed before the next meeting of the Syndicate. On this, the High Court has ordered the PU to file a reply on the next hearing on both the main petition and the application.

In the petition filed, the senators have submitted before the High Court that the term of the PU Senate is over and the PU has also released the schedule for holding the Senate elections in November last year, but some senators want to change the Senate elections schedule because of the coronavirus epidemic. The representation was also given to the Chandigarh administration including the Chancellor.

Also Read: Centre proposes making front passenger airbags mandatory in new and old cars, other vehicles

In August, the Senior Standing Counsel of Chandigarh gave its opinion that it would not be right to hold elections in the havoc of the coronavirus, after which the VC postponed the Senate elections for two months on August 15. On October 17, the VC decided again, issuing orders to postpone the Senate elections indefinitely. This order of VC has been challenged by 7 senators by petitioning the High Court.