TN plastic ban to cover biscuit, food wrappers

Sivakumar.B@timesgroup.com

Chennai:05.01.2019

The state government will soon extend the ban on plastic to packaged products like biscuits and other eatables manufactured by multinational companies, environment minister K C Karuppannan told the assembly on Friday. The ban is now limited to 16 types of plastic material, he said.

Raising the issue during the debate on thanking the governor for his address to the assembly, DMK member Geetha Jeevan, representing Tuticorin, said the government banned the material used by small-time traders,selling flowers and food items on streets. “But not all types are banned. Will the government ban these too,” she asked.

Almost all department stores and supermarkets stock eatables and other kitchen products packed in coloured plastic ware, she said. “Most of these are manufactured by big companies like ITC.”

In reply, the minister said that soon messages would be sent to manufacturers of plastic used to package eatables as that is also against the environment. “In June last year, soon after the CM announced the ban on 16 types of plastics from January 1, we divided the state into 6 divisions. In each division, an IAS officer was put in charge to create awareness about the dangers of using plastic. We gave six months for traders and others using plastics to change their packaging material,” he said.

GREEN CHANGE: Cloth bag use has jumped manifold after the ban

‘There won’t be loss of jobs due to ban’

The government denied that there will be loss of employment. “There will be no loss of jobs due to the ban and we will not give any more time for not using plastic. Six months is enough and almost all shops and hotels have changed their packagings,” the minister said. Opposition members wanted the government to offer financial relief for the companies that had been making the material.

“Several of them are facing losses. The government must waive their loans, so they will be free of any liability,” said IUML’s K A M Muhammed Abubacker. But the government did not respond. In December last year, the Tamil Nadu Plastic Manufacturers’ Association (Tapma) had alleged the ban was discriminatory in nature, allowing the use of plastic in many government sectors and large-scale private sectors, while banning it for the general public and smallscale private sectors.

“The government order bans all forms of plastic packaging including by small retail outlets, grocery shops, whereas the same is permitted for MNCs and FMCG companies,” a Tapmamember had said.

No decision on production of 2,000 rupee notes: Govt

TIMES NEWS NETWORK

New Delhi:05.01.2019

Amid reports of printing of ₹2,000 being stopped, the government on Friday said there has been no decision regarding the 2,000 rupee note production recently.

“Printing of notes is planned as per the projected requirement. We have more than adequate notes of ₹2,000 in the system with over 35% of notes by value in circulation being of ₹2,000,” economic affairs secretary Subhash Chandra Garg said on microblogging site Twitter.

The ₹2,000 rupee note was introduced after the government scrapped ₹1,000 and ₹500 rupee notes on November 8, 2016. The move to introduce the ₹2,000 note had faced criticism at the time of introduction as fears have been expressed that it might lead to hoarding and help money launderers.

The government had made it clear when it introduced the ₹2,000 note that it would watch the need for remonetisation before scaling it down. The RBI had worked its printing presses to churn out the new currencies, accelerate remonetisation. The then economic affairs secretary Shaktikanta Das, who is now the RBI governor, had said that the RBI will monitor the release of the₹ 2,000 rupee notes.

‘LESS NO. OF STUDENTS TAKE UP ENGINEERING’

AICTE nod to arts & science courses in engineering colleges

Ardhra.Nair@timesgroup.com

Pune:05.01.2019

The All-India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) has decided to allow engineering colleges to run arts and science degree courses on their premises in view of the decline in the number of students opting for engineering courses every year.

“Many engineering colleges are not able to fill up their seats every year. Hence, we have decided to let them start BSc or BA courses on their premises,” AICTE chairman Anil D Sahasrabudhe told TOI.

He said while the playground and other such infrastructure could be common, the colleges must have other necessary infrastructure in place, including laboratories, to support the new courses.

“Moreover, AICTE approval to start such a course doesn’t mean that the colleges don’t need other permissions, such as consent from the affiliating university or directorate of higher education, among others,” Sahasrabudhe said.

The director of Vishwakarma Institute of Technology, R M Jalnekar, said he was yet to receive a circular in this regard. “We would be happy to include such courses,” he said, adding that it would be nice to start a course in robotics where there was an element of the arts.

B B Ahuja, the director of College of Engineering, Pune, said starting an arts or science course at a professional college would complement each other.

“While we have a liberal learning course where engineering students can opt for subjects in music or literature, we do not have a formal course. With a proper arts or science department, the engineering students will benefit a lot,” he said.

Besides, the move will ensure that individual course teachers, such as those teaching psychology or music, at engineering colleges get proper infrastructure for research work.

SC pulls up def secy for appeal against ₹5 lakh compensation

TIMES NEWS NETWORK

New Delhi  05.01.2019

: The defence secretary got a bitter dose from the Supreme Court for adopting the traditional approach of government officials to appeal against all decisions of the high courts, even if it involved petty amounts or where the government was in the wrong.

A bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Sanjay K Kaul took exception to the defence secretary appealing against a Manipur HC order asking the Centre and the state government to pay ₹2.5 lakh each to the widow of a person who was killed in an encounter in 2009.

“The high court had asked the district judge concerned to examine the matter and on his report has ordered payment ₹5 lakh as compensation to the widow. Is it such a case for the defence secretary to file an appeal? What kind of appeal is this,” the bench demanded to know from counsel Aishwarya Bhati.

Bhati said the widow had also approached the National Human Rights Commission, which had in April 2017 directed the Manipur government to pay ₹5 lakh compensation to next of kin of Khumukcham Thoiba. She said the state government had already paid that amount to the widow. Is it permissible for a person to continue parallel proceedings for compensation, one before the NHRC and another before the HC, she asked and alleged the HC was not informed about the compensation already paid as per the NHRC order.

Without inquiry, S Rly reinstates 5 under scanner in parcel scam

Siddharth.Prabhakar@timesgroup.com

Chennai:  05.01.2019

Southern Railway on Friday gave a virtual clean chit to five railway employees, who were allegedly involved in a parcel scam at Chennai Central, by reinstating some of them in the same station before conducting any official inquiry.

In addition, the main whistleblower of the scam, K Sampathram, has been shunted to Nungambakkam on administrative grounds. Sampathram, a chief supervisor, is also an office bearer of Southern Railway Mazdoor Union (SRMU), which is their sole recognised employees union.

Southern Railway had instituted several inquiries against the five, but they are yet to start as the employees had reported sick ever since the scam broke.

Transfer orders accessed by TOI showed that the main accused and branch secretary of SRMU, D Yuvaraj, was shifted from Central to the neighbouring Moore Market Complex (MMC), which is the suburban terminal in the same complex.

N Kannaiah, SRMU chief and a relative of Yuvaraj, denied all allegations.

A Karuppuswamy and Thiagarajan, two other accused, have been retained at Central, but shifted to the booking office from the parcel office. The others, Khader Basha and Anthony D’ Cruz have been shifted to Chennai Egmore booking office.

The scam pertains to the alleged theft of 11 parcels of vests bound from Central to Howrah on November 13. A control message was given by the head of commercial department in Chennai division to suspend the five on the same day.

A senior official from Chennai division said the transfer was done due to ‘pressure from top management’. “Despite the division recommending an inter-divisional transfer, the headquarters has not acted on it,” said an officer, who is not authorised to speak to the press.

K Nandakumar, general secretary of Rail Mazdoor Union, a rival union, said the case had been diluted without investigation which showed that officials were also complicit. “It was a case fit for dismissal of the employee,” he said. Chennai divisional railway manager Naveen Gulati did not respond to calls. General manager RK Kulshreshtha said it was an illogical decision and refuted allegations of complicity within the union. “We will check if this can be reversed. Union cannot interfere in our decisions,” he said.

The main whistleblower of the parcel scam, K Sampathram, has been shunted out to Nungambakkam

Govt employees under scanner for graft can file RTI with DVAC

Siddharth.Prabhakar@timesgroup.com

Chennai:  05.01.2019

The state government employees who are under the scanner of Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC), for alleged corruption or irregularities, can file an RTI application with the agency and get copies of crucial documents.

This was the outcome of a second appeal heard by the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission (TNSIC) and disposed off on December 10, 2018. The order was uploaded on the official website a few days ago.

The appeal pertains to an RTI application filed by V Ramasubbu, a resident of Srivaikuntam in Tuticorin and a PWD employee, with the DVAC.

Stating that the DVAC had sent a proposal to the superintendent engineer (SE), PWD, buildings, of Tuticorin circle, for sanction of prosecution in a criminal case to be filed against him, Ramasubbu asked for a copy of the file concerned.

Before filing cases against government employees, the DVAC has to get a sanction from the head of the department concerned, as per the procedures laid down.

In his application, Ramasubbu said the Madras high court had admitted a petition by him to send for documents from the concerned departments and directed to conduct a fair trial. However, the sanction letter was not given by the DVAC.

In its reply to Ramasubbu’s RTI application, the anti-corruption agency said since the case was pending trial, the information required by the petitioner could not be furnished. A first appeal was filed by Ramasubbu with the DVAC.

To this, the appellate authority and deputy director, DVAC, sent a reply stating that as per the notification in GO Ms No 158, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (N) Department, dated 26-08-2008, the RTI Act, 2005, shall not be applicable to the anticorruption agency.

A dissatisfied Ramasubbu filed the second appeal with the TNSIC which took it up for hearing in December.

During the inquiry, the DVAC brought a copy of the letter of the SE, buildings, who had refused to accord sanction for prosecution in that case. Information commissioner R Dakshinamurthy ordered that the letter be given to the petitioner free of cost within three days and compliance report to the commission be sent.

Jayaram Venkatesan, veteran RTI activist and convenor of Arappor Iyakkam, told TOI that RTI petitions can be filed with the DVAC and they would have to respond as there was a high court judgement to that effect.

The appeal pertains to an RTI application filed by V Ramasubbu, a resident of Srivaikuntam in Tuticorin and a PWD employee, with the DVAC

Jaya death probe panel quizzed on charges against health secy

Siddharth.Prabhakar@timesgroup.com

Chennai:  05.01.2019

Raja Senthoor Pandian, counsel for V K Sasikala, on Friday questioned the Justice (retd) A Arumughaswamy commission why questions regarding former chief minister J Jayalalithaa’s need for an angiogram were posed to health secretary J Radhakrishnan IAS and not to the All India Instituteof Medical Sciences(AIIMS) cardiothoracic expert V Devagourou.

When Radhakrishnan was cross-examined on Friday, Pandian saidRadhakrishnan was asked on December 20 abo-

JAY ut Jayalalithaa needing an angiogram and airlifting her to a foreign country for treatment. On December 27, the commission’s counsel, Mohammed Jafarullah Khan, filed a petition alleging Radhakrishnan of collusion and conspiracy with ApolloHospitals and alludedto medical negligence in Jayalalithaa’s treatment. “On December 19, Devagourou appeared before the commission. Why wasn’t the same question posed to him? Is the commission trying to allege a conspiracy by theCentral governmentin Jayalalithaa’s treatment?” Pandian said during the proceedings.Helater confirmeditin a press briefing.

Radhakrishnan based his entire deposition on Friday on reports given by AIIMS, who said the treatment given was satisfactory. He also categorically denied allegations made by Khan in his petition including thatof being Apollo’sspokesperson. Sources said at one point he broke down after whichthejudgeexcused him for a few minutes.

P ROBE

Khan had alleged that Radhakrishnan had not filed any report with any cabinet minister regarding Jayalalithaa’s treatment.Pandian quotedchief secretary Girija Vaidyanathan’s letters to the commission on October 29 and 30,whereshe said Radhakrishnan and her predecessor Rama Mohan Rao had briefed ministers and top officials about Jayalalithaa’s health on a daily basis during her hospitalisation, and there was no needfor them tofile a separate report.

During the hearing, sources said the commission quoted from former chief secretary Rama Mohan Rao’s deposition where he expressed shock on Apollo “washing its hands off ” the medical bulletins issued during Jayalalithaa’s hospitalisation (Apollo has held that the government had vetted the bulletins issued on the hospital letterhead). The commission asked Radhakrishnan why Apollo didn’t move a petition earlier, but was trying to ‘protect’ him, alleging that he was its spokesperson. At this juncture, Apollo counsel Maimoona Badsha objected, saying that another person’s deposition was being thrust on Radhakrishnan, sources said.