[Eddy]

There is no doubt that Cyber Hub contributes to DUI on NH8 and whether banning one source or banning the other source or both is best solution, I don't know.

I like the way Chandigarh has controlled this menace - effective policing, checks and punishment.

[binand]

Originally Posted by Eddy

So the likes of cyberhub are safe.

Source - http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/i...w/57421171.cms

I wouldn't bet on it; the opinion of the AG needn't be the final word. Pity that the actual opinion is not available anywhere. I did post yesterday when the news about this opinion broke (it was prominently reported in Malayalam newspapers since the opinion was delivered to Government of Kerala):

https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/stree...ml#post4155733

[Eddy]

Oh, I missed your previous post.

So the AG has no legal authority to comment ? So what happens on 1st April ?

[simplyself]

What is the percentage of accidents on NHs in a state compared to the number of all accidents?

I strongly believe accidents due to driving under influence are more in number on roads other than highways though we may not know about them much.

Just banning liquor outlets on major roads isn't enough though it helps in curbing the drunken driving menace to some extent.

What is needed is strict patrolling and checking on all major roads - both highways, towns etc., and some habitually drunk prone categories of people and spots.

[binand]

Originally Posted by Eddy

So the AG has no legal authority to comment?

The AG is a constitutional post; the incumbent definitely has the legal authority to comment. But when those comments disagree with the supreme court's judgment, what stands is the judgment.

The present AG has a history of batting for the alcohol industry, at times taking on elected governments - even while being the AG. So it stands to common sense his legal advice will lean towards the position that benefits the industry.

[gupta_chd]

Originally Posted by binand

It is not clear to me how you jump from this premise:

No jumping to the premise buddy. This was in news which I quoted and mentioned as well clearly in my post.

Originally Posted by binand

Lastly, this judgment is in no way comparable to any of the NGT's, since the latter is not a judicial body at all (so your phrase "judiciary like the NGT" contains a factual error). In particular, (state and union) governments are constitutionally required to implement the decisions of the supreme court (within the framework of article 142 of the constitution) or risk serious consequences.

NGT has judicial powers in environment related matters. Of course, appeal can be filed in supreme court against NGT orders akin to orders of lower courts, but not anywhere else.

[binand]

Originally Posted by gupta_chd

No jumping to the premise buddy.

I didn't say you jumped to the premise. I said you jumped from the premise to a conclusion by way of some reasoning which I couldn't follow.

As for the NGT a quick perusal of the NGT Act (available on its website) - which says that its members are appointed and removed by the government, violating the separation of powers principle - removes any doubt that the NGT is an administrative body.

[deerhunter]

Originally Posted by gupta_chd

NGT has judicial powers in environment related matters. Of course, appeal can be filed in supreme court against NGT orders akin to orders of lower courts, but not anywhere else.

High courts can hear appeals against NGT orders.

Originally Posted by binand

As for the NGT a quick perusal of the NGT Act (available on its website) - which says that its members are appointed and removed by the government, violating the separation of powers principle - removes any doubt that the NGT is an administrative body.

There are 2 types of tribunals in India, constitutional and statutory. Constitutional tribunals include Central Administrative Tribunal etc, while NGT is statutory. The decisions of CAT and other tribunals are to be enforced similar to the order of a court of law, and appeals against CAT orders lie before the division bench of the high court. All this tribunals are chaired by serving or retired judges.

Chairperson of NGT is appointed in the same way as a judge of the SC is appointed. Also, the chairperson/judicial members of NGT cannot be removed on the whims and fancies of the government. He/she can only be removed for specific reasons and only if the Chief justice(collegium) agrees to it. All the officers and employees of the tribunal are recruited by the chairperson(similar to SC). All this proves that NGT is not a mere administrative body.

Separation of judiciary and executive doesnt mean that the judiciary is not to be appointed by the executive. In India, judiciary was separated from executive by the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973. CRPC clearly states that the separation means that an executive officer shall not have judicial powers and vice versa. Before 1973, District collectors used to function as judicial magistrates, CRPC stopped that.

So, separation of judiciary and executive in Indian context means the prevention of concentration of both judicial and executive powers with the same person. Till 1990s, all the SC judges used to be appointed by the government without the interference of SC. Even now only those people approved by the government are appointed as SC judges. So separation of powers doesnt extend to appointment.

[gupta_chd]

Originally Posted by binand

I didn't say you jumped to the premise. I said you jumped from the premise to a conclusion by way of some reasoning which I couldn't follow.

As for the NGT a quick perusal of the NGT Act (available on its website) - which says that its members are appointed and removed by the government, violating the separation of powers principle - removes any doubt that the NGT is an administrative body.

I do not understand the context of your disagreement. I said that I have quoted the news article which states the mentioned news. So this was all quoted.

I just heard in news that all roads in Chandigarh come under the definition of state highway and consequently, all the liquor vends, bars in the city would be illegal coming April 1 technically

The news article was something similar to this one below. I do not clearly remember the exact one.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/punjab...BU8ziul4O.html

Please read the document at below link which explains the judicial powers of NGT at NGT official website.
http://www.greentribunal.gov.in/DisplayFiles.aspx

Originally Posted by deerhunter

High courts can hear appeals against NGT orders.

I am not sure about this but if you refer the document on above link, it states only the procedure to file appeal in supreme court though there may be more to it.

[deerhunter]

Originally Posted by gupta_chd

I am not sure about this but if you refer the document on above link, it states only the procedure to file appeal in supreme court though there may be more to it.

Parliament has no power to curtail the jurisdiction of the high court or supreme court. So parliament cannot take away the power of high courts to hear appeals on environmental cases, or power to judicial review of laws passed by the parliament. Thus that part of the law which states that the appeal lies only to the SC is void.

This was made clear by the SC in a case regarding appeals from administrative tribunals in 1997. There too, parliament has provided for appeals only in SC. SC made that part of the law void. Because of this judicial precedent, Madras HC ruled that appeals against NGT orders shall lie before the HC. Link

[binand]

Originally Posted by gupta_chd

I do not understand the context of your disagreement. I said that I have quoted the news article which states the mentioned news. So this was all quoted.

Your quoted text is fine. My disagreement was in the context of the subsequent line in your original post, which is:

Another case of poor planning for such decisions and only the whims and fancies of judiciary like the NGT order of banning diesel cars. i highly doubt this order would be implemented in current state.

Specifically, I didn't feel that you had provided sufficient evidence of "poor planning" and that this judgment happened only because of the "whims and fancies of the judiciary". Particularly since I am one of those who want this order to be implement not just in the current state, but also to be extended to roads that are not NH/SH but conform to a certain threshold of traffic density. And I also wanted the present loophole where state governments were de-notifying highways to retain their alcohol revenue (WB).

Originally Posted by gupta_chd

Please read the document at below link which explains the judicial powers of NGT at NGT official website.
http://www.greentribunal.gov.in/DisplayFiles.aspx

Don't think having judicial powers = being part of judiciary. I only read the NGT Act a bit, and found three reasons for me to suspect it is not a judicial body. These were:

1. Appointments were done by central government establishing a certain primacy of the executive on the NGT, but deerhunter has clarified the nuances here.

2. The non-applicability of the Civil Procedure Code and the Indian Evidence Act to NGT. In particular, the latter is applicable to anything that is remotely judicial.

3. The NGT Act's preamble explains the need for judicial and administrative access to victims of pollution etc. and then goes on the mention (in my reading) that the judicial part is taken care of by Article 21 of the constitution, so the tribunal is to fill the administrative vacuum.

As far as the discussion about NGT is concerned, it is off-topic here so let us take that off the main thread and switch to private chat.

[Samurai]

Looks like all the states are solving their revenue problem by converting National Highways into district highways.

http://www.timesnow.tv/india/article...17%2F03%2F2017

[DriverR]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Looks like all the states are solving their revenue problem by converting National Highways into district highways.

http://www.timesnow.tv/india/article...17%2F03%2F2017

Is it legally possible? Wouldn't highways be defined by the NHAI or some other central body? Even if such a step is possible, doesn't it meant that the road maintenance and management now falls on the State govt?

I think it is a myopic action just to escape the ban.

[binand]

News is breaking that the SC has thrown out Mukul Rohatgi's contention that the original order pertains only to retail outlets and not bars or restaurants. Though the 500m limit has been relaxed to 220m in urban areas where the population is below 20,000 and the implementation deadline has been extended till September, the rest of it all has been upheld. So it is indeed goodbye, bars on highways.

Couldn't find an English link; here's one in Malayalam:

http://www.mathrubhumi.com/news/kerala/bar-1.1837565

Kerala is facing a major public backlash in relocating these outlets. They recently changed the law in the state that the municipal NOC for one location is usable throughout that municipality (since their problem #1 was that local bodies were withholding NOC for the new locations). It is not clear to me how they plan to overcome the spontaneous public uprising, though.

[Eddy]

The drama continues

http://www.hindustantimes.com/gurgao...FQcdPmgdL.html