BJP’s charges are wild, says Kar­nataka CM

DNA (Daily News & Analysis) Mumbai Edition - - FRONT PAGE -

Kar­nataka Chief Min­is­ter on Mon­day ac­cused the BJP of mak­ing “wild” al­le­ga­tions against him and termed it as “sign of their fear and des­per­a­tion”.

Speak­ing to re­porters here, Sid­dara­ma­iah said he had been tar­geted by the BJP be­cause he has emerged as a strong leader.

Sid­dara­ma­iah’s re­ac­tion comes in the wake of a se­ries of al­le­ga­tions, in­clud­ing cor­rup­tion, be­ing lev­eled by state BJP lead­ers as part of their cam­paign against the rul­ing party ahead of as­sem­bly polls, due early next year.

“Peo­ple want our gov­ern­ment to come back (to power) again be­cause they know that Sid­dara­ma­iah ful­fills elec­tion prom­ises. They know well that our gov­ern­ment came out with pro­grammes for the eco­nom­i­cally weaker sec­tion, farm­ers, women, back­ward com­mu­ni­ties and mi­nori­ties”, he said.

The Madras High Court has banned all kinds of ban­ners and hoard­ings from ma­jor traf­fic sig­nals in Tamil Nadu, days af­ter di­rect­ing against use of dis­play­ing liv­ing per­son­al­i­ties on hoard­ings.

A Di­vi­sion Bench of Jus­tices MM Sun­dresh and M Sun­dar passed this or­der while hear­ing a pe­ti­tion filed by K Kathir­mathiyon, on be­half of Coim­bat­ore Con­sumer Cause al­leg­ing that the hoard­ings cause in­con­ve­nience to mo­torists and can cause ac­ci­dents.

In­ter­est­ingly, the court had on Oc­to­ber 24, di­rected the au­thor­i­ties to en­sure that pho­to­graphs or of per­sons who are are not put up on ban­ners, flex boards, or sign-boards.

The pe­ti­tion filed by Kathir­mathiyon pointed out that sev­eral ads and hoard­ings put up in the vicin­ity of busy road in­ter­sec­tions and traf­fic sig­nals were in vi­o­la­tion of the guide­lines is­sued by the In­dian Road Congress (IRC) as well as the Tamil Nadu Ur­ban Lo­cal Bod­ies Li­cens­ing of Hoard­ings and Levy and Col­lec­tion of Ad­ver­tise­ment Tax Rules, 2003.

“No sign, sig­nal or any other de­vice erected for traf­fic guid- ance and/or traf­fic in­for­ma­tion shall ob­scure any other traf­fic sign. Fur­ther, the signs and sig­nals shall not carry any ad­ver­tise­ment,” the pe­ti­tioner said cit­ing IRC guide­lines. He was quot­ing IRC re­sponse to his RTI on ad­ver­tise­ments, which pro­hib­ited ads at or within 100 m of road junc­tion.

In the in­ter­est of up­hold­ing the right of way, the court has di­rected that the au­thor­i­ties en­sure such ads and hoard­ings are not erected near traf­fic sig­nals in the fu­ture. How­ever, re­spond­ing to ob­jec­tions raised by pri­vate par­ties to a blan­ket ban, the court al­lowed ads that had been erected af­ter ob­tain­ing due per­mis­sion from con­cerned au­thor­i­ties to con­tinue un­til the ex­pi­ra­tion of their term.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India

© PressReader. All rights reserved.