सीजेआई चंद्रचूड़ ने सुप्रीम कोर्ट परिसर में आयुष समग्र कल्याण केंद्र का उद्घाटन किया
CJI Inaugurates AYUSH Holistic Wellness Centre at SC Premises
National subsidized community kitchens: SC declines to pass directions
Calcutta HC Grants Bail to TV Journalist Arrested in Sandeshkhali by WB Police
Vedanta's bid to resume Tuticorin smelter faces scrutiny from court
Bombay HC Quashes Look-Out Circulars Against Actor Rhea Chakraborty, Brother Showik, and Father
Journalist Files Petition in P&H HC Demanding FIR Against Haryana Police for Tear Gas Shell Incident During Farmers' Protest Coverage
Delhi HC Asserts Doctrine of Absolute Privilege: Bars Claims Against Judges, Counsel, Witnesses, or Parties in Judicial Proceedings
Manipur HC Amends 2023 Order, Alters Direction on Meiteis' ST Inclusion
Allahabad HC Deems Non-Appearance of Advocates in Listed Cases as Professional Misconduct and Bench Hunting
Tirth Yatra Scheme Faces Legal Challenge as PIL Hits P&H High Court

Tirth Yatra Scheme Faces Legal Challenge as PIL Hits P&H High Court

A petition in public interest has been filed in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, bringing the legality of the newly introduced Mukh Mantri Tirth Yatra Scheme under judicial scrutiny.

The Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ritu Bahri and Justice Nidhi Gupta has scheduled December 12 as the next hearing date for the petition filed by Parvinder Singh Kittna, represented by counsel HC Arora.

The Bench was informed that the scheme entailed the operation of 13 trains over a span of 13 weeks in the current fiscal year, with each train designed to accommodate 1,000 devotees.

Additionally, 10 buses were scheduled to operate daily from different locations within the state, transporting passengers to various destinations, with each bus accommodating 43 passengers.

The implementation of the scheme was projected to incur an expenditure of Rs 40 crore in the current financial year.

The petitioner argued that the scheme amounted to a misuse of taxpayers' funds and wouldn't contribute to any substantial development or welfare. Moreover, they claimed that the scheme contradicted directives issued by the Supreme Court in a 2022 case.
Share this News

Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy