the man made flood of chennai

The WRD had claimed that a supervision mechanism was in place but the CAG report said that no record was made available on any communications between the Section Officer (in-charge of the tank) with departmental/government officials.

Even if there was communication with the Chief Engineer as claimed by the WRD, the fact remains that the actual inflow and outflow was not regulated as per Central Water Commission (CWC) norms, the report charged.

The WRD had the opportunity to store 0.268 thousand million cubic feet (tmc) more at the tank where the storage stood at 3.377 tmc on December 1, 2015 at 2 pm when the discharge was increased from 12,000 cusecs to 20,960 cusecs.

Auditor’s report says indiscriminate discharge of water from Chembarambakkam lake burdened the Adyar river

The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) has been scathing in its criticism of the government’s handling of the Chennai floods of 2015, going so far as to categorise it as a “man- made disaster”. It has held the government of Tamil Nadu responsible for the scale of the catastrophe, which the latter had termed a “natural disaster”.

The CAG report, ‘Flood management and response in Chennai and its suburban areas’, was tabled by the AIADMK government on Monday.

Though the report was submitted to the government in March 2016, it was not tabled, and the opposition had raised the issue in the Assembly during the last budget session.

Tabled in the Assembly during the last day of the session, the report has found fault with the government on many counts, with the Water Resources Department (WRD) drawing the maximum flak.

The report said that there was indiscriminate discharge of water from the Chembarambakkam reservoir, in excess of inflows, which burdened the Adyar river, leading to floods in the city and its suburbs.'

SC to hear Delhi govt.’s pleas over exercise of its power next week

The five-judge bench had clarified that issues would be dealt separately by an appropriate smaller bench.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear next week the appeals of the Delhi government relating to the scope of its various powers in view of the recent verdict by a Constitution bench that held that the Lieutenant Governor has no independent power to take decisions.

A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra had recently laid down broad parameters for the governance of the national capital, which has witnessed a power struggle between the Centre and Delhi government since the Aam Aadmi Party came to power in 2014.

The bench had clarified that issues regarding various notifications issued by the Delhi government in exercise of its administrative and legislative powers would be dealt separately by an appropriate smaller bench.

The bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud considered the submission of the Delhi government that even after the verdict the stalemate over the issue of public services was continuing and that needed to be dealt with by an appropriate bench.

“It will be listed sometime in next week,” the bench told lawyer Rahul Mehra, representing the Delhi government.

The apex court had in its July 4 ruling, vindicated Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, who has long accused the LG of preventing his government from functioning properly.

It had said that barring three issues of public order, police and land, the Delhi government has the power to legislate and govern on other issues.

There were two LGs - incumbent Anil Baijal and his predecessor Najeeb Jung- with whom Mr. Kejriwal was at loggerheads, accusing them of preventing the functioning of his government at the behest of the Centre.

Two soldiers injured in ongoing Shopian gunfight

Two soldiers have been injured as security forces encircle a group of militants in a residential area in south Kashmir's Shopian on Tuesday morning.

Initial reports suggest two Army men, including a junior commissioned officer, received injuries in the first exchange of fire, as the militants are holed up inside a house at Kundalan village, over 60 km away from Srinagar.

"Two to three militants are believed to be trapped at the encounter site," a police official said.

The Army’s 34 Rashtriya Rifles, the police's Special Operations Group (SOG) of the Jammu and Kashmir Police and CRPF gave engaged the militants in a gunfight. 

Locals said the father of an active militant, Zeenat Naikoo from Memender, died of a cardiac arrest after the militant reportedly spoke to his family on the phone. However, the police could not confirm whether Naikoo is trapped or not at the encounter site.

Scores of locals in the area resorted to stone pelting around the place of encounter. Three youth were injured in the clashes and were shifted to hospitals.

2 soldiers injured in ongoing Shopian gunfightThe district administration has ordered to close all schools "as a precautionary measure". 

Aircel-Maxis case: Chidambaram, son get protection from arrest till Aug 7

A Delhi court on Tuesday extended the protection from arrest granted to former Union minister P Chidambaram and his son Karti in the Aircel-Maxis money laundering case till August 7.

Mr. Chidambaram had on May 30 moved the court seeking protection from arrest in the case, saying all evidence in the matter appears to be documentary in nature which is already in the possession of the incumbent government and nothing was to be recovered from him.

The court had earlier granted interim protection from arrest till Tuesday to Mr. Karti in two cases filed by the CBI and ED in 2011 and 2012, respectively in the Aircel-Maxis matter arising out of 2G spectrum cases.

The matter pertains to grant of Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance to firm M/S Global Communication Holding Services Ltd for investment in Aircel.

THE RESOURCE POINT

                                                THE RESOURCE POINT OF VIEW



THE TIMES TO TAKE
.  .

Risky recourse: on LIC's proposed stake in IDBI Bank

The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India has approved a proposal to allow the Life Insurance Corporation of India to increase its stake in the ailing state-owned IDBI Bank to 51%. The plan envisages the insurer injecting much- needed capital into the financially stressed lender, which was placed under the Reserve Bank of India’s prompt corrective action framework in May 2017 as a consequence of its non-performing assets rising beyond a threshold. While there are no details on how exactly this capital infusion will take place — reports suggesting that the LIC may acquire the additional 40% stake it would need to reach 51% shareholding from the Government of India — market speculation and media reports have estimated figures north of ₹10,000 crore. While for the LIC the sum is a small fraction of the ₹1.24 lakh crore it received in just first-year premiums in the year ended March 31, 2017, for IDBI Bank the funds would almost equal the ₹12,865 crore in capital infusion it got from the government in the last fiscal. Whether this will be adequate to even staunch the flow of red ink at the troubled bank, leave alone help it turn around, is another matter. The bank posted a net loss of ₹8,238 crore in the 12 months ended March 31, 2018, and is facing the prospect of more losses with gross non-performing assets rising to 28%.

The proposal raises several troubling questions. The government clearly sees it as a relatively painless way to recapitalise the bleeding bank without adversely impacting its fiscal position, but the risks in increasingly banking on state-controlled cash-rich corporations to help bail out other state-owned companies or lenders are too significant to be glossed over. Then, there are the regulators. The IRDA, whose mission is to “protect the interest of and secure fair treatment to policyholders”, is reported to have exempted the LIC from the well-reasoned 15% cap on the extent of equity holding an insurer can have in a single company. This puts at risk the interests of the premium-paying customers of the LIC. The Securities and Exchange Board of India has in the past waived the mandatory open offer requirement under its takeover regulations when it involved a state-run acquirer and another state enterprise as the target. As the capital markets watchdog, SEBI has an obligation in all such cases to weigh the interests of the small investor. And the RBI, as the banking regulator, should not ignore the contagion risks that the level of “interconnectedness” the proposed transaction would expose the entire financial system to.