The directions came in a petition filed by Apnaghar Unit no 9 Cooperative Housing Society in Lokhandwala Complex against one Nitin Kashinath Gaikwad who had been sanctioned the zunka bhakar kendra by the collector in 1997. The construction of the stall, that has been injuncted by the high court in an earlier order, is being resisted by the housing society since the strip of land on which the stall is to be built was already awarded to the society for beautification.

Counsel for the petitioners, Yusuf Mulani, had argued that the state government had itself scrapped the zunka bhakar scheme through a government resolution dated January 22, 1999. All subsidies to be forwarded to such schemes had also been scrapped. He argued that in such a situation, Gaikwad could not be allowedto construct his stall. He pointed out that the permission given by the BMC on March 30, 1999 after the scheme had already been scrapped by the state government was illegal.

The counsel for the respondent however had argued that the orders for the 20 X 10 stall had already been sanctioned by the collector and the petitioners were responsible for stopping a person from eking out his livelihood.

HC allows Symbiosis to conduct journalism courses

A division bench of Justice N J Pandya and Justice R J Kochar on Tuesday permitted the Symbiosis Society of Institute of Journalism and Communication to conduct its course of journalism in Pune. The decision came in the wake of a petition filed by the institute against the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (MRTPC) which took objection to the institute running the course.

According to the petitioners, the institute had advertised in the newspapers for conducting the courses in June 1996. The director general of investigation andregistration of MRTPC had in February 1997 written a letter to Symbiosis saying that since the institute had not taken permission from this commission to conduct the courses, it could not do so. It had also taken objection to the institute mentioning in the advertisement that the courses were ``recognised''. The MRTPC claimed the advertisement was ``misleading''.