![]() Online edition of India's National Newspaper Wednesday, Nov 04, 2009 ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Kerala |
|
News:
ePaper |
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
Advts: Retail Plus | Classifieds | Jobs | Obituary |
Kerala
-
Kochi
Kochi: The Kerala High Court, on Tuesday, directed the Local Administration Secretary to file a report on the pattern of funding and financial assistance given to the panchayats and the government’s view on borrowing by them for starting commercial ventures. The Bench, comprising Justice C.N. Ramachandran Nair and Justice V.K. Mohanan, said only surplus funds available after meeting the cost of statutory duties of the panchayats should be diverted for commercial ventures. The court felt that there should be a bar on borrowing by the panchayats for commercial purposes. The commercial ventures, such as construction of shopping complexes, had led to “the financial ruin” of many panchayats. Besides, after paying interest on the borrowed money, many of them did not have any funds for development purposes. The court felt that the government should instruct the panchayats not to engage in unviable commercial ventures. Private practiceThe Advocate-General submitted before the court of Justice T.R. Ramachandran Nair that there was no need to constitute a committee to study the ban on private practice by the faculty members in government medical colleges. He made the submission when writ petitions filed by two doctors against the ban came up for hearing. He submitted that three committees that had gone into the issue earlier had favoured the ban. Renewal stayedJustice P.N. Ravindran stayed the order of the Travancore-Cochin Medical Council requiring the doctors of modern medicine to renew their registration. The stay order came on a writ petition filed by the Qualified Private Medical Practitioners’ Association and Hospitals. It contended that the order was against the Indian Medical Council Act and the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act. The council had no right to issue such an order. These Acts did not provide that a doctor registered as a modern medical practitioner should renew his or her registration every five years.
Printer friendly
page
News:
ePaper |
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | The Hindu ePaper | Business Line | Business Line ePaper | Sportstar | Frontline | Publications | eBooks | Images | Ergo | Home |
Copyright © 2009, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|