BJP downplays JD(S)-Congress victory in Karnataka bypolls

Mangaluru: In a decisive move to tackle the city’s deteriorating sanitation infrastructure, the Mangaluru City Corporation (MCC) has announced a massive ₹1,200 crore action plan to overhaul its underground drainage (UGD) network.

The initiative, spearheaded by Deputy Commissioner and MCC Administrator Darshan HV, aims to bridge "missing links" in the current system that have left residents grappling with overflowing sewage and environmental hazards.

The Breaking Point

The announcement follows a high-intensity phone-in session on Thursday, where the DC was flooded with grievances from frustrated citizens. Residents, including Savithri from Yekkur, described a harrowing reality: raw sewage from apartments leaking into stormwater drains, creating a "permanent stink" and turning residential zones into mosquito breeding grounds.

"We are facing immense difficulties due to the stench and the health risks. Local officials have remained silent until now," one resident reported during the session.

The Strategy: A Six-Year Vision

DC Darshan HV confirmed that the proposed plan is not a temporary patch but a comprehensive six-year roadmap designed to accommodate Mangaluru’s projected population growth. Key highlights of the plan include:

•    Infrastructure Expansion: Laying additional pipelines to connect older neighborhoods to the main grid.

•    STP Crackdown: Stricter enforcement of Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) regulations. While new apartments are required to have functional STPs, many older buildings lack them entirely, and several newer units are reportedly non-functional.

•    Budgetary Push: The plan has already been discussed with the district in-charge minister and the Secretary of the Urban Development Department. It is slated for formal presentation in the upcoming state budget.

Saudi Arabia has abolished fees on expatriate workers employed in licensed industrial establishments, signaling a strong push to empower national factories and enhance the Kingdom’s global industrial competitiveness. The move reflects the leadership’s commitment to building a sustainable and resilient industrial economy under Saudi Vision 2030.

The decision was approved by the Council of Ministers, chaired by Crown Prince and Prime Minister Mohammed bin Salman, following a recommendation from the Council of Economic and Development Affairs (CEDA). It forms part of a broader strategy to support, modernize, and strengthen the industrial sector.

By removing fees on foreign workers, industrial establishments gain greater operational flexibility and relief from financial pressures. This is expected to help factories expand production, improve efficiency, and compete more effectively in international markets, while reinforcing long-term sustainability.

The initiative aligns closely with Saudi Vision 2030, which identifies industry as a key pillar of economic diversification. A competitive and resilient industrial base is viewed as essential for driving innovation, attracting investment, and sustaining long-term economic growth.

Overall, the fee exemption underscores the Kingdom’s commitment to creating a supportive environment for industrial development and ensuring that Saudi factories remain globally competitive and capable of leading the nation’s economic transformation.

Invoking the teachings of Prophet Muhammad—“pay the worker before his sweat dries”—the Madras High Court has directed a municipal corporation to settle long-pending legal dues owed to a former counsel. The court observed that this principle reflects basic fairness and applies equally to labour and service-related disputes.

Justice G. R. Swaminathan made the observation while hearing a petition filed by advocate P. Thirumalai, who claimed that the Madurai City Municipal Corporation failed to pay him legal fees amounting to ₹13.05 lakh. Earlier, the High Court had asked the corporation to consider his representation. However, a later order rejected a major portion of his claim, prompting the present petition.

The court allowed Thirumalai to approach the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) and submit a list of cases in which he had appeared. It also directed the corporation to settle the verified fee bills within two months, without interest. The court noted that the petitioner had waited nearly 18 years before challenging the non-payment and that the corporation could not be fully blamed, as the fee bills were not submitted properly.

‘A Matter of Embarrassment’

Justice Swaminathan described it as a “matter of embarrassment” that the State has nearly a dozen Additional Advocate Generals. He observed that appointing too many law officers often leads to unnecessary allocation of work and frequent adjournments, as government counsel claim that senior officers are engaged elsewhere.

He expressed hope that such practices would end at least in the Madurai Bench of the High Court and added that Additional Advocate Generals should “turn a new leaf” from 2026 onwards.

‘Scandalously High Amounts’

While stating that the court cannot examine the exact fees paid to senior counsel or law officers, Justice Swaminathan stressed that good governance requires public funds to be used prudently. He expressed concern over the “scandalously high amounts” paid by government and quasi-government bodies to a few favoured law officers.

In contrast, the court noted that Thirumalai’s total claim was “a pittance” considering the large number of cases he had handled.

Background

Thirumalai served as the standing counsel for the Madurai City Municipal Corporation for more than 14 years, from 1992 to 2006. During this period, he represented the corporation in about 818 cases before the Madurai District Courts.

As the former counsel was unable to hire a clerk to obtain certified copies of judgments in all 818 cases, the court directed the District Legal Services Authority to collect the certified copies within two months. The court further ordered the corporation to bear the cost incurred by the DLSA and deduct that amount from the final settlement payable to the petitioner.