Over 1.28 lakh tourists visit Statue of Unity in 11 days
Vadodara, Nov 11 : Since opening for the public on November 1, the 182-metre tall Statue of Unity in Narmada district of Gujarat has attracted more than 1.28 lakh tourists, officials said.
A huge rush of tourists was seen during the weekend, with over 50,000 people visiting the world's tallest statue at Kevadiya village on Saturday and Sunday alone (November 10- 11), they said.
"Since November 1, when the statue opened for the public, we have received around 1.28 lakh tourists (till Sunday)," Superintending Engineer of Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd (SSNNL) R G Kanungo said.
Over 24,000 tourists visited the site Sunday and more than 27,000 Saturday, he said.
The statue, dedicated to `Iron Man of India' Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, is situated on an islet near the Sardar Sarovar Dam in Kevadiya. It was inaugurated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi on October 31.
Talking to PTI, Principal Secretary (Tourism) S J Haider said more than 10,000 tourists had visited the statue on the very first day of its opening.
"The number of tourists kept on increasing since November 1," he said.
Haider said the government is ready to welcome any number of tourists at the site.
He said the new tourist attraction in Gujarat will help increase the number of travellers visiting the state from other parts of the country and also abroad.
"Gujarat has registered 17 per cent year-on growth in tourism with a total 5.2 crore tourists visiting the state in 2017. The Statue of Unity will help in achieving considerable growth in arrival of tourists to Gujarat," he said.
The towering structure, built at a cost of Rs 2,989 crore, is nearly twice the height of Statue of Liberty in United States and also bigger than Spring Temple Buddha, China (153 metres) and Ushika Daibustum Japan (120 metres).
Along with the Statue of Unity, Gujarat Tourism has added many attractions nearby for sight-seeing. Two tent cities have been created along the backwater lakes of the Narmada dam reservoir for tourists who want to stay there.
Among the prime attractions at the site is a viewers gallery inside the statue located at a height of 135 metres with a capacity to accommodate 200 persons at a time.
High-speed lifts installed there are capable of taking 5,000 people per day to the viewing gallery, which offers a panoramic glimpse of the surrounding areas.
The ambitious project was announced in 2010 and a special purpose vehicle was set up by the state government for its construction.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Delhi HC Judge Justice Sharma to pass order on recusal plea by Kejriwal at 4.30 pm
New Delhi (PTI): Delhi High Court Judge Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on Monday said that she would pronounce her verdict at 4.30 pm on pleas by Arvind Kejriwal and others seeking her recusal in the liquor policy case, as she took on record additional pleadings by the AAP chief on his plea.
Justice Sharma said although the pronouncement was scheduled for 2:30 pm, she was "going out of her way" in accepting Kejriwal's rejoinder as a written submission in the matter.
The former chief minister virtually appeared before the judge through video conferencing and urged her to take on record his rejoinder to the written submissions filed by the CBI.
Even as Kejriwal asserted that the registry's refusal to take his rejoinder on record was "miscarriage of justice", Justice Sharma remarked that since he was not being represented by a lawyer, the court went "out of its way" for him when it permitted him to file his additional affidavit last week even after the order on the recusal issue was reserved.
The judge said that as per the registry's rule, a party in-person must take permission from the court to file anything and since the present case was not "extraordinary", the same practice was being followed.
She added that in law, there is no concept of filing a "rejoinder" to the opposite party's written submissions, and she would permit Kejriwal to tender his pleadings as written submissions instead, so that he does not feel that he was not heard.
"You say you have respect for me. I have respect for every litigant. The rule of court will not be changed for anyone so I will treat it as written submissions. I am taking it on record. I am giving the indulgence to Mr Kejriwal," the court stated.
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta appeared for the CBI and opposed Kejriwal's request to file rejoinder. Mehta said nowhere in the country were pleadings taken on record after order was reserved a court.
He also said there is no concept of filing rejoinder to a written submission, and the court should do what it would do for any ordinary litigant.
Kejriwal had raised several objections against the judge hearing the CBI's plea against his discharge in the liquor policy case, including that she had earlier denied him relief on his petition challenging his arrest and refused to grant relief on the bail pleas of other accused, including Manish Sisodia and K Kavitha.
He also claimed that Justice Sharma had made "strong and conclusive" findings.
The former Delhi chief minister further alleged a "direct conflict of interest", claiming that the judge's children are empanelled central government lawyers who receive work through the solicitor general, who is appearing in the matter for the CBI.
Besides Kejriwal, the applications for recusal of the judge were also filed by AAP leaders Manish Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak.
Other respondents, including Vijay Nair and Arun Ramchandra Pillai, have also sought her recusal.
Solicitor General urged Justice Sharma to initiate contempt action against Kejriwal and others for seeking her recusal.
Terming concerns by Kejriwal and others as "apprehensions of an immature mind," Mehta told the court it was a matter of "institutional respect" and Justice Sharma should not succumb to pressure as her recusal on "unfounded allegations" would set a bad precedent.
On February 27, the trial court discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia and others in the Delhi liquor policy case, saying that the CBI's case was wholly unable to survive judicial scrutiny and stood discredited in its entirety.
