views
window._taboola = window._taboola || [];_taboola.push({mode: 'thumbnails-mid-article',container: 'taboola-mid-article-thumbnails',placement: 'Mid Article Thumbnails',target_type: 'mix'});
let eventFire = false;
window.addEventListener('scroll', () => {
if (window.taboolaInt && !eventFire) {
setTimeout(() => {
ga('send', 'event', 'Mid Article Thumbnails', 'PV');
ga('set', 'dimension22', "Taboola Yes");
}, 4000);
eventFire = true;
}
});
window._taboola = window._taboola || [];_taboola.push({mode: 'thumbnails-a', container: 'taboola-below-article-thumbnails', placement: 'Below Article Thumbnails', target_type: 'mix' });Latest News
Tamil Nadu government today said it
has decided to move the Supreme Court for expediting a pending
case seeking that the 1974 and 1976 accords under which
Katchatheevu islet was ceded to Sri Lanka by India be declared
illegal to pave way for its retrieval.Chief Minister Jayalalithaa said she chaired a review
meeting yesterday with the Chief Secretary and other officials
from relevant departments including Revenue where the decision
was taken."It was decided in the meeting that the Tamil Nadu
government will file a petition in the Supreme Court seeking
to expedite the case (filed by her in 2008 and in which the
Revenue Department impleaded itself later) seeking declaration
of the agreements illegal," she said.The decision was taken following the attacks on Indian
fishermen by Sri Lankan navy which "continue unabated,"
Jayalalithaa said in statement.Katchatheevu in the Palk Straits has come into focus with
Tamil Nadu fishermen alleging frequent attacks by the Sri
Lankan Navy on them when they for fishing near the islet.Jayalalithaa has also repeatedly spoken of the
fishermen's "traditional fishing rights" there while pitching
her case with the Centre for its retrieval from Sri Lanka.She had filed a case in the Supreme Court in 2008 in this
regard, and after her party was elected to power last year,
had moved a resolution in the Assembly seeking to implead the
Revenue Department in the case.
Comments
0 comment