Thursday, February 28, 2013

A Shocking Admission about Law and Order in Gujarat ?!! Is there any remedies with State ??

Gujarat Minister for State for Home Mr.Rajnikant Patel has admitted before Assembly house in reply to a question that Out of the 348 cases of house break-ins, 256 cases are yet to be solved; while 12 thefts in temples too remain a mystery. The detection ratio in the cases of chain snatching is quite poor as well. According to the data provided of the 161 cases of chain snatching, 120 are still remained unsolved...!!!! It is also said that Ahmedabad city has reported more than one incident of house break-ins every day and an incident of chain snatching every alternate day in the past six months. This is the latest picture of Law and Order in Gujarat..

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Law Minister admits about Ahmedabad having highest pending litigation..but what solution to resolve "Justice delayed is Justice Denied" ??!!

As per a news report in Time of India. it is said today by the Law Minsiter of Gujarat Mr. Bhupendrasinh Chudasama in Assembly, in reply to a question that as many as 4,48,165 cases are pending in different courts of Ahmedabad district only and the highest number of 3,62,851 cases are pending in the metropolitan magistrate court while 42,932 cases in the city civil court of Ahmedabad and the family courts also have 9,068 cases pending. The figures for small cause courts, industrial courts and labour court are 11819,and 3,797 and 17,698 respectively. This is prima facie a general statistics of only Ahmedabad District in Gujarat and there are many more such other districts in Gujarat, having flooded with lacs of such pending litigation, which are simply awaiting for their final verdicts or disposal since many years and some cases are even pending since many decades too... I would like to ask to our Law Minister Mr. Chudasama... Whether his MODI Government will also take pride for this tremendous growth and increases in the figures of all such pending court cases in our court ???!! What measures are taken to resolve this increasing issue, causing and justifying the saying " Justice Delayed is Justice Denied ...".Simply by appointing new judges and new courts are not their solution.. but quick judicial disposal by our Hon'ble Judiciary in coordination with the bench and bar can only resolve these pending and delayed cases...

Friday, February 22, 2013

Can a State endow its valuable lands at rediculous rent for any business purpose? Cancellation of Lease of Patajali Yogpeeth raises new issue !!!

As per a news report of The India Express today, About 28 acres of land near Sadhupul in Solan district was given to Patanjali Yogpeeth by the previous BJP government in Himachal Pradesh in 2010 for just for a token lease of Rs 1 per year for a period of 99 years. And Mr. Balkrishna said and tried to save their skin that there was nothing wrong in giving the land on a token lease to the Yogpeeth as it was to be used for people's welfare and not commercial purpose, even though it is a fact that commercial activities like sale and distribution of Ayurvedic Medicines, Herbal Products and honey are conducted in a huge business pattern. Yet for that so-called reason, it is now heard that Yoga guru Ramdev's Patanjali Yogpeeth will go to court against the Himachal Pradesh government's order, recently cancelling the said lease of land, endowed to it by the previous BJP government. Now this is a perfect news report exposing BJP freely distributing valuable lands to its allies like Baba Ramdev, who is in reward aggressively campaigning for BJP against congress. This is the true picture of our political parties doing such free distribution to their allies when they are in power. And it is also alleged that such other kinds of lands distributions are also made in Gujarat by Modi's BJP Government to their certain near and dear industrialists, who promote Mr. Modi for PM, even before the election of the parliament happens. In the city of Kapadwanj in Gujarat, a portion of a valuable lands out of the S.T. Depot has also been leased to some interested person by Government of Gujarat, and now there is a big Commercial complex, where offices are freely held and transferred by private parties, without any interference of the State who incurs a a great deal of loss of public money. This is really ridiculous.... Several court litigation are also pending and awaiting for judicial verdicts before various Courts in Gujarat too, in respect of certain alleged lands distribution by Gujarat Government... In past the Congress has also endowed many such valuable pieces of lands and properties to their allies, which have become debatable in past...But in brief, the vital and important question of facts and laws is that whether a State Government can endow its valuable lands to any private parties for any such commercial or industrial purpose for such a ridiculous rent or in such a manner ??

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Violent Face of Strike targeting innocent people and private properties ? Who is responsible? Demonstrators or their leaders Calling strike or the Poor Controlling State Authorities??

Can any political leader or Unionist now adjudicate or comment over any such violent face of present bandh, striking over the innocent people and private properties today at Noida and other parts of our Nation??? Who is responsible for any damages and hardships occurred to any innocent persons and their public as well as private properties ?? Does the laws of our Land permit to assault innocent people or breaking private cars and buses or factories or public buildings ???... Why all those Notorious demonstrators and their leaders calling such kind of strike or Bandh, running to the detriment of the public and private properties should not be punished for taking laws in their hands ??? Is this all justified in the name of Freedom of Demonstration ?? This is the time for the law abiding people of our country, to think and resolve and raise their Voice to nip in the bud all such harmful unwanted activities, which are always aimed not only against the national interest but also against the public and private interest.

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Silence of Gujarat State Government may be a deemed consent to illegal ban of the passenger public of Gujarat by its ST Employees

Recently the trade unions of the drivers as well as the officers employees of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (GSRTC) have threatened and called for going on strike from today midnight i.e of 19th February in all over our Gujarat State, simply in the name of the so-called protest against the proposed hikes in Diesel rates by various companies, even though all these employees are never going to be affected at all by any such proposed diesel rate hikes. On the contrary the Gujarat S. T. Corporation, who is the ST vehicles owner only, has to bear and incur all such proposed charges of diesel on hiked rates. But when more VAT and other taxes are already imposed in respect of Diesel and petrol in our Gujarat State, then BJP Government of Gujarat is not in any position to go on strike against any such Diesel rate hikes. Moreover any such action of strike shall also target to take in ban all our poor innocent passenger people of Gujarat during current marriage season and consequently such a strike shall not only be against law and order but also against public interest and policy too. Hence under such the unfortunate circumstances, the trade unions of the drivers and officers employees of Gujarat S.T. Corporation (GSRTC)are somehow encouraged to go on such protest for any foreseen political gain, even it is against the interest of the public at large in our state of Gujarat. Then one has to now look at this naked true facts of laws that all such kinds of strike affecting the public at large are absolutely illegal as per the rulings of our Hon'ble Supreme Court. And when our laws has clearly defined that the ST employees are also the agents of Gujarat State Government, hence any such action of strike can also be deeded to have been done by and on behalf of the State Government too, in as much as State Government is always vicariously liable for all such legal and illegal actions of its employees, done in respect of and within the colors of their their respective jobs. So now the Silence of Gujarat State Government is not remained any question mark at all, but it seems to be a simple politically oriented move, putting gun on others' shoulders. And if it is true, it may be understood as a deemed consent and active participation of our State Government into an illegal ban of the poor passengers people of Gujarat by its agents and ST Employees, for which all of them can be jointly and severally liable too for all inconvenience to the people at large in the eyes of laws.

Thursday, February 14, 2013

SC: "Lodgment of two FIRs is permissible". Concept of sameness of FIR redefined by the Apex Court

While exercising Criminal Appellant Jurisdiction in the matters of CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.305 OF 2013,moved by appellants Mr. Surender Kaushik and others, against State of UP, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has today set up a landmark principles for lodging two FIRs in respect of a single incident, and has redefined concept of sameness of FIR, by observing that:" it is quite luminous that the lodgment of two FIRs is not permissible in respect of one and the same incident. The concept of sameness has been given a restricted meaning. It does not encompass filing of a counter FIR relating to the same or connected cognizable offence. What is prohibited is any further complaint by the same complainant and others against the same accused subsequent to the registration of the case under the Code, for an investigation in that regard would have already commenced and allowing registration of further complaint would amount to an improvement of the facts mentioned in the original complaint. As is further made clear by the three-Judge Bench in Upkar Singh (supra), the prohibition does not cover the allegations made by the accused in the first FIR alleging a different version of the same incident. Thus, rival versions in respect of the same incident do take different shapes and in that event, lodgment of two FIRs is permissible.

Gujarat HC stays commercial operations of 12 units in Adani Port SEZ

As per the reliable news reports, The Gujarat High Court has today stayed commercial operations and development activities of 12 companies located in the Adani Group owned Adani Port Special Economic Zone (APSEZ) in Mundra taluka of Kutch district, till environmental clearance is granted to them by Union Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), while adjudicating a public interest litigation (PIL) filed last year by villagers of Navinal village in Mundra. It was alleged in the aforesaid PIL that these companies in question have not only developed production units against laws but also were importing and exporting various goods, and have also obtained tax exemptions as per rules of the SEZ, in violation of laws and orders of the court, despite no environmental clearance by the MoEF. A division bench of the Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Bhaskar Bhattacharya and Justice Mr. J B Pardiwala, have also issued notices to the Union government, MoEF, APSEZ, Gujarat Pollution Control Board (GPCB) and the companies in question. It is further ordered by the Hon'ble High Court to all the respondents in the case to file their replies before the next hearing which is scheduled after 15 days.

Wednesday, February 6, 2013

The Apex Court made mandatory for states to provide a plain-clothed special juvenile police officer (SJPO) in every police station.

Taking a very serious note of a true bitter fact about the missing of over 1.17 lakh children from 392 districts in India, during the period of January 2008 to January 2010, and Out of them, 41,546 are still untraced The Supreme Court of India has recently issued a ruling whip on Thursday, making it mandatory for all our states to provide a plain-clothed special juvenile police officer (SJPO) in every police station. And in addition to this, the states are also ordered to create a Special Juvenile Police Unit (SJPU), comprising personnel specially trained and oriented for child causes (read offences) in every district and each missing child report must be converted into FIRs. The Supreme Court on Thursday made it mandatory for police stations across the country to compulsorily register missing complaints of any minor and appoint a special police officer to handle complaints of juveniles. Such police personnel should be stationed at every police station in plain clothes. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also emphasized that in the first instance, the police should not shirk its responsibility, but to register an FIR for every missing child complaint. It is also ordered by the Bench to the chief secretaries of Tamil Nadu, Odisha, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh and Goa to be present in court.

Saturday, February 2, 2013

The Apex Court criticized the seizure of vehicle in police station of Gujarat in open condition.

While setting aside order dated 24.08.2012, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Gandhinagar in Criminal Misc. Application No. 9 of 2012, order dated 01.09.2012, passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar in Criminal Revision Application No. 73 of 2012 and order dated 25.09.2012, passed by the High Court in Special Criminal Application No. 2755 of 2012 and directing to release the seized vehicle - Eicher Truck bearing Registration. No. GJ-9-Z-3801 of Gujarat, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has striongly criticized today in the matters of CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 219 OF 2013 that " It is true that Section 5(1)of the Gujarat Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, 2011 prohibits slaughtering of any animal without a certificate in writing from the Competent Authority that the animal is fit for slaughter. In other words, without a certificate from competent authority, no animal could be slaughtered. Sub-section (1A) to Section 5 mandates that no certificate under sub-section (1) shall be granted in respect of the abovementioned animals. In the said section, admittedly, ‘buffalo calf’ has not been mentioned as prohibited animal. In such circumstance, the prohibition relating to release of vehicle before a period of six months as mentioned in Section 6B(3) of the Amendment Act is not applicable since the appellant was transporting 28 buffalo calves only. In view of the same, it is not advisable to keep the seized vehicle in the police station in open condition which is prone to natural decay on account of weather conditions. In addition to the above interpretation, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep the seized vehicle in the police station for a long period."

Popular Posts on our Law Office Blogs