Monday, January 28, 2008
Fight between Iron Ore Giants in Andhra
Andhra Pradesh High Court on Thursdaydirected the District Judge of Anantapur to conduct a factfinding enquiry at H.Siddapuram and D.Hirehal mandals on the fact as to who is conducting the mining operations.While dealing with an amendment petition filed by Bellary Iron Ore Private Limited seeking modification of the earlier orders of the court , Justice PS.Narayana asked the District Judge to submit the report within a week.In earlier petition the petitioner had alleged that the manager of the Obulapuram Mining Company Pvt Ltd (OMC) along with about 25 armed personnel trespassed into their mines on January 14 and destroyed the common boundary line and threatened their employees and staff with dire consequences .The court gave direction on January 21 that the Bellary IronOres Pvt Ltd and the OMC to maintain status quo with respect to H. Siddapuram mining area in Ananthapur district.The petitioner urged the court to amend the earlier order and prevent the OMC to carrying minig operations in the area.
Boarder dispute between Iron Ore giants
Andhra Pradesh High Court on Thursday directed the District Judge of Anantapur to conduct a factfinding enquiry at H.Siddapuram and D.Hirehal mandals on the fact as to who is conducting the mining operations.While dealing with an amendment petition filed by BellaryIron Ore Private Limited seeking modification of the earlierorders of the court , Justice PS.Narayana asked the DistrictJudge to submit the report within a week.In earlier petition the petitioner had alleged that the manager ofthe Obulapuram Mining Company Pvt Ltd (OMC) along withabout 25 armed personnel trespassed into their mines onJanuary 14 and destroyed the common boundary line andthreatened their employees and staff with dire consequences .The court gave direction on January 21 that the Bellary IronOres Pvt Ltd and the OMC to maintain status quo with respectto H. Siddapuram mining area in Ananthapur district.The petitioner urged the court to amend the earlier order andprevent the OMC to carrying minig operations in the area.
AP High Court referred Muslim Quota Bill to a larger bench
A five member bench of the AndhraPradesh High Court on Thursday referred the MuslimReservation Bill case to a seven-member bench. This is the first time that a seven-member bench will beconstituted in the High Court.The bench will examine seemingly contrary observationsin the Archana Reddy case (when the AP High Courtstruck down 5 per cent reservations for Muslims) besides Indira Sawhney and Sourab Chandra cases in the Supreme Court.
While referring the batch of writ petitions filed againstand in favour of the four percent reservations to certainbackward groups among muslim community, a larger bench comprising Justice T Meena Kumari, Justice B Prakash Rao, Justice DSR Varma, Justice A Gopal Reddy and Justice V Eswaraiah made certain observations.
The bench observed: "Since the judgement in ArchanaReddy case emanated from a co-ordinated bench of a five judges of this court and since there is no provision in the Statute for publication of the criteria including the correctness or propriety of any court to lay down any such criteria specifically, the observation as contained in the judgement and other observations made by the largerbench are contrary to the observations made by the supreme court in Indira Sawhney case, wherein it was left open for the concerned authorities to lay down the criteria apart from contrary to the principles laid down inregard to strict scrutiny approach as laid down in Sourab Chandra versus Union of India and also the principles laid down in other decisions of the supreme court".S Satyanarayan Prasad, senior counsel for the BC Commission submitted to the court that the supreme court had left the procedure for identification of backwardness among the various communities and castes to the BC Commission.The batch of cases will now be listed before the Chief Justice who would accordingly constitute a bench for consideration of the questions raised by the five member bench.
While referring the batch of writ petitions filed againstand in favour of the four percent reservations to certainbackward groups among muslim community, a larger bench comprising Justice T Meena Kumari, Justice B Prakash Rao, Justice DSR Varma, Justice A Gopal Reddy and Justice V Eswaraiah made certain observations.
The bench observed: "Since the judgement in ArchanaReddy case emanated from a co-ordinated bench of a five judges of this court and since there is no provision in the Statute for publication of the criteria including the correctness or propriety of any court to lay down any such criteria specifically, the observation as contained in the judgement and other observations made by the largerbench are contrary to the observations made by the supreme court in Indira Sawhney case, wherein it was left open for the concerned authorities to lay down the criteria apart from contrary to the principles laid down inregard to strict scrutiny approach as laid down in Sourab Chandra versus Union of India and also the principles laid down in other decisions of the supreme court".S Satyanarayan Prasad, senior counsel for the BC Commission submitted to the court that the supreme court had left the procedure for identification of backwardness among the various communities and castes to the BC Commission.The batch of cases will now be listed before the Chief Justice who would accordingly constitute a bench for consideration of the questions raised by the five member bench.
Union Govt asked AP High Court to vacate stay on Reliance
The Government of India has requested the Andhra Pradesh High Court to vacate the interim stay on the construction of a pipeline by Reliance Industries Limited to transport natural gas from Krishna-Godavari basin to Gujarat. The HC had issued the stay on November 13, 2007, on a petition by certain persons of Medchal village in Ranga Reddy district who complained that RIL was building the pipeline illegally through their lands.
They had requested the court to set aside as illegal and unconstitutional the provisions of the Petroleum and Mineral, Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 and also sough nullification of the notification issued by the government on their lands.
According to the petitioners, the pipeline was solely meant for business and would not benefit the people of the State. However, the Union government said in its affidavit that the allegations and apprehensions of the petitioners were baseless. It pointed out that natural gas produced in K-G basin would be supplied to consumers in various parts of the country including Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat and added that it was a project of immense national importance.The High Court will hear the case again on February 6.
They had requested the court to set aside as illegal and unconstitutional the provisions of the Petroleum and Mineral, Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 and also sough nullification of the notification issued by the government on their lands.
According to the petitioners, the pipeline was solely meant for business and would not benefit the people of the State. However, the Union government said in its affidavit that the allegations and apprehensions of the petitioners were baseless. It pointed out that natural gas produced in K-G basin would be supplied to consumers in various parts of the country including Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat and added that it was a project of immense national importance.The High Court will hear the case again on February 6.
Media Baron Ramoji still faces trouble from the State
Andhra Pradesh government on Wedenesday filed a criminal complaint in court against media baron Ch. Ramoji Rao and his company Margadarsi Financiers on alleged charges of violation of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1953.
Mr T. Krishna Raju, CID inspector-general of police, said the CID had searched the premises of Margadarsi Financiers on February 21, 2007. The CID team earlier seized incriminating documents, deposit certificates and a hard disc.
Mr T. Krishna Raju, CID inspector-general of police, said the CID had searched the premises of Margadarsi Financiers on February 21, 2007. The CID team earlier seized incriminating documents, deposit certificates and a hard disc.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Railways lose land, move court on GHMC
By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad, Jan. 25: The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation on Friday bulldozed compound walls of the South Central Railway’s quarters on the road from Sangeet to Tarnaka, much to the dismay and anger of railway officials. It also felled more than half-a-dozen fully grown trees along the road without getting permission from the forest department.
A row had been on between the GHMC and the SCR over the ownership of the property which came in the way of road widening.
Though the land is under the possession of the railways, the civic body had been claiming that it was owned by the state government and had refused to pay the Rs 140 crore compensation sought by the SCR.
On Friday morning, the GHMC brought the debate to an abrupt end by rolling in bulldozers and demolishing the structures, shocking SCR officials living in the quarters. The GHMC needs 80,000 square yards of land on this stretch for road widening.On getting news of the demolition, SCR officials including the chief engineer rushed to the spot.
However, top GHMC officials slipped away tactfully at the right moment leaving their juniors to deal with the issue. Despite trying several times, SCR officials were unable to get the GHMC Commissioner, Dr C.V.S.K. Sarma, or the Additional Commissioner, Mr Dhanunjay Reddy, on the phone.
The SCR spokesman, Mr Krishnaiah, told this correspondent that the GHMC action amounted to cheating. “How can they do it when the land dispute has not reached any conclusion?” he asked. In a press release issued late in the evening, the SCR castigated the GHMC demolition as illegal and arbitrary and added that the entire stretch of property had been with the railways for more than 100 years.
However, Dr Sarma said that the SCR did not hand over the land despite notices being issued. “We had warned that if the portion was not handed over by January 24, we will take action,” he said.
Mr Dhanunjaya Reddy also added that the GHMC had submitted relevant documents proving that the railways had been given the land on lease by the state government. “The lease expired in 1979,” he said.
The GHMC’s indiscriminate felling of trees on the road also evoked shock and surprise. What is more, the civic body is planning to cut more trees in the area in the coming days. “We have written to the forest department but I have to check whether we got a reply,” said the GHMC Chief Horticulturist, Mr Konda Reddy.
Meanwhile, the Andhra Pradesh High Court expressed dismay over the land dispute between the GHMC and the SCR and asked the latter to file a criminal complaint and a private complaint against the GHMC commissioner.
When the SCR counsel, Poluri Bhaskar, told the court about the bulldozing of the wall by the GHMC, Justice G. Raghuram asked, “Why didn’t you seek the help of the Railway Protection Force?”
Hyderabad, Jan. 25: The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation on Friday bulldozed compound walls of the South Central Railway’s quarters on the road from Sangeet to Tarnaka, much to the dismay and anger of railway officials. It also felled more than half-a-dozen fully grown trees along the road without getting permission from the forest department.
A row had been on between the GHMC and the SCR over the ownership of the property which came in the way of road widening.
Though the land is under the possession of the railways, the civic body had been claiming that it was owned by the state government and had refused to pay the Rs 140 crore compensation sought by the SCR.
On Friday morning, the GHMC brought the debate to an abrupt end by rolling in bulldozers and demolishing the structures, shocking SCR officials living in the quarters. The GHMC needs 80,000 square yards of land on this stretch for road widening.On getting news of the demolition, SCR officials including the chief engineer rushed to the spot.
However, top GHMC officials slipped away tactfully at the right moment leaving their juniors to deal with the issue. Despite trying several times, SCR officials were unable to get the GHMC Commissioner, Dr C.V.S.K. Sarma, or the Additional Commissioner, Mr Dhanunjay Reddy, on the phone.
The SCR spokesman, Mr Krishnaiah, told this correspondent that the GHMC action amounted to cheating. “How can they do it when the land dispute has not reached any conclusion?” he asked. In a press release issued late in the evening, the SCR castigated the GHMC demolition as illegal and arbitrary and added that the entire stretch of property had been with the railways for more than 100 years.
However, Dr Sarma said that the SCR did not hand over the land despite notices being issued. “We had warned that if the portion was not handed over by January 24, we will take action,” he said.
Mr Dhanunjaya Reddy also added that the GHMC had submitted relevant documents proving that the railways had been given the land on lease by the state government. “The lease expired in 1979,” he said.
The GHMC’s indiscriminate felling of trees on the road also evoked shock and surprise. What is more, the civic body is planning to cut more trees in the area in the coming days. “We have written to the forest department but I have to check whether we got a reply,” said the GHMC Chief Horticulturist, Mr Konda Reddy.
Meanwhile, the Andhra Pradesh High Court expressed dismay over the land dispute between the GHMC and the SCR and asked the latter to file a criminal complaint and a private complaint against the GHMC commissioner.
When the SCR counsel, Poluri Bhaskar, told the court about the bulldozing of the wall by the GHMC, Justice G. Raghuram asked, “Why didn’t you seek the help of the Railway Protection Force?”
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
HC to set up largest-ever bench
Hyderabad, Jan. 22: The Andhra Pradesh High Court is likely to constitute a seven-member constitution bench to hear a batch of writ petitions filed in support of and against the four per cent reservations to backward groups among Muslim community.
Sources said that this would be the first time that a seven-member bench was being constituted by the AP High Court to hear a case. A larger bench of the High Court comprising Justice Meena Kumari, Justice B. Prakash Rao, Justice D.S.R. Varma, Justice A. Gopal Reddy and Justice V. Eswaraiah, is presently hearing the batch of petitions relating to the reservation issue. On Tuesday, the bench indicated that they would in all likelihood refer the case to a seven-member constitution bench.
The bench also hinted that it will take the relevant decision on Wednesday. Before giving these indications, members of the bench had a serious discussion on the issue. Earlier, the bench heard the arguments of Mr L. Ravichander, counsel for one of the petitioners, Mr D. Karunakar. He submitted that authorities did not have any criteria or data on the backwardness of the Muslim groups. He told the court that the petitioner had submitted an application on May 22, 2007, seeking the information collected by the backward class commission on Muslim groups. But the commission replied that it did not have any data. The petitioner again submitted an application on June 29 seeking the information and the commission replied once more that it did not have the relevant data. "When the commission does not have any data, then on what basis did it recommend that reservations be given to these groups?" asked the counsel. Mr Ravichander argued that the BC commission had relied heavily on the Krishnan committee’s report and had not independently conducted any study.
Sources said that this would be the first time that a seven-member bench was being constituted by the AP High Court to hear a case. A larger bench of the High Court comprising Justice Meena Kumari, Justice B. Prakash Rao, Justice D.S.R. Varma, Justice A. Gopal Reddy and Justice V. Eswaraiah, is presently hearing the batch of petitions relating to the reservation issue. On Tuesday, the bench indicated that they would in all likelihood refer the case to a seven-member constitution bench.
The bench also hinted that it will take the relevant decision on Wednesday. Before giving these indications, members of the bench had a serious discussion on the issue. Earlier, the bench heard the arguments of Mr L. Ravichander, counsel for one of the petitioners, Mr D. Karunakar. He submitted that authorities did not have any criteria or data on the backwardness of the Muslim groups. He told the court that the petitioner had submitted an application on May 22, 2007, seeking the information collected by the backward class commission on Muslim groups. But the commission replied that it did not have any data. The petitioner again submitted an application on June 29 seeking the information and the commission replied once more that it did not have the relevant data. "When the commission does not have any data, then on what basis did it recommend that reservations be given to these groups?" asked the counsel. Mr Ravichander argued that the BC commission had relied heavily on the Krishnan committee’s report and had not independently conducted any study.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Government biggest litigant
Hyderabad, Jan. 19: The government is the biggest litigant in the state with as many as 70,000 cases pending in various courts. Some of these date back to over two decades. The revenue department tops the list with 19,633 cases, sources in the law department told this correspondent. Most cases pertain to land acquisition where the government has dragged on the cases. The irrigation and command area development department has 11,704 cases and the labour and employment 5,351 cases, the sources said quoting figures recently collated by law the department.
The home department has 3,497 cases which are mostly criminal appeals filed by the government and revision petitions filed by aggrieved persons. Of the 70,000 cases, about 20,000 cases are more than five years old. There are 32,279 cases involving the government pending in the AP High Court. Sources pointed out that the Somasila, Telugu Ganga and Priydarshini Jurala projects were constructed a decade ago but disputes over land acquisition for these projects are still pending in courts. The displaced farmers of Somasila are still doing the rounds of the courts for three decades. Some petitioner-farmers visit the AP High Court carrying lunch boxes almost every day. The AP High Court recently disposed of a batch of writ petitions pertaining to Velugodu balancing reservoir, Sriramsagar and Jurala projects. The government has admitted before the High Court that over 600 cases of land acquisition are pending for over two decades. Most of the petitioners have died and their heirs are pursing the cases.
The AP High Court has on several occasions pulled up officials including the chief secretary over laxity in settling issues which leads to people to move the courts.Keeping in view the mounting cases, the government has proposed to set up legal cells in all departments. It has also decided to constitute a special legal wing in the law department to monitor the cases daily.Law sources told this correspondent that the constitution of a special wing is awaiting the approval of the Chief Minister, Dr Y.S. Rajasekhar Reddy. The government has also decided to appoint special solicitors for dispose of the pending cases.
The home department has 3,497 cases which are mostly criminal appeals filed by the government and revision petitions filed by aggrieved persons. Of the 70,000 cases, about 20,000 cases are more than five years old. There are 32,279 cases involving the government pending in the AP High Court. Sources pointed out that the Somasila, Telugu Ganga and Priydarshini Jurala projects were constructed a decade ago but disputes over land acquisition for these projects are still pending in courts. The displaced farmers of Somasila are still doing the rounds of the courts for three decades. Some petitioner-farmers visit the AP High Court carrying lunch boxes almost every day. The AP High Court recently disposed of a batch of writ petitions pertaining to Velugodu balancing reservoir, Sriramsagar and Jurala projects. The government has admitted before the High Court that over 600 cases of land acquisition are pending for over two decades. Most of the petitioners have died and their heirs are pursing the cases.
The AP High Court has on several occasions pulled up officials including the chief secretary over laxity in settling issues which leads to people to move the courts.Keeping in view the mounting cases, the government has proposed to set up legal cells in all departments. It has also decided to constitute a special legal wing in the law department to monitor the cases daily.Law sources told this correspondent that the constitution of a special wing is awaiting the approval of the Chief Minister, Dr Y.S. Rajasekhar Reddy. The government has also decided to appoint special solicitors for dispose of the pending cases.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
State, Reliance get High Court notice for choking waterbodies
The Andhra Pradesh High Court issued notices to the Central and state governments and Reliance Industries on a petition that charged the oil giant with choking protected streams and creeks. The petitioner, Venkataramana Matsyakara Sankshema Seva Sangham, alleged that Reliance is dumping construction materials into several streams and creeks including a major creek, Mandara Kalva, at Gadimoga in East Godavari district.
The Venkataramana Matsyakara Sankshema Seva Sangham said the government allotted 87 hectares to Reliance to construct an offshore block to transport crude oil extracted from the KG basin. The land is situated within a prohibited zone near a bird sanctuary. The petitioner also alleged that Reliance has started construction activity beyond the 87 hectares, filling up creeks and streams and destroying mangrove forests. The court was told that a Coastal Regulatory Zone notification prohibited any interference with creeks near the shore. The petitioner urged the court to direct the respondents to remove the materials dumped in the creeks and other waterbodies. A division bench comprising Chief Justice A.R. Dave and Justice Meena Kumari directed the respondents to file their counter affidavits before February 13.
The Venkataramana Matsyakara Sankshema Seva Sangham said the government allotted 87 hectares to Reliance to construct an offshore block to transport crude oil extracted from the KG basin. The land is situated within a prohibited zone near a bird sanctuary. The petitioner also alleged that Reliance has started construction activity beyond the 87 hectares, filling up creeks and streams and destroying mangrove forests. The court was told that a Coastal Regulatory Zone notification prohibited any interference with creeks near the shore. The petitioner urged the court to direct the respondents to remove the materials dumped in the creeks and other waterbodies. A division bench comprising Chief Justice A.R. Dave and Justice Meena Kumari directed the respondents to file their counter affidavits before February 13.
Friday, January 18, 2008
EC pulls up KCR for poll remarks
The Election Commission of India has expressed displeasure over the statements allegedly made by the TRS president, Mr K. Chandrasekhar Rao, during the by-election to the Karimnagar Lok Sabha constituency. The Election Commission filed an affidavit in the AP High Court on a petition filed by one K. Madhukar Reddy. He alleged that Mr Rao induced voters to take bribe to cast their vote. He urged the court to “debar and disqualify” Mr Rao from contesting elections.
Mr K.F. Wilfred, secretary of the EC, told the court that the statement of Mr Rao amounted to promoting bribery in elections. He said that the EC has decided to convey its displeasure to Dr Rao. He said the EC has warned Mr Rao not to repeat such acts in future. There was no provision to debar or disqualify a candidate, or to recover cost of election from him. Mr Ravishankar Jandhyala asked the High Court division bench comprising Chief Justice A.R. Dave and Justice Meena Kumari to expedite hearing on the petition.
Mr K.F. Wilfred, secretary of the EC, told the court that the statement of Mr Rao amounted to promoting bribery in elections. He said that the EC has decided to convey its displeasure to Dr Rao. He said the EC has warned Mr Rao not to repeat such acts in future. There was no provision to debar or disqualify a candidate, or to recover cost of election from him. Mr Ravishankar Jandhyala asked the High Court division bench comprising Chief Justice A.R. Dave and Justice Meena Kumari to expedite hearing on the petition.
Minor girl writes to HC for right to live
By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad, Jan. 17: A minor girl from Mothkur village in Nalgonda district submitted to the High Court that Article 21 of the Constitution — Right to Life — is also applicable to minors.
The girl who got married to her lover sent a letter to a police station referring to the direction of a sessions court in Delhi that Article 21 will be equally applicable to minors as well as the majors. The court said no one could interfere in the peaceful enjoyment of life by minors.
The girl told the police that they along with her parents and her maternal uncle, would be held responsible if any harm befell her and her husband. The assistant government pleader, Ms Mohana Reddy, submitted the letter and wedding photos of the girl to a division bench comprising Justice A. Gopal Reddy and Justice N. Rammohan Rao on Thursday. The bench asked Ms Reddy to serve notice to the husband of the girl.
Hyderabad, Jan. 17: A minor girl from Mothkur village in Nalgonda district submitted to the High Court that Article 21 of the Constitution — Right to Life — is also applicable to minors.
The girl who got married to her lover sent a letter to a police station referring to the direction of a sessions court in Delhi that Article 21 will be equally applicable to minors as well as the majors. The court said no one could interfere in the peaceful enjoyment of life by minors.
The girl told the police that they along with her parents and her maternal uncle, would be held responsible if any harm befell her and her husband. The assistant government pleader, Ms Mohana Reddy, submitted the letter and wedding photos of the girl to a division bench comprising Justice A. Gopal Reddy and Justice N. Rammohan Rao on Thursday. The bench asked Ms Reddy to serve notice to the husband of the girl.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
CM not at fault, govt to state HC
The state government has informed the AP High Court that the Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister, Dr Y.S. Rajasekhar Reddy, did not violate any law while surrendering assigned land to the government. Dr Reddy and his family surrendered about 300 acres of land in the Idupulapaya Estate at Vempalle, Kadapa district, on December 5, 2006.
The Telugu Desam former minister, Mr P. Ashok Gajapathy Raju, filed a public interest litigation in the AP High Court alleging that the Chief Minister had violated a slew of laws. Mr Gajapathy Raju urged the court to direct the government to initiate criminal action against the Chief Minster.
In response to a notice, the Kadapa district collector filed an affidavit stating that the Chief Minister and his family had said they had purchased the land without knowing that it was assigned land. The collector told the court that the land was never under possession of the Chief Minister or his family. He also said the petitioner had failed to make out a case of inaction by the authorities. The collector told the court that purchase of assigned land does not amount to encroachment or land grabbing.
The Telugu Desam former minister, Mr P. Ashok Gajapathy Raju, filed a public interest litigation in the AP High Court alleging that the Chief Minister had violated a slew of laws. Mr Gajapathy Raju urged the court to direct the government to initiate criminal action against the Chief Minster.
In response to a notice, the Kadapa district collector filed an affidavit stating that the Chief Minister and his family had said they had purchased the land without knowing that it was assigned land. The collector told the court that the land was never under possession of the Chief Minister or his family. He also said the petitioner had failed to make out a case of inaction by the authorities. The collector told the court that purchase of assigned land does not amount to encroachment or land grabbing.
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Centre moots village courts
By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad, Jan. 5: The government of India proposes to establish grama nyayalayas (village courts) to bring justice to the doorstep of the common man. These courts will provide access to justice — in civil and criminal cases — to citizens at the grassroots level.
The Centre has prepared a draft bill for the establishment of the village courts across the country except in Jammu and Kashmir, Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim. After the enactment of the bill, the state governments will constitute one or more grama nyayalayas for every panchayat or group of contiguous panchayats in a district.
The states may also establish additional grama nyayalayas for any panchayat in consultation with the state high court if it feels that there is a need for more courts in the panchayat limits.
Law department officials said that a grama nyayalaya will be the lowest court of the subordinate judiciary in the state. The village courts will be located at the headquarters of the panchayat and be presided over by a nyayadhikari (judicial officer).
The nyayadhikari, who should possess a degree in law and not be more than 45, will be appointed by the governor in consultation with the High Court. The state will have to extend all facilities to the grama nyayalaya including vehicles for holding mobile court and additional security for the judicial officer. It will also appoint one or more advocates for criminal cases in each village court.
The village courts will not take cognisance of any offence which is punishable by imprisonment of more than one year or if the accused has been previously convicted and sentenced to one year or more in jail.
But the village courts will deal with civil cases including property disputes, right to property purchase and use of common pasture and water from irrigation channels. They will also handle claims under the Minimum Wages Act, Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and money suits either arising from trade transaction or money lending.
These courts are to pronounce judgements within one week of the last date of hearing of a case and provide a copy of the judgement to both parties free of cost.
Hyderabad, Jan. 5: The government of India proposes to establish grama nyayalayas (village courts) to bring justice to the doorstep of the common man. These courts will provide access to justice — in civil and criminal cases — to citizens at the grassroots level.
The Centre has prepared a draft bill for the establishment of the village courts across the country except in Jammu and Kashmir, Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim. After the enactment of the bill, the state governments will constitute one or more grama nyayalayas for every panchayat or group of contiguous panchayats in a district.
The states may also establish additional grama nyayalayas for any panchayat in consultation with the state high court if it feels that there is a need for more courts in the panchayat limits.
Law department officials said that a grama nyayalaya will be the lowest court of the subordinate judiciary in the state. The village courts will be located at the headquarters of the panchayat and be presided over by a nyayadhikari (judicial officer).
The nyayadhikari, who should possess a degree in law and not be more than 45, will be appointed by the governor in consultation with the High Court. The state will have to extend all facilities to the grama nyayalaya including vehicles for holding mobile court and additional security for the judicial officer. It will also appoint one or more advocates for criminal cases in each village court.
The village courts will not take cognisance of any offence which is punishable by imprisonment of more than one year or if the accused has been previously convicted and sentenced to one year or more in jail.
But the village courts will deal with civil cases including property disputes, right to property purchase and use of common pasture and water from irrigation channels. They will also handle claims under the Minimum Wages Act, Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and money suits either arising from trade transaction or money lending.
These courts are to pronounce judgements within one week of the last date of hearing of a case and provide a copy of the judgement to both parties free of cost.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
TRS(N) divided on BSP issue
By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad, Jan. 2: Differences erupted within the Telangana Rashtra Samiti (N) over joining a coalition headed by the Bahujan Samaj Party soon after party chief and MP, Mr A. Narendra, announced the tie-up here on Wednesday.
Immediately after Mr Narendra made the announcement at a TRS(N) workers meeting here, other party leaders objected loudly, arguing that the BSP does not have a base in the state.
TRS(N) general secretary, Mr K. Dayanand, reportedly walked out of the meeting along with his followers in protest against the proposed merger with the BSP.
Mr Narendra had stated at a press conference that the TRS(N) would join the BSP on January 6, when the BSP president and Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister, Ms Mayawati, will be in the city for the Bahujan Maha Sammelan public meeting. He said the party executive had unanimously adopted a resolution to merge the TRS(N) with the BSP.
He admitted that the BSP has no strong base in state, but said it would gain momentum here as it represents Dalits, minorities and upper castes.
Hyderabad, Jan. 2: Differences erupted within the Telangana Rashtra Samiti (N) over joining a coalition headed by the Bahujan Samaj Party soon after party chief and MP, Mr A. Narendra, announced the tie-up here on Wednesday.
Immediately after Mr Narendra made the announcement at a TRS(N) workers meeting here, other party leaders objected loudly, arguing that the BSP does not have a base in the state.
TRS(N) general secretary, Mr K. Dayanand, reportedly walked out of the meeting along with his followers in protest against the proposed merger with the BSP.
Mr Narendra had stated at a press conference that the TRS(N) would join the BSP on January 6, when the BSP president and Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister, Ms Mayawati, will be in the city for the Bahujan Maha Sammelan public meeting. He said the party executive had unanimously adopted a resolution to merge the TRS(N) with the BSP.
He admitted that the BSP has no strong base in state, but said it would gain momentum here as it represents Dalits, minorities and upper castes.
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Mayawati ’s rainbow has opponents red in face
By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad, Jan. 1: Bahujan Samaj Party president and Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister, Ms Mayawati, is planning to set up a political coalition of Dalits, backward classes, upper castes and minorities in the state. She wants to build up this coalition as an alternative to the Congress, Telugu Desam and Telangana Rashtra Samiti.
The BSP supremo has contacted certain backward class, upper caste, Dalit and minority leaders of the state and will be holding talks with them when she lands here on January 5, a day before the Bahujan Maha Sammelan public meeting in the city.
She will be exploring the possibility of forming a common political platform to bring them all together.“We want to create an egalitarian society which will serve the interests of both upper castes and Dalits,” said BSP state president, Mr N. Surya Prakash Rao.
BSP sources claimed that several prominent personalities including MP, Mr A. Narendra, actress and Talli Telangana president, Ms Vijayashanti, former advocate general, Mr S. Ramchandra Rao and TRS rebel MLAs were likely to join the BSP in the presence of Mayawati on January 6.
Mr Ramachandra Rao, however, said he had not made up his mind yet and would do so only after meeting Ms Mayawati. Ms Vijayashanti firmly ruled out joining the BSP. At the same time, Mr Narendra’s aides said he would take a final decision on the issue after a meeting with party workers on Wednesday.
Ms Mayawati would also announce her support for separate Telangana in the public meet to woo outfits other than the TRS fighting for the cause. “We will popularise the slogan that Mayawati alone can make Telangana a reality,” said Mr Surya Prakasa Rao.
Hyderabad, Jan. 1: Bahujan Samaj Party president and Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister, Ms Mayawati, is planning to set up a political coalition of Dalits, backward classes, upper castes and minorities in the state. She wants to build up this coalition as an alternative to the Congress, Telugu Desam and Telangana Rashtra Samiti.
The BSP supremo has contacted certain backward class, upper caste, Dalit and minority leaders of the state and will be holding talks with them when she lands here on January 5, a day before the Bahujan Maha Sammelan public meeting in the city.
She will be exploring the possibility of forming a common political platform to bring them all together.“We want to create an egalitarian society which will serve the interests of both upper castes and Dalits,” said BSP state president, Mr N. Surya Prakash Rao.
BSP sources claimed that several prominent personalities including MP, Mr A. Narendra, actress and Talli Telangana president, Ms Vijayashanti, former advocate general, Mr S. Ramchandra Rao and TRS rebel MLAs were likely to join the BSP in the presence of Mayawati on January 6.
Mr Ramachandra Rao, however, said he had not made up his mind yet and would do so only after meeting Ms Mayawati. Ms Vijayashanti firmly ruled out joining the BSP. At the same time, Mr Narendra’s aides said he would take a final decision on the issue after a meeting with party workers on Wednesday.
Ms Mayawati would also announce her support for separate Telangana in the public meet to woo outfits other than the TRS fighting for the cause. “We will popularise the slogan that Mayawati alone can make Telangana a reality,” said Mr Surya Prakasa Rao.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)