Friday, October 18, 2013

Tuesday, October 15, 2013

New move by High Court, bail on first hearing

In a landmark decision the Punjab and Haryana High Court has decided to abolish its archaic, lengthy process of deciding regular bail applications. Under existing procedures, an accused has to wait "few" months for his/her regular bail application to be decided. The court first issues notices to concerned State government, seeks its response, summons the investigating officer (IO) if required, and hears the arguments before deciding on the application. The entire exercise normally takes at least four to five months. In fact, in some cases, the bail comes up for first hearing (after notices) after 4 months.

This procedure has now been scrapped. The high court, on the administrative side, has decided that from now on, all regular bail applications will be decided on the very first hearing. As per the new procedure, bail applications will be listed exactly a week after filing. The concerned State govt/police agency will get a week to prepare its reply and IO summoned. On the first hearing the court will hear arguments of both parties, enquire from the IO and decide on the bail plea.

This decision — taken by a 3-judge committee comprising Justices Surya Kant, Amol Rattan Singh and M S Chauhan — is likely to be implemented by November 6. Due consultations with Advocate Generals of Punjab, Haryana and senior public prosecutor for Chandigarh, R S Rai, were held before the decision was taken. Taking note of the undue delays in the High Court in deciding regular bail applications, a body of lawyers had suggested an overhaul of the decades old system. Finding merit in the suggestion, the then Chief Justice had constituted a 3-judge committee to look into the issue.

This development assumes significance as it will end the delay of several months, in some cases as long as nine months. All applications will be decided the same day. For speedy and effective implementation, the National Informatics Centre (NIC) will be told to make necessary amendments so that update of such cases is reflected in the daily list.

The new procedure will also apply to cases of "suspension of sentence". These are cases where a guilty after conviction moves High Court seeking suspension of his sentence. It came to light that such cases were also hanging fire for several months awaiting final disposal.

The new system for disposing bail will however, apply only to "regular" bail applications and not anticipatory bail applications. A regular bail application is filed in the high court after a person is sent behind bars by a lower court either after his arrest by an investigating agency or holding him guilty for an offence.

For anticipatory bail applications, "routine" procedure will be adopted. "The decision has been taken keeping in view the injustice caused to an accused or a convict who is made to rot in jail for no fault of his. It was noticed in umpteen cases that people were languishing behind bars just because their bail applications were not decided for several months. The new procedure leaves no room for delay. Now, all bail applications and petitions seeking suspension of sentence will be decided on the very first hearing," said a senior high court officer.

(Source-Indian Express)

Monday, October 14, 2013

Sunday, October 13, 2013

KHAAS BAAT-Cattle policing is not right - Mir Ayoob Ali Khan

During Bakrid, which falls on October 16 this year, the Muslims are enjoined to offer sacrifice of a sheep. This edict is applicable to only those who can afford to buy a sheep or other cattle with their income which is free from the burden of debt.

The tradition of sacrifice goes back to the times of Prophet Ibrahim (Abraham).Prompted by God through recurring dreams,Ibrahim decides to offer his beloved young son Ismael in sacrifice. Even as Ibrahim, who blindfolds himself not to see the blood of his son,is about to put the knife on Ismaels throat God sends down archangel Jibrael or Gabriel and has the boy replaced with a ram. God is pleased with Ibrahim for his readiness to sacrifice the most loved part of his life to Him. It is this tradition that the Muslims all over the world follow.

One of the points to be noted here is that God replaced Ismael with a ram or a sheep, not any other cattle when he was offered for sacrifice by his father. Therefore, offering of a sheep in sacrifice is traditionally preferred. But later traditions have allowed sacrifice of other big animals such as camel, buffalo,oxen or cow which, being bigger in size, is considered equal to seven sheep.

The meat of the sheep is to be divided into three equal parts, of which one is distributed among the poor, the other among the neighbours, family members and friends and the last one is to be retained by the person who makes the sacrifice. Not only is the meat distributed,but also the sheep skin, which is traditionally given to the managements of Madrassas or religious seminaries. The money accrued from the sale of sheep skin is one of the most important sources of funding for madrassas, which essentially operate on charity.

A recent meeting of the leading Ulema or religious scholars and eminent Muslims held in Humayun Nagar urged the community not to offer cows in sacrifice as a mark of respect to the religious senti-ments of the Hindus. Mohammed Abdur Rahim Quraishi,assistant secretary general of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, said in a statement that offering sacrifice was not mandatory for the poor. The Muslims should show regard towards the religious feelings of other communities and abstain from offering cows for sacrifice.

In a similar statement, Syed Afzal Biyabani, chairman of state Wakf Board, said when a person is looking for a big animal in the market, he has several options. He should avoid buying a cow to display his sincerity towards the religious feelings of Hindu brethren.

Meanwhile, reports are pouring in of trucks bringing in animals to the city being intercepted by right-wing activists. Seizing the cattle, the interceptors are allegedly beating up drivers and other occupants of the vehicles. There are allegations that the police, instead of stopping the activists from taking law into their hands, are abetting the incidents by inaction.Under the pretext of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act of 1961, the police have reportedly allowed members of certain organizations to work as special police. The special police,which remains almost inactive during the entire year, wakes up a little before Bakrid and behaves like official goons.

A leading lawyer,Shafeeq Rahman Mahjir, has this to say: It is important to note that it is not open to the police to delegate their powers to anyone. It is dangerous to delegate powers to persons connected with political ideologies hostile to some groups. In doing this, the police are playing into the hands of communal elements who exploit the situation to fan the flames of polarization and conflagrations.
Police have enough numbers to control any volatile situation and can ask for more if needed. To defuse the tension building up around the forthcoming Bakrid, the police should first withdraw the licences given to the special police and restrain organizations from getting involved in policing. At the same the police are free to counsel and taken actions against all those traders, contractors and people who violate the law.


Implement senior citizens welfare Act: PIL


Hyderabad: A public interest litigation was filed in the AP high court seeking directions to the state government to implement The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act-2007 and establish tribunals on the same.

Petitioner Marripalem Helping Hands Seva Sangam, represented by its president K Srinu of Visakha-patnam district, submitted that Parliament had enacted the Act in 2007.As per Section 7 of the Act, the state government has to establish one or more tribunals for each sub-division to deal with cases regarding maintenance of parents,senior citizens and relatives by their children and grandchildren. As per Section 19 of the act,the state has to establish a home for senior citizens in each district and provide assistance to at least 150 persons in each home. 

The petitioner pointed out that though a notification was issued in 2008,the government has failed to establish tribunals or homes for the aged. Principal secretary to women development,child welfare and disabled welfare was named as the respondent.

Saturday, October 5, 2013

Union govt throws out Haryanas case against whistleblower officer

New Delhi: In a decision that may prove to be a big moralbooster for upright All India Services (IAS,IPS and Indian Forest Service ) officers across the country,the Centre has quashedtheH aryana governments departmental chargesheet against whistleblower Sanjiv Chaturvedi,who had to face the wrath of the B S Hooda government for blowing the lid off several forest scams in the state.
The state had charged Chaturvedi,a 2002-batch IFS officer of Haryana cadre,and wanted his termination from service on the basis of fabricated charges against him.The ministry of environment and forests,however,intervened and got the chargesheet against him quashed on Thursday by ignoring the Hooda governments plea.

Chaturvedis persistent move to challenge the decision of the state went in his favour when he submitted representations before the President through MoEF. The quashing of his chargesheetwill give a senseofsecurity to all upright officers who want to go against the wish of respective state governments while exposing corruption within the system.Itwill alsosendthem a message that the Centre may come to their rescue under the All India Services (AIS ) Rules if they stand against graft.
The order will have a direct bearing on Haryana cadre IAS Ashok Khemka,who too is facing disciplinary inquiry and an impending chargesheet for exposing a multi-crore land scam in the state.
Chaturvedi had become a thorn in the side of the Haryana government when he unearthed a multi-crore plantation scam in January 2009.The move had,however,put him in trouble as most of those involved had their protectors within the government.

For the full report,log on to

Non Occupancy Charges in a Society


a) A person purchases a flat in a CHS for his own residential usage.  He (as Member) is bound by law to pay the Society Maintenance Charges, for his flat when he is personally residing or even if the flat is  kept locked. 
This means that even if the member is keeping his flat locked at all times, when he stays in Dubai, the member has still to pay the "FULL" Society Maintenance Charges, without any concessions.
b) Members flat Closed / Locked / Vacant / not occupied for any period = is equal to Self Occupied, WHICH  is further equal to = Regular full maintenance charges and non-occupancy charges cannot be levied.
Criteria = Possession should remain with the Member itself.  Period.
c) Members flat occupied by non-family members, that is Rentees / Leasees / Licensees = is equal to "non self-occupancy"  which is further equal to =  compulsory levy of non-occupancy charges subject to a FIXED  “10% of the consolidated Service Charges”  (excluding Statutory Taxes).
Criteria = Possession should remain with the "Renter / Tenant"
d) Family Member means: Group of persons which includes Husband, Wife, Father, Mother, Sister, Brother, Son, Daughter, Son-in-Law, Brother-in-Law, Sister-in-Law, Daughter-in-Law, Grandson & Grand-Daughter.
Non-Occupancy Charges CANNOT be levied to the above family-members of the bonafide  Member.  However, intermittent joint-stay of other family members OR friends, will not attract Non-Occupancy Charges.
In case of CHS Flats owned by Trusts or Corporate’s, Non-Occupancy Charges CANNOT be levied on the Guests staying in such flats.
Guests = Bonafide Staff members (Directors, Executives, Managers and so on)
HOWEVER,  for this the Company should submit a Board of Directors (BOD) resolution, to the Society detailing the name of person who is authorized to stay in the flat.  Besides the BOD resolution, the company NEED NOT submit any other document (means Form-Appendix no. 27 or  Form-Appendix no. 11, or  100/- as Nominal Membership fees or Notarized photocopy of the Leave & License (L&L, Rent) Agreement or Police verification Report of its staff).
A Company-Owned flat cannot be used as a regular Transit / Guest house
f)   Similarly a individual owner-member, may also give his Flat on rent /lease to a Corporate, BUT subject to compliance and requirements of the CHS bye-laws (more specifically detailed in point no. 03, below).
However, here the Corporate CANNOT use this tenanted flat, as a Transit / Guest House, for its Staff members.
The Society is concerned only with the FIXED 10% extra charges, over the regular service charges, as "Non-Occupancy Charges" and STRICTLY NOTHING beyond this. There is no concept of less than 10% or greater than 10%  non-occupancy charges.  Any amount (whatsoever) collected, besides the FIXED "10% Non-Occupancy Charges", is ILLEGAL, and is duly prosecutable under the Consumer Protection Act and also under the Indian Penal Code (Criminal Acts)

IF a Owner-Member wants to rent /lease out his flat THEN he is obliged to comply with the basic requirement under the CHS bye-laws. A Society is concerned only with compliance of the Bye-Law norms, which means:
a) Prior permission of the Society vide Bye-Law form-Appendix no. 27.
b) Form-Appendix no.11,along with cheque of Rs.100/- as Nominal Membership entrance fees
c)  Certified Photocopy of the Leave & License (L&L, Rent) Agreement, duly Stamped and Registered.
d)  Police verification Report of the Tenant
NOTE:  Even if the above Form no. 27 and Form 11, are not submitted to the Society, it does not "illegalize" the Tenant, nor does the Tenant become a "trespasser", as is hallucinating thought off by various ignorant MC's.
Subsequent to the above and /or irrespective of compliance of Form no. 27 and Form 11, the Society is liable and responsible to levy a FIXED "10% Non-Occupancy Charges", on the regular Society Service /Maintenance charges, in the society bill of its own registered primary member, but to the exclusion of Statutory charges (e.g.  BMC Property Tax, NA Tax, BMC Water Charges).  IT will be illegal on part of the Mg. Committee, to raise CHS Maintenance bills in the name of the Renter /Tenant.
NOTE:  Levy of “Non-Occupancy Charges” are Mandatory and Compulsory.  IF the Mg. Committee (MC)  fails to levy the Non-Occupancy Charges to the member, THEN all the MC has to jointly compensate the CHS, by paying the same from their own pockets, for non-compliance and violation of bye-law no’s. 43(1) & 43(2) & 20
The Society is classified as a "Service Provider", under the Consumer Protection Act, which is further reinforced from several Judgments of the Consumer Court.
The Sole-Responsibility of a Coop. Society, is to provide "Common Services & Amenities", to its members, which also lawfully means "Common Services & Amenities"  to the Tenants of its members, which is more so specifically in lieu of the "10% Non-Occupancy Charges" that the Society has to mandatorily collect from its original member.   Under no circumstances the Society may levy any charges, directly to the Tenant.  Under no circumstances, the Society may stop any “Services /Amenities” to the said Renter /Tenant, which includes Car Parking, irrespective of an resolution passed by the Society.
a)  A licensed Tenant of the original Society member, is classified as a "Nominal Member", who by legal default derives rights to reside in a society members flat.    The "Nominal Membership" is to be granted to the Tenant, by virtue of the Rs. 100/- (as nominal members Entrance Fees).  However the Tenant derives no right to have any say in the affairs of the Society.
b)  IF the original member is paying the mandatory "10% Non-Occupancy Charges", THEN the "Tenant", definitely & lawfully derives all the rights to use the "Services and Amenities" that is available to the original member.  This includes Parking, Gym, Club-House & Swimming pool facilities.   The usual rights of  "Services and Amenities", CANNOT be deprived to a Tenant, even if such an resolution is passed by the Society General Body.  This is  successfully prosecutable in the Consumer Court.
HOWEVER, the Tenant (nominal member), does NOT derive any right to have any say in the management of the Society, more so specifically during the Voting / Contesting Elections / Attending AGM /SGM of the Society, as provided under the Society Bye-Law.
a) The Society does not own the members Flat (ownership property). The Society cannot have a say (whatsoever) nor decide on the type of Tenant that could be allowed to stay in the Society. It is the sole discretion of the Flat-Owner (member) to rent his property out on rent /lease, under the appropriate terms and conditions prescribed by the Law.  ONLY the flat owner can decide the type of tenant he wants to rent out his premises, BUT within the parameters of Law (i.e. cannot rent out his premises for commercial or illegal activities and so on).
b) A Society has no legal jurisdiction to refuse residing rights to a Tenant, under any circumstances, especially in a flat owned by its member.  This is a legal fact, decided in various orders by the High Court and the Supreme Court.
c) A Society cannot refuse a member from keeping a Tenant, even if the member is a defaulter or whatever.  The maximum a Society can do is to inform the local Police Station, about any illegal activities being carried out in the members flat, by the Tenant or the Member.  Nothing more.    Even if the Flat-Owner (Member) has not taken permission from the Society for keeping a Tenant, in his own Flat, it will not amount to any illegality, nor can the Tenant be classified as a "Trespasser".
d) Some nefarious MC's have assumed the role of "investigating" the Tenants, by conducting interviews of the Tenants.  Such interviews or assessment of the Tenants are illegal.
Irrespective of any resolution passed in the Society:
a)  It is a Criminal offence to collect any charges in the guise of "Shifting Charges", or "Tenancy Deposit" or higher non-occupancy charges, over and above the mandatory 10% Non-Occupancy Charges on the Society Service /Maintenance charges.
b)  A Society is not entitled to levy compounding rate of Interest, on any outstanding amount.
c)  False levy of any other amount or charges in the Members bills
d)  Levy of any Legal Charges in the Members bills, without a judicial order.
e)  MC's cannot restrict or restrain or intimidate any Tenant from staying in a Housing Society, subject to compliance of minimum requirements, i.e. Registered Leave & License agreement and Tenants Police verification report.
f)  MC's can be criminally prosecuted for Mischief, Cheating, Restraining, Restricting, Intimidating, Threatening, Insulting, and so on, for restricting /prohibiting tenants, from residing in a Society.
IF the society is charging more than 10% non-occupancy charges THEN the following individual and alternative remedies are available:
a)  Make a written complaint to the area Ward Registrar of Cooperatives, and pray that the CHS may be directed to refund the excess “non-occupancy charges” alongwith with interest  .AND. further pray that the MC may be penalized  for abuse of power and harassment.
NOTE: Only a bonafide member can file this complaint.
b)  Make a complaint to the local Consumer Court, alleging "deliberate negligence and deficiency in services and over-charging"  .AND.  for abuse of power and harassment by the CHS Mg. Committee and pray for compensation for causing mental and physical trauma .AND. also for damages to the extent of the over-charged Non-Occupancy Charges” alongwith 18% thereon.
NOTE:  Tenant can file complaint, BUT only with the written consent of the Owner-Member and subject to availability of a duly stamp-duty paid and registered rent /lease agreement
c) File a written police complaint  .AND / OR.  lodge a “Private Criminal case”  with the local Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, against all the CHS Mg. Committee members (jointly) for, the various criminal harassments, like:
i)  For Cheating – u/s 418 (IPC)
ii) For Mischief – u/s 427 (IPC)
iii) For Intimidation – u/s 503 , 504, 509 (IPC)
iv) For Extortion – u/s 383 (IPC)
v)  For Restraining (stopping) – u/s 339 (IPC)
NOTE-1: All the options (a, b, c) can be filed individually and simultaneously
NOTE-2: IMPORTANT - Must follow due documentary procedures along with relevant documentary evidences (proofs), before initiating above legal actions.
NOTE-3: The Tenant alone can file this complaint, WITHOUT the consent of the owner-member, but subject to availability of a duly stamp-duty paid and registered L&L agreement.
a) Sometimes, the Society does experience nuisance from Renters /Tenants, in the form of Rowdiness, Alcoholism, visiting girl-friends of the Tenants, playing of Loud Music, etc. HOWEVER these can never ever be a ground for restricting /prohibiting Tenants, since all these nuisances are rampant and unchecked, amongst the Society members themselves.  It is a routine feature amongst Society Members, to bicker and fight for petty things, which includes, Ogling, Bitching, Parking, Drunkenness, Gambling, Spitting Pan juice,  Loud music, Abuses & Dada’giri, misappropriating members funds, egoistic power-struggle and what-not's.
b)  On the Contrary, the Tenants who being non-owners of the rented premises, are usually more humble and subdued, keep unto themselves and never interfere in the affairs of the Society or any of its members.
Subject to duly executing a Registered Leave & License agreement and Tenants Police verification report, the following can ALSO be successfully complied:
a) Under a typical Bye-Law, an Associate Member is not barred from Staying in the Member's Flat
b) Limited to filing Bye-Law appendix no. 7, (along with Rs. 100/- as Associate Member Entrance Fees)  the original owner can make his "Tenant" as his Associate member.
Note: Associate Membership can be withdrawn, by just simply instructing the Society for withdrawing the Associate Membership.  There is no legal-lacunae or legal-risk (whatsoever), since this type of Associate membership, has negligible rights.
c)  A Society CANNOT charge 10% as Non-Occupancy Charges, from an Associate Member.
d) A Tenant can lawfully,  be made an Associate Member.
a)  The inbuilt craving to formulate Laws to govern & control other members, lead to ignorant MC's and GB General Body (GB), to pass "illegal & invalid" resolutions, for "Prohibiting /Banning Bachelor Tenant", from staying in a Society. Such "selective & prohibitive" provisions /bye-laws created /amended under a "bye-law" approved /passed by the GB, is also  "illegal & invalid", leading to animosity and discontent in the Society, which also means "failure of the Cooperative Movement".  AS IT IS,  the Society or the MC or the GB is a "nobody"   or say "does not have the "Capacity or Capability"  to decide the legalities of such things for which there are various Laws available.  The Society MC or the GB are not "Lok Sabha" members or Parliamentarians who are empowered to pass Laws.
b) If  ignorant & nuisance GB resolutions have their whimsical ways in a Cooperative Housing Society, then one can also expect that the ignorant GB may pass resolutions for compulsory marriage between the members (as is a custom in some Indian culture) .OR. "compulsory sale" of flats in case the owner becomes a Widow.  This is more so since some nefarious MC's and their cronies, are in a way, controlling  the strings in a GB meeting.
Looking at the consistent nefarious attitude of few MC's and herd-mentality GB's, Investors are avoiding investing in Housing Society properties.  On realizing the nefarious management attitude in a Housing Society,  some people have started registering their group properties, under the concept of a "Condominium",  which truncates out the nefarious management attitude in a Housing Society.  A condominium management is highly flexible and more easily, peacefully & professionally manageable, WITHOUT the usual bickering & bitching that is rampant in present Housing Society’s.
13.  MH Govt. GR No. 20081104172832001 of 01st August, 2001:
BESIDES, the Maharashtra Government’s GR No. 20081104172832001 Dated 01stAugust, 2001, on  “10% Non Occupancy Charges”,  the Coop. Dept., has made no provision for Penalty and /or Penal Action under the Cooperative Laws, on those Society Mg. Committees, who dictatorially collect more than 10% as “Non Occupancy Charges”, from the helpless members of the Society, thus leading to discontent, resentment and gradual failure of the Cooperative Movement.
AUTHOR:  Hemant Agarwal

Thursday, October 3, 2013