Administration still unsure on RTS Act, seeks clarifications

Fri Sep 02 2011, 02:51 hrsLudhiana:

Despite the deputy commissioner’s claim that the Right to Service Act had been implemented in all government departments on August 29, the administration is still waiting for a few clarifications without which, the act cannot function.

The first important clarification is if a service is sought, does it automatically fall under the RTS or does the person applying have to specifically mention that the service is being sought under the Act. “Unless, this clarification is not answered, we cannot determine as to whether each and every service is under this act or only services along with RTS application will come under this net,” DC Rahul Tiwari said.

He further said: “Many employees have additional charges as well. So time frame of those employees has also been sought because they cannot deliver services within the stipulated time at both locations. I have officers who are look after Ludhiana and Payal as well. The Machiwara tehsildar also has a wide area under him and many other officers have additional charges. So we are waiting for this important clarification from the government”.

It has been indicated to the department, however, that clarifications if any will come only after the code of conduct for the SGPC polls is lifted, so the RTS implementation is more or less of little use till then. Moreover as of now most people are not even aware of the act. “As of now the focus is more on ensuring awareness within staff and even among the masses so that every one can make the best use of it”, DC Tiwari said.

Women more likely to two-time in relationships than men

London: A study has claimed that though men may have the reputation for straying, it is women who are more likely to get caught up in love triangles.

The poll of 2,000 people found that almost a quarter of women were romantically involved with more than one person at a time, while just 15 per cent of men were involved in two-timing.

And of those love triangles, about 18 per cent started on social networking sites like Facebook or Twitter.

The poll also showed half of them believed you could be in love with more than one person at a time.

And high earners are more likely to stray than those on lower wages.

Jo Hemmings, a relationship psychologist, said that while male love rats may be the biggest cheaters, driven by lust, opportunity and a misguided sense of entitlement, it is women, who tend to have a more complex view of relationships.

SC cited wrong case law to justify black money SIT: Govt

Fri Sep 02 2011, 02:25 hrsNew Delhi:

A 209-page compilation of case laws placed on record by the government argues that Justice B Sudershan Reddy may have relied on the wrong case laws to form his decision to set up a Special Investigation Team (SIT) in the black money case.
In fact, the government says that the “four” precedents cited by Justice Reddy say the exact opposite, and, indeed, reject the idea of courts setting up SITs.

Attorney General G E Vahanvati today told a bench led by Justice Altamas Kabir that the “four” case laws in paragraph 48 of the July 4 order, in fact, contradict Justice Reddy’s decision to form a SIT in the black money case.

The government is seeking a recall of Justice Reddy’s direction to form a SIT which includes as one of its members the chief of the country’s external intelligence agency, Research and Analysis Wing. All members are supposed to report to two retired Supreme Court judges in their endeavour to investigate and track down all black money transactions and pending cases both in India and abroad.

The bench today reserved for orders the question of maintainability of the recall application.

In paragraph 48, Justice Reddy says there are “many” instances of courts setting up SITs to help them with “very complex” issues. One of the four he cites is the 2G spectrum judgment delivered by Justices GS Singhvi and AK Ganguly in 2011.

Justice Reddy wrote that SITs help courts and the government to “fulfil their constitutional obligations”.

This is what paragraph 48 says: “We note that in many instances, in the past, when issues referred to the Court have been very complex in nature, and yet required the intervention of the Court, Special Investigation Teams have been ordered and constituted in order to enable the Court, the Union of India and/or other organs of the State, to fulfill their constitutional obligations”.

The paragraph further goes on to say: “The following instances may be noted: Vineet Narain versus Union of India (1996), NHRC versus State of Gujarat (2004), Sanjiv Kumar versus State of Haryana (2005) and the Centre for PIL versus Union of India (2011)”.

In the Vineet Narain case, the AG pointed out, the Supreme Court had not even considered forming a SIT. In fact, the three-judge bench of Justices J S Verma, S P Bharucha and S C Sen merely asked the CBI and government agencies to “expedite their action” in public interest.

The 1996 case dealt with the Jain hawala transactions.

Again, in the 2004 order in the NHRC case, the SC dealt with an application alleging that the state government had failed to properly investigate the 2002 Gujarat riots. The application had sought the setting up of a committee to overlook a SIT.

A three-judge bench of Justices Ruma Pal, S B Sinha and S H Kapadia refused the suggestion saying “we are not going to proceed on the basis that the entire investigation machinery in the State has failed”. It then directed the Gujarat government to form a separate cell to exclusively deal with the riots cases.

In the 2005 Sanjiv Kumar case, which dealt with a complaint of large-scale corruption and tampering of records in the selection of 4000 vacancies of JBT teachers in Haryana, a bench of Justices RC Lahoti and Ashok Bhan said it is a “better option” that CBI continue the investigation and threw out a request for an independent probe by a SIT.

“We have given thoughtful consideration to the proposal for entrusting the whole matter to a Commission of Inquiry, assisted by a special investigating task force...but we are of the opinion that the better option is to entrust the matter to investigation by CBI,” Justice Lahoti wrote.

In the 2G scam order, Justice Singhvi’s bench had actually refused persistent demands made for setting up a SIT. Instead, the bench opted for the CBI to continue its investigation under the court’s own eyes.

Writing the judgment, Justice Singhvi observed that “at this stage, we do not consider it necessary to appoint a special team to investigate what the appellants have described as 2G spectrum scam because the Government of India has, keeping in view the law laid down in Vineet Narain case and orders passed in other cases, agreed for a court-monitored investigation”.

Immigration fraud kingpin surrenders

Mohali, September 1
Faced with pressure from the police, Karandeep Singh, alias Pargat Singh, one of the main accused in the cheating cases registered against Jet Immigration Placement Services, today surrendered before a local court. He was remanded in two-day police custody.
Earlier, Karandeep Singh, along with Deepak Arora, was booked by the Mohali Police in over 30 cases of cheating. The accused had accepted money from visa seekers, but they neither got the visas issued nor refunded the money. Most of the victims from different parts of Punjab had paid between Rs 40,000 and Rs 3 lakh to get work permit visas for Canada and other countries.
SP (City) Harpreet Singh said due to pressure exerted from all corners, Karandeep Singh surrendered before the court today. His brother, Lakhwinder Singh, had already been arrested by the police. Raids were also being conducted to nab Deepak Arora, said Station House Officer, Phase I, Manjit Singh adding that details about the money collected from the visa seekers were being ascertained from the accused.
Meanwhile, the Matour Police conducted a raid at the Phase VII and Sector 70 offices of Guru Kirpa Immigration Company and confiscated the office furniture lying there. Station House Officer, Matour, Tarlochan Singh said there were two case of cheating registered against the proprietor of Guru Kirpa, Neena Sharma, who was on the run. 

Taneja Developers told to pay Rs 10,000 as compensation

Chandigarh, September 1
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has directed Taneja Developers and Infrastructure to pay a compensation of Rs 10,000 to a complainant for not including his name in the draw of lots for his failure to deposit application fee.
The forum has also directed the developers to pay the litigation cost of Rs 5,000 as cost of litigation, and to allot a flat to the complainant as per the scheme opted by him.
The complainant, Naresh, had applied for a flat meant for the economically weaker section with Taneja Developers and Infrastructure in the TDI City, Mohali. A sum of Rs 15,000 was deposited by the complainant by way of demand draft issued by the State Bank of India. However, the complainant was informed by the builder that his application would not be considered as the demand draft submitted by him had not been credited into their account.
Following this, Naresh visited the developer with a certificate issued by the SBI stating that the demand draft in favour of Taneja Developers had already been encashed.
The TDI, on the other hand, in a reply submitted that the draft issued by the SBI was presented thrice to the bankers and the same was returned each time.
The forum comprising president Lakshman Sharma president and members Madhu Mutneja and Jaswinder Singh observed that “it is clear from the documents that Rs15,000 has been received by the TDI. We do not think they should refuse to consider the complainant for the allotment of a flat in the EWS scheme floated by them.”
Directing the TDI to allot a flat to the complainant as per the scheme opted by him, the forum has asked them to pay Rs 10,000 as compensation to the complainant for the harassment caused.