Yesterday night, I was shocked to watch and hear Arvind Kejriwal’s comments
in the TV show Aap Ki Adalat.

Earlier, I have been astonished to hear comments by General V K Singh about

the Supreme Court decision on his age dispute.

And I have been amused to see Asaram Bapu’s supporters ranting to the

media.

Right to contest elections and dream big

Every one, including ex Bureaucrats, and even Babas have a right to contest

the elections, and dream of becoming the Prime Minister, Chief Minister,

Minister, MP or MLA. But people who have retired as a General or Cabinet

Secretary or some other high position have handled very sensitive files and

documents. They should never talk about such things in public in private.

General V K Singh

How can he compare his age dispute with that of a 17 year old rapist?

The Supreme Court does not admit cases of age disputes of government

servants directly.

The affected person has to come through a serious of judicial hierarchy.

The Supreme Court did a favour in hearing the General directly. Probably this

should not have been done.

Then, there are procedures and a plethora of decisions on how age disputes of

Government employees should be agitated and resolved.

Commenting on the Supreme Court was in very bad taste.

Then he stated that he had evidence against a subordinate offering him bribe.

But he could never produce the evidence.

Then his statement in public  about the bribes and payments made to

politicians in Kashmir are actually crimes punishable under the Military Act

and the Official Secrets Act.

Surely he knows all this….

 Asharam and his son Narayan Sai

Asaram Bapu is in jail. His son Narayan Sai announced he will form an all India
political party. His supporters harp on the delay in filing the various

complaints.

There are so many charges against both father and son. There are a plethora of
illegal constructions……

If he is innocent, he should appear before the police and the and the courts

and answer the different questions.

Why is he running away?

 Arvind Kejriwal

In the interview yesterday, Arvind said that he was a Commissioner of Income
Tax when he resigned, and that every Inspector in the Income Tax

Department earns at least Rs. 1 crore per year……He left the department and

all this money for the common man.

 The fact is he was not a Commissioner – but only an Addl. Commissioner of

Income Tax when he resigned. All this ranting about the earning of an

Inspector of Income Tax of Rs. 1 crore is sheer bakwas. How many cases of

Inspectors amassing this kind of money did he come across? How many

inspectors did he take action against during his long career.

Then he did not mention that his wife continues to work in the same Income

Tax Department as Additional Commissioner of Income Tax. Personally, I do

not know them. But by the same logic, she must be earning tens of crores of

rupees every year. What is his answer to this logic?

Anna Hazare thought politics is dirty and chose to remain aloof. But Arvind

has entered Politics and he is already talking like a Chief Minister…….May be

one day his dreams will come true.

But as I said, he has a right to contest elections and dream big,,,,but without

telling silly lies about his ex colleagues and sub ordinates.

Anjali Damania….. a little bit of unanswered questions from people like me

I heard Anjali Damania, the activist, and a number of panelists, on TV yesterday. They left me in a dizzy.

The TV show has left me with some unanswered questions. Will someone answer them?
Anjali was frank enough to say that the she was not a doctor, but a pathologist…but her real occupation is not really relevant for the present.

Anjali – the Agriculturist

Anjali claimed she was an agriculturist because her grandfather was a farmer. Unfortunately, the law does not say so.
My grandfather may not have been an agriculturist, but his father, or grandfather, or someone higher up in the hierarchy, were probably agriculturists.
But that does not make me an agriculturist in Maharashtra.

She said something about purchasing agricultural land under some scheme for horticulturists. But no one pursued the matter, and she did not elaborate.

Everyone knows how difficult it is to purchase agricultural land in Maharashtra.
Even Amitabh Bachchan faced this problem.

Anjali mentioned owning 59 acres of agricultural land. You can see Anish & Anjali Damania’s Farm at Kashele, Karjat at the following site.
http://wikimapia.org/17132481/Anish-Anjali-Damania-s-Farm-at-Kashele-Karjat

I suppose this is her land…Please correct me if I am wrong. 

She further claimed she had purchased seven acres of agricultural land in 2007, got the land converted into non agricultural use and sold it in 2011 to private individuals.

According to media reports, Anjali used the land for a project for private villas created by a company in which she was a director; and till August 2011, out of the 39 plots created, 37 were sold.

Two farmers from whom Anjali purchased the land have now claimed that she had purchased the agricultural land claiming she would use them for agriculture.

Anjali has reportedly said, “I can produce all the required papers to prove that everything was done legally. If someone thinks this is wrong, the problem then actually lies with the government’s policy in changing the land-use from agricultural to non-agricultural. I am being targeted now because I raised my voice against a corrupt system.”

What is expected from Anjali

Of course, Anjali has done nothing wrong. She did what any intelligent person would or should do. But for the fact, the movement she is spear heading is demanding transparency.  The reason is that transparency alone leads to honesty.
In her own case,

• Anjali has not published her assets.
• Anjali has not explained how she became an agriculturist.
•  Anjali did not answer questions about the selling price of her land.
• Anjali has not disclosed her interest in different companies.

Anjali simply said that she had filed her income tax returns and was ready to face any enquiry and all the usual rubbish.

The facts clearly show that what she was doing was dabbling with real estate business. But all rich and powerful people in Maharashtra and other places make money through real estate business.

Transparency

The leaders of such movements should not only be clean, they should be a shade higher in terms of transparency.
But in her own case, Anjali has forgotten all about transparency. Damania (left) with Kejriwal during the recent press conference held in Delhi. PTI

State Government’s stand and the BJP

The state government has said that they found that Anjali and her partners who held the land were not farmers by livelihood and therefore confiscated the land.

The BJP has also released a letter which Damania wrote to authorities in 2011 asking them to consider the change in the alignment of a dam that would submerge her property and requested that the alignment of the Kondhane dam be shifted so that her property was not submerged due to it.

Pointing out that her entire life savings were used for the land, Anjali had written that if the dam were to be shifted by 700 metres only, tribals would be hit by the project and they would be adequately compensated, unlike her. So much for the good of the common man.

My advice to Anjali and others

Anjali, and all persons im her situation, should put list of assets, all the papers, documents and full details of controversial issues in the public domain…for any and every one to see and scrutinise.
If you cannot do so, simply quit the movement.

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s view

There are a number of decisions of different Consumer Forums, that an aggrieved applicant, who has paid the prescribed fees for obtaining information under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, is a consumer.

This view was upheld by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in

REVISION  PETITION No. 1975 OF 2005

(Against the order dated 1.10.05 in Appeal No.244/04 of the State Commission, Karnataka)

                  Dr. S.P. Thirumala Rao

                               Vs.

                 Municipal Commissioner
                 Mysore City Municipal Corporation

No appeal was preferred against this order.  Therefore, this decision remains final and binding, on all the consumer forums in the country.                           

You can see the full decision at the following site:

http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/00RP197505.html

 National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission does not follow its own order

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had occasion to consider the same issue again in the following case:

Revision Petition  No. RP/4061/2010

                  T. PUNDALIKA
                            vs.

                   REVENUE DEPARTMENT (SERVICE DIVISION),
                   GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed the petition by its order dated 13.03.2012. The order is reproduced below:

“ Petitioner had sent a letter on 10.1.2001 to the effect that he is not physically fit to appear before this Commission and also not in a position to engage an advocate due to financial difficulties.  Prayer was made to dispose of the Revision Petition on the basis of the decision of this Commission in Dr. S.P. Thirumala Rao vs. Municipal Commission, Mysore – R.P. No.1975/2005 decided on 28.5.2009.  We appointed Mr.R.K. Dikshit, Advocate as amicus curiae to appear in this case on behalf of the petitioner.

Petitioner, in order to sort out the controversy with respect to his pensionary benefits, filed an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the RTI Act, 2005’) in the office of Opposite party No.4.  Opposite party No. 4 failed to provide the information.  Petitioner then filed the complaint before the District Forum, which was allowed and a direction was issued to opposite party No.4 to furnish the required information.

Respondent, being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the State Commission, which has been allowed by observing thus :

“At the outset it is not in dispute that complainant had filed an application u/s 6 & 7 of the Right to Information Act to the OP No.4.  But complainant cannot be considered as a consumer as defined under the C.P. Act since there is a remedy available for the complainant to approach the appellate authority u/s 19 of the RTI Act, 2005.”

 We agree with the view taken by the fora below.  Petitioner cannot be claimed to be a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.  There is a remedy available for him to approach the Appellate Authority under Section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005.  Dismissed. “

 This is judicially a very bad order. It has referred to the decision in  Dr. S.P. Thirumala Rao vs. Municipal Commission, Mysore – R.P. No.1975/2005 …..but has not given a single reason why it is not following that decision. This is bad jurisprudence.

I suppose the Supreme Court of India itself should cancel this order dated 13.03.2012 and direct the National Commission to decide the issue afresh.

Karnataka State Consumer Redressal Commission

Toeing the error committed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the Karnataka State Consumer Redressal Commission has forgotten its high status and gone one step further in committing judicial impropriety.

In brief, J S Virupakshaiah, Karnataka Information Commissioner, passed an order dated July 17, 2012 on a petition, K Venugopal vs Tahsildar and PIO, Bellary Taluk, Bellary district (KIC 12026 PTN 2011).

In this order, he has directed the Information Commission’s under secretary as follows :
“A copy of this order may be sent to the Chairman, Karnataka Consumers Redressal Forum, Basava Bhavan, Palace Road, Bangalore, with a request to direct all the Consumers Forums in the state not to entertain Appeals/Complaints filed under the RTI Act.”

Instead of taking objection to this kind of letter, and acting against all the norms of judicial independence, the Registrar, Karnataka State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (KSCDRC), Bangalore, (presumably under the orders of his Chairman) has sent a circular on August 29, 2012 to all the District Forums in the State not to entertain any complaints or appeals against public information officers (PIOs) under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
Naturally, almost all the District Forums will obey this written, but illegal, order.

Request

I suppose the Supreme Court of India should rectify these glaring errors and should suo moto cancel the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 13.03.2012 in Case No. RP/4061/2010 and direct it to decide the issue afresh.

The Chairman, Karnataka State Consumer Redressal Commission should immediately recall his bad and illegal Circular dated August 29, 2012 to all the District Forums in the state and let them function in accordance with law.

Mistakes can and do occur. But they should be immediately corrected…….
This will only enhance the faith of the common man in the higher judiciary .