Ganga-A National River-How politicians break a country

Ganga- A National River-How politicians break a country

To Shri Manmohan Singh Ji 17-06-2009
the Prime Minister Of India
New Delhi

Respected Sir
1. I had written, earlier, a detailed article on River Pollution, specially about River Ganga to your good self on 22-06-2008. Since then you have declared the Ganga River as a National River and declared the formation of a Ganga Basin Authority. Sir people have applauded your action but I wish to lodge my protest for the same because I feel that it is such irresponsible acts of Politicians, which have been slowly breaking up the Country
2. I had in my earlier letter clearly mentioned that “The Government of India should immediately make suitable Legislation with reference to the entry at S.No.56 in the Seventh Schedule, Union List of the Constitution & immediately make suitable Legislation with regard to the Ganga & other Inter-State Rivers. Although in the end of that letter, I had also expressed my special anxiety for the Ganga, which action of mine, I myself regret, but you being the head of the family should have tried to treat everyone, every State and its people and the Rivers flowing through them alike.
3. That you have under pressure of various agitations, declared the River Ganga as a National River and also garnered much publicity. Are you waiting for people of other States, also hurt by the pollution of rivers, flowing through their states, to start agitating with respect to other Rivers, take to the Streets, before they can get the same Status for the Rivers, which are their very lifelines. Such actions of Politicians have been breaking up the Nation. Every four or five years, there are agitations saying that such and such part of such and such State is being discriminated against and there is demand for new State and many have been made and they may further, in future, turn in to Countries, who knows?
4. Therefore you should have made similar announcements for all other Inter-State rivers and should not have singled out the Ganga. More on the matter need not be said as it should be understood. Sir I condemn your action of singling out the Ganga for granting National River Status. It should be accorded to all other Rivers and the legislation, you have made under your powers given by the Constitution should be made regarding all the Rivers of all the States. Had you mentioned in your declaration that you would be making similar legislation in the shortest possible time for other Rivers also then your declaration could have been termed as a rational one but in the absence of such a assurance, it ,your declaration, smacks of appeasing a certain section of the electorate, before the recent elections.

Thanks
Yours truly
(Robby Sharma)
865, Block-B, Panki Kanpur-208020
Copy To:
1. Smt Sonia Gandhiji, 10, Janpath New Delhi.
2. Baba Ramdeo Ji, Patanjali Yog Peeth, District Haridwar Uttaranchal.
3. Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh, headquarters at Nagpur Maharashtra.
Tags- How to break a Country, Ganga-A National River,

Part-5-All good things come to an end in the Supreme Court of India-Nazul Free Hold Case of U.P.

Part-5-All good things come to an end in the Supreme Court of India-Nazul Free Hold Case of U.P.
Kanpur-16th -June-2009
For years during my Research on various topics including the Town Planning Laws of India, I have noted that it is on rare occasions possible for the general public of India to get a few orders from the High Courts, which go a long way in addressing the problems of the teeming masses but All such good things come to an end in the Supreme Court of India, which more often than not stays the Order of the High Court arbitrarily then keeps on sitting on the Petition for years, often decades altogether, resulting in denial of the Relief to the general public, which the High Court took pains to provide. I shall be discussing a few cases periodically, Some cases I am detailing below:-

1. The State of U.P was taking very heavy amount as premium for free hold of Nazul Land given on lease earlier while in the case of Free hold of plots given on lease by the Development Authorities and Awas Vikas Parishad, only a fraction was being charged .In a Land mark Judgment,dated-30-03-2006, the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc Writ Petition No.3341 of 1999 in the matter of Harish Tandon V/s State of U.P, found this to be discriminatory and in violation of Article 14. This Judgment would have benefited Lakhs of holders of Nazul leases.
2. However, as usual, before the general public could reap the benefit of the judgment of the High Court, the Supreme Court, aghast at the relief provided to the general public i.e. the insignificant common man, stayed the order and thereafter it has been sitting on the file for about three years. On top of it had taken 7 years in the Allahabad High Court and before that a considerable time in fighting before the Authorities. The Order of the Supreme Court reads:-ITEM NO.30 COURT NO.3 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).17245/2006 (From the judgement and order dated 30/03/2006 in CMWP No. 3341/1999 of The HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD) STATE OF U.P. & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS HARISH TANDON Respondent(s) (With appln(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and with prayer for interim relief and office report) Date: 03/11/2006 This Petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. AGRAWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.P. NAOLEKAR For Petitioner(s) Mr. Harish N. Salve, Sr. Adv. Dr. R.G. Padia, Sr. Adv. Mr. S.W.A. Qadri, Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra,Adv. Mr. Rajeev Dubey, Adv. Mr. Fuzail Khan, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashish Mohan, Adv. Mr. K.K. Mohan,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted. Until further orders, status quo as it exists today shall be maintained. (Rajesh Dham) (Madhu Saxena) Court Master Court Master
3. Till today, the case is pending and it is such a case in which it is most likely that the private party may have already reaped the benefit of the High Court Judgment and even otherwise may not even file a reply so the Case will meet a slow death in the Supreme Court and thus the benefit given to the common man by the Allahabad High Court has been denied to the public by the arbitrary and Authoritarian stay order of the Supreme court and it is more than possible that it will be denied forever because of the negotiating powers of the State Government. Therefore once the Supreme Court stays an order of the High Court of such a great public importance, it ought to and it should decide the case in maximum six months even if the respondents are served or not after all they do have the brains to decide the case even in absence of the reply or do they lack the brains and have to depend on the replies and arguments of advocates in which case the public will always loose as the State can afford to hire the most expensive Advocates at public cost and that too mostly to serve their egos and no public interest is involved in challenging the orders of the High Court.
4. This article will be continued regarding other cases, where the Public interest benefic Judgments passed by the High Courts have come to an end in the Supreme Court of India and have been pending since ages.
Robby Sharma
865, Block-B, Panki Kanpur-208020
email—sharmarobby@hotmail.com
Mob-91-9415438326;9235844258.

Tags- Supreme Court of India, All good things come to an End, Nazul Land Free hold case in U.P.