PCC to help chit fund victims with legal assistance

Investors in chit funds deserve to get back their money and the Pradesh Congress will take all steps to ensure the recovery, asserts its new President, Jaydev Jena.

In a press release he has said that the Congress Party will never tolerate the conspiracy hatched by Naveen Patnaik led BJD Government to suppress the mega chit fund scam. The state Congress will continue its agitational programs till the last depositor get their money back, he has said.

According to the press note, the Congress will extend co-operation to all the depositors, who would want legal aid to fight in the court of law. For the purpose, the PCC is organizing to open helpline desk from block level to state level consisting of block President and one lawyer at block level, district President and two lawyers at district level and two senior leaders and three senior lawyers at the state level. These cells will be constituted to provide legal assistance free of cost to the affected people, who have filled FIR or taken the shelter of court of law.

Coming heavily down upon the CM for his unwillingness for a CBI inquiry into the chit fund fraud, Jena has attributed this reluctance to involvement of his ministers and party MLAs, MPs in the offense.

There has been the network of 95 chit fund companies out of which 25 ones like Seashore, Arthatatwa, Sharada, Astha, Green Ray etc are prominent. The crime branch has enquired into their spread and spotted the culprits; but is not revealing the names of depositors and investors under off the record directions of the Chief Minister, he has alleged.

Shri Jena has demanded release of white paper on the chit fund fraud by the Government forthwith.

Shameless Srikant, ashamed Orissa

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

Self-seekers who join politics always hanker after power and change from party to party if that helps them fetch ministerial berths. The party they enter into feels burdened with them; but they survive there by ingratiating themselves with the top leader of that party and showing more aggressiveness against its rival political parties, specifically against the party they leave behind. These self-seekers have no self-respect and they tolerate any insult the party of their refuge – earlier embarrassed because of them – inflicts. Srikant Jena is no different.

He has more experience as a minister than some of the cabinet colleagues of Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh. With the experience of handling important departments like Industry and Urban Development in Orissa in the last part of 1980s, he rendered his services as Union Minister of State, Small Scale Industry, Agro and Rural Industries in 1990 and after a gap with parliamentary assignments as Janata Dal’s Chief Whip, he again joined the Union Ministry as Cabinet Minister of Parliamentary Affairs and Tourism.

It was, therefore, expected that, when, despite anti-Congress wave in the State, he was elected to the 15th Lok Sabha in 2009, the Congress, for which he had deserted the Janata Dal, would offer him a cabinet berth that he deserved. But Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his extra-constitutional boss Sonia Gandhi wanted to offend Orissa by appointing him as a mere Minister of State, because Orissa had rejected the Congress. It was a direct assault on Oriya mana. Srikant should have refused to accept the position. But shamelessly he accepted and joined as Union Minister of State, Chemicals and Fertilizers. In the last part of 2011, he was allowed to work independently and later put in charge of Statistics and Program Implementation which he had to relinquish in October 2012. Sans any grumble he stayed satisfied with his stultification. He failed to understand that thereby Orissa was embarrassed.

Congress Party has further embarrassed Orissa in the last reshuffle of Singh’s cabinet. When a more deserving MP like Orissa’s former Chief Minister Hemanand Biswal hailing from the tribal community was not even considered for a cabinet berth, Jena was made to make a farce of himself by acquiescing into the PM’s reluctance to elevate him to the cabinet. It was a deliberate design of Sonia-Singh combine to reject Orissa’s claim for representation in the Union Cabinet as thereby the POSCO pal Naveen Patnaik is to politically gain. We have, in these pages, time and again shown, how the Congress high-command has been helping Naveen to stay in power in Orissa in order to help imperialism continue to have a docile servant as Chief Minister in the land of fabulous mines and natural wealth. The same motive of Sonia-Singh combine manifested in keeping Jena out of consideration for a cabinet berth in the last expansion of the Union cabinet. Had he even an iota of self-respect or shame, he should have resigned in protest. But to him, staying docile to the Congress autocrat is more important than staying loyal to Oriya mana.

He is shameless, but for him, Orissa is ashamed.

Is it proper for a reported Supreme Court Judge to hurl abusive words at the Reporter?

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

“The story was based on facts and I stand by it”.

This is how Dhanajay Mahapatra of Times of India has reacted to an intimidating letter sent to the paper by Justice Gyan Sudha Misra of the Supreme Court of India in reaction to his byline in the same paper that reported how lawyers and litigants are disadvantaged by habitual late-coming of judges to the court.

“Chief Justice of India (CJI) Altamas Kabir, who sits in court no. 1, is usually late to the court every day and the bench headed by him seldom commences judicial work at scheduled 10.30 am. But, Justice Gyan Sudha Misra appears to be setting a record of her own in coming late to the court. During normal working days, she too comes late to the court. But, during the ongoing summer vacation, punctuality in the SC appears to have lost its meaning as the bench headed by her, which was sitting from May 30 to June 14, assembled at least 60 minutes late on every working day”, he has reported.

Reacting to this report, Justice Mishra has disparaged him with abusive words like “small-minded” and “irresponsible”, who “perhaps” works “at the behest of a motivated lobby”.

She has told Times of India, “I have been instructed to communicate to you that your newspaper and your Sr. Editor/Reporter Mr. Dhananjay Mahapatra have once again indulged in irresponsible and contemptuous reporting by getting the news story published in all the daily editions (15th June 2013) of the Times of India relating to Court timings of the Vacation Bench obviously to hog limelight denigrating the image of the Institution.

Your report clearly reflects that small-minded people neither have the vision nor the understanding to appreciate a larger issue in the functioning of an Institution but have the audacity to publish mischievous reports as per their perception without disclosing full facts perhaps at the behest of a motivated lobby which needs to be investigated. Fortunately, wide and wiser section of the media do not follow your special trait”.

When judges come such late to the court and the lawyer and litigants spend their time waiting for their cases to be taken up, and when it frequently happens, the Press is expected not to keep its eyes close. The people have a right to be informed. So, Sri Mahapatra has done what his profession entails. The people must be made aware of whether or not the institutes of immense public importance function as programed.

Indians are absolutely worried over delays in justice, and therefore, every reason of delay is to be located and discussed in public.

The parliamentary forum is not properly functioning, the people know.

They have watched how the Judicial Standards & Accountability Bill is made to limp for years, when evidently corrupt judges are escaping punishment by using their agents placed in material positions, as witnessed in the case of Justice S. Sen of Kolkata High Court, who even could sabotage the Parliament’s business of impeaching him for his malpractice and misconduct by using the then President of India, Prativa Patil.

As long as criminals are able to use judiciary to keep allegations against them undecided and thereby hoodwinking the election laws occupy parliamentary seats, the corrupt and condemnable judges will never be impeached.

In such circumstances, Press is to be more vigilant about the activities of judges as the judiciary is the last hope for the people whose leaders have sabotaged them and changed their democracy to plutocracy with the help of the executive.

It is now incumbent upon the Press to speak loudly about judges who err so that the judiciary can get necessary input to usher in correction and the people can come to cogitate on how to build up the environment of judicial accountability.

Therefore, reporting facts that need be reported to help judiciary know where improvement is required cannot be considered contemptuous to judiciary. And, if a journalist, that too a journalist of national repute like Sri Mahapatra, has reported on the impact of the habitual delay in Supreme Court judges’ coming to the Court, why should he be abused by the concerned judges with filthy terms like “small-minded people”?

Is it proper for a reported Supreme Court Judge to hurl such abusive words at the Reporter?

Despite difference in banners, they are of the same feathers

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

A person, who, sans any sacrifice for the people and their motherland, gets enthroned as the Prime Minister or a Chief Minister in a democracy in a situation of paucity of befitting claimants, may rule over the gullible people with sycophants blowing trumpets in his/her praise without stoppage; but it is a must that democracy shall stop breathing under that very undeserving person because of machinations he/she must have to employ to thrive on the throne; and because of emergence of plutocracy in the resultant environment.

Both the Prime Minister of India Dr. Manmohan Singh and the Chief Minister of Orissa Sri Naveen Patnaik belong to this category.

Both of them were placed in power by political midwives in peculiar situations of paucity of claimants and have continued to bag power, term after term, despite blatant misrule in every term.

Both of them have served foreign interest more than they have shown any honest concern for the indigenous toiling masses.

Both of them have given reigns of scams and unleashed State terror to suppress voices of protests.

Both of them have partnered in worsening the miseries of the common people through their pro-rich policies.

When only 150 Indians posses wealth in the range of USD 500 million to USD 999 millions, and only 109 billionaires in the country control 20.5% of the total fortune the ultra wealthy segment comprising 7,730 individuals posses according to World Ultra Wealth Report, 2012-13 by Wealth-X, the UNESCO report on nutrition has exposed that 20% of children under years of five suffer from wasting due to acute undernourishment in India where live one-third of the world’s wasted children. The report has further shown that 43% of Indian children under 5 are underweight and 48% are stunted due to chronic undernourishment. India accounts for more than 3 out of every 10 stunted children of the world, the report has shown.

The Prime Minister had to confess while releasing the HUNGaMA report on hunger and malnutrition on January 10, 2012 that “Despite impressive growth in our GDP, the level of under-nourishment in the country is unacceptably high. We have also not succeeded in reducing this rate fast enough” (PIB 10.01.12).

The HUNGaMA report released by Dr. Singh has also shown that in Orissa, in all the districts surveyed except only one, have much more than the national average of 48% of the children bellow 5 that are stunting. In districts like Malkangiri, Koraput, and Gajapati percentage of underweight children below 5 are much more than national average of 48%.

So, both Dr. Singh and Sri Patnaik know that their misrule has ruined the people and pushed massive majority of our children below five years of age to severe malnourishment while helping the rich comprising a very small number as shown above grab India’s national wealth.

They know that under the rule of the rich,which each of them has promulgated, the people have lost their purchasing power and unless they are supplied with highly subsidized rice, they would die of starvation.

And, lest massive starvation deaths, inevitable in the climate of starvation they have created, exposes how harmful is the economic policy they have been practicing, a condition of slow starvation was contrived to replace the condition of starvation, by ensuring supply of rice at Rs.2/- per kg.

But the people are so ruined that it was soon realized that they have no financial ability to purchase rice even at Rs.2/- per kg.

Therefore, Naveen has reduced the rate of rice to rupee one per kg in Orissa, which Manmohan is eventually to promulgate in the national level to escape censor for his harmful economic policy and to cultivate votes in 2014 by using the magic of meretricious sympathy for the wretched which the savagely subsidized rice is expected to weave.

You may find in these pages, discussions galore about their misdeeds. Will you, dear readers, wake up to save our fellow beings from the pernicious network of undeserving politicians like these two when our country offers us the opportunity to do so in the coming general elections?

Scribes stress on action against rowdy medicos and IIC of Mangalabag P.S.

Cuttack based scribes belonging to both the print and electronic media, in a signed memorandum to Orissa’s Director General of Police today stressed on action against medicos who kidnapped two reporters of Naxatra News from the medicine indoor of SCB Medical College on June 15 and tortured them in wrongful confinement for more than two hours. They also demanded stern action against the inspector-in-charge of Police of Mangalabag PS for discernible siding with the rowdy medicos.

DSC_0356

Members of the presidium of Media Unity for Freedom of Press (MUFP) Prasanta Patnaik and Subhas Chandra Pattanayak and coordinator of Save the Samaja Forum Pabitra Maharatha accompanied the aggrieved scribes in a major rally to Police headquarters. In absence of the DGP, the memorandum was received by Additional DGP Mr. Sanjib Marik.

tortured journalist briefs the ADGP

The tortured scribes, Chittaranjan Samantray and Debasis Mohanty gave a detail description of how they were shanghaied into wrongful confinement in a hostel of the medical college by a gang of around a hundred medical students and interns and physically tortured. They were forced to kneel down for hours and then forced to proceed to the same medicine indoor for begging apology before the indoor patients before whom on June 14 they had raised objections to what the house surgeons had said about the father of Samantray.

Samantray’s father was admitted into the medicine ward for treatment. The house surgeons pronounced that the senior Samantray had developed damage in both his kidneys and insisted that he should be shifted to a private hospital. Samantray was shocked, because no pathological investigation had indicated about any damage to the kidneys and he protested. This irked the house surgeons and they started rebuking him in filthy language. An embarrassed and shocked Samantray tried to capture the highly atrocious conduct of the medicos; but obstructed, he went to the unit head and professor of medicine, Dr. Siddharth Das and placed before him his grievances. Dr. Das rushed to the spot and investigated into the matter and as all co-patients of the indoor ward corroborated the allegations raised by Samantray, asked the errant medicos not to work in the same ward. This further irritated the medicos.

When next day, June 15, he had come to attend his father, his co-reporter Debasis had also come with him to meet the professor in his indoor chamber in matter of his ailing mother. Seeing them in the indoor corridor, the miscreant medicos jumped on them and whisked them away into the hostel, where they were kept in wrongful confinement and tortured.

The gory part of the incident is that the IIC of Mangalabag Mr. Shariffudin having come to the spot on SOS message from the affected scribe remained a silent spectator of the torture and willfully neglected to register the FIR filed by them and was later seen entertaining the miscreant medicos in his chamber and registering a parallel FIR filed by them in order to create a confusion in course of criminal justice dispensation.

memorandum

About 50 scribes, while collectively presenting their Memorandum, informed the ADGP that the same IIC is terrorizing them and urged upon him to investigate into his conduct and discipline him. Besides the two victims of medico-police atrocity, the memorialists included, amongst others, Pradip Sahu,Navdeep Das,Cittaranjan Mishra, Satchidanand Behera, Gopal Mohapatra, Matrudatta Mohanty,Prasanta Mohanty, Jyotiprakash Rao, Bikash Sharma, Abhi Mohanty, Amardev Nayak, Rajkishore Panda, Pratap Chandra Sahoo, Devi Prasanna Khuntia, Rajkishore Mohanty, Ch. Jagannath Patra, Satyajit Mishra, Saroj Kumar Mallik,Ajaya Kumar Das, Pabitra Maharatha, Prasanta Patnaik and Subhas Chandra Pattanayak.

The ADGP has assured to take suitable action in the matter and expeditiously.

Manoj Das keeping mum even after exposure makes the matter murkier

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

Eminent journalist Prasanta Patnaik has, in his column in Sanchar, exposed such a thread in the matter of economic offenses committed by Prasant Das and his Seashore group of companies that every Oriya who prides in his/her language, writers and scribes, feels ashamed.

Patnaik has exposed how a self-help group of writers and scribes have collectively enhanced credibility of the swindler by accepting big sums of money as their salaries and awards under the banner of a body of letters style Seashore Sahitya Academy that the crook had floated to build up his image of benevolence in the public.

And, he has named the literary acrobats who have contributed to promotion of climate the Seashore group wanted to lure the depositors.

He has named author and orator of international repute Manoj Das, known in Orissa as an ascetic of Pondicherry; and superannuated IAS officer, Rajendra Kishore Panda, known in Orissa as a progressive poet.

He has exposed how the swindler had contrived a method to fetch fame through these men. And, how, under the presidentship of Panda and approval of Das, literary lightweights like college teachers Malabika Roy and Bipin Bihari Nayak and a veterinary doctor Duryodhan Das were teamed up in this dubious body that netted in, in course of time, opinion makers like Journalists Barendrakrushna Dhal, Srimay Kar and Sriram Das to pump in credibility to the censorable outfit by accepting its awards.

When Panda as president of this Academy, allegedly functioned without receiving any money for the service he rendered, Malabika, Bipin and Duryodhan received Rs.60,000 each as monthly salary as its vice-presidents, where as another teacher Narayan Panda also bagged the same amount as Secretary of the said Academy, Patnaik has claimed.

Das accepted a monthly package of a lakh of rupees to act as advisor, he has noted, while questioning his prudence in being associated with such a bubious body against salary of such a stupendous amount.

By active contributing to creation of misleading fame of a crook, who, on the strength of such manufactured fame, has swindled about 500 crores of rupees from the deposits of the lured people, the self-help group of authors and scribes, as named above, has played the nastiest possible mischief against the society, Patnaik has alleged.

Manoj Das and his team in the so-called Academy are making the matter murkier by their surprising silence.

The climate of swindling, cheating, fake fames, and hypocrisy that Naveen Patnaik’s deceptive rule for more than a decade has created, has, it seems, made our men of letters and societal conscience keeper such scraps that they have no courage to stand erect against luring currents.

Medicos keep media persons in wrongful confinement at Cuttack: Action called for

When his father was an indoor patient in SCB Medical College Hospital, reporter Chittaranjan of Naxatra News, while attending him, came across such irregularities in the hospital management and health care that as a media person it was to him imprudent to ignore. He was in a predicament. He knew that it would be irritating to the College authorities as well as to the hospital’s medical staff if the irregularities were exposed and may lead to debacle of his ailing father. Yet he also knew that if he sloughs over the irregularities, his professional conscience would never excuse him. He battled against himself and finally decided to honor his professional conscience. He captured some evidences of irregularities in camera on 14 06 1013. This irked the medicos.

Today, at around 5.30 PM of June 15, when Chitta and a co-reporter had been to the medical college and hospital to attend to his bedridden ailing father, a irritated gang of medicos numbering about 30, attacked them suddenly and forcefully took them into confinement.

The wrongful confinement lasted for about two hours.

The reporters were threatened with dire consequences if the tapes on which visuals were shot yesterday were not handed over to them immediately. But the tape was not with the reporters as by that time they had already submitted the same in the bureau office. Their tormentors asked them to kneel down holding the ears by both the hands till they were released at about 7.30 in the evening.

On behalf of ‘Naxatra News’ channel, its editor-in-chief Basudev Mohapatra has condemned the hooliganism resorted to by the medicos and has appealed to media fraternity to unite against such attack so as to protect free press in the State.

Media Unity for Freedom of Press (MUFP) Presidium member Prasanta Patnaik is in consultation with other members over the issue.

Land Ceiling was Nandini’s landmark contribution: Brinda Karat

nandini's birthday

One of the most popular Information Ministers India has ever had and former Chief MInister of Orissa late Nandini Satpathy was paid glowing tributes for her progressive contributions when her 82 birthday was observed with deliberations on “Social divisions in the society and the ways to overcome it” in the State Information Center (Jaya Dev Bhawan) on June 10.

CPI(M) Politburo member Brinda Karat and Congress spokesperson Renuka Chowdhury were the guests. Satpathy’s son and carrier of her legacy Tathagat, who, besides being a member of Indian Parliament in the Loksabha, is the editor of Dharitri of which she was the founder, presided.

Brinda focused on why, despite death, Nandini is alive.

She was in lifelong link with the people in the grassroots and had used her power to usher in progressive reforms with specific purpose to help the downtrodden proceed towards prosperity, which has kept her alive, she said.

She had joined politics, as a conscious revolutionary initiated into marxism, epitomizing the ideals of her famous elder father Bhagavati Panigrahi, and despite her metamorphosis into power politics under the canopy of the Congress party, she had not drifted away from her original revolutionary ideals while holding positions in the Central Council of Ministers and accepting Chief-ministerial responsibilities in Orissa,said Brinda.

It is she who had generated dreams for employment through industry in Orissa by establishing such employment generating undertaking in the public sector and in order to self employment in agriculture, she had not only used her chief-ministerial powers to formulate and promulgate a first of its kind Land Reforms Act, but also had made the most landmark contribution to progressive economy by promulgating land ceiling in Orissa, that was yet again a pioneering step towards liberating the most essential raw material of a agricultural society – the land – from concentration in the hands of a few people who do not cultivate.

A multi-dimensional personality, she was a colorful politician that epitomized elite manners but remained glued to expectation of the poor in right earnest which was reflected in her administration, addressed to pro-poor programs and in her literary works spangled with dreams and aspirations of the disadvantaged, she said.

With the petals of her observation on Nandini, Brinda dwelled on the topic of how to overcome social division. The traditional divisive factors like castes and communal identities apart, economic inequality has emerged as the divide that needs be effectively removed if social division is to be tackled, she said. Concentration of wealth in marginal few to the impoverishment of the majority is the problem that the conscious citizens everywhere are battling against. She was sure, mass resentment against social divide will succeed, because the people are increasingly getting more informed and meretricious assurances of pro-rich power-holders are reaching the last stage of reliability. Determined mass involvement in movements against the existing divide will expedite its end, she said.

Audience responded to Brinda’s observation with standing ovation.

Echoing Brinda, national Congress spokesperson Ms. Chowdhury, as the chief speaker, observed that change is inevitable, as Indian society, despite continuity of social divide, has changed from a stage of ‘Sati’ to women making their marks of success in public domains. That the governments, over the times, have framed various progressive laws such as Right to Education Act, is evidence of the change the society is marching towards. She stressed on mass awakening against factors of social division, as “the onus is on us to bring the changes”, she said.

Sri Satpathy told that the main aim behind having the debate on this revolutionary subject on the birthday of the late leader was to bring in new ideas, new thoughts, new people and a new visions into our thinking process that can refine the dreams and aspirations of intellectuals of Orissa, with the experience of others who have remarkable practical involvement in overcoming the hurdles social divide creates on the way to development and thanked both the speakers for the rich input they gave to the topic.

Ms. Adyasha Satpathy presented both the guests with their respective portraits drawn by eminent artist Manas Jena to resounding applaud from the audience.

Indian postal department has issued a special post card in Nandini’s honor. Both the guests formally made the card public.
post card in honor of nandini

Orissamatters’ New Page: LAW BEYOND PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE

law beyond public knowledge_intro

PRIVATE COUNSEL OF INFORMANT HAS NO RIGHT OF AUDIENCE IN HEARING OF BAIL PETITION OF THE ACCUSED, ARGUES BIBHU PRASAD TRIPATHY

bptA master of Law from the National Law School of India University, Bangalore, Bibhu Prasad Tripathy, Managing Partner of Lex Publicio, has splendid contributions to his profession.

He practices in constitutional forums of justice such as the High Court of Orissa, High Court of Delhi, and the Supreme Court of India.

He also practices in the National Green Tribunal, and National Consumer Forum.

Amidst engagements in such great ramparts of justice, he also creates time sometimes to assist the justice delivery system in solving intricacies of law.

His argument in matter of a Bail Application in the Court of the District and Sessions Judge, Cuttack fits perfectly into this page.

The Samaja, a powerful newspaper of Orissa, allegedly occupied by Servants of the People Society through fraudulent means, has become a battleground for rival fractions and the fraction that has captured the office of the Samaja is misusing its media power to browbeat the rivals through gained over police black sheep. Thus a life member of SoPS Sri Brajaraj Das @ Brajabhai and the President of the newspaper’s employees association Sri Devi Prasanna Nayak were booked by the police on cooked up charges leveled through a FIR which eventually landed the court as a G.R.Case. Bails denied in the primary Court, Das and Nayak had to prefer an application for bail in the District Court through Advocate Bibhu Prasad Tripathy.

It was shocking to see that the media house Samaja was trying to browbeat the Court by engaging a top criminal lawyer to oppose the bail application, when the Court was only to be addressed by the public prosecutor on behalf of the State. Tripathy vehemently objected to that. He argued that the private counsel for the informant has no right of audience in the Court hearing the bail application. The Court agreed.

We post here his argument in public interest.

IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, CUTTACK
(Bail Application)
B.A. NO…………………OF 2013

(Arising out of GR Case No 465 of 2013 arising out of Cantonment PS Case No 20 of 2013 u/s 341/323/294/354/506/447 and 34 of IPC)

IN THE MATTER OF:

Braja Bhai & Another
……Petitioners
-Versus-
State of Orissa
………Opposite Party

NOTE OF SUBMISSION FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS OBJECTING TO INFORMANTS PRIVATE COUNSEL’S INDEDPENDENT RIGHT OF AUDIENCE

That the sought questions for consideration during the time of hearing of the bail application of the accused persons was whether the informant private counsel has an independent right of audience or in other wards whether a third party/informant can present oral argument against the petition for bail filed by the accused persons?

That, Section 301 of CrPC states the following:

301. Appearance by Public Prosecutors:
(1) The Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of a case may appear and plead without any written authority before any Court in which that case is under inquiry, trial or appeal.
(2) If in any such case, any private person instructs a pleader to prosecute any person in any Court, the Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of the case shall conduct the prosecution, and the pleader so instructed shall act therein under the directions of the Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor, and may, with the permission of the Court, submit written arguments after the evidence is closed in the case.

That, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Smt. Indubala & Ors Vs Delhi Administration & Ors (1991 CrLJ 1774) in Paragraph 6 in the operative portion of the order has stated the following:

“So, it is evident that a complainant can only assist the Public Prosecutor when the proceedings are being conducted at the stage of inquiry, trial or appeal. Such a complainant can submit written arguments after the evidence is closed in the case but as far as application for grant of bail is concerned there is no provision made in the Code of Criminal Procedure that a complainant or a third party can intervene and make any submissions independently in opposing the application for grant of bail or anticipatory bail. A single Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kuldip Singh v. State of Haryana, 1980 Cri LJ 1159, also considered the provisions of S. 301 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the same manner. Counsel for the petitioner has also made reference to Sarwan Kumar v. State of Haryana, 1989 (2) Recent Criminal Reports 459, wherein a single Judge of that Court also held that the first informant or the complainant in proceedings seeking grant of anticipatory bail neither can be considered as necessary party nor a proper party and has no locus standi to be heard. It was held that the complainant party may hold a watching brief and may bring the relevant facts to the notice of the State counsel and apart from that the complainant party has no right to be heard when particularly the State is duly represented.”

That, a Three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shivkumar Vs Hukum Chand & Another (1999 (7) SCC 467) has categorically stated that from the scheme of the Code the legislative intention is manifestly clear that prosecution in a sessions court cannot be conducted by anyone other than the Public Prosecutor. The legislature reminds the State that the policy must strictly conform to fairness in the trial of an accused in a sessions court. A Public Prosecutor is not expected to show a thirst to reach the case in the conviction of the accused somehow or the other irrespective of the true facts involved in the case. The expected attitude of the Public Prosecutor while conducting prosecution must be couched in fairness not only to the court and to the investigating agencies but to the accused as well. If an accused is entitled to any legitimate benefit during trial the Public Prosecutor should not scuttle/conceal it. On the contrary, it is the duty of the Public Prosecutor to winch it to the fore and make it available to the accused. Even if the defence counsel overlooked it, Public Prosecutor has the added responsibility to bring it to the notice of the court if it comes to his knowledge. A private counsel, if allowed free hand to conduct prosecution would focus on bringing the case to conviction even if it is not a fit case to be so convicted. That is the reason why Parliament applied a bridle on him and subjected his role strictly to the instructions given by the Public Prosecutor.

That in Thakur Ram Vs State of Bihar (AIR 1966 SC 911) the Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled that “in a case which has proceeded on a police report, a private party has no locus standi. It further ruled that, barring a few exceptions, in criminal matters, the aggrieved party is the State, which is the custodian of the social interests of the community at large, and so it is necessary for the State to take all steps necessary for bringing the person who has acted against the social interests of the community, to book.”

That, the Hon’ble Chhatishgarh High Court in Dr Sunil Puri Vs State of Chhatishgarh (2006 CrLJ 866) has observed in Paragraph 15 that “In the result, I hold that the counsel for the complainant or the first Informant has no right of audience in a petition filed Under Section 438, Cr. P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail. He cannot be permitted to orally address the Court. It is only the State Counsel who can be heard in opposing the bail application. However, the counsel so engaged by the first informant or the complainant can brief the State Counsel and can also make a representation on behalf of the complainant or the first informant, and can assist the State Counsel while opposing the ball application. The objection raised by the counsel for the applicant is upheld. However, in the present facts and circumstances of this particular case, it is observed that if so desired, counsel for the first informant, may file written argument at the time of hearing concluded by the counsel for the State.”

That, the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court also held in the matter of In Re, Rakhal Ojha alias Rakhal Chandra Ojha (1988 Cri LJ 278) that “a plain reading of Sub-sections (1) & (2) of Section 301 Cr. P.C. makes it clear that if in a case which is in charge of a Public Prosecutor or Asstt. Public Prosecutor, a private person engages a lawyer, then, notwithstanding such engagement, the Public Prosecutor or Asstt. Public Prosecutor, who is in charge of the case, shall conduct the prosecution and the lawyer engaged by the private person shall act therein under the direction of the Public Prosecutor or Asst. Public Prosecutor and he can only submit written arguments and that too with the permission of the Court. It was held vide para 8 that the lawyer so engaged by a private person has no right of audience in a case which is in charge of a Public Prosecutor. This analogy derived by the Calcutta High Court appears to be based upon the language of Section 301(2) Cr. P.C. It is held that when the section Itself says that the lawyers engaged may with the permission of the Court, submit written arguments after the evidence is closed, is clear and unambiguous and there is no scope for going behind the letters of the law to hold that such a lawyer can address the Court orally also.”

That, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Praveen Malhotra Vs State (1990 CrLJ 2184) while adjudicating a dispute relating to the third party right to intervene and the heard in opposition of bail application clearly stated that “Under Sub-section (2) of Section 301, the pleader instructed by any private person has to act under the directions of the Public Prosecutor or the Assistant Public Prosecutor. Thus it is clear that pleader of a private party can only assist the Public Prosecutor when proceedings are at the stage of inquiry, trial or appeal. After close of evidence such pleader with permission of court, can submit written arguments. The scheme of the Code is that when a case is at the stage, of enquiry, trial or appeal, the Public Prosecutor is in charge of the case. He represents the prosecuting agency before the court. Even in cases where a pleader has been instructed by a private person, such pleader has to act under the directions of the Public Prosecutor and such a pleader is included in the definition of “Public Prosecutor” as provided in Section 2(u). Thus it is evident that no pleader can be permitted to intervene or act except in the manner provided under Section 301(2) of the Code. The combine effect of Section 2(u), 24 and 301 of the Code is that a pleader engaged by a private party cannot plead though he can act and that too under the directions of the Public Prosecutor.” That in Paragraph 19 held that “it may also be noticed that the applicants have not alleged in the application that the State is not doing its duty properly in any manner. The applicants have also not sought leave to assist the State. The contention of the applicants was also not .that the Public Prosecutor has abdicated his functions. The main thrust of the argument of learned counsel for the applicant has been that the applicants have a right to intervene and make oral arguments in the bail application filed by the petitioner. For the reasons aforesaid my answer to the question is that the applicants have no right to intervene and be heard in opposition to the bail application (Cr. M. (M) 161/90).”

That, it follows in the above said Judgements that a plain reading of Section 301 of CrPC reveals that oral submissions by the informant counsel before the Court cannot be independent of the prosecutor and prosecution should not mean persecution. That it is for the said intended objective the Courts have taken an unanimously view that there is no provision in Criminal Procedure Code allowing a complainant or third party to oppose the application for grant of bail or anticipatory bail to the accused persons. Hence the private counsel for the informant does not have an independent right of audience.
By the petitioners
Through
Bibhu Prasad Tripathy
Advocate

IAS is not Infuser of Anarchy into Service; Chancellor of UCC should review Asok Tripathy’s activities as its VC-in-charge

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

It is wrong to read IAS as Infuser of Anarchy into Service. But Mr. Asok Kumar Tripathy IAS has made many read it thus, specifically in the context of what he has done in the Utkal University of Culture (UCC).

He is the Secretary of culture department of the Government of Orissa. And culture department is the administrative department of UCC.

As the Secretary of the administrative department, he knew that the Vice-Chancellor of the University was to retire on February 16, 2013. But he did not take necessary steps to ensure that a new VC was selected and appointed to take over the charges from the outgoing VC. This was probably because, he had a secret agenda to execute after the VC retires. The University Registrar, who could have stressed upon the necessity of selection and appointment of a new VC, was given the impression that the 9th VC was under active consideration for extension and in the process the Culture Minister was also used. But the file generated to emit this impression was to get gone through the stymie in the form of another IAS officer in the system of the Governor-cum-Chancellor, which it failed to pass. resultantly, the 9th VC had to relinquish office to create the vacancy for Tripathy to step in.

Blatant disregard to ethics and prudence

In this method, after the 9th VC retired, Tripathy grabbed the position of VC the next day, i.e. on February 17, 2013, though administratively it was entirely improper and imprudent.

It needs be said that the Secretary, under the Rules of Business, being the chief executive of the department assigned to him, should never want or accept any post in an institute under the administrative control of his department, because thereby any illegality or impropriety committed by him in the said institute shall have no possibility of higher executive intervention in the department howsoever calling be that in the concerned moment and the wrongs perpetrated shall continue to get the support of the State.

As the Secretary of the department and so its executive head, Tripathy should not, therefore, have wanted or allowed himself to accept the assignment as VC of the University.

But in blatant disregard to ethics and prudence, he occupied the VC chair. And went ahead to execute a design that has ruined the academic environment of the University.

What has he done?

Colorable exercise of administrative power

He has dismissed from service all the “qualified” teachers, who were serving the University since six years in all of the 15 post-graduate departments of UCC and besides teaching, were doing all the extra-classroom duties, such as preparing the courses of study, setting question papers, conducting examinations, evaluating answer papers, manning the examination squads and finalizing the results. Because of them the University has earned credibility by launching six batches of Masters in Music. Tripathy has dismissed them all under colorable exercise of administrative power.

According to University Notification No. 1533 of July 26, 2007, all these post-graduate teachers were selected for the vacancies then existing in the University through a competent “Selection Committee” appointed for the purpose, as they were found “qualified” to fill up the vacant faculty positions.

But instead of appointing them as regular teachers they were declared “Guest Lecturers for teaching and accompaniment in different branches of M.Music” with remunerations fixed per class. They all were assured on every relevant occasions that once the financial instability inherently affecting the University was over, their services shall be regularized and they continued to hold the posts created in 2007. The 9th VC had stressed upon their regularization; because they were “qualified” persons “selected” on the basis of “interview” conducted by a duly appointed and legally competent “Selection Committee” of the University in 2007, and had taken positive steps in this regard.

Tripathy has destroyed this position by “disengaging” all of them through mischief of a built up plea.

BoM a tamed team

The University has no senate, no syndicate. It is a government institute controlled by the Secretary of the Culture department. To give it an attire of autonomy, the Secretary has a tamed team branded as the Board of Management (BoM) that comprises Sarat Pujari of Sangit Natak Academy, Satakadi Hota of Orissa Sahitya Academy, Siba Panigrahi of Lalit Kala Academy, Tamasarani Das Mohapatra of Utkal Sangeet Mahavidyalaya, Baladev Prasad Maharatha of B.K. College of Fine Arts, Prasant Das of Khallikot Govt. College of Arts, Ramahari Das of Odissi Research Centre who are indebted to the Secretary for their respective postings. None of these fellows has the courage to say no to what the departmental Secretary wants. In fact, some of them, who, in personal level are my friends, have confided in me that they had to sign on dotted lines the resolution dated 08,04,2013 where it was written that the “guest” lecturers would be disengaged from 10.5.2013. And citing this resolution Tripathy promulgated the “disengagement” order on 15.5.2013.

Office order cannot nullify Notification

It is to be noted that the lectures had entered into the University system by a “Notification” bearing No.1533, which was issued on 26.7.2007 with the unambiguous declaration that all of them were “qualified” for the posts they were to fill up, notwithstanding the designation offered to them.

But all of them have been “disengaged” by an “Office Order” issued on 15.5.2013.

The lecturers, notwithstanding their designation, having entered into the University system by a “Notification” cannot be dismissed by an “Office Order”; because “Office Order” is not the same as “Notification”.

Disengagement is not legal

On the other hand, the so-called “Office Order” which has “disengaged them with effect from 15.05.2013 for the first time after their entry into the University’s faculty system, makes it absolutely clear that till “disengaged”, all of them were “engaged” in their respective jobs which they had joined under the “Notification” of 26.7.2013, notwithstanding the wrongful designation and remuneration they were subjected to.

By virtue of their engagement for six years, as admitted in the above-noted “Office Order”, they had acquired a job status that cannot be dismantled so arbitrarily by a scheming Secretary behind them and in total denial of natural justice to them, and for no fault of theirs, specifically when the same Secretary had the knowledge that after only a few days he would be shunted out of the University when the new VC was to take over.

Keeping these “qualified” lecturers recruited by the “Selection Committee” lawfully constituted by the University for selection of “qualified” persons on the basis of interview against existing vacancies “engaged in their jobs” for six years under a mischievous nomenclature like “guest Lecturers” was blatantly illegal and can be cited as a classic instance of unfair labor practice resorted to by a government institute of higher education in culture like the UCC.

Nasty administration

Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik should feel ashamed of what a nasty and exploitive administration he has given to the State where brilliant and “qualified” experts in performing arts have been kept underfed and insecure like bonded labors in the University of Culture by his Mandarines like Tripathy for all these six years to be thrown into the dustbin in furtherance of a design.

The new Governor of the State, who, by virtue of being the Governor, is the University’s Chancellor, should also feel ashamed of his predecessor’s total failure in the realm of UCC where all the teachers, who were found “qualified” by the “selection Committee” and who, on joining the University system, have kept the University alive by producing six batches of Masters in Music, were denied job-security ever since their entry into the University system and had been kept underfed like bonded labors for six years. He should genuinely disapprove that after he has taken over, the same teachers have been “disengaged” for no fault of theirs, but because the Secretary of the controlling department had a secret design to execute.

Culture is so Uncultured!

The “disengagement” of the founding teachers in performing art disciplines like Vocal music, Dance, Instrumental music, and Drama, besides being entirely illegal, is a dastardly uncultured crime against human rights that an institute like the University of Culture was never expected to commit. This is sheer anarchy.

This anarchy has been infused into the system of the University by Tripathy.

The plea that the founding teachers of the University were mere “guest lecturers” whom the board of management resolved to disengage is blatantly fallacious.

The legal aspect has been discussed supra.

Now let us go to the concerned resolution.

Illogical resolution

While proposing to disengage the Guest Lecturers from 10.05.13, it simultaneously says, “There will ….. be …… only Guest Lecturers. All the posts of required number of Guest Lecturers will be advertised for recruitment before the summer vacation of 2013 after getting approval of the administrative department”.

Six years ago, in 2007, there was “advertisement” for “Guest Lectures” and “recruitment” of “qualified” persons for the said posts, was made by a “Selection Committee”, “after getting approval of the administrative department”.

So why have they been “disengaged” after rendering six years of brilliant and bright service; and when none of them was found deficient?

Why the resolution has been adopted to “disengage” “guest lecturers” to recruit “guest lecturers”? Is it a sane resolution?

How do you explain this, members of the BoM?

Mr. Sarat Pujari, how do you explain this?

Mr. Satakadi Hota, how do you explain this?

Mr. Siba Panigrahi, how do you explain this?

Ms. Tamasarani Das Mohapatra, how do you explain this?

Mr. Baladev Prasad Maharatha, how do you explain this?

Mr. Prasant Das, how do you explain this?

Mr. Ramahari Das, how do you explain this?

Each one of you is considered a polar star on the sky of our culture. But instead of nurturing our cultural climate by standing with the teachers of performing arts whom the University had kept underfed by not regularizing their services despite using them to churn out masters these long six years, why have you, like obedient slaves, signed on a resolution that declares to disengage working “guest lecturers” to engage “guest lecturers” in work in their places? Why could you not stand with your conscience? Why this treachery is played against a brilliant and dedicated segment of our performing artists that have made their remarkably bright contributions to the University of Culture?

Timid fellows always try to ingratiate themselves with power holder by honoring their orders howsoever wrong and whimsical that be.

But each one of you above named members of the BoM of the University, is viewed as a luminary. Timidity to the extent of making a farce of a resolution of the type discussed above was the last thing one should have expected from you.

Baffling design

Those, who put premium on the dignity of our artists, must feel most disappointed over the treatment given to the teachers of UCC by a bureaucrat, who, instead of waiting for a couple of days for the regular VC to join and take a decision in the matter, has executed a mischievous resolution coined through a tamed team of members in the University BoM, that wants to replace “Guest Lecturers” with “Guest Lecturers”.

This baffling design cannot be defined in real terms. But, unless there is a secret purpose to recruit favored persons, why vacancies have been created in such a mischievous manner?

The teachers, who have thus been arbitrarily “disengaged” in a nefarious design of Tripathy to create vacancies for yet undisclosed favorites, have submitted a representation against their dismissal to the Governor-cum-Chancellor of the University.

But the Chancellor being the Governor of the State, the said representation is to pass through the barricade manned by the IAS biradari. Lest the biradari suppresses this appeal, we are inclined to publish the same in its entirety in our State’s cultural interest, with a request to our readers to attract in their own ways the attention of the Governor to the plight of the teachers of the University of Culture, of which he is the Chancellor. Here below is the copy of their representation:

To:
His Excellency the Governor of Orissa-cum-Chancellor, Utkal University of Culture,
Raj Bhawan,
Bhubaneswar

Sub: Prayer for quashing of Office Order No.841/UUC dated 15.5.2013 and for regularization in
Faculty positions held since 2007

Bhubaneswar, Dt.27.5.2013

Your Excellency,
We the following signatories are a few of the victims of the Office Order referred to above, putting the prayer of all the victims of the above order, as the rest of us have gone to their respective villages under unavoidable circumstances, authorizing us to represent them in this prayer petition.

Please be pleased to kindly take this petition as the petition of all the victims of the Office order referred to above.

The Utkal University of Culture had a requirement of faculties in PERFORMING ART in the departments of (1) Vocal Music in the areas of (a) Odissi Vocal (b) Hindustani Vocal; (2) Dance in the areas of (a) Odissi Dance (b) Chhow dance; (3) Instrumental Music in the areas of (a) Tabla (b) Odissi Pakhawaj ( c ) Flute (d) Violin; and (4) Drama in the areas of (a) Acting (b) Direction ( c ) Stage Craft. The University also required faculties of VISUAL ART in the departments of (1) Painting (2) Applied Art and Design.

It invited applications for the same posts through advertisements in mainstream papers, which is enclosed herewith as Annexure ‘A’.
When the ESSENTIAL QUALIFICATION underlined for faculty of Performing Art was:“M.Mus. or equivalent with 55% marks in concerned subject from a recognized University within the age group of 60 (sixty) years as on 01.03.2007. The preference will be given to the candidates having NIT/Ph.D./Good Academic career”, the same for faculty of Visual Art was: “M.F.A/M.V.A./Advance Diploma/Post diploma in Painting or equivalent with 55% marks from a recognized University within the age group of 60 years as on 01.03.2007.” with the same preference rider.
The University conducted tests and interviews and selected us for the permanent vacancies in the design of guest faculties; while the appointment notification had made it clear that all of us were “qualified” for “teaching and accompaniment” in the Appointment Notification No.1533/UUC dated 26.7.2007.

The said Notification noted that we were “professional / traditional and qualified persons” selected “for teaching and accompaniment in different branches of M.Music as mentioned against each under Utkal University of Culture as per the decision of the Selection Committee constituted by the University for the Academic session 2007-2008”.
This makes it clear that the University had appointed a “Selection Committee” to select “qualified” candidates for faculty positions against vacancies created in 2007-2008.

And, thereafter, no more authentic vacancies have ever been created, as all of us have been performing our duties regularly by having joined the vacant posts of 2007 under “decision” of the “Selection Committee” in 2007.

The University is a State creation and is supposed to be an ideal employer. But instead of regularizing us in our respective posts, as we were appointed by virtue of being “qualified’ for the post and selected by the “Selection Committee” created to fill up the vacancies created in 2007, it has kept us as guest faculties with improper and absolutely inadequate wages, despite our personal/collective representations to the Authorities umpteen times.

We have been working in the posts appointed to since 2007 and at no point of time any of us has been declared disqualified for the post he/she holds, though at two different occasions we were asked to update the University on our bio-data, which we have always complied with to the satisfaction of the authorities.

We have worked as full-fledged teachers rendering our services in every aspect of teachers’ functioning such as in the matters of syllabus, question paper setting, invigilation in examination, evaluation of answer papers and practical tests over and above taking up of all the classes and implementation of didactics. It may please be noted that there are only seven regular teachers appointed recently as against 15 departments of teaching in the University. It suffices to make Your Excellency appreciate that after filling up the vacant posts in 2007, we are the persons that have done the real teaching in the university in almost its entirety. The University should have regularized us since the beginning, which it has not done.

We were selected through a proper and legally constituted “Selection Committee” that had found us most suitable for the vacancies of 2007-2008 pool on the basis of our fulfilling the “Essential qualification” criteria laid down by the University in 2007 and ever since our joining the vacant posts, we have been doing our job with perfect precision, without which the University could not have run so far with 7 teachers only very recently regularized against 15 departments. The University authorities have always assured us of regularization once its economy is stable. And, as teachers and artists, simple in nature and believers in benevolence of the authorities as well as of the State, we have always stayed satisfied with the assurances.

But, sadly, Your Excellency, when we deserve to be regularized, like a bolt from the blue, the wrongful order under reference (Annexure ‘B’) has hit us on the head. Our representations to the members of the Board of Directors including the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar dated 18.5.2013 under Annexure ‘C’ and to the Vice-Chancellor on 24.5.2013 under Annexure ‘D’ and to the Registrar on the same day under Annexure ‘E’ have not fetched us any relief.

PRAYER

Under the circumstances, we pray Your Excellency to please intervene and to please protect our right to life by quashing the order under reference and by reinstating us and regularizing our employment as faculties on the following grounds:

* We have not done any negligence to our duties;
* We had duly appeared in the interview conducted by the Selection Committee legally constituted by the University to select candidates possessing the “essential qualifications” prescribed by the University to fill up vacancies caused in 2007;
* We were found “qualified” for the posts by the “Selection Committee”, the “decision” of which had materialized in our appointment;
* Ever since our joining, we have been doing our duties every day of academic functioning of the University, in every area of teaching and didactics;
* Ever since our joining, the posts we hold have never been declared vacant; and there has never been constituted another “Selection Committee” for vacancies, if any, which establishes that with our joining , the vacancies caused in 2007 have been completely filled up and we have been in regular jobs in regular posts though wrongfully treated as guest faculties;
* Ever since our joining, we have never been set disqualified;
Ever since our joining, we have never been found ineligible to work as faculty;
* Ever since our joining, we have regularly worked as faculties and our and only our role as faculties of the University has produced post-graduates in all the subjects the University has offered in performing arts and visual arts.
* When the University has 15 departments, with a mere seven members in regular posts appointed very recently, without us teaching regularly, the University could never have continued as a seat of learning; and this makes it clear that we have been working in posts of permanent nature since 2007 and keeping us branded as guest faculties with inadequate and improper wages to address classes of regular nature for so long a period was / is not in no consonance with employment ethics expected of an ideal employer;
* When the University is a State undertaking, it should act as an ideal employer and therefore, instead of jettisoning us for no fault of ours, the University should regularize us in our employment.
Unless Your Excellency intervenes and regularize us by quashing the order under reference, our right to life would be in serious jeopardy;

And, therefore, we pray Your Excellency to please quash the order under reference and to be pleased to pass necessary orders to reinstate us and regularize our employment.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, AS IN DUTY BOUND, MOST FERVENTLY WE PRAY.

By the victims of Office Order No. 841/UUC dt.15.5.2013

Infusion of anarchy needs be stopped

It would be proper for the Chancellor to appreciate that the “disengaged” lecturers were legally “selected” to discharge regular jobs that the regular teachers should do, and had thereby de facto filled up the vacancies created in 2007, and therefore, their regularization was a de jure necessity.

Anything else than their regularization would be considered an anarchy in administration.

No IAS officer should be allowed to infuse anarchy into service. So, the Chancellor should act the Governor in this matter and review Tripathy’s activities as VC in-charge of the UCC and save the teachers by quashing the “Office Order” that has thrown a brilliant section of our creative community into a pernicious labyrinth of uncertainty and unemployment.