The Supreme Court judgment holding a non-legislator's re-appointment as Minister beyond six months in Punjab as invalid

can a non-member, who fails to get elected during the period of six consecutive months, after he is appointed as a Minister or while a Minister has ceased to be a legislator, be reappointed as a Minister, without being elected to the Legislature after the expiry of the period of six consecutive months ?

S.R. CHAUDHURI V. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS [2001] INSC 395 (17 August 2001)

CJI, R.C. Lahoti & K.G. Balakrishnan

DR. A.S. ANAND, CJI :

Respondent No.2, Shri Tej Parkash Singh, was appointed as a Minister in the State of Punjab on the advice of the Chief Minister, Sardar Harcharan Singh Barar on 9.9.1995. At the time of his appointment as a Minister, he was not a Member of Legislative Assembly in Punjab. He failed to get himself elected as a Member of the Legislature of the State of Punjab within a period of six months and submitted his resignation from the council of Ministers on 8.3.1996. During the term of the same Legislative Assembly, there was a change in the leadership of the ruling party. Smt. Rajinder Kaur Bhattal, Respondent No.3, was, on her election as Leader of the Ruling Party, appointed Chief Minister of the State of Punjab on 21.11.1996. Respondent No.2, who had not been elected as a Member of the Legislature even till then, was once again appointed as a Minister w.e.f. 23.11.1996. The Appellant filed a petition seeking writ of quo warranto against Respondent No.2. It was stated in the petition that appointment of Respondent No.2 for a second time during the term of the same legislature, without being elected as a Member of the Legislature was violative of constitutional provisions and, therefore, bad. The Division Bench of the High Court vide order dated 3.12.1996 dismissed the writ petition in limine. This appeal by special leave calls in question the order and judgment of the High Court dismissing the writ petition in limine.

........................................................................

Article 144(3) of the Draft Constitution which corresponds to Article 164(4) of the Constitution read:

"A Minister who, for any period of six consecutive months, is not a member of the Legislature of the State shall at the expiration of that period cease to be a Minister." During the debate on this Draft Article, Mr. Mohd. Tahir, M.P. proposed the following amendment: - "That for clause (3) of article 144, the following be substituted:

(3) A Minister shall, at the time of his being chosen as such be a member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of the State as the case may be." Speaking in support of the proposed amendment, Mr. Tahir said in the Constituent Assembly:

"This provision appears that it does not fit with the spirit of democracy. This is a provision which was also provided in the Government of India Act of 1935 and of course those days were the days of Imperialism and fortunately those days have gone. This was then provided because if a Governor finds his choice in someone to appoint as Minister and fortunately or unfortunately if that man is not elected by the people of the country, then that man used to be appointed as Minister through the backdoor as has been provided in the Constitution and in 1935 Act. But now the people of the States will elect members of the Legislative Assembly and certainly we should think they will send the best men of the States to be their representatives in the Council or Legislative Assembly. Therefore I do not find any reason why a man who till then was not elected by the people of the States and which means that, that man was not liked by the people of the States to be their representative in the Legislative Assembly or the Council, then Sir, why that man is to be appointed as the Minister." Dr. Ambedkar opposing the amendment replied :

"Now, with regard to the first point, namely, that no person shall be entitled to be appointed a Minister unless he is at the time of his appointment an elected member of the House, I think it forgets to take into consideration certain important matters which cannot be overlooked. First is this, - it is perfectly possible to imagine that a person who is otherwise competent to hold the post of a Minister has been defeated in a constituency for some reason which, although it may be perfectly good, might have annoyed the constituency and he might have incurred the displeasure of that particular constituency. It is not a reason why a member so competent as that should be not permitted to be appointed a member of the Cabinet on the assumption that he shall be able to get himself elected either from the same constituency or from another constituency. After all the privilege that is permitted is a privilege that extends only for six months. It does not confer a right to that individual to sit in the House without being elected at all. My second submission is this, that the fact that a nominated Minister is a member of the Cabinet, does not either violate the principle of collective responsibility nor does it violate the principle of confidence, because if he is a member of the Cabinet, if he is prepared to accept the policy of the Cabinet, stands part of the Cabinet and resigns with the Cabinet, when he ceases to have the confidence of the House, his membership of the Cabinet does not in any way cause any inconvenience or breach of the fundamental principles on which parliamentary government is based. " (Emphasis supplied) After the debate the proposed amendment was negatived and Article 144(3) was adopted.

The ambit and scope of Article 164(4) came up for consideration before a Constitution Bench of this Court in Har Sharan Verma v. Shri Tribhuvan Narain Singh, Chief Minister, U.P. and another, 1971(1) SCC 616. The issue arose in connection with the appointment of Shri T.N. Singh, who was not a Member of either House of Legislature of the State of Uttar Pradesh, as Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh. The Constitution Bench referred to the position as prevailing in England. It was observed that invariably all Ministers must be members of the Parliament but if in some exceptional case, a Minister, is not a member of the Parliament, he can continue to be a Minister for a brief period during which he must get elected in order to continue as a Minister. This Court upholding the judgment of the High Court, rejected the challenge to the appointment of Shri T.N. Singh as Chief Minister in view of Article 164(4) of the Constitution. The Court opined that the Governor has the discretion to appoint, as a Chief Minister, a person, who is not a member of the legislature at the time of his appointment but the Chief Minister is required, with a view to continue in office as a Chief Minister, get himself elected to the legislature within a period of six consecutive months from the date of his appointment.

The issue was once again raised by the same writ petitioner and was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Har Sharan Verma v. State of U.P. and another, (1985) 2 SCC 48. The writ petitioner argued that a Governor cannot appoint a person, who is not a Member of the Legislature, as a Minister under Article 164(1). According to the writ petitioner Article 164(4) of the Constitution in terms would only be applicable to a person, who has "been a Minister but who ceases to be a member of the Legislature for some reason or the other such as the setting aside of his election in any election petition". Sustenance, for this argument was sought from the provisions of amended Article 173(a) which provides :

"Article 173. Qualification for membership of the State Legislature.- A person shall not be qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in the Legislature of a State unless he- (a) is a citizen of India, and makes and subscribes before some person authorised in that behalf by the Election Commission an oath or affirmation according to the form set out for the purpose in the Third Schedule;

Relying upon the Constitution Bench judgment in Har Sharan Verma v. Shri Tribhuvan Narain Singh (supra), the Court opined:

"It is thus seen that there is no material change brought about by reason of the amendment of Article 173(a) of the Constitution in the legal position that a person who is not a member of the State Legislature may be appointed as a Minister subject, of course, to clause (4) of Article 164 of the Constitution which says that a Minister who for any period of six consecutive months is not a member of the Legislature of the State shall at the expiration of that period cease to be a Minister." "A Minister who for any period of six consecutive months is not a member of either House of Parliament shall at the expiration of that period cease to be a Member." And Article 88, which provides:

"Every Member and the Attorney-General of India shall have the right to speak in, and otherwise to take part in the proceedings of, either House, any joint sitting of the Houses, and any committee of Parliament of which he may be named a member, but shall not by virtue of this article be entitled to vote." opined:

"The combined affect of these two articles is that a person not being a Member of either House of Parliament can be a Minister up to a period of six months. Though he would not have any right to vote, he would be entitled to participate in the proceedings thereof. The petitioner admits that in the thirty-seven years of constitutional regime in this country there have been several instances where a person has held the office as Minister either at the Centre or in the State (there are corresponding provisions for the State), not being a member of the appropriate legislature at the time of appointment." (Emphasis ours) Thus, this Court once again held that a person, not being a Member of either House of Legislature could be appointed a Minister, but he could continue as a Minister for a period of six consecutive months only during which period he should get himself elected to the Legislature or else he must cease to be a Minister after expiry of that period.

Shri H.D. Deve Gowda, who was not a Member of either House of Parliament was appointed as the Prime Minister of India. His appointment was put in issue in S.P. Anand, Indore v. H.D. Deve Gowda and others, (1996) 6 SCC 734. After noticing various provisions of the Constitution, this Court while upholding his appointment observed:

"A Constitution Bench of this Court had occasion to consider whether a person who is not a member of either House of the State Legislature could be appointed a Minister of State and this question was answered in the affirmative on a true interpretation of Articles 163 and 164 of the Constitution which, in material particulars, correspond to Articles 74 and 75 bearing on the question of appointment of the Prime Minister...".

and went on to say:

"On a plain reading of Article 75(5) it is obvious that the Constitution-makers desired to permit a person who was not a member of either House of Parliament to be appointed a Minister for a period of six consecutive months and if during the said period he was not elected to either House of Parliament, he would cease to be a Minister...".

(Emphasis ours) The Bench also repelled the argument that if a non-Member of the House is chosen as a Prime Minister, it could be against national interest and the country would be running a great risk. It was observed:

"...Therefore, even though a Prime Minister is not a member of either House of Parliament, once he is appointed he becomes answerable to the House and so also his Ministers and the principle of collective responsibility governs the democratic process. Even if a person is not a member of the House, if he has the support and confidence of the House, he can be chosen to head the Council of Ministers without violating the norms of democracy and the requirement of being accountable to the House would ensure the smooth functioning of the democratic process. We, therefore, find it difficult to subscribe to the petitioner's contention that if a person who is not a member of the House is chosen as Prime Minister, national interest would be jeopardised or that we would be running a great risk. The English convention that the Prime Minister should be a Member of either House, preferably House of Commons, is not our constitutional scheme since our Constitution clearly permits a non-member to be appointed a Chief Minister or a Prime Minister for a short duration of six months...".

Thus, we find that this Court, including its Constitution Bench, has consistently taken the view on an interpretation of Article 163, Article 164(1) and Article 164(4) that a person who is not a member of the Legislature, may be appointed a Minister for a short period, but if during the period of six consecutive months he is not elected to the Legislature, he would cease to be a Minister at the expiry of that period.

The absence of the expression "from amongst members of the legislature" in Article 164 (1) is indicative of the position that whereas under that provision a non-legislator can be appointed as a Chief Minister or a Minister but that appointment would be governed by Article 164(4), which places a restriction on such a non-member to continue as a Minister or the Chief Minister, as the case may be, unless he can get himself elected to the Legislature within the period of six consecutive months, from the date of his appointment. Article 164(4) is, therefore, not a source of power or an enabling provision for appointment of a non-legislator as a Minister even for a short duration. It is actually in the nature of a disqualification or restriction for a non-member, who has been appointed as a Chief Minister or a Minister, as the case may be, to continue in office without getting himself elected within a period of six consecutive months.

It is not the case of the appellant that respondent No.2 Shri Tej Prakash Singh suffered from any constitutional or statutory disqualification to contest an election on the date of his first appointment as a Minister or even on the date of his re-appointment as a Minister. The challenge is confined to the issue of re-appointment of the respondent, without getting elected within six consecutive months of his first appointment. In this view of the matter, we have declined an invitation of learned counsel for the appellant to express our opinion on the question whether a non-legislator can be appointed as a Minster, if on the date of such appointment, he suffers from a constitutional or statutory disqualification to contest the election within the next six consecutive months. We are not expressing our opinion on the issue, as it is not directly involved in the present case and the settled practice of this Court is not to express opinion on issues which do not essentially arise in a case under consideration.

The issue before us, however, is somewhat different. The issue is : can a non-member, who fails to get elected during the period of six consecutive months, after he is appointed as a Minister or while a Minister has ceased to be a legislator, be reappointed as a Minister, without being elected to the Legislature after the expiry of the period of six consecutive months ? This issue was not considered in either of the four cases referred to above - there is no other decided case dealing with the issue brought to our notice either. With a view to consider the issue, it would, therefore, be useful to consider the constitutional scheme governing a democratic parliamentary form of Government and interpret Article 164 (1) and 164(4) in that light.

Parliamentary democracy generally envisages (i) representation of the people, (ii) responsible government and (iii) accountability of the Council of Ministers to the Legislature. The essence of this is to draw a direct line of authority from the people through the Legislature to the Executive. The character and content of parliamentary democracy in the ultimate analysis depends upon the quality of persons who man the Legislature as representative of the people. It is said that "elections are the barometer of democracy and the contestants the lifeline of the parliamentary system and its set-up".

India has to a large measure adopted Westminster form of Government. This position was recognised in Shamsher Singh & Anr. vs. State of Punjab, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 814, when Justice Krishna Iyer observed:

"Not the Potomac, but the Thames fertilizes the flow of the Yamuna, if we may adopt a riverine imagery. In this thesis, we are fortified by the precedent of this Court, strengthened by Constituent Assembly proceedings and reinforced by the actual working of the organs involved for about a 'silver jubilee span of time'." In the Westminster system, it is an established convention that Parliament maintains its position as controller of the executive. By a well settled convention, it is the person who can rely on support of a majority in the House of Commons, who forms a government and is appointed as the Prime Minister. Generally speaking he and his Ministers must invariably all be Members of Parliament (House of Lords or House of Commons) and they are answerable to it for their actions and policies. Appointment of a non-member as a Minister is a rare exception and if it happens it is for a short duration. Either the individual concerned gets elected or is conferred life peerage.

......................................................................................................................................................................................................

Constitutional provisions are required to be understood and interpreted with an object oriented approach. A Constitution must not be construed in a narrow and pedantic sense. The words used may be general in terms but, their full import and true meaning, has to be appreciated considering the true context in which the same are used and the purpose which they seek to achieve. Debates in the Constituent Assembly referred to in an earlier part of this judgment clearly indicates that non-member's inclusion in the cabinet was considered to be a 'privilege' that extends only for six months', during which period the member must get elected otherwise he would cease to be a Minister. It is a settled position that debates in the Constituent Assembly may be relied upon as an aid to interpret a constitutional provision because it is the function of the Court to find out the intention of the framers of the Constitution. We must remember that a Constitution is not just a document in solemn form, but a living framework for the Government of the people exhibiting a sufficient degree of cohesion and its successful working depends upon the democratic spirit underlying it being respected in letter and in spirit. The debates clearly indicate the 'privilege' to extend "only" for six months.

The very concept of responsible Government and representative democracy signifies Government by the People. In constitutional terms, it denotes that the sovereign power which resides in the people is exercised on their behalf by their chosen representatives and for exercise of those powers, the representatives are necessarily accountable to the people for what they do. The Members of the Legislature, thus, must owe their power directly or indirectly to the people. The Members of the State Assemblies like Lok Sabha trace their power directly as elected by the people while the Members of the Council of State like Rajya Sabha owe it to the people indirectly since they are chosen by the representative of the people. The Council of Minister of which a Chief Minister is head in the State and on whose aid and advice the Governor has to act, must, therefore, owe their power to the people directly or indirectly.

The sequence and scheme of Article 164, which we have referred to in an earlier part of our order, clearly suggests that ideally, every minister must be a member of the legislature at the time of his appointment, though in exceptional cases, a non-member may be given a ministerial berth or permitted to continue as a Minister, on ceasing to be a member, for a short period of six consecutive months only to enable him to get elected to the Legislature in the meanwhile. As a Member of the Council of Ministers, every Minister is collectively responsible to the Legislative Assembly. A Council of Ministers appointed during the term of a legislative assembly would continue in office so long as they continue to enjoy the confidence of the legislative assembly. A person appointed as a Minister, on the advice of the Chief Minister, who is not a member of the legislature, with a view to continue as a Minister must, therefore, get elected during a short period of six consecutive months after his appointment, during the term of that legislative assembly and if he fails to do so, he must cease to be a Minister. Reappointment of such a person, who fails to get elected as a member within the period of grace of six consecutive months, would not only disrupt the sequence and scheme of Article 164 but would also defeat and subvert the basic principle of representative and responsible Government. Framers of the Constitution by prescribing the time limit of "six consecutive months" during which a non-legislator Minister must get elected to the legislature clearly intended that a non-legislator can not be permitted to remain a minister for any period beyond six consecutive months, without getting elected in the meanwhile. Resignation by the individual concerned before the expiry of the period of six consecutive months, not followed by his election to the legislature, would not permit him to be appointed a Minister once again without getting elected to the legislature during the term of the legislative assembly. The "privilege" of continuing as a Minister for "six months" without being an elected member is only a one time slot for the individual concerned during the term of the concerned legislative assembly. It exhausts itself if the individual is unable to get himself elected within the period of grace of "six consecutive months". The privilege is personal for the concerned individual. It is, he who must cease to be a Minister, if he does not get elected during the period of six months. The 'privilege' is not of the Chief Minister on whose advice the individual is appointed. Therefore, it is not permissible for different Chief Ministers, to appoint the same individual as a Minister, without him getting elected, during the term of the same assembly. The individual must cease to be a Minister, if during a period of six consecutive months, starting with his initial appointment, he is not elected to the assembly. The change of a Chief Minister, during the term of the same assembly would, therefore, be of no consequence so far as the individual is concerned. To permit the individual to be reappointed during the term of the same legislative assembly, without getting elected during the period of six consecutive months, would be subversion of parliamentary democracy. Since Article 164(4) provides a restriction for a non-legislator Minister to continue in office, beyond a period of six consecutive months, without being elected, it clearly demonstrates that the concerned individual appointed as a Minister under Article 164(1) without being a member of the Legislature must cease to be a Minister unless elected within six consecutive months. Re-appointing that individual without his getting elected, would, therefore, be an abuse of Constitutional provisions and subversive of constitutional guarantees. Every Minister must draw his authority, directly or indirectly, from the political sovereign - the Electorate. Even a most liberal interpretation of Article 164(4) would show that when a person is appointed as a Minister, who at that time is not a member of the legislature, he becomes a Minister on clear constitutional terms that he shall continue as a Minister for not more than six consecutive months, unless he is able to get elected in the meanwhile. To construe this provision as permitting repeated appointments of that individual as a Minister, without getting elected in the meanwhile, would not only make Article 164(4) nugatory but would also be inconsistent with the basic premise underlying Article 164. It was not the intention of the Founding Fathers that a person could continue to be a Minister without being duly elected, by repeated appointments, each time for a period of six consecutive months. If this were permitted, a non-legislator could by repeated appointments remain a Minister even for the entire term of the Assembly - a position wholly unacceptable in any parliamentary system of government. Such a course would be contrary to the basic principles of democracy, an essential feature of our constitution. The intention of the framers of the constitution to restrict such appointment for a short period of six consecutive months, cannot be permitted to be frustrated through manipulation of "reappointment".

Framers of the Constitution have used the expression "six consecutive months", which implies that the period of six months must run continuously and not even intermittently. It would commence from the time a non-legislator is either appointed as a Minister or a Minister who becomes a non-legislator, is allowed to continue as such, and comes to an end at the expiry of that period. The use of the expression "consecutive" is significant. It cannot be defeated by interpreting Article 164(4) as permitting appointment even for a total period of six months, during the term of a legislative assembly, let alone, that the appointment of such a non-legislator as a minister can be for six months "at a time", without his getting mandate from the electorate in the meanwhile.

As already noticed Article 164(4) in terms provides only a disqualification or a restriction for a Minister, who for any period of six consecutive months, is not a Member of the Legislature of the State to continue as such. It expressly provides that he shall on the expiration of that period cease to be a Minister unless he gets elected during that period by direct or indirect election. We must also bear in mind that no right is conferred on the concerned non-member Minister even during the period of 'six months' , when he is permitted to continue in office, to vote in the House. The privilege to vote in the House is conferred only on Members of the House of the Legislature of a State (Article 189). It does not extend to non-elected ministers He may address the House but he cannot vote as an MLA. None of the powers or privileges of an MLA extend to that individual. Though under Article 177, the individual shall have a right to speak and to otherwise take part in the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly, he does not carry with him the usual "free speech" legislative immunity as provided by Article 194(2). The individual cannot draw any of the benefits of an MLA without getting elected. All these disabilities also clearly go to suggest that 'six months clause' in Article 164(4) cannot be permitted to be repeatedly used for the same individual without his getting elected in the meanwhile. It would be too superficial to say that even though the individual Minister is a person who cannot even win an election by direct or indirect means, he should be permitted to continue as a Minister for a period beyond six months, without being elected at all and represent the electorate which has not even returned him!! It would be subversive of the principle of representative government and undemocratic. It would be perversion of the Constitution and even a fraud on it.

_________................................._____________.................................

Since we have held that reappointment of Shri Tej Parkash Singh as a Minister in the State of Punjab with effect from 23.11.1996 was invalid and unconstitutional, we consider it appropriate to observe, with a view to avoid reopening of settled matters, that this judgment shall not render any order made or action taken by Shri Tej Parkash Singh, as a Minister, after his reappointment to the Council of Ministers, as bad or invalid only on account of his reappointment as a Minister having been found to be invalid. This appeal, therefore, succeeds and is allowed in the terms indicated above with cost.

...................CJI ......................J ( R.C. LAHOTI ) ......................J ( K.G. BALAKRISHNAN ) August 17, 2001.

Govt introduces National Investigation Agency bill in Lok Sabha

December 16th, 2008 - 7:51 pm ICT by ANI

New Delhi, Dec 16 (ANI): The Government today introduced a Bill in Lok Sabha to formally set up a National Investigation Agency (NIA) and another legislation to strengthen laws against terror.

Introducing the Bill, Union Home Minister, P Chidambaram said there is need for setting up an agency at the Central level to investigate offences related to terrorism and certain other acts, which have national ramifications.

“The proposed legislation provides for security of state-friendly nations with foreign states and offences under laws enacted to implement international treaties, agreements, conventions and resolutions of United Nations and other international organisations,” he added.

He further said the Bills have been brought forward as the country has been the victim of large-scale terrorism sponsored from across the border.”

The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Bill aims at strengthening the arrangements for speedy investigation, prosecution and trial of cases related terrorism.

The Bill provides for the setting up an agency at the Central level with powers to probe terrorism and other crimes having national ramifications across the country.

On Monday, the Union Cabinet approved a proposal to set up the NIA. The Cabinet also approved a proposal to amend the Central Industrial Security Forces (CISF) Act to make it more effective in dealing with modern day challenges. (ANI)

Satyam chief Raju in Hyderabad: Lawyer 8 Jan 2009, 1553 hrs IST, TIMESOFINDIA.COM

HYDERABAD: Beleaguered former Satyam Computer founder-chairman B Ramalinga Raju is in this city and has no intention to avoid the process of law, his lawyer S. Bharat Kumar claimed on Thursday.

“My client B. Ramalinga Raju is very much available in Hyderabad. He denies reports appearing in a section of media that he is absconding or has fled from the country,” Kumar said in a statement.

Kumar said Raju engaged his services to represent him in the legal matters pertaining to his statement to the Satyam board on Wednesday. ( Watch )

Earlier in the day, market regulator Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), which has ordered a probe into the Satyam scam, on Thursday swung into action despatching its investigation team to Hyderabad, PTI reported.

The committee, headed by Sebi's southern region general manager A Sunil Kumar, has reached Hyderabad and will start the investigation soon, a senior official said.

Sebi formed the special team following the confession by the IT-major's disgraced ex-chairman B Ramalinga Raju on Wednesday admitting gross manipulations in the company's balance sheets in the past several years.

Raju could face arrest and serve 7-10 years in jail. He currently remains untraceable. ( Watch )

Earlier, sources in the Hyderabad police had said that Raju could have left for Texas on Wednesday morning from Hyderabad airport. Raju has not been seen in public ever since his confession, but TV reports suggested that he could have left for Texas.

There is a petition pending over his Maytas deal for which British Telecom's Solutions firm - U-paid had demanded presence of Raju and senior directors of Satyam for questioning by its lawyers.

According to another TV report, Raju may have also flown to Dubai.

Ramalinga Raju on Wednesday admitted to a Rs 7,000-crore fraud in the Hyderabad-based company and revealed that the balance sheet of Satyam had been inflated and that he would subject himself to the laws of the land.

On its part, the Hyderabad police said they would take action against him only if a shareholder or the regulator lodges a complaint. Raju had written a letter to the board giving details of the company’s balance sheet which has serious financial irregularities including inflated cash balances running into several crores of rupees.

The 54-year-old US MBA Raju's letter of guilt and resignation to the Satyam board and Sebi on Wednesday morning sledge-hammered India Inc, dumbfounded regulators, pummelled the company's stock, knocked the bottom out of the market, and cast a long shadow over industry in general and the IT sector in particular.

Satyam stocks took a serious beating yesterday with this latest news that has shocked investors. The stocks plunged by almost 80 percent at Rs 39 per share, at day close.

Ram Myanpati is acting as interim CEO of the company, who after expressing ``shock'', swung into damage control mode.

Satyam aims to continue business, protect staff 8 Jan 2009, 1816 hrs IST, PTI

HYDERABAD: Beleaguered Satyam on Thursday embarked on a major damage control exercise to pull itself from the brink, pushed to by founder

A press conference after the resignation of Ramalinga Raju, at Satyam campus in Hyderabad. (TOI Photo) More Pictures

Ramalinga Raju, saying arranging liquidity, assuaging fears of 53,000 employees and continuing the existing business would be its top priority. ( Watch )

Not ruling out initiating action against Raju or the auditors PwC for its complicity in fudging of accounts, the acting CEO Ram Mynampati said every possible action would be considered against Raju, who quit as chairman after making startling revelations on corporate India's biggest fraud entailing about Rs 7,800 crore.

Aimed at preventing panic exodus of highly talented workforce and top management, the interim CEO said that the December'08 salaries has been paid and the management would be focusing on arranging funds, which at the present juncture was a cause for concern.

"We do not rule out recommending action against Ramalinga. Many actions are possible for Satyam's future," he said, adding that the company was not aware of his whereabouts amid reports that the disgraced founder of the country's fourth largest IT company had left for the US yesterday before the news of his resignation and disclosure became public.

On the auditor PriceWaterhouseCoopers who have been authenticating year after year the company's accounts, which Raju admitted to fudging by inflating profits and creating fictitious assets, Mynampati said: "We have not verified what process PwC took to certify financial statement. We are not yet in touch with PwC."

In the middle of the press conference held by the interim management at Satyam's headquarters here, CFO Valdamani Srinivas, who is the financial custodian of the company, sent in his resignation but Mynampati said the Board would decide on it on January 10 and anyway he has to serve notice period.

Interim CEO Ram Mynampati declared that the liquidity and cash-in-hand were not encouraging, although the company managed to pay salaries for December month.

"Some outstanding payment to vendors is yet to be made... we are verifying the liquidity and balance sheet... we have to raise liquidity in near term and are confident of raising it," said Mynampati, while adding that his appointment was legal.

On the financial irregularities disclosed by former Satyam Chairman Ramalinga Raju, Mynampati said the team was not yet in a position to answer these issues, as it is still ascertaining disclosures made by Ramalinga Raju and trying to correct financial irregularities.

He said the regulatory bodies have already started their inspection and a team of market regulator SEBI was in Satyam talking to associates.

He said the company has started to actively reach out to customers globally and has been heartened to receive strong expressions of confidence and Readers react
support from them.

"Our top 100 clients account for 80 per cent of Satyam's revenues," he said, adding that the top priority would be to clear pending contracts and continue with the business as usual.

The company founded by Ramalinga Raju in 1987 received its worst shock yesterday when he disclosed what has now become the country's biggest corporate fraud involving about Rs 7,800 crore.

Satyam is in the process of finding new investment banker as soon as possible to pursue strategic options left with the company and also expand the Board, which is now left with only three members including Mynampati.

Shareholders would be consulted on whatever options there are before the company, he said to a question on whether the company would explore merging or being taken over.

Satyam may axe 10,000 employees: Report 8 Jan 2009, 2045 hrs IST, PTI

NEW DELHI: With a big questions mark on its cash position and a minimum outgo on salary estimated at Rs 500 crore a month, Satyam may lay off over 10,000 employees next month, says a recruitment

firm.

"It is most likely that Satyam will cut 10,000 jobs

next month as the company is left with no cash to pay the salaries. The current fiasco is likely to put pressure on salaries, which may reduce by 10 per cent due to the surplus of about 20,000 people in the jobs market," Headhunters India CEO Kris Lakshmikanth said.

Satyam interim CEO Ram Mynampati while admitting that the cash position is not encouraging, the company, however, has taken care of salary for December.

Lakshmikanth said till Tuesday evening there were about 7,800 people from Satyam who had posted their resumes on job sites and by Wednesday afternoon, it has gone up to 14,000.

The uncertainty about jobs is killingly painful for the 53,000 employees of Satyam, especially when the industry is going slow on recruitment.

Further, possibility of a takeover too looks distant as the accounting fraud done by the company would make it difficult for any firm to evaluate its correct market value, which is compounding the worries of the employees.

IT-BPO union Unites Professionals general secretary Karthik Shekhar said, "In case of any lay off at Satyam, we may take legal action."

"We have received over 7,000 hits since the news break. Yesterday, in one hour we have seen over 800 hits (no of people visiting the site) from Hyderabad. People have been enquiries on how the union can help them," Shekhar added.

Strong case against Ansals in evidence tampering: Court

Indo-Asian News Service

New Delhi, January 07, 2009

There was a strong possibility the Ansal brothers had provided a job to a court employee who was sacked for tampering with trial court records in the case of the Uphaar cinema fire tragedy at their behest, the Delhi High Court said on Wednesday.

"It is a strong circumstance against you (Ansals) that you provided employment after he (Dinesh Chand Sharma) was dismissed from his job," Justice S Muralidhar said while hearing a petition of the real estate tycoons challenging criminal proceedings against them for tampering with the evidence.

Senior advocate UU Lalit, appearing for Sushil Ansal, said the Ansal brothers are not directly connected with Sharma, who was allegedly responsible for tampering with judicial documents.

The Ansals approached the high court for quashing a trial court's Feb 15, 2008, order in which it had issued summons against them and four others for allegedly tampering with court evidence.

The Ansals pleaded that the proceedings against Sushil Ansal was illegal and should be stayed as an inquiry had said it was a case of misconduct.

Besides the Ansal brothers, the trial court had also initiated proceedings against P.P. Batra, Har Swaroop, Anoop Singh and Dharamvir Malhotra.

The two brothers have been lodged in jail since Septempber after their bails were cancelled by the Supreme Court.

The trial court had convicted the brothers in November 2007 for their complicity in the Uphaar theatre fire in which 59 cinegoers were killed on June 13, 1997. The two were sentenced to two years of rigorous imprisonment.

The high court in December reduced the jail term to one year each.

Raju quits Satyam; admits to financial wrong-doings

Press Trust Of India Hyderabad/Mumbai, January 07, 2009

Satyam Computer on Wednesday plunged into a deep crisis, as B Ramalinga Raju resigned as its Chairman after admitting to major financial wrong-doings and saying his last-ditch efforts to fill the "fictitious assets with real ones" through Maytas acquisition failed.

The beleaguered IT giant, already under scanner over the aborted acquisition of firms promoted by the Chairman's family, received a rude shock days ahead of its January 10 board meeting, with Raju stepping down along with his brother and Managing Director B Rama Raju.

"It was like riding a tiger, not knowing how to get off without being eaten," Ramalinga Raju said in a letter to Satyam's board of directors, wherein he listed major financial wrong-doings over the years to inflate the profits.

Listed at New York Stock Exchange, the company could face regulatory action in the US, analysts said.

While Raju recommended DSP Merrill Lynch be entrusted the task of "quickly exploring some merger opportunities," the company informed the stock exchanges that the investment banker has terminated its engagement with Satyam.

Noting that every attempt to eliminate gaps in balance sheet, purely on account of inflated profits over several years, failed, Raju said: "I am now prepared to subject myself to the laws of the land and face consequences thereof."

Low percentage of promoter equity in the company, where four independent directors resigned in the last two weeks over the acquisition fiasco, could lead to a takeover and expose the gap, he said in the letter, also sent to regulator SEBI. The promoters' share in Satyam has now dipped to just over 3 per cent that too is pledged with lenders.

Shares of Satyam plunged by over 40 per cent immediately after the announcement of resignations, necessitating an overhaul of the Board and management.

Raju will continue as Chairman till the Board finds a replacement, even as speculation was rife that Satyam President Ram Mynampati would take over as Chairman.

Rama Raju would also continue as Managing Director, but only till the time the Board is expanded.

Ramalinga Raju requested the Board to "hold together" to take some important steps, while hoping that one of the Board members T R Prasad was "well-placed to mobilise support from the government at this crucial time."

Satyam is the country's fourth largest IT firm and has has over 51,000 employees.

Giving details of the financial irregularities, Raju said the company's balance sheet as of September 30 carries "inflated (non-existent) cash and bank balances of Rs 5,040 crore (as against Rs 5,361 crore reflected in the books."

The balance sheet also carries "an accrued interest of Rs 376 crore which is non-existent, an understated liability of Rs 1230 crore on account of funds arranged by me (Raju), an overstated debtors position of Rs 490 crore (as against Rs 2651 crore reflected in the books," Raju said.

He further said that Satyam reported a revenue of Rs 2700 crore for the September quarter and an operating margin of Rs 649 crore (24 per cent of revenue) as against the actual revenue of Rs 2112 crore and an actual operating margin of Rs 61 crore (3 per cent of revenue).

"This has resulted in artificial cash and bank balances going up Rs 588 crore in Q2 alone," Raju said.

"The gap in the Balance Sheet has arisen purely on account of inflated profits over a period of last several years (limited only to Satyam standalone, books of subsidiaries reflecting true performance).

"What started as a marginal gap between actual operating profit and the one reflected in the books of accounts continued to grow over the years," Raju further said.

"It has attained unmanageable proportions as the size of the company operations grew significantly... The differential in the real profits and the one reflected in the books was further accentuated by the fact that the company had to carry additional resources and assets to justify higher level of operations thereby significantly increasing the costs," he said.

"The aborted Maytas acquisition deal was the last attempt to fill the fictitious assets with real ones. Maytas' investors were convinced that this is a good divestment opportunity and a strategic fit. Once Satyam's problem was solved, it was hoped that Maytas' payments can be delayed. But that was not to be," he said.

Raju, however, claimed that neither he, nor the Managing Director(including our spouses) sold any shares in the last eight years-excepting for a small proportion declared and sold for philanthropic purposes.

Raju further said he or the company's MD did not take "even one rupee/dollar from the company and have not benefited in financial terms on account of the inflated results."

Giving alms at a traffic signal? You can be prosecuted

New Delhi, January 06, 2009

Ever helped a beggar at a traffic intersection? Or, for that matter, bought flowers or small items from vendors while waiting for the light to turn green? Well, for your information, both these actions are punishable.

Surprised? An ordinance issued in September 2002 empowers Delhi Traffic Police to prosecute drivers who offer alms or buy anything from vendors at traffic lights.

Violation of this direction entails a fine of Rs 100 for the first offence and Rs 300 for subsequent offences under Rule 22(a) of Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, punishable under section 177 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988.

Most motorists are not aware about this rule and the police also hardly take any action in this regard.

In 2008, the Delhi Traffic Police did not prosecute anybody under these sections. Said a senior police officer: "What is the use? We can take action against the motorists, but the beggar or the vendor remains there, he will trouble the next motorist. What are the civic agencies doing about it?"

Asks Purujit Singh, "If motorists do not patronize these beggars or vendors, they won't survive. Action needs to be taken against drivers first. The other day, I almost bumped into a beggar at the signal near Tibetan Market at Janpath."

The traffic police said no such record (of prosecutions) was available for 2008. "We focused more on visible traffic violations," said traffic police chief S.N. Shrivastava.

Raj Thackeray gets reprieve from apex court

New Delhi, January 07, 2009

The Supreme Court on Wednesday stalled the imminent arrest of Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) chief Raj Thackeray, ordered by a Jamshedpur court for his rabble-rousing speeches against people from Bihar and other north Indian states who are staying in Maharashtra.

Suspending the arrest warrant, a bench of Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan and Justice P. Sathasivam also allowed him not to attend court hearings in Jamshedpur Jan 10.

On a lawsuit by Thackeray, the bench also issued notices to eight people from Jharkhand and Bihar, who have moved various courts in the two states, seeking prosecution of the MNS leader for allegedly raising sectarian feelings by making "inflammatory speeches" against north Indians.

Thackeray had approached the apex court seeking transfer of the eight cases lodged by private individuals to a court outside the two states.

Six cases have been lodged in various courts of Jharkhand and two in Bihar.

The complaints against Thackeray have been lodged under sections 504, 153A and 153B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), seeking his prosecution respectively for making allegedly defamatory speeches against north Indians, staying in Mumbai and elsewhere Maharashtra and triggering disharmony between two communities through his inflammatory speeches or write-ups.

Earlier in July last year, the apex court, however, had refused to protect Thackeray from facing prosecution, sought on the same grounds, in Jharkhand.

A bench of Justice Arijit Pasayat and Justice Mukundkum Sharma had thrown out Thackeray's petition saying it would not interfere with the Jharkhand High Court ruling which had endorsed his prosecution.

Thackeray, however, had got the Jamshedpur court's order for his arrest stalled by a Mumbai court, which had protected him against arrest till Jan 10. The Mumbai court had also asked him to attend the Jamshedpur court Jan 10.

GPA holders urge Ban to protect their right to livelihood

New Delhi

| Thursday, Oct 30 2008 IST

More than 15 lakh people in the Capital who have bought houses on a General Power of Attorney (GPA) basis today urged visiting United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to protect their rights which are being violated by the government due to its discriminatory polices regarding the purchase of property.

GPA is a mode of buying property by circumventing the mandatory official registration norms by which a buyer cannot be an official owner of the property.

According to Mr V N Bali, Convenor of the GPA holders association, people would have to buy property through GPA because there is no provision of open sale and purchase.

Mr Bali said attorney holders living in the co-operative societies have no rights in the affairs of the society even though they constitute 90 per cent of the residents of the society.

Section 94 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act which was introduced in the Capital in 2003 stands implemented from 1986 making it mandatory for the co-operative housing societies to wind up its management. According to the act, all the residents should be treated on a par but the Government has not implemented this so far.

Meanwhile, housing societies have handed over essential services to MCD.

The practice being followed now is that the new entrant to a society has to buy property on a GPA basis, pay Rs 50,000 or more to the society as entrance fees. Despite this the entrant cannot enjoy any right of managing the affairs as he cannot participate in the elections of the society. Only 10 per cent original members run the society and pocket the entire booty with the help of the registrar of societies' office employees, Mr Bali alleged.

Strongly condemning the discriminatory procedures adopted against the GPA holders, Mr Bali urged the UN Secretary-General to restore their Rights which are being violated by the Government.

A bonanza for power of attorney holders

The Hindu- Online edition of India's National Newspaper

Staff Reporter New Delhi Tuesday, Jan 02, 2007

They can now become active members of housing society

NEW DELHI: In a New Year bonanza for lakhs of people living in the Capital's flats or apartments in cooperative group housing societies with General Power of Attorney (GPA) ownership, the office of the Lieutenant-Governor of Delhi has given its nod to the notification that allows GPA holders to become active members of the society with voting rights.

Under the provision, which has now come into force, the fee for getting membership of a society has also been reduced from Rs.5,000 to Rs.500 per member.

It was at November-end that the Delhi Government had in an attempt to bring about financial accountability and check arbitrary functioning of the societies provided for these provisions in the Delhi Cooperative Societies (Amendment) Bill 2006 which was subsequently passed by the Delhi Assembly.

The amendment also stated that any society that had not held audit of its accounts or had failed to convene the meeting of the general body for five years in a row would face dissolution under the law. "Provided that in the case of a cooperative society which has not conducted audit or annual general body meeting for five consecutive years or has no fixed assets and outside liabilities excluding share money of the members, such society shall be deemed to have been dissolved and shall cease to exist as a cooperative body after the expiry of the said period of five years," the amendment stated.

Defunct society

Similarly the amendment made it very clear that if the cooperative society was dissolved or had become defunct, its representatives would not have voting rights in the affairs of the society or its financial banking.

Through the Amendment, Delhi Development Minister Raj Kumar Chauhan had stated: "We have tried to simplify matters and make acquisition of membership for the GPA holders very easy with nominal charges. In a majority of the societies, the original members have either sold their premises or migrated to some other place but continue to be active members while the GPA members despite being in majority do not have any voting right. This amendment will undo this wrong of the past and things are likely to work smoothly."

With the notification, the Delhi Government's decision to lower the membership fee for the GPA holders to become regular members of the society has also come into effect. Now they will have to pay only Rs. 500 (as against Rs. 5,000 earlier) as fee.

Transfer fee

On this issue, the amendment stated: "The purchaser having registered GPA or registered agreement for sale or registered sale deed as the case may be, in respect of such a plot or flat, may apply for membership by paying transfer fee of Rs. 500 and share money and admission fee as per the provisions of the by-laws of the society and the committee shall grant membership to the applicant within 30 days after the submission of his application. In case of refusal by the committee, the applicant may appeal to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies within 30 days and his decision shall be final."

Revised Taxi Fares (Effective from 06/06/2007)
The fares chargeable by the operators of the taxi in national Capital Territory of delhi shall be as under:-
Taxis(Black & Yellow Top)	Rs.15/- for first Kilometer (upon downing the meter) and thereafter Rs.8.50/- per Kilometer for every additional Kilometers
Night Charges	25% of the Fare(11.00PM to 5.00 AM)
Waiting Charges	Rs.25 per hour or part thereof (subject to minimum of 15 min stay)
Luggage	Rs.10/- per piece except for shopping bags or a small attaché case

Revised Auto Rickshaw Fares (Effective from 06/06/2007)
The fares chargeable by the operators of the auto-rickshaws in national Capital Territory of delhi shall be as under:-
Auto-Rickshaw	Rs.10 for first Kilometer (upon downing the meter) and thereafter Rs.4.50 per Kilometer for every additional Kilometers
Night Charges	25% of the Fare(11.00PM to 5.00 AM)
Waiting Charges	Rs.25 per hour or part thereof (subject to minimum of 15 min stay)
Luggage	Rs.5 per piece except for shopping bags or a small attaché case

Registration of Documents

Q. Which documents need to be registered ?

Certain documents are required to be registered compulsorily for example Sale/Title Deed, Conveyance Deed,

Lease Deed, Gift Deed,Agreement to Sale etc.There are certain other documents which could also be registered optionally. These are Will Adoption deed, General Power of Attorney,Special Power of Attorney,Trust Deed,Partnership deed,Cancellation of SPA,GPA or will etc . Q. Where do I have to go and during which hours? To the office of Sub-Registration Magistrate in whose jurisdiction the property is located, during 9.30 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. on any working day. Click Here to obtain the contact address of the SDM in whose jurisdiction in your colony lies. Q. Which papers/documents/fees, do I take with me? Document required to be registered ( in duplicate) Two Passport size photographs of both parties. Two witnesses. Proof of identification of each party and witnesses i.e. election Identity Card, Passport, identity Card issued by Govt. of India, Semi govt. and Autonomous bodies or identification by a Gazetted officer. In case the property is/was under a lease from D.D.A., L&DO, M.C.D., Industries Department, Labour Department of Delhi Govt. etc., permission of lessor for registration of the document. No objection Certificate under section 8 of Delhi Land (Restriction and Transfer) Act, 1972 from Tehsildar of the Sub Division of the District to the effect that the property is not under acquisition. Income Tax clearance Certificate in prescribed proforma 34A, under section 230 of Income Tax Act, from concerned Income Tax Officer where the transaction exceeds Rs.5,00,000/- Permission from the Appropriate Authority in the prescribed proforma 37 I, where the transaction exceeds Rs.50,00,000/- under the provisions contained in section 269 of Income Tax Act, 1961. Q. What will be the criteria used while deciding my case? The document is submitted to the Reader for scrutiny. After scrutiny, the Reader indicates the Registration fee required, on the document itself. The due registration fee is to be deposited with the Cashier against a receipt. After depositing the fees, the documents are required to be presented before the Sub-Registrar by the parties in accordance with Section 32 of the Registration Act, 1908. Presentation As per Section 32 of the Registration Act, 1908 every document to be registered under the Act shall be presented at the registration-office :- by some person executing or claiming under the same, or, in the case of a copy of a decree or order, claiming under the decree or order, or by the representative or assign or such a person, or by the agent of such a person, representative or assign, duly authorized by power-of-attorney and authenticated in manner hereinafter mentioned. As per Section 33 of the Act, for the purpose of section 32, the following powers-of-attorney shall alone be recognized:- if the principal at the time of executing the power-of-attorney resides in any part of India in which the Act is in force, a power-of-attorney executed before and authenticated by the Registrar or Sub-Registrar within whose district or sub-district the principal resides; if the principal at the time aforesaid (resides in any part of India in which this Act is not in force), a power –of-attorney executed before and authenticated by any magistrate; if the principal at the time aforesaid does not reside in India, a power-of-attorney executed before and authenticated by a Notary Public, or any Court, Judge, Magistrate, (Indian) consul or Vice-Consul, or representative of the Central government. Provided that the following persons shall not be required to attend at any registration-office or Court for the purpose of executing any such power-of-attorney as is mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of this section, namely:- persons who by reason of bodily infirmity are unable without risk or serious inconvenience so to attend; persons who are in jail under civil or criminal process; persons exempt by law from personal appearance in court. Endorsements are made under Section 52, 58 and 60 of the Registration Act on the document after completion of formalities before Sub-Registrar. The delivery of document is made on the production of the receipt issued by the cashier in respect of the document at the time of presentation. Q. When will I get a response? You should be getting a response normally within 15 days.

Legal Maxims

Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea The act does not make one guilty unless there be a criminal intent.

Actus non reum facit, nisi mens sit rea. An act does not make a person guilty, unless the intention be also guilty. This maxim applies only to criminal cases; in civil matters it is otherwise

Actus reus A ad finem at the end Ad hoc For this purpose Ad infinitum Forever, without limit, to infinity. ad litem appointed for a lawsuit Ad perpetuam rei memoriam For a perpetual memorial of the matter. ad personam personal guilty deed or act. Alibi At another place, elsewhere. Amicus curiae A friend of the Court . Audi alteram partem Hear the other side. Causa proxima, non remota spectatur The immediate, and not the remote cause is to be considered. Caveat emptor. Let the purchaser beware. Caveat venditor Let the seller beware. Consensus ad idem Agreement as to the same things. Damnum sine injuria damage without legal injury. de minimis trivial De minimis lex non curat The law does not notice trifling matters. De minimis non curat lex. The law does not notice or care for trifling matters. nemo dat quod non habet one can give a better title than the one he has Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa No one can be judge in his own case. Ubi jus ibi remedium est Where there is a right there is a remedy. Ubi jus, ibi remedium. Where there is a right, there is a remedy.

HOW TO GET INFORMATION ON CONSUMER COURT THROUGH RTI APPLICATION

DETAILS UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005

OFFICERS TO WHOM APPLICATION CAN BE SENT or PERSONALLY DELIVERED:

Officials	Designation	Tel. No.
Shri B. V. Sharma	Appellate Authority	23760107
Shri H. D. Nautiyal	Public Information Officer	23358074
Shri Iqbal Ahmed	Assistant Public Information Officer	23712459

Where to send / deliver RTI application:

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

7^th Floor, ‘B’ Wing, Janpath Bhawan

Janpath New Delhi – 110 001

Working Hours: Monday to Friday from 9.00 a.m. to 05.30 p.m.

Holidays :All Central Government Holidays.

Time Frame: National Commission based information will be supplied within 30 days.

Fees: Application Fee Rs. 10/-

Photocopy Rs. 2/- per page

Inspection of record: No fee for one hour. Thereafter, Rs. 5/- for each 15 minutes.

Diskette or Floppy Rs. 50/-each

Mode of Payment of fee: The Draft/Postal Order towards the fee should be in favour of ‘The Pay & Account Officer, Ministry of Consumer Affairs’ and payable at New Delhi )

Sample RTI application:

Application for obtaining information under

The Right to Information Act 2005

To:

Shri Iqbal Ahmed

Assistant Public Information Officer,

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

7^th Floor, ‘B’ Wing, Janpath Bhawan

Janpath, New Delhi – 110 001

1. FULL NAME OF APPLICANT : Mr. XYZ

2. ADDRESS : write your residential address

3. PARTICULARS OF INFORMATION REQUIRED

(i) Subject matter of information :

Relating to limitation period.

(ii) Period to which the information relates :

1^st February 2009 to 28 February 2009.

(iii) Description of information required :

What is time limit for filing consumer complaint?

1)

(iv) Whether information is required by post or in person :

By Post.

(v) In case by post (Ordinary, Registered or Speed) :

By Ordinary post.

4. WHETHER THE APPLICANT IS BELOW POVERTY LINE :
(If yes, attach a photocopy of the proof thereof)

No. (Applicant is not below poverty line.)

Place : Delhi

Date : March, 2009 Signature of the applicant

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

What is MACT ?

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal MACT deals with matters related to compensation of motor accidents victims or their next of kin .The Tribunal deal with claims relating to loss of life/property and injury cases resulting from Motor Accidents.

MACT Courts are presided over by Judicial Officers from the State Higher Judicial Service. Now these Courts are under direct supervision of the Hon’ble High Court of the respective state

Who can report to MACT in case of accident ?

Victim himself or through Advocate,in the case of personal injury. Through advocate in case of minor applicant below the age of 18 years. Legal heirs themselves or through advocate in the case of death.The owner of the vehicle in the case of property damage.

What all documents should accompany the petition ?

1. Copy of the FIR registered in connection with said accident, if any.

2. Copy of the MLC/Post Mortem Report/Death Report as the case may be.

3. The documents of the identity of the claimants and of the deceased in a death case.

4. Original bills of expenses incurred on the treatment alongwith treatment record.

5. Documents of the educational qualifications of the deceased, if any.

6. Disability Certificate, if already obtained, in an injury case.

7. The proof of income of the deceased/injured.

8. Documents about the age of the victim.

9. The cover note of the third party insurance policy, if any.

10.An affidavit detailing the relationship of the claimants with the deceased.

Promotions can't be with retrospective effect: SC

Press Trust of India
Posted online: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 at 1440 hours IST


New Delhi, January 2: No retrospective effect can be given to an order of promotion, the Supreme Court has ruled.

Upholding an appeal filed by the Uttaranchal Government a Bench comprising Justices A R Lakshmanan and Altamas Kabir felt that granting promotions with retrospective effect was not only against certain rules but would also be unreasonable and against common parlance.

The Bench rejected the plea of the employee Dinesh Kumar Sharma, who claimed that he should be promoted from the date of vacancy and not from the date as decided upon by the selection panel.

Sharma, who was working as a Senior Chemical Assistant, Research (chemistry) Branch, Department of Agriculture in the Uttaranchal Government, was promoted to his next higher post in 1999.

It was claimed by Sharma that since the vacancy for the promoted post arose in 1995-1996, he was entitled for the promotion from the said year with all related benefits; a contention which was upheld by the High Court.

In its appeal before the apex court the State Government complained that the employee obtained a favourable order from the High Court after concealing the fact that his three representations to the appropriate authority for consideration of the retrospective promotion had already been rejected.

However, the apex court rejected the employee's contention and held that promotions cannot be made with retrospective effect and the right to constitute the selection committee against the vacancy is vested in the Government.

"This court has categorically held that seniority must be reckoned from the date of substantive appointment under the relevant rules and also that the right to frame rules for the determination of inter-se seniority is the prerogative of the State," the Bench observed.

The Bench further observed that the High Court took an erroneous view of the dispute and committed an error by directing the State Government to promote the employee with retrospective effect.

Accordingly, the Bench set aside the High Court order and upheld the Government's contention that the promotion would be effective only from the date from which the employee was actually promoted.

Probate of Will

Probate means copy of the will certified under the seal of a court of a competent jurisdiction. Probate of a will when granted establishes the Will from the death of the testator and renders valid all intermediate acts of the executor as such. It is conclusive evidence of the validity and due execution of the will and of the testamentary capacity of the testator.

A probate differs from succession certificate. A probate is issued by the court, when a person dies testate i.e. having made a will and the executor or beneficiary applies to the court for grant of probate. in case a person has not made a will his legal heirs will have to apply to the court for grant of a succession certificate which will be given as per applicable laws of inheritance.

To who can a probate be granted

Probate can be granted only to the executor appointed by the will. The appointment may be express or implied by necessary implication.

It cannot be grated to any person who is a minor or is of unsound mind, nor to any association of individuals unless it is a company satisfies the conditions prescribed by the rules made by the State Government.