Federation for People’s Rights (FPR), Puducherry, Secretary G. Sugumaran met the Home Minister of India Mr. P. Chidambaram in the Chief Secretariat in Puducherry and submitted a memorandum today (10.04.2010):

On behalf of “Federation for People’s Rights (FPR), Puducherry” an organization working for Human and Social rights since three decades, we are submitting this memorandum in the public interest and humbly request your authority to consider the same and uphold the interest of Puducherry people and render Justice.

(1)    Request to terminate the illegal concession agreement of Puducherry Port project and reclaim the 153 acres of  Government land handed over to the private port firm.

The Government of Puducherry evolved a plan to develop the existing port and entered in to an agreement with a private concern at an estimated cost of Rs. 2600 crore on 2005. The Government had transferred 153 acres of its owned land around the existing port site, to the private firm without obtaining prior permission from Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), which is the competent authority as established by law. It has also attempted to acquire the private lands in and around the Thengaithittu village.

As the people of Puducherry firmly believed that their fundamental basis for existence would be jeopardized on implementing the port project, they embarked into intensive agitation against the Government’s wrong decision. Following the agitation launched jointly by Political Parties and Social Movements, the Government announced that the port project would be kept in abeyance. It is worth to note here that our Federation has  played a vital role in these struggles.

Following the Madras High Court and Supreme Court Judgments in the Port Project case, the Puducherry Government had determined to execute the project and announced the same in public.

The Government of India, particularly the MHA has preferred an Appeal Petition in the Supreme Court of India to recall or modify the decision delivered earlier. The SC admitted the petition and had taken on file on 7th December 2009. In the light of this new development, the issue gains significance.

MHA had exhaustively pointed out various Infirmities and violation of Rules and Regulations, Statutory Provisions of Puducherry Administration Act, Puducherry Rules of Business, Governance of UT Act and Constitution of India.

The Government had violated in the bid process, selection of bidder, terms of contract, disproportionate quantum of lease amount, constitution of governing body, etc. The Ministry of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Home affairs, Planning Commission have recorded the violation of the rules to the core and undue favoritism shown to the private firm, which has been found guilty by the SEBI authorities. Besides the terms of contract has caused huge monetary loss to the Exchequer. The matter has been taken cognizance by the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) which is yet to receive its reply from the Puducherry Government.

Further, it has been pointed out by the Government of India that handing over of 153 acres of state owned land to private firm is beyond the jurisdiction of Puducherry Government, as the power vest only with the MHA.

The lease amount has been fixed as 3.06 lakhs per annum for the above said land payable to the Government by the private firm. As per the normal procedure in practice in the states like Andhrapradesh, is that the lease amount should be 2% of the fair market value of the land. Hence, the lease amount to be collected figures around 14.5 crores. Hence, the Government has shown undue favour to the private firm causing substantial loss to the Government.

We infer from the reliable source that the MHA has written a letter stating categorically to the Government of Puducherry to cancel the said agreement and also to take back the 153 acre Government land handed over to the private concern illegally. But still the Puducherry Government is firm in disobeying the order of the MHA.

Following the MHA, the Shipping Ministry of India has also filed an application before the Supreme Court of India, opposing the said port project praying for the recall or modification of the earlier judgment favouring the port project.

Hence, we humbly request your authority to take steps to terminate the said illegal concession agreement, forthwith. Also to take steps to reclaim the said 153 acres of Government land from the private port developer.

(2)    Request not to give sanction for the further extension and take steps to cancel the concession agreement of Karaikal Port project and reclaim the said 597 acre Government land handed over to the port developer.

In 2006 a concession agreement on Karaikal Port entered between the Government of Puducherry and Marg Constructions. The all-weather deep sea Port project is being built on private public partnership mode by a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) called Karaikal Port Limited, a subsidiary of Marg Constructions on BOT basis for the Puducherry Government.

As per the said agreement, the revenue sharing between the Puducherry government and Karaikal Port Limited is for a period of 30 years and the developers would extend 2.6 percent of the gross income to the Government. The government of Puducherry had transferred 597 acres of Government land to the private developers on 5th February 2007. The MHA not yet approved for the transfer of the above mentioned 597 acre land to the port developer.

The Karaikal Port became operational in August 2009, after completion of first phase of the project at an estimate of Rs 416 crore. In expectation of the gross income of Rs 46.78 crore during 2009 – 2010, the port developer handed over Rs 30 lakh to the Government at its share of revenue for the first quarter out of a targeted share of Rs 1.21 crore in 2009 -2010.

The MHA has sent a letter to the port developers for revision of the concession agreement through an upward revision of the percentage of gross revenue to the Government. MHA also communicated for the enhancement of the land lease amount to Rs 1,000 per acre. But, the port developers never turned up to the MHA conditions and continued their process of developing the Karaikal Port.

The villagers of Karaikal region particularly the coastal area fisher folk people are very much affected by the said port project. The main export in the port is coal and it causes huge air pollution and hazardous to the environment. The drinking water in the coastal area of Karaikal is already getting saline and the people are living with scarcity of drinking water.

Hence, we request your authority not to give sanction for the further extension and take steps to cancel the concession agreement of Karaikal Port project. Also to take steps to reclaim the said 597 acre Government land from the private port developer.

(3)    Request to take steps to reclaim the lands acquired for the Special Economic Zone (SEZ) since the MHA ordered to the Puducherry Gevernment to reclaim the land provided to the private developer.

The Puducherry Government entered in an agreement with a private developer to set up a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) in Setharapet – Karasur area in Puducherry in 1000 acres of land. The Government acquired about 800 acres of agricultural land from the farmers at the cost of 70 crore for the SEZ.  Also the Government has approached the MHA to get approval to hand over the 13 acres of Government land to the private developer.

The MHA found that the 800 acres already acquired were not fit for developing the SEZ. As per rules, an SEZ should be developed in a contiguous area and specially delineated enclave. The MHA ordered to the Puducherry Government to reclaim the land provided to the private developer. But till date the government is very reluctant to obey the MHA order to get back the land and hand over to the farmers of Setharapet – Karasur area.

Hence, we request your authority to take steps to reclaim the acquired agricultural land and hand over to the farmers of Setharapet – Karasur area in order to protect the livelihood of the farmers.

(4)    Request to instruct the Government to immediately issue the G.O. providing 2.5 percent reservation for the Backward Muslims and 1 percent reservation for the Backward Tribe.

The Government of Puducherry announced 2.5 percent reservation in Education and Employment for the Backward Muslims and 1 percent reservation for the Scheduled Tribe people categorising them as Backward Tribe. The Backward Class Commission initially recommended providing 2.5 percent reservation to Backward Muslims by taking 1 percent from BC and 1.5 percent from MBC. The Muslims and MBC people opposed this distribution of percentage and since the Muslims of Puducherry come under BC category, they demanded to provide reservation to Muslims from the BC category following the other states of India. Due to wide spread agitation from the aggrieved MBC people, the BC Commission reviewed its recommendation and sent a modified recommendation to the Government to provide 2.5 percent to the Backward Muslims from the BC category.

The Scheduled Tribe people of Puducherry are fighting for about 25 years for the status of ST and their legitimate rights including reservation benefits. The Government of Puducherry accepting the long pending demands of ST people announced to provide 1 percent reservation. The Backward Class Commission recommended providing 1 percent reservation categorising them as Backward Tribe.

Hence, we request your authority to instruct the Government to immediately issue the G.O. providing 2.5 percent reservation to the Backward Muslims and 1 percent reservation to the Backward Tribe.

We sincerely trust and hope that your authority will certainly give due consideration to the legitimate aspiration of the people of Puducherry and would ensure justice to our people.

Federation for People’s Rights (FPR), Puducherry Secretary G. Sugumaran issued a statement on 02.03.2010:

Federation for People’s Rights urges the Puducherry Government to sack M. Hariharan, Officer on Special Duty, Lalith Kala Academy and Sangeeth Natak Academy from service, since the charges against him were proved before the enquiry committee constituted by the Government to probe about his unauthorized foreign tours.

M. Hariharan presently Officer on Special Duty, Lalith Kala Academy and Sangeeth Natak Academy, is former principal of Bharathiar Palkalai Koodam. During 2007 and 2008 he frequently visited USA to attend various events without any prior permission or approval of the Government, which amounts to grave misconduct and insubordination. As per the CCS Rules, a Government servant should obtain prior permission or approval from the competent authority to visit foreign country is obligatory.

The Government after receiving complaints from various quarters instituted a departmental enquiry in this regard under the head of S. D. Sunderasan, JMD, Puducherry Textile Corporation. The enquiry officer conducted the enquiry and submitted the report to the Government recently. The report reveals that the charges leveled against M. Hariharan were proved beyond suspicion.

During his tenure as Principal at Bharathiar Palkalai Koodam he indulged in various corruption, irregularities, misappropriation and mal administration. Already two enquiry committees were constituted in this regard under the head of G. Theva Neethi Dass, then Director of Local Administration Department and Ragesh Chandra, Collector. These committee reports are also with the Government which is against the said delinquent officer.

The officials of Department of Art and Culture instead of taking severe action safe guarding the guilty officer. Due to massive agitation he was transferred from BPK. After assuming charge as OSD to Lalith Kala Academy on December 1999 to December 2009, he was paid Rs. 30,58,280/- as salary without performing any duty.

So, we request the Puducherry administration to take steps to remove M. Hariharan from service to infuse confidence among the public. We are organising an Assembly Picketing Struggle on 12th March 2010 to press this demand.

Tilaknagar Industries Ltd., Chief Vigilance Officer Dr. Keshab Nandy, Chief Finance Officer Mr. Collin Pal, Company Secretary Mr. Gaurav Thakur, Regional Sales Manager Mr. P. Meenakshi Sundaram and others met Mr. G. Sugumaran, Secretary, Federation for People’s Rights (FPR) on 23.02.2010 at Puducherry and given the following explanation in writing regarding the allegation of evasion of taxes to the tune of Rs Five crore by TI:

We introduce ourselves as one of the leading players in the Indian alcoholic beverage industry and manufactures of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL), with over 20 brands across a diverse range of price and product segments, and an ever growing, loyal customer base. TI markets its products across a large number of states in India, and is gradually assuming a pan-national presence. It also exports to Western Africa, the Middle East, the Far East and Caribbean countries.

Established in 1933 as The Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd. (MSM), TI was named after the revered freedom fighter Sri Bal Gangadhar Tilak and was one of Maharashtra’s first private sugar factories, which served the nation for over five decades. A change in government stance effected the transition of TI to the alcoholic beverage business. Today TI has established its distinct identity in IMFL business with steady growth and production of high quality liquor brands.

Tilaknagar Industries Ltd. (TI) has a strong basket of brands like Courrier Napoleon Brandy, Mansion House Brandy & Whisky, Senate Royale Whisky, Classic Whisky, Savoy Club range of products, etc, and the same are being sold all over India & abroad. TI also has a sizable sale in CSD having enlisted four of its brands. Mansion House French Brandy is the second fastest growing brand in the Indian liquor industry.

We would like to bring to your notice about the reports published in few newspapers, wherein you have been quoted as alleging that TI has manipulated its accounts and thereby caused a loss of about Rs. Five crores to the Government exchequer.

We would have appreciated it far better had you sought some/any clarification from us (TI) before being a part of such reports. Our CFO and the undersigned as Chief Vigilance Officer could have been more than willing and able to duly address all of your concerns and genuine queries.

Our Company (TI) has an impeccable record for over the past 75 years and has made remarkable contributions to industrial and social development of Maharashtra. Our former Chairman, Mr. D.M. Dahanukar was also awarded the Padma Shri in recognition of his outstanding contribution to society.

We have always been a law abiding Company and our business has been growing by leaps and bounds in the past few years. Our sales in Puducherry have grown to 202600 c/s in April 09 - Jan 10 from 178000 c/s in April 08 – Jan 09. Correspondingly our duty contribution to the state of Puducherry has also increased from Rs.1753 lac to Rs.1994 lac a growth of 14%.

We would like to express our willingness and eagerness in exploring this new facet, which you have alleged too.

We feel obliged to make the effort to at least try and give an explanation to such and other rumors being floated about.

Yours faithfully,

For Tilaknagar Industries Ltd.

Dr. Keshab Nandy,
Chief Vigilance Officer.

Federation for People’s Rights (FPR) Secretary G.Sugumaran submitted a memorandum to the Lt. Governor of Puducherry on 18.02.2010:

We would like to draw your kind attention on the fraud allegedly committed by the Mumbai based company Tilaknagar Industries Limited, which manufactures the liquor including Mansion House Brandy as brand name, an Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL). More than 80 percent of the total volume, the said brand was distributed and sold in South India including Puducherry.

It is worth to note that the Govt. of Puducherry earns 70 % of the total revenue through various taxes imposed on sale of liquors. The said company swindled the Government money to the tune of about five crore rupees during the past three years.

The Government of Puducherry fixed and collects 58 percent sales tax for the IMFL products. The Government exempted four Distilleries running in Puducherry from the sales tax purely because of a murky deal. Various companies bottled the liquor in these companies and selling in order to reap the benefit of the said tax exemption. This leads

to a great revenue loss to the Government. In addition to the existing Excise Duty, an Additional Excise Duty was imposed, in order to compensate the loss incurred due to this exemption vide its order dated from 23rd April 2007 vide Government Notification No. 4703/DC(E)/SI/2007-II, issued by the Department of Revenue and Disaster Management.

The said Company followed the category of declared price range per case containing 8.64 / 9/12 bulk litres from Rs. 850 to Rs. 1049 as mentioned in the Government Notification. The company is paying Rs. 522 for each case for the brand Mansion House Brandy as per the above selected category to the Government. If the company crosses the next category it should pay excess Additional Excise Duty to the Government as per the said Notification.

In the intention to cheat the Government, the said company creates a new head as ‘Annual Turnover Profit’ in the cost card and selling the liquor. The company alters the accounts to maintain the above Rs. 850 to Rs. 1049 slab and getting back the excess money categorized as ‘Annual Turnover Profit’ from the Distributors and Wholesalers. By such manipulation it submits the accounts to Excise Department as if it is strictly following the slab of Rs. 850 to Rs. 1049.

Actually the company is selling the products exceeding the fixed slab Rs. 850 to Rs. 1049 by entering the next slab Rs. 1050 to 1349 as mentioned in the said Government Notification. If the company shows the next slab, it should pay Rs. 99 per case of product sold in Puducherry. Since three years after the issue of the said notification by the Government, this company has sold 5 lakh cases of products worth Rs. 300 crores. So, the company should pay Rs. 5 crores as Additional Excise Duty to the Government.

The company had cheated the Government by indulging in these fraudulent and unfair practices with intention to violate the law explicitly, which would surely cognizable under the penal offence. Puducherry Government is suffering a lot to mobilize fund to implement various public oriented schemes. In this context the above said company’s act of continuously committing this grave crime is a great betrayal to Public. Such unfair practice would only favours the liquor selling companies through various tax exemptions and its manipulation which would purely cause a huge revenue loss to the Exchequer.

We are also very much worried to hear the story of a single company which is cheating the Government to the tune of several crores of rupees. We expect your Excellency’s kind attention to probe the activities of other Liquor Companies also in Puducherry in this regard.

So, we humbly request your Excellency to order for a C.B.I. enquiry in the referred matter and initiate stringent criminal action against the company owners and others who were abetting to this crime by causing wrongful loss to the Government and thereby allowing to enjoy wrongful gain to the private players.

Federation for People’s Rights (FPR), Secretary G. Sugumaran sent a memorandum to President of India Ms. Pratibha Patil, Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, Union Law Minister Mr.Veerapa Moily, Chief Justice of India Mr. K.G. Balakrishnan, Chief Justice of the Madras High Court Mr. H.L. Gokhale, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.Karunanidhi on 10.02.2010:

The Central Government recently announced to change the name of Madras High Court as High Court of Chennai and taking steps to enact an act in the ensuing Parliament session. In 1996 the name of Madras city was changed as Chennai. But unfortunately the High Court name remained unchanged and remained as High Court of Madras itself. The Lawyers community at that time demanded to change the name which ended in vain.

We point out that during the pre independence period three Chartered High Courts were formed in Kolkata, Mumbai and Madras. The British Government named these High Courts by the name of the cities itself. It is understandable that the names of these Courts are not changed even after independence. It is surprising that after the names of Bombay, Calcutta and Madras are changed as Mumbai, Kolkata, and Chennai respectively, the High Courts are continued to be called in the same name itself. Under this context, we welcome the move of the Union Government to change the names of High Courts despite of the fact that it should have been done long back.

We heard that there is a demand to change the name as Tamilnadu High Court instead of the proposed name. After naming the state as Tamilnadu the demand is just and logical. It is highly worthy at this juncture to remember the great patriot Sundaralingam who sacrificed his life to get the name ‘Tamilnadu.’

Puducherry as a Union Territory comes under the direct control of High Court of Madras. Puducherry have a unique identity and distinct culture with the profound impact of the French culture. Expressing the ambition of the Puducherry people we request your good office to name the High Court of Madras as High Court of Tamilnadu and Puducherry, as is being adopted in case of naming Punjab High Court as Punjab and Haryana High court, when its jurisdiction has been extends to two states.

To add muscle to our contention we would like to draw the logical precedence of the case of Punjab High court. It is known to one and all that the States Re-organisation Act, 1966, brought another State Haryana by carving out from Punjab which came into existence from November 1st, 1966. From the date of enforcement of the said Act, the High Court of Punjab was renamed as ‘the High Court of Punjab and Haryana’.

So, we request your good office to initiate appropriate necessary action in this regard to honour the people of Puducherry.

Various organisation representatives of “Joint Action Committee Against the Introduction of GM Foods like Bt Brinjal” submitted a memorandum to His Excellency Lt. Governor’ s office on 09.02.2010 pressing not to allow Bt Brinjal. They also handed over the thousands of signatures obtained from the village people and farmers.

The Committee comprises with 13 organisations: Puduvai Ariviyal Iyakkam, Poovulakin Nanpargal, Sempadugai Nanneeragam, Confederation of Puducherry State Govt Employees, Phoenix Science Forum, Kalanjiyam Organic Farmers’ Association, Federation for People’s Rights (FPR), Puducherry, LIC Employees’ Union, Samam Makalir Suyasarbu Iyakkam, All India Kisan Sabha, Puducherry, Teachers’ Association, Puducherry, Centre for Ecology & Rural Development, Murpokku Ezhuthaalar Sangam.

Memorandum:

Your Excellency might be aware that the United Nations Organization have announced the year 2010 as the International Year of Biodiversity. But thousands of our traditional Brinjal varieties are facing severe danger of being becoming extinct due to the introduction of the genetically modified (GM) BT Brinjal by the Union Government, if it goes ahead with the approval of this GM crop.

We, the citizens and civil society organizations of Puducherry request the Union and State governments not to allow this extreme step which will completely erase the diversity of not only the Brinjal crop but other vegetables species like Potato, Tomato etc. which fall in the same family of Brinjal.

In BT Brinjal, a gene from the bacteria Bacillus Thuringeinsis (BT) which occur in the soil in trace quantities are extracted and introduced into the DNA of Brinjal where the BT toxin is introduced into the whole plant. This BT is known to be active against the major pest of Brinjal, the fruit bore worm but not against lots of other pests of the plant.

Already leading scientists like Dr.Pushpa Bhargava (former Director of the Central for Cellular Molecular Biology (CCMB, Hyderabad & Member of the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee), Dr.M.S.Swaminathan (MSSRF) etc have expressed that the BT Brinjal or any other GM foods should not be allowed to be introduced in India for lack of adequate and transparent testing by public sector laboratories.

Already states like Orissa, West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh, Chattisgarh, Bihar, Kerala have banned the crops in their respective states. Large number of biotechnologists and Agricultural Universities have come openly against this. Organisations like World Health Organisation (WHO) and many countries including many states in the US have not allowed introduction of GM crops. The impact of high doses of BT in the soil could also harm the soil bacteria, earthworms and other macro fauna and adequate studies have not been conducted in these aspects.

In this context, we the voluntary organizations in Puducherry request the Government of Puducherry and Government of India not to allow the introduction of BT Brinjal or for that matter any other GM food crops in our soil as India is one of the rare countries where the majority of vegetable and plant biodiversity in the world still exists.

In line with as many as 10 states have banned the entry of the genetically modified crop BT Brinjal in their respective states, we earnestly request His Excellency to ban the GM BT Brinjal in Puducherry also thereby protecting the interests of not only the farming community but also the population of Puducherry from the short term and long term ill-effects it could cause.

High Court Lawyers submitted a detailed memorandum to the Chief Justice of High Court of Madras on 03.02.2010 to replace the monthly Calendars with a new set of Calendars with court holidays and without any element of political tone or colour to restore the faith of common people in the independence of Judiciary. Senior Advocate P. Rathinam raised this issue and around 50 Lawyers of the High Court of Madras and Madurai Bench signed the memorandum.

Memorandum:

We the undersigned advocates are making this representation inviting the attention of the Hon’ble Chief Justice and the Hon’ble Judges of the High Court of Madras (including the Madurai Bench) to a vital aspect of preserving the independence of Judiciary.

1.    We are disturbed every day as the Rule of Law has been weakened by the growing and widening rule of gangs. We are aware that in a developing country the scope for political mismanagement is readily available as part of the semi feudal and semi colonial society. Even though the Constitution of India is well designed with the contribution of public spirited personalities and in particular Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the same is not utilized to achieve the goal of the very Document.

2.    We are conscious that only with the tireless efforts the forces working to weaken the Rule of Law can be resisted successfully. We are making efforts to strengthen the movement to promote and strengthen Rule of Law.

3.    We are worried to experience the political activities in the last two decades and the same have gradually introduced unethical and unconstitutional approaches only to gain access to various institutions of the State. Now atleast a section of the law making bodies are having persons with criminal records and the same is considered by the opportunist to be a good qualification to lead such bodies. The basic values are getting eroded in the political activities. The competition and unhealthy rivalry in the political activities have reached a stage that only by offering cash to the voters their support in the election can be ensured. Unpleasant happenings are taking place in the circulation of currency to the voters as the Indian Currency notes carry the face of Gandhiji.

4.    We as the members of the profession are recollecting the contribution of Lawyers in every country in its freedom-struggle. Even most of such freedom fighters sacrificed not only their lives and properties but also the future of their legal heirs without any element of hesitation. They are all models to the society. But the present day happenings are shocking our conscience and that of the like minded people. We feel that there is no need to specify as the happenings are very much open and patent in our society.

5.    We start with the questioning of the unhealthy practice of exhibiting the monthly calendars with the photographs of the Chief Minister and such other political figures displayed in the court halls and in the offices of the courts. We are clear that such practice is not good for maintaining the Independence of Judiciary. It gives an impression as if Judiciary is an extension or somewhat subordinate to the executive.

6.    We have to place on record that the Constitution Makers were very much vigilant and clear in their understanding and approaches, while introducing Article 50 which reads as “Separation of Judiciary from executive:- The State shall take steps to separate the Judiciary from the executive in the Public Services of the State.”

7.    During pre-independence India there was a strong agitation that the judiciary should be separated from the executive and that agitation was based upon the assumption that unless they are separated, independence of judiciary at the lower level would be a mockery.

8.    We are very much worried and disturbed to experience the indiscipline     among a section of the law profession. There is no justification in criticizing others without looking at the happenings in the profession itself. Even the elections for the lawyers’ bodies are becoming a laughing stock. All kinds of corrupt practices are adapted by a section of the profession. We cannot hide and suppress the truth that unfair practices are getting strength as one section of the Judiciary is also maintaining corrupt practices. We have to admit the reality that the opportunists are maintaining a net work and they are able to keep control over the Institutions of the State. But the socially conscious people are keeping distance among themselves.

9.    But the ever increasing corruption and criminalization in the power centers will inevitably generate an atmosphere for the conscious people to get united only to protect the public interest. We hope the same is emerging in our society. We are confident that the strength of the conscious people will promote a better awareness among the people and the same will enable the Rule of Law to march forward. We will build a better Social Order as the Constitution Makers were dreaming.

10.    The High Court calendar can be taken as the model as it contains 12 months with the indication of High Courts’ holidays on a single sheet.

Hence we request the Hon’ble Chief Justice to take appropriate step to replace the monthly Calendars with a new set of Calendars with court holidays and without any element of political tone or colour in it at the earliest possible time to restore the faith of common people in the independence of Judiciary.

We also undertake to cooperate for such endeavors.

Memorandum sent on 23.11.2009 to Lt. Governor, Chief Minister, Law Minister, Chief Secretary, Law Secretary:

Sub:

Request to appoint immediately a Government Pleader cum Public Prosecutor for Puducherry at High Court of Madras – Removal of Mr. T. Murugesan, presently holding the post illegally without any valid  appointment order or extension order, as Senior Government Pleader cum Senior Public Prosecutor for Puducherry at High Court of Madras – Submitted wholly in public interest – Uphold justice - Reg.

Ref:

1) G.O. Ms. No. 37/96 – LD, dated 30.12.1996, Law Department, Puducherry.
2) G.O. Ms. No. 2/2000 – LD, dated 14.01.2000, Law Department, Puducherry.
3) G.O. Ms. No. 14/2006 – LD, dated 22.05.2006, Law Department, Puducherry.
4) Enquiry Report of Additional District Magistrate, Puducherry, dated 25.01.1993.

Federation for People’s Rights (FPR) humbly submits this memorandum in public interest and invites the kind attention of your good self to initiate appropriate action in this regard.

The official post of Government Pleader cum Public Prosecutor for Puducherry at High Court of Madras is vacant for more than three years. We came to know that Mr. T. Murugesan, Senior Advocate, was illegally occupying the said post without any Government Order from 2006 to till date.

We summarize the facts briefly about the appointment of the said post. Advocate Mr. T. Murugesan, was appointed as Government Pleader cum Public Prosecutor for Puducherry at High Court of Madras for three years from 30.12.1996 vide reference (1) cited above. Subsequently, his tenure was extended for further three years from 14.01.2000 vide reference (2) cited above.  It is shocking to know that he has continued to hold the said post without any Government Order up to 21.05.2006. The Law Department issued a G.O. on 22.05.2006 vide reference (3) giving him expost-facto approval for continuing as Senior Government Pleader cum Senior Public Prosecutor for Puducherry at High Court of Madras from 06.01.2003 till 31.07.2006. Thereafter, he holds the post illegally without any valid government order either by issue of fresh appointment order or by extending his service for a further period.  This determinedly conveys that nobody was appointed for the said post from the end of May 2006 to till day.

But it is alarming and mysterious that Mr. T. Murugesan was still acting as Senior Government Pleader cum Senior Public Prosecutor in High Court of Madras without any Government Order and appearing in the cases representing the Government of Puducherry. This is totally illegal and gross violation of our Constitution. Further, he also occupies the office at High Court campus at Chennai displaying his name as Senior Government Pleader cum Senior Public Prosecutor contrary to the prevailing Laws and Rules.

We would like to point out one more legal question on the appointment of Mr. T. Murugesan as Senior Government Pleader cum Senior Public Prosecutor. It is undisputed truth that Mr. T. Murugesan was designated as Senior Advocate by the High Court of Madras as per the Section 16 (2) of Advocate Act 1961.

As per the Section 16 (3) of the Advocate Act and Clauses in Chapter I of Bar Council of India Rules very clearly restrict the Senior Advocates to be designated directly as Government Pleader or Public Prosecutor. In fact the advocate who has been so designated can seek the services of the Senior Counsel, as and when permitted by the government, depending upon the need and circumstances of each case.

We would emphasize here the Bar Council of India Rules, Chapter I,

Clause (a) : A senior advocate shall not file a vakalatnama or act in any court or tribunal, or before any person or other authority mentioned in section 30 of the Act.

Clause (d) : He shall not accept directly from a client any brief or instructions to appear in any court or tribunal or before any person or other authority of India.

In the light of the above mentioned provisions of law, which is well defined, Mr. T. Murugesan, who has been designated as Senior Advocate, should not hold any official post in any Government or its agency overtly or covertly. Hence, his earlier appointment as Senior Government Pleader cum Senior Public Prosecutor and appearing on behalf of the Government side by obtaining brief or instructions directly from the client is totally illegal and gross violation of the dictum enshrined in the Constitution of India.

We also bring to the knowledge of your good self that the Enquiry Report submitted by then Additional District Magistrate Mr. G. George on 25.01.1993, regarding a land dispute at Govinda Salai, Puducherry, who had observed in para 3:

‘Again, the counsel Thiru. T. Murugesan, being the Municipal Pleader must also desisted from rendering his opinion pertaining to a verdict in which he had been a counsel for one of the parties. Such an action of the counsel amounts to professional misconduct. This authority therefore suggests the Government to take note of this willful misconduct of the counsel and also suggests that it would not be in public interest to offer any assignment to the counsel to represent the Government or any local body in any matter in future.’

We request your good self to take steps to appoint immediately a Government Pleader cum Public Prosecutor for Puducherry at High Court of Madras. We humbly request here that an opportunity to the said post may be granted to an advocate belonging to Puducherry will be highly appreciated. Also kindly take necessary action to remove Mr. T. Murugesan from the said post, who occupies the post of Senior Government Pleader cum Senior Public Prosecutor by violating all canons of Law.

Memorandum sent on 23.11.2009 to the Lt. Governor, Chief Minister, Minister for Revenue, Chief Secretary,  Secretary for Revenue, Collector, Deputy Collector (Revenue) - North, Director, Land and Survey:

On behalf of Federation for People’s Rights (FPR), we would like to submit this memorandum in the public interest, with a request to take appropriate action.

Hon’ble Mr. M. O. H. F. Shahjahan, Minister for Public Works and Transport is taking efforts to provide free pattas to the people of Lawspet constituency, for constructing houses. He has selected the land in R.S. No. 53/25 and No. 53/26 situated in Karuvadikuppam, Lawspet area, deliberately knowing that the said site is meant for canal and road which is meant for common use of the public inhabiting the Karuvadikuppam area. The revenue records stand as a credible testimony to the above said contention (Survey record enclosed).

The said road called us “Morattandi Salai” exists for more than 100 years and connects the Karuvadikuppam and Morattandi village of Villupuram District, Tamilnadu. The residents of Lakshmi Nagar, Lakshmi Nagar Extension, Nesavalar Nagar, Nagamman Nagar, Santhi Nagar of Puducherry are utilizing this road. Further the said road is having access to the cremation and burial grounds at Karuvadikuppam. The students belongs to Karuvadikuppam are using this road to walk off to their educational institutions like Tagore Arts College, Motilal Nehru Polytechnic, Women’s Polytechnic, Community College, Junior Technical School, etc. If the road in common use is distributed as free pattas for house sites, the breadth of the said road will be shortened to 7 feet and the people of this area will be face immense hardship.

The said canal is essentially required for providing drainage facility for the local inhabitants. The rain water is being drained during rainy season. It is worth to note, that severe drainage problem has been created in Puducherry, as the government has closed all the drainage canals in this region. The Environmentalists who are struggling to save the nature is seriously concerned in this regard.

Another notable point is that this road and canal situated very near to the Airport. The Government has a comprehensive plan to develop the Airport in future. If the Airport extension is completed, the said road would be of immense use to the public to reach the Airport easily.

Pressing our demand to drop the Government move to issue pattas for house sites in the above mentioned land, we have conducted a peaceful demonstration on 04.11.2009 at Lawspet. Huge number of local people attended the demonstration and various Political Party leaders have extended their support to the reasonable struggle.

Meanwhile, the Karuvadikuppam Councilor Mr. N. Periyannan filed a Writ Petition in the Hon’ble High Court of Madras (W.P. No. 22372 0f 2009) and obtained interim Injunction Order till 16.11.2009. (Order copy enclosed). The said case came for hearing on 16.11.2009 and the Interim Injunction was further extended to two weeks.

In this context, we humbly request your good self to kindly consider our petition and take appropriate action to protect the existing road and canal, besides saving the nature ultimately.