Modi govt’s minister Giriraj Singh booked in land grabbing case

News Network
February 8, 2018

In a fresh embarrassment to Prime Minister Narendra Modi-led NDA government at the Centre, Giriraj Singh, Minister for Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, has been booked in a case of land grabbing along with 32 others in Danapur of Patna district.

On the direction of the Patna Civil court an FIR (NO: 54 / 2018) was lodged at the Danapur police station, on the outskirts of Patna against Mr. Singh, who is a BJP MP from Nawada in Bihar, allegedly for forcibly grabbing over 2 acres of land. Along with Mr. Singh 32 other persons too have been named in the case.

Resident of Asopur village in Danapur Ram Narayan Prasad had, earlier, petitioned in the SC/ST special court that 33 persons, including Mr. Singh had conspired to grab his over 2 acres of land for sale and purchase.

Danapur police station officer-in-charge Sandeep Kumar said that a case has been lodged against 33 persons, including Giriraj Singh under various sections of IPC and SC / ST as well.

Meanwhile, Opposition Rashtriya Janata Dal has demanded Mr. Singh’s resignation.

“Will Bihar CM Nitish Kumar or his deputy in the cabinet Sushil Kumar Modi ask Giriraj Singh to resign from his post…he is the same Giriraj Singh from whose house crores of rupees were seized after he had become minister in the Narendra Modi cabinet”, charged leader of opposition, Tejaswi Yadav.

Mr. Yadav also questioned the stance taken by Chief Minister Nitish Kumar and his deputy Sushil Modi on the issue. “Would he now break the coalition with the BJP or, he would resign from his post on the call of his conscienc?. Why is country’s biggest afwah mian (rumor master), Sushil Modi keeping quiet on the issue of Giriraj Singh?”, asked the RJD leader.

Comments

Kumar
 - 
Thursday, 8 Feb 2018

Why only this hate monger.  You will find many many more.  95 percent of bjp ministers are looters/decoits/killers/goondas etc etc.  One looter in karnataka is trying to come back to power once again.  Will SC take any action on this land grabber.   SC should seize all his bank accounts and properties.  there might me many properties registered in his close relative names.  SC should investigate this and make it open to public.  However, we should not expect any comments from our non-resident PM. 

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
April 16,2020

Thiruvananthapuram, Apr 16: Seven fresh cases of COVID-19 were reported from Kerala on Thursday, taking the total number of active cases to 147 in the state,even as over 88,000 people are under observation.

On Wednesday, only one positive case had been reported, thelowest in weeks.

While Kannur reported four cases, two were from Kozhikode and one from Kasaragod, Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan told reportershere.

Five of those affected had come from abroad, while two have got it through contact with infected people.

Samples of 27 people, including 24 from the worst affected Kasaragod, have turned negative on Thursday.

He said 394 coronavirus cases have so farbeen detected from the state.

Over 80,000 people are under observation, including 532 in various hospitals.

Vijayan said 17,400 samples have been sent for testing of which 16,459 have returned negative.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
March 1,2020

Kolkata, Mar 1: The Calcutta High Court has ruled that it is not mandatory for foreigners to produce a valid passport and its particulars for processing of application for grant of Indian citizenship if he is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non-availability of the document.

Justice Sabysachi Bhattacharya passed the order while disposing off a petition by granting the petitioner liberty to file an application before the authority "as contemplated in Rule 11 of the Citizenship Rules 2009, upon furnishing explanation as to the non-availability of the passport".

Bismillah Khan had filed the petition saying he was being denied the citizenship of India because of his inability to file an application under Section 5 (1) (c) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, apparently due to the mandatory requirement of furnishing a copy of the passport for such application.

The petitioner's counsel submitted that Khan was a Pakhtoon citizen and due to political turmoil in the said state, which subsequently merged partially into Afghanistan and partially into Pakistan, he, as a five-year old, had to migrate to India with his father in 1973.

Under such circumstances, the petitioner could not have any opportunity of having a valid passport, since they were refugees under distress, the counsel said.

The petitioner had previously approached a coordinate Bench of the court, wherein a single judge, passed an order on July 25, 2018, directing him to comply with the formalities required, as communicated by the secretary to the Government of India to the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal (Home), vide a letter dated December 7, 2017.

The court had then also given liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh before the appropriate authority under Section 5(1)(c) of the 1955 Act, having complied with all the formalities.

The petitioner then moved Bhattacharya's court submitting that a complete application as directed by the Coordinate Bench cannot be possibly filed by his client due to the mandatory requirement of uploading a copy of his passport, which the petitioner does not have due to reasons beyond his control.

The counsel said Khan is married to an Indian citizen, has a daughter and living in India for close to half a century.

The counsel for the union of India submitted that in view of no application having been filed by the petitioner, there is no scope of granting such proposed application at the present juncture for the Union.

The counsel argued that it is mandatory to file an application in Form III for the application of the petitioner under Section 5(1)(c) of the Act to be considered at all.

In view of the petitioner not complying with the mandatory requirement of submitting a copy of his passport, the state government cannot, under the law, forward such application to the union government.

After hearing all sides, Justice Bhattacharya said although the rule "contemplates that an application shall not be entertained unless the application is made in Form III, such provision ipso facto does not make the availability of a passport a mandatory requirement".

"..the Form given with the Rules or the Rules themselves cannot override the provision of the statute itself, under which the said Rules are framed, which does not stipulate such a mandate on the applicants for citizenship under Section 5 (1)(c) of the 1955 Act mandatorily to carry a passport".

The court said although such provision is included in the Form, which has to be complied with by the applicant, "it is nowhere indicated in such Form that all the relevant particulars, including the particulars regarding passport of the petitioner have to be furnished mandatorily, along with a copy of a valid foreign passport, even in the event the petitioner, for valid reasons, is not in a position to produce such passport".

Justice Bhattacharya ruled that under such circumstances, it cannot be held that the provision of producing a passport and its particulars is mandatory in nature and there has to be a relaxation in such requirement "in case the petitioner is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non- availability of such passport".

"Unless such a leeway is given to the applicants, genuine persons who otherwise have all the formal documents indicating that they have been residing in India for a long time and have married a resident of India would also be unable to apply for Indian Citizenship despite having lived their entire lives and contributed to the economy and diverse culture of this country."

He said such a scenario would be contradictory to the spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

"In such view of the matter, the requirement of having a passport has to be read as optional in Form III of the Citizenship Rules, 2009 and the authorities are deemed to have the power to relax such 6 requirement in the event the applicant satisfied the authorities for genuine reasons why the applicant is not in a position to produce such passport," the February 24 order said.

The court ruled that despite the provision of making applications online, a provision has to be made for persons who do not have all the particulars of their passport, which is read as optional, to file applications manually, which are to be treated as valid applications under Rule 5 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009.

The court also ordered that alternatively the necessary software be amended so that the online applications can be presented with or without passports, in the latter case furnishing detailed reasons as to non-furnishing of passports.

"Sanctioning of such forms, however, will be conditional upon the satisfaction of the relevant authorities about the reasons for the applicant not being able to produce her/his passport," the order said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
June 8,2020

New Delhi, June 8: Only 20.26 lakh migrant workers of the targeted 8 crore such labourers have received free food grains in May and June (2020), according to data released by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution.

In the middle of May, as part of the Rs 20 lakh crore Atma Nirbhar Bharat package, the Modi government had announced that migrant labourers who are not covered under the National Food Security Act (NFSA) or any state-run PDS scheme, will receive free food grains for two months.

"Non-card holders shall be given 5 kg wheat or rice per person and 1 kg chana per family per month for the next 2 months. About 8 crore migrants will benefit from this scheme that will cost the government Rs 3500 crore,” Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman had said at a press conference following PM Modi’s announcement.

But the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution said on Sunday, "The states and UTs have lifted 4.42 LMT (lakh metric tonne) of food grains and distributed 10,131 MT of it to 20.26 lakh beneficiaries."

It added, "The Government of India also approved 39,000 MT pulses for 1.96 crore migrant families. Around 28,306 MT gram/dal have been dispatched to the states and UTs. A total 15,413 MT gram have been lifted by various states and UTs". The state governments, the ministry added, had distributed only 631MT (metric tonnes) of gram so far.

Because of the constant movement of migrant workers, the Centre had said that the states will be responsible for identifying the migrants and subsequent food distribution.

The Centre claims it is spending approximately Rs 3,109 crore for food grains and Rs 280 crores for grams/chana under this package.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.