Deepika, Sonakshi, Jacqueline, Rani Mukherjee ration card holders in UP!

September 1, 2016

dsr

Farrukhabad (UP), Sep 1: If records at a fair price shop here are to be believed, Deepika Padukone, Sonakshi Sinha, Jacqueline Fernandez and Rani Mukherjee receive subsidised food grains distributed through ration cards.

dsrj

A distributor at Sahabganj village in Qayamganj tehsil has names of these actors on the list of beneficiaries and ration is being taken on these names for quite a long time.

The matter came to light when villagers filed a complaint against the distributor and a probe was ordered, officials said.

In the registration form, several names of actors and their 'spouses' cropped up.

As per the list, Jacqueline's "husband" is Sadhu Lal and Deepika's spouse is Rakesh Chand.

Similarly, Rani Mukherjee's "husband" is Ram Swaroop, while Sonakshi is shown as married to Ramesh Chand.

Deepika is placed under 'general' category and others are shown as OBC members.

The district magistrate has ordered a probe into the alleged irregularity and directed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Qayamganj to identify the guilty and take stern against them, official sources said today.

Comments

Rikaz
 - 
Thursday, 1 Sep 2016

May be any local politicians are misusing these ration cards in their name. They are all beautiful........no doubt....their so called husbands are in trouble.....

Manohar
 - 
Thursday, 1 Sep 2016

UT khader must c this issue and raise in our city.

Bollywood hungama
 - 
Thursday, 1 Sep 2016

chance marra re!!!!!

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
March 11,2020

Kasaragod, Mar 11: An accused in a POCSO case here has been put in an isolation ward at the Government hospital on Wednesday as he was suspected having symptoms of Covid19.

The accused has been absconding ever since a case under POCSO Act was registered against him a year ago.

However acting on a tip off, the Kasaragod police arrested him at Mangalore Airport recently and was produced before the Court and was remanded to judicial custody.

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.
coastaldigest.com news network
July 2,2020

Mangaluru, Jul 2: A youth who was on job hunt committed suicide by hanging from the roof of his house in Maroli on Wednesday.

32-year-old Advaita Shetty taken pilot training and looking for a job, According to sources, he had come back to his native place, Maroli, three days ago.

The exact reason behind this extreme step is not known yet.

Kankanady town police have registered a case in this regard.

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.
coastaldigest.com news network
February 14,2020

Bengaluru, Feb 14: In a major embarrassment to the police, the Karnataka High Court has termed as illegal the prohibitory orders imposed under Section 144 of CrPC by the City Police Commissioner in December 2019 in the light of the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests in Bengaluru.

The orders were passed “without application of mind” and without following due procedures, the court noted. Giving reasons for upholding the arguments of the petitioners that there was no application of mind by the Police Commissioner (Bhaskar Rao) before imposing restrictions, a division bench of the High Court said he had not recorded the reasons, except reproducing the contents of letters addressed to him by the Deputy Commissioners of Police (DCPs). 

The state government had contended that prohibitory orders were passed based on reports submitted by the DCPs who expressed apprehension about anti-social elements creating law and order problems and damaging public property by taking advantage of the anti-CAA protests.  

The High Court bench said the Police Commissioner should have conducted inquiry as stated by the Supreme Court to check the reasons cited by the DCPs who submitted identical reports. Except for this, there were no facts laid out by the Police Commissioner, the court said.

“There is complete absence of reasons. If the order indicated that the Police Commissioner was satisfied by the apprehension of DCPs, it would have been another matter,” it said.  

“The apex court has held that it must record the reasons for imposition of restrictions and there has to be a formation of opinion by the district magistrate. Only then can  the extraordinary powers conferred on the district magistrate can be exercised. This procedure was not followed. Hence, exercise of power under Section 144 by the commissioner, as district magistrate, was not at all legal”, the bench said. 

“We hold that the order dated December 18, 2019 is illegal and cannot stand judicial scrutiny in terms of the apex court’s orders in the Ramlila Maidan case and Anuradha Bhasin case,” the HC bench said while upholding the arguments of Prof Ravivarma Kumar, who appeared for some of the petitioners.   

Partly allowing a batch of public interest petitions questioning the imposition of prohibitory orders and cancelling the permission granted for protesters in the city, the bench of Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Justice Hemant Chandangoudar observed that, unfortunately, in the present case, there was no indication of application of mind in passing prohibitory orders.

The bench said the observation was confined to this order only and it cannot be applicable in general. If there is a similar situation (necessitating imposition of restrictions), the state is not helpless, the court 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.