Today- 28 February 2012- would be remembered in the annals of cricket for the 86 ball unbeaten 133 runs scored by Indian rookie Virat Kohli. This clearly overshadowed a magnificent unbeaten 160 by explosive Sri Lankan opener Tilakratne Dilshan. Not only he went on to win the match for India but also achieved the much needed extra point by scoring the required 321 runs in 40 overs, which seemed almost impossible at one point! So Indians are still on the course and who knows what would happen next!
Something is rotten in the Indian cricket team- that seems to be the common refrain. A shameful comprehensive defeat to the Aussies, in the recently concluded test series and then standing on the brink of elimination from the tri-nation one-day series set the perfect foil for a no-hold bar unleash, besides the spirit of an encaged tiger was also raring to go! The prince –Virat Kohli- was constantly plagued by self-doubt, more so when his place in the ‘ Indian Test Team’ was not cemented and his temperament was questioned. The constant worry for him was “to be, or not to be”! I guess; now, no longer that is the question and a wonderful summer- IPL 5- is beckoning this new star and also the Indian team.
MSD! if I wear you I’d seize the moment and redeem myself, would you?
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Our Alma maters need our inputs!
I had a chat with Jhadeswar Mishra; an assistant teacher of our alma mater- D N High School, Kendujhar, who is also the most trusted alumni in the school administration; on 13 February 2012. I reminded him that this year it would be the tenth time -on a row- we’d be sending good wish cards to the Matriculation examinees. He assured that it would be continued and also told me the following:
Sri Anil Kar- an alumni of 1986 batch- visited the School recently and sportively offered to donate some equipment. Thank you Anil bhai!
The sad part:
Now the student strength has come down to around 750 (from 1200 a couple of years back). Correspondingly in all standards- viii to x- now there are only 4 sections instead of 5.
Both the clerks have retired and none of the vacancies have been replaced.
There is only one Sanskrit teacher instead of 2 and it puts a lot of pressure on him to manage the classes- from class VI to X.
There are only 22 teachers. In most comparable ‘Saraswati Sishu Mandiras’ they have two times that many teaching staff and many have 3 times of that.
I assured that I’d escalate this matter to our concerned alumni and hence this effort.
Appeal to the alumni:
The situation is not much different in other erstwhile Zilla Schools, which are akin to family silvers. Whether it is Revenshaw collegiate school of Cuttack or Chandra Sekhar Behera Zilla School of Sambalpur or Puri Zilla Schools of Puri all are in the same boat.
Our Alma maters need our inputs! Can we do something to address their concerns?
Sri Anil Kar- an alumni of 1986 batch- visited the School recently and sportively offered to donate some equipment. Thank you Anil bhai!
The sad part:
Now the student strength has come down to around 750 (from 1200 a couple of years back). Correspondingly in all standards- viii to x- now there are only 4 sections instead of 5.
Both the clerks have retired and none of the vacancies have been replaced.
There is only one Sanskrit teacher instead of 2 and it puts a lot of pressure on him to manage the classes- from class VI to X.
There are only 22 teachers. In most comparable ‘Saraswati Sishu Mandiras’ they have two times that many teaching staff and many have 3 times of that.
I assured that I’d escalate this matter to our concerned alumni and hence this effort.
Appeal to the alumni:
The situation is not much different in other erstwhile Zilla Schools, which are akin to family silvers. Whether it is Revenshaw collegiate school of Cuttack or Chandra Sekhar Behera Zilla School of Sambalpur or Puri Zilla Schools of Puri all are in the same boat.
Our Alma maters need our inputs! Can we do something to address their concerns?
Friday, February 10, 2012
A peculiar example of coercion ( Bombay HC)
As per section 10 of Indian Contract Act- 1872, essentials of a Valid Contract are:
a) A valid agreement (which includes an offer/ proposal and its proper acceptance
b) Free consent of parties
c) Parties must be competent to contract,
d) Consideration and the object must be lawful, and
e) Such an agreement must not be expressly declared to be void.
Hence, amount extracted under coercion should be refunded. Case law referred in ICAI study material (for IPCC) Trikamdas Udeshi vs Bombay Municipal Corporation on 19 November, Bombay High Court, 1953
Facts of the case:
The petitioner boarded a tramcar belonging to the Bombay Electric Supply & Transfer Undertaking of the Bombay Municipality at Crawford Market and got out at Bori Bunder without purchasing a ticket. He was thereupon called upon by the Traffic Supervisor to pay a sum of Rs. 5 as penalty. The petitioner paid the fine and obtained a receipt for it from the Supervisor. He then filed a suit in the Small Causes Court to recover this amount as having been paid under coercion. The Small Causes Court dismissed the suit. Revision application was made to the HC.
Trikamdas Udeshi claimed that the fine amount- Rs 5/- was paid under coercion. He also contended that General Manager had no power to delegate the power to the Traffic Supervisor. Even if he had the power, the delegation was illegal. That, he had committed a non-compoundable offence by failing to purchase a ticket for travelling in the tram-car, and the Municipality had no power in law to compound a non-compoundable offence.
What was the coercion- in the instant case?
The petitioner paid this sum in order to avoid a prosecution. He knew perfectly well that if he did not pay this sum of Rs. 5, he would have been prosecuted before a Magistrate and could have been fined with further embarrassment.
While setting aside the ruling of the lower court the HC listed the following rationale`:
Attention was also drawn to Section 113 of the Railways Act, which empowers a railway servant to demand the requisite amount from a person travelling in a train without a ticket and on the failure or refusal to pay by the passenger the amount can be recovered by an application to a Magistrate. It was suggested that a similar provision could be made in the Municipal Act.
The learned Judge stated that this case raised a question of great public importance, which is of grave consequence to the public at large in the city of Bombay. Hence a decree in favour of the petitioner for Rs. 5, with costs of the suit was passed.
IMHO:
Equating a just penalty as coercive extraction under the guise of legal technicalities does not create a good precedent. However, lets also remember that, primary duty of the judges’ is to interpret the Law and not to legislate; so if there is a legal loophole then they may plead helplessness. Again, in a just society, the judges of the higher judiciary are considered as dispenser of justice and not mere score keepers and mute spectators. With the increased judicial activism evidenced today, I doubt this judgment would stand today’s critical scrutiny.
I may’ve grossly missed out on relevant facts, yet from the available literature/ facts (in the public domain) I fail to understand why the above case law was chosen by the BOS – of ICAI- to illustrate a case of coercion, when there are enough other cases to drive home the point in a very straight forward manner.
a) A valid agreement (which includes an offer/ proposal and its proper acceptance
b) Free consent of parties
c) Parties must be competent to contract,
d) Consideration and the object must be lawful, and
e) Such an agreement must not be expressly declared to be void.
Hence, amount extracted under coercion should be refunded. Case law referred in ICAI study material (for IPCC) Trikamdas Udeshi vs Bombay Municipal Corporation on 19 November, Bombay High Court, 1953
Facts of the case:
The petitioner boarded a tramcar belonging to the Bombay Electric Supply & Transfer Undertaking of the Bombay Municipality at Crawford Market and got out at Bori Bunder without purchasing a ticket. He was thereupon called upon by the Traffic Supervisor to pay a sum of Rs. 5 as penalty. The petitioner paid the fine and obtained a receipt for it from the Supervisor. He then filed a suit in the Small Causes Court to recover this amount as having been paid under coercion. The Small Causes Court dismissed the suit. Revision application was made to the HC.
Trikamdas Udeshi claimed that the fine amount- Rs 5/- was paid under coercion. He also contended that General Manager had no power to delegate the power to the Traffic Supervisor. Even if he had the power, the delegation was illegal. That, he had committed a non-compoundable offence by failing to purchase a ticket for travelling in the tram-car, and the Municipality had no power in law to compound a non-compoundable offence.
What was the coercion- in the instant case?
The petitioner paid this sum in order to avoid a prosecution. He knew perfectly well that if he did not pay this sum of Rs. 5, he would have been prosecuted before a Magistrate and could have been fined with further embarrassment.
While setting aside the ruling of the lower court the HC listed the following rationale`:
Attention was also drawn to Section 113 of the Railways Act, which empowers a railway servant to demand the requisite amount from a person travelling in a train without a ticket and on the failure or refusal to pay by the passenger the amount can be recovered by an application to a Magistrate. It was suggested that a similar provision could be made in the Municipal Act.
The learned Judge stated that this case raised a question of great public importance, which is of grave consequence to the public at large in the city of Bombay. Hence a decree in favour of the petitioner for Rs. 5, with costs of the suit was passed.
IMHO:
Equating a just penalty as coercive extraction under the guise of legal technicalities does not create a good precedent. However, lets also remember that, primary duty of the judges’ is to interpret the Law and not to legislate; so if there is a legal loophole then they may plead helplessness. Again, in a just society, the judges of the higher judiciary are considered as dispenser of justice and not mere score keepers and mute spectators. With the increased judicial activism evidenced today, I doubt this judgment would stand today’s critical scrutiny.
I may’ve grossly missed out on relevant facts, yet from the available literature/ facts (in the public domain) I fail to understand why the above case law was chosen by the BOS – of ICAI- to illustrate a case of coercion, when there are enough other cases to drive home the point in a very straight forward manner.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
SC cancels 122 2G licenses
2 Feb 2012- exactly a year after A Raja was put behind bars- the SC decisions are out. The SC has cancelled 122 licenses awarded by former telecom minister A Raja. Thank you Justice Ganguly for delivering a decision before retiring.
The judges have directed TRAI to come up with recommendations -within two months- for issuing licenses and auctioning spectrum. That’s sensible and the admin MUST do its job within the allotted time. Then consumers will not be affected.
As per the ruling, the telecom operators- whose licenses had been cancelled- could keep operating for four months, while TRAI and the government carried out their work for issuing new licenses.
The licenses, if sanctioned afresh, are not likely to fetch the amount, which will justify 176K graft charge, for the world is going through a financial strait. Yet, it would fetch substantially and that would further substantiate the charge that Andimuthu Raja & Co defrauded the nation royally and hence would pave the way for eventual sentencing of Raja. Ms Kanimozhi may return to her cell with some others who have been freed because of delay in persecution; for, if Raja is nailed his associates cannot be left alone.
The court found the "first-come-first-served" policy unconstitutional. And first-come-first-served was the basis of government policy in many sectors, especially that of mining. Anyone who has some understanding of how have these licenses been granted would be feeling happy that now another Pandora’s box is waiting to be opened. True, it also indicates fingers at a bad trend : judicial activism. Yet, when there is such gross violations we’ve to admit exceptions. But what is the guarantee that this mode- of court intervening in administrative matters- would not be misused? In that sense it’s also a dangerous precedent. In this context, what comes to mind is the famous quotation of Charles Dickens- “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times”!
The judges have directed TRAI to come up with recommendations -within two months- for issuing licenses and auctioning spectrum. That’s sensible and the admin MUST do its job within the allotted time. Then consumers will not be affected.
As per the ruling, the telecom operators- whose licenses had been cancelled- could keep operating for four months, while TRAI and the government carried out their work for issuing new licenses.
The licenses, if sanctioned afresh, are not likely to fetch the amount, which will justify 176K graft charge, for the world is going through a financial strait. Yet, it would fetch substantially and that would further substantiate the charge that Andimuthu Raja & Co defrauded the nation royally and hence would pave the way for eventual sentencing of Raja. Ms Kanimozhi may return to her cell with some others who have been freed because of delay in persecution; for, if Raja is nailed his associates cannot be left alone.
The court found the "first-come-first-served" policy unconstitutional. And first-come-first-served was the basis of government policy in many sectors, especially that of mining. Anyone who has some understanding of how have these licenses been granted would be feeling happy that now another Pandora’s box is waiting to be opened. True, it also indicates fingers at a bad trend : judicial activism. Yet, when there is such gross violations we’ve to admit exceptions. But what is the guarantee that this mode- of court intervening in administrative matters- would not be misused? In that sense it’s also a dangerous precedent. In this context, what comes to mind is the famous quotation of Charles Dickens- “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times”!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)