Saturday, July 9, 2011

Re: [HumJanenge] Interesting order

What is the logic to put over four years old order now?  The IC has not ordered to give the salary of PIO the appellant.  The concluding para mentioned below is self-speaking:

10. The Commission also orders that the complainant, Shri Kumar Avikal
Manu, should be paid adequate compensation, which should be equal to the
amount of the salary and allowances already paid to the third and last appointee
in the group of four physically handicapped candidates, who were offered the job
on the basis of UPSC recommendation. The complainant being the 4th person
who has, however, been denied the prestigious offer vide letter no.13015/1/2005-
AIS(1) dated December 21, 2006, communicating that he could not be appointed
for want of the vacancy in any Govt. Department. The total amount thus payable
to the complainant should be determined on the basis of the date of joining of the
third and last candidate in the physically handicapped category till December 21,
2006, the date of DoPT's order of denial of his dream job, as an IAS officer. The
entire amount thus calculated should be paid to him in one installment by way of
demand draft in favour of the appellant, Shri Kumar Avikal Manu, before March
31, 2007, failing which penal interest @ 10% per annum on the total payable
amount would be applicable.

--- On Sun, 10/7/11, sandeep kumar <drsandgupta@gmail.com> wrote:

From: sandeep kumar <drsandgupta@gmail.com>
Subject: [HumJanenge] Interesting order
To: "humjanenge" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>, "HC Arora" <hcarora.highcourt@gmail.com>, "hitenderjain" <hitenderjain@gmail.com>, "Kuldeep Singh Khaira" <kuldeepsingh_khaira@yahoo.com>, "right2justice" <right2justice@gmail.com>, "lsa_ludhiana" <lsa_ludhiana@yahoo.com>
Date: Sunday, 10 July, 2011, 6:41 AM

Please find an interesting order of the CIC in which PA was ordered to
pay salary to the appellant.

--
Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
989, Sector 15-A, Opposite bishnoi Colony, Hisar-125001, INDIA
Phone: 91-99929-31181

Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Why IPC and CrPC should not exist in Free India

Dear Dr Sharma

There is no point in our reinventing a wheel. All the procedures are explicitly contained in the 2 codes you mentioned. But just to summarise.

Section 39 CrPC lists all the IPC offences which the public is bound to give information on to the nearest police officer. The onus of proof to show that the offence was reported lies on the citizen.
http://www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/CrPc/s39.htm

I have nothing else to say.

Sarbajit

On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 6:40 AM, Dr.V.N. Sharma <vnsh44@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Sarabjit & Dipak Well informed gentlemen),

This one liner is meaningless. Discussion forums are not for such one
liners pl. Pl. cough up some method/ work procedure which will
properly handle and implement the IPC & CrPC. And also how 75% of the
problems in India will be solved by properly implementing it. These
will be eye openers.

vns



Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Why IPC and CrPC should not exist in Free India

Dear All,
               Please let me start with my own case. Wherein fraud in accounts made by Company's directors in accounts embezelled by Directors taking amount by way of dividend , illegally against the provisions of the Companies Act. !!!!!
I have filed complaint in criminal court for more than 2 years. Every time Adjournment only! No notice served to Directors nor any enquiry through court by police in the matter!!!!!!!!!!!!
God save our country.


From: Dr.V.N. Sharma <vnsh44@gmail.com>
To: "HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005" <HumJanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, 9 July 2011 9:10 PM
Subject: [HumJanenge] Re: Why IPC and CrPC should not exist in Free India

Dear Sarabjit & Dipak Well informed gentlemen),

This one liner is meaningless. Discussion forums are not for such one
liners pl. Pl. cough up some method/ work procedure which will
properly handle and implement the IPC & CrPC. And also how 75% of the
problems in India will be solved by properly implementing it. These
will be eye openers.

vns


On 8 जुला, 21:57, Dipak Shah <djshah1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It is not being properly handled and implemented .
> C A Shah D J
> USA
>
> ________________________________
> From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy...@gmail.com>
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Friday, 8 July 2011 12:13 PM
> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Why IPC and CrPC should not exist in Free India
>
> Dear (misinformed) Friend
>
> The Indian Penal Code is one of the best Laws bestowed on India.
>
> If properly implemented it contains the answers / solutions to at least 75% of India's problems.
>
> Sarbajit
>
> 2011/7/8 डा वी एन शर्मा <vns...@gmail.com>
>
> Dear Friends,I am in receipt of the following 3 comments in a message with some detailed stories. 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >The comments are "(1) people who expose the mafia will be clamped down upon with court suits, (2) what educational mafia is upto and (3) see what privatisation of education is leading to......
> >In my view IPC and CrPC are in the core of all the problems faced in the system of democratic governance of this country and I am surprised why much more intelligent and elderly people than me did not attempt to get these laws repealed already. The laws still exist today in the same letter and spirit as the Britishers framed them for success of their Raj by punishing the Indian people. They were not democrats and were not required to be that for administering a Colony. Hence the toughest of laws against the Indians were the need of the hour for them. Our present Rulers are no different from the Britishers. After all A Ruler is a Ruler-White, grey or black is the colour of the skin , not the color of right to Rule. 
>
> >And this is not true about Education or Health or corruption or black money etc. One takes one step and if that one step does not suit the Rulers one is behind bars for the unfounded charges of tresspassing the law in some manner or the other. One should not be surprised if he goes behind bars with broken ribs, hands or legs etc or he may reach the other world straight away like many good and well eaning people have been sent. A Jharkhand court has recently ordered death to awell known innocent cultural activist named "Jeetan marandi" who has nothing to do with the crime committed by somebody of the same name. Similar is the case with others too. 
>
> >In my view a movement is required to repeal the IPC and Cr PC and replace them by an appropriate law for proper Rule of Law.
>
> > 
> >-- 
> >डा वी एन शर्मा / Dr.V.N.Sharma
> >Cell No.9431102680,
> >Member, Secretariat, All India Forum for Right to Education (AIF-RTE), 
> >Working Committee Member, Jan Sansad & 
> >Co-ordinator, Jharkhand Shanti evam Nyaya Yatra (JSNY)


[HumJanenge] Interesting order

Please find an interesting order of the CIC in which PA was ordered to
pay salary to the appellant.

--
Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
989, Sector 15-A, Opposite bishnoi Colony, Hisar-125001, INDIA
Phone: 91-99929-31181

[HumJanenge] Re: Why IPC and CrPC should not exist in Free India

Dear Sarabjit & Dipak Well informed gentlemen),

This one liner is meaningless. Discussion forums are not for such one
liners pl. Pl. cough up some method/ work procedure which will
properly handle and implement the IPC & CrPC. And also how 75% of the
problems in India will be solved by properly implementing it. These
will be eye openers.

vns


On 8 जुला, 21:57, Dipak Shah <djshah1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It is not being properly handled and implemented .
> C A Shah D J
> USA
>
> ________________________________
> From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy...@gmail.com>
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Friday, 8 July 2011 12:13 PM
> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Why IPC and CrPC should not exist in Free India
>
> Dear (misinformed) Friend
>
> The Indian Penal Code is one of the best Laws bestowed on India.
>
> If properly implemented it contains the answers / solutions to at least 75% of India's problems.
>
> Sarbajit
>
> 2011/7/8 डा वी एन शर्मा <vns...@gmail.com>
>
> Dear Friends,I am in receipt of the following 3 comments in a message with some detailed stories. 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >The comments are "(1) people who expose the mafia will be clamped down upon with court suits, (2) what educational mafia is upto and (3) see what privatisation of education is leading to......
> >In my view IPC and CrPC are in the core of all the problems faced in the system of democratic governance of this country and I am surprised why much more intelligent and elderly people than me did not attempt to get these laws repealed already. The laws still exist today in the same letter and spirit as the Britishers framed them for success of their Raj by punishing the Indian people. They were not democrats and were not required to be that for administering a Colony. Hence the toughest of laws against the Indians were the need of the hour for them. Our present Rulers are no different from the Britishers. After all A Ruler is a Ruler-White, grey or black is the colour of the skin , not the color of right to Rule. 
>
> >And this is not true about Education or Health or corruption or black money etc. One takes one step and if that one step does not suit the Rulers one is behind bars for the unfounded charges of tresspassing the law in some manner or the other. One should not be surprised if he goes behind bars with broken ribs, hands or legs etc or he may reach the other world straight away like many good and well eaning people have been sent. A Jharkhand court has recently ordered death to awell known innocent cultural activist named "Jeetan marandi" who has nothing to do with the crime committed by somebody of the same name. Similar is the case with others too. 
>
> >In my view a movement is required to repeal the IPC and Cr PC and replace them by an appropriate law for proper Rule of Law.
>
> > 
> >-- 
> >डा वी एन शर्मा / Dr.V.N.Sharma
> >Cell No.9431102680,
> >Member, Secretariat, All India Forum for Right to Education (AIF-RTE), 
> >Working Committee Member, Jan Sansad & 
> >Co-ordinator, Jharkhand Shanti evam Nyaya Yatra (JSNY)

Re: [HumJanenge] Re: CCS to discuss including Indian Armed Forces under Lokpal etc

Sir

The citizens of  this country are deeply concerned about incidents like these which seem to indicate a great rot (or at least a few rotten apples) within the Armed Forces.

With virtually every institution in the country (Parliament, Executive, Higher Judiciary, Press/Media) having proved itself to be corripletely / utterly corrupt, the last bulwark -
the Armed Forces are also sending out very distressing signals that they are equally affected by this national problem (indiscipline / lack of commitment to national unity /
personal gain over public interest, poor calibre people in crucial positions etc etc) and the scams in the Armed Forces are equally large and involve officers in a nexus with MoD babus and local politicians.

Plus recent stray cases involving women officers like say Capt Poonam Kaur's, Major Dimple Singla's have given Pakistan a great opportunity to portray Indian Army officers as a bunch of corrupt drunkards and leches etc.

In this light, Indian citizens on this group are consideravbly worried about state / fate of the nation and its armed forces, and our capacity to defend itself against powerful enemies.like China or take war to the enemy's camps etc.

Sarbajit

On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 10:06 PM, vinay singh <vinay4299@gmail.com> wrote:
NSP or non standard weapons are allotted to officers. After World War
II, the US and British Army that fought  in Burma and South East Asia
left thousands of .30 Springfield rifles and .30 Winchester carbines.
These were semi automatic weapons.They were occupying a lot of storage
space in the Ordnance Depot at Jabapur so a decsion was taken to
dispose them off to officers, on payment. Till the sixties or
seventies, there was not much problem in getting a licence for a semi
automatic weapon. With the rise in terrorism, the Government made the
rules very strict. Now, only the Home Secretary can issue such
licences.

 Earlier, 303 was a prohibited bore for rifles,and 38 for revolvers,
as they were used by the Army and Police.  Later, with the Army
changing over to 7.62 mm for rifles and 9 mm for pistols, these have
also been added to the prohibited list. According to the regulations
for the Army, an Army officer can possess one pistol/revolver without
a licence as long as he is in service. As soon as he retires, he must
take a licence. Most officers pass on the weapon to another serving
officer as a gift, who may be close relative. As regards NSP weapons,
the rules are clear. One can keep it as long as he wants. When not
needed, these should be returned to Ordnance. One can also transfer it
to another service officer, who is authorised to possess such a
weapon, after taking permission. Selling it for a profit is against
the rules.

I  think the Army is not the only one where this is prevalent. Almost
every senior IAS and IPS officer has a weapon purchased from the
Malkhana, where arms confiscated from dacoits, terrorists etc are
kept. Often, politicians too get such weapons allotted. Another source
is the customs warehouse where confiscated weapons are stored.

Maj Gen VK Singh (Retd)

On 9 July 2011 21:24, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Wg Cdr Karnik (and other veterans)
>
> Some of us (civilians) would like / appreciate your valued opinion on what
> causes today's generation of officers to yield to such temptations.
>
> Sarbajit
> (List Moderator)
>
> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 1:15 PM, suresh karnik <sdkarnik35@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> From Wg Cdr S.D Karnik
>> I am proud to state/inform that I got a 32 Colt Pistol in 1956 as a Pilot
>> Officer from COD Allahabad
>> when I alongwith my Squadronmates had applied for the same - only 2 of us
>> out of the whole Squadron of 16 Fighter Pilots got allotment merely on our
>> application withou applying any pressures etc.
>> I am indeed happy to inform that I still have the weapon in my custody
>> even after retirment (with Police licence). In 1960 I was offered Rs.
>> 50,000/- for sale.  In 1968-69mI was offered Rs.One Lakh. In 1982
>> I was asked to name my price for sale.  I DID NOT YIELD TO ANY TEMPTATION.
>> I still have the weapon as
>> my personal weapon with an emotional attachment as I had it with me on my
>> person during sorties on  the offensive missions in 1971 war.
>> I am indeed sad to read the present happenings.
>> Wg Cdr Suresh Damodar Karnik Vr,C
>>
>
>

Re: [HumJanenge] Re: CCS to discuss including Indian Armed Forces under Lokpal etc

NSP or non standard weapons are allotted to officers. After World War
II, the US and British Army that fought in Burma and South East Asia
left thousands of .30 Springfield rifles and .30 Winchester carbines.
These were semi automatic weapons.They were occupying a lot of storage
space in the Ordnance Depot at Jabapur so a decsion was taken to
dispose them off to officers, on payment. Till the sixties or
seventies, there was not much problem in getting a licence for a semi
automatic weapon. With the rise in terrorism, the Government made the
rules very strict. Now, only the Home Secretary can issue such
licences.

Earlier, 303 was a prohibited bore for rifles,and 38 for revolvers,
as they were used by the Army and Police. Later, with the Army
changing over to 7.62 mm for rifles and 9 mm for pistols, these have
also been added to the prohibited list. According to the regulations
for the Army, an Army officer can possess one pistol/revolver without
a licence as long as he is in service. As soon as he retires, he must
take a licence. Most officers pass on the weapon to another serving
officer as a gift, who may be close relative. As regards NSP weapons,
the rules are clear. One can keep it as long as he wants. When not
needed, these should be returned to Ordnance. One can also transfer it
to another service officer, who is authorised to possess such a
weapon, after taking permission. Selling it for a profit is against
the rules.

I think the Army is not the only one where this is prevalent. Almost
every senior IAS and IPS officer has a weapon purchased from the
Malkhana, where arms confiscated from dacoits, terrorists etc are
kept. Often, politicians too get such weapons allotted. Another source
is the customs warehouse where confiscated weapons are stored.

Maj Gen VK Singh (Retd)

On 9 July 2011 21:24, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Wg Cdr Karnik (and other veterans)
>
> Some of us (civilians) would like / appreciate your valued opinion on what
> causes today's generation of officers to yield to such temptations.
>
> Sarbajit
> (List Moderator)
>
> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 1:15 PM, suresh karnik <sdkarnik35@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> From Wg Cdr S.D Karnik
>> I am proud to state/inform that I got a 32 Colt Pistol in 1956 as a Pilot
>> Officer from COD Allahabad
>> when I alongwith my Squadronmates had applied for the same - only 2 of us
>> out of the whole Squadron of 16 Fighter Pilots got allotment merely on our
>> application withou applying any pressures etc.
>> I am indeed happy to inform that I still have the weapon in my custody
>> even after retirment (with Police licence). In 1960 I was offered Rs.
>> 50,000/- for sale.  In 1968-69mI was offered Rs.One Lakh. In 1982
>> I was asked to name my price for sale.  I DID NOT YIELD TO ANY TEMPTATION.
>> I still have the weapon as
>> my personal weapon with an emotional attachment as I had it with me on my
>> person during sorties on  the offensive missions in 1971 war.
>> I am indeed sad to read the present happenings.
>> Wg Cdr Suresh Damodar Karnik Vr,C
>>
>
>

Re: [HumJanenge] Fwd: [samukhya] Letter to the Governor, Orissa

Dear Pradip

Whoever has written this complaint needs to be reeducated on meaning of 17(1) and 17(4).
The Governor's Sectt is not a populated by fools.

Sarbajit

On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Pradip Pradhan <pradippradhan63@gmail.com> wrote:


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: pravat sancharr <pravatsancharr@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 9:23 PM
Subject: [samukhya] Letter to the Governor, Orissa
To: samukhya <samukhya@yahoogroups.com>


 

Dear Friends
Please find the scanned copy of letter sent to Governor of Orissa.

regards

Kunja Bihari Patra
Daspalla, Nayagarh, Odisha

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___


Re: [HumJanenge] Re: CCS to discuss including Indian Armed Forces under Lokpal etc

Dear Wg Cdr Karnik (and other veterans)

Some of us (civilians) would like / appreciate your valued opinion on what causes today's generation of officers to yield to such temptations.

Sarbajit
(List Moderator)

On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 1:15 PM, suresh karnik <sdkarnik35@gmail.com> wrote:
From Wg Cdr S.D Karnik
I am proud to state/inform that I got a 32 Colt Pistol in 1956 as a Pilot Officer from COD Allahabad
when I alongwith my Squadronmates had applied for the same - only 2 of us out of the whole Squadron of 16 Fighter Pilots got allotment merely on our application withou applying any pressures etc.
I am indeed happy to inform that I still have the weapon in my custody even after retirment (with Police licence). In 1960 I was offered Rs. 50,000/- for sale.  In 1968-69mI was offered Rs.One Lakh. In 1982
I was asked to name my price for sale.  I DID NOT YIELD TO ANY TEMPTATION. I still have the weapon as
my personal weapon with an emotional attachment as I had it with me on my person during sorties on  the offensive missions in 1971 war.
I am indeed sad to read the present happenings.
Wg Cdr Suresh Damodar Karnik Vr,C


Re: [HumJanenge] Re: CCS to discuss including Indian Armed Forces under Lokpal etc

Hello Col Mathur,
    The weapon can be returned to Ord or it can be sold to another person authorised to get a NSP weapon from Ord. Please write to ADG OS (Armt), Dte Gen of Ord Services, MGO's Branch, Army HQ, 'B' Block, DHQ PO, New Delhi - 110 011 giving full details of the weapon, the Ord Depot from where it was issued, the allotment No. & date and your present address. Either seek direction for depositing the weapon at the nearest Ord unit or intimate the full details of the prospective buyer & seek approval for this sale.
   Most probably he will send you the relevant proformas for filling up before such disposal.
    
Regards.
Maj Gen Subhash Gogna, AVSM

--- On Fri, 8/7/11, upendra mathur <upmathur@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: upendra mathur <upmathur@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: CCS to discuss including Indian Armed Forces under Lokpal etc
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Friday, 8 July, 2011, 9:17 PM

Hello,
I was not so unlucky and got one pistol without using any influence before I retired.  Can some knowledgeable person inform what is the process if I want to dispose off at some point of time when it will not be safe to keep it with old age and non acceptability for depositing in an army kot.
U P Mathur


 

Re: [HumJanenge] Re: CCS to discuss including Indian Armed Forces under Lokpal etc

Great
We have reached a state when being correct has to be reported !
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2011 1:15 PM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: CCS to discuss including Indian Armed Forces under Lokpal etc

From Wg Cdr S.D Karnik
I am proud to state/inform that I got a 32 Colt Pistol in 1956 as a Pilot Officer from COD Allahabad
when I alongwith my Squadronmates had applied for the same - only 2 of us out of the whole Squadron of 16 Fighter Pilots got allotment merely on our application withou applying any pressures etc.
I am indeed happy to inform that I still have the weapon in my custody even after retirment (with Police licence). In 1960 I was offered Rs. 50,000/- for sale.  In 1968-69mI was offered Rs.One Lakh. In 1982
I was asked to name my price for sale.  I DID NOT YIELD TO ANY TEMPTATION. I still have the weapon as
my personal weapon with an emotional attachment as I had it with me on my person during sorties on  the offensive missions in 1971 war.
I am indeed sad to read the present happenings.
Wg Cdr Suresh Damodar Karnik Vr,C

On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 7:30 AM, C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> wrote:
This type of illegality is not restricted only to the Army. Politicians in various States regularly usurp weapons confiscated from "terrorists".

Here is one such example from Punjab - revealed through RTI:


Interesting to note that even the (then) Punjab State Chief  Information Commissioner had a 0.32 bore revolver and so did his son ! Maybe he was too scared of RTI applicants (LOL).

RTIwanted


From: Janardan Sharma <contactjps@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, July 8, 2011 7:55 AM

Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: CCS to discuss including Indian Armed Forces under Lokpal etc

This unfair practice of obtaining NSP weapons by using influence/ incentives and later  selling it at highly inflated price to the highest bidder has been going on for more than forty years. If disciplinary action is proposed, then a thorough investigation needs to be made and all concerned irrespective of Rank and position need to be brought under its ambit.The figure may run into thousands and will be an eye opener on the extent of the malpractises and the rot that has been allowed to set in by our senior officers who seem to be escaping the so called exemplary action.I know of atleast one Brigade Commander who was instrumental in allotment,collection and delivery of a weapon to the Collector of the district.Another young captain who had his roots in Delhi and had good links in the Army HQ managed to get more than one weapon and disposed it off soon after allotment.Needless to say my application for either a pistol or a gun never materialised.

It is high time that exemplary action begins with the High and Mighty ,the icons of Integrity and exemplary character




Col JP Sharma (Retd)






On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 7:30 AM, sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Court-martial-likely-against-27-serving-Army-officers/articleshow/9131270.cms

"Court martial likely against 27 serving Army officers"
NEW DELHI: In an unprecedented move, the Army is on the verge of
ordering stringent action, in all probability general court martial,
against 27 officers for illegally selling off weapons procured for
their personal use. It is for the first time in the Army's history
that so many serving officers, in this case lieutenant colonels and
colonels, are facing such serious action.

But WHAT ABOUT THE 2 former Lieut Generals who committed the identical
offence ??


On Jul 6, 10:38 pm, Sarbajit Roy <sroy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The CCS (Cabinet Committee on Security) and/or EGOM is to examine whether
> the Armed Forces should be brought under ambit of LokPal Act or taken out of
> RTI Act u/s 24 like the CBI (there is now a strong case considering Military
> Intelligence functions of the 3 service wings). This is in the context of a
> note to the PM circulated by some Chief Justices which inter-alia refers to
> the inconsistency of applicability of RTI Act to our Armed Forces.whilst
> keeping armed forces out of Lokpal scrutiny.
> The need for amending / harmonising the various Armed Forces Acts.(Army Act,
> Navy Act etc) is also likely to be discussed.
>
> Views of our members with services background is requested.




Re: [HumJanenge] Re: CCS to discuss including Indian Armed Forces under Lokpal etc

Moderator,
 
Please enquire from Diplomats -they also are in the habit of purchasing such machines duty free when posted abroad.
How many keep it after sometime on return to Home.
 
With kind regards

A.K.BHATTACHARYYA


F.I.StructE (UK), FIE (India), FIBE, FIRT
H-2A, Hauzkhas, New Delhi -16, Ph:011-26854127



From: suresh karnik <sdkarnik35@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, July 9, 2011 1:15:48 PM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: CCS to discuss including Indian Armed Forces under Lokpal etc

From Wg Cdr S.D Karnik
I am proud to state/inform that I got a 32 Colt Pistol in 1956 as a Pilot Officer from COD Allahabad
when I alongwith my Squadronmates had applied for the same - only 2 of us out of the whole Squadron of 16 Fighter Pilots got allotment merely on our application withou applying any pressures etc.
I am indeed happy to inform that I still have the weapon in my custody even after retirment (with Police licence). In 1960 I was offered Rs. 50,000/- for sale.  In 1968-69mI was offered Rs.One Lakh. In 1982
I was asked to name my price for sale.  I DID NOT YIELD TO ANY TEMPTATION. I still have the weapon as
my personal weapon with an emotional attachment as I had it with me on my person during sorties on  the offensive missions in 1971 war.
I am indeed sad to read the present happenings.
Wg Cdr Suresh Damodar Karnik Vr,C

On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 7:30 AM, C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> wrote:
This type of illegality is not restricted only to the Army. Politicians in various States regularly usurp weapons confiscated from "terrorists".

Here is one such example from Punjab - revealed through RTI:

http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/2066-guns-terrorists-go-politicians-bureaucrats-punjab.html

Interesting to note that even the (then) Punjab State Chief  Information Commissioner had a 0.32 bore revolver and so did his son ! Maybe he was too scared of RTI applicants (LOL).

RTIwanted


From: Janardan Sharma <contactjps@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, July 8, 2011 7:55 AM

Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: CCS to discuss including Indian Armed Forces under Lokpal etc

This unfair practice of obtaining NSP weapons by using influence/ incentives and later  selling it at highly inflated price to the highest bidder has been going on for more than forty years. If disciplinary action is proposed, then a thorough investigation needs to be made and all concerned irrespective of Rank and position need to be brought under its ambit.The figure may run into thousands and will be an eye opener on the extent of the malpractises and the rot that has been allowed to set in by our senior officers who seem to be escaping the so called exemplary action.I know of atleast one Brigade Commander who was instrumental in allotment,collection and delivery of a weapon to the Collector of the district.Another young captain who had his roots in Delhi and had good links in the Army HQ managed to get more than one weapon and disposed it off soon after allotment.Needless to say my application for either a pistol or a gun never materialised.

It is high time that exemplary action begins with the High and Mighty ,the icons of Integrity and exemplary character




Col JP Sharma (Retd)






On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 7:30 AM, sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Court-martial-likely-against-27-serving-Army-officers/articleshow/9131270.cms

"Court martial likely against 27 serving Army officers"
NEW DELHI: In an unprecedented move, the Army is on the verge of
ordering stringent action, in all probability general court martial,
against 27 officers for illegally selling off weapons procured for
their personal use. It is for the first time in the Army's history
that so many serving officers, in this case lieutenant colonels and
colonels, are facing such serious action.

But WHAT ABOUT THE 2 former Lieut Generals who committed the identical
offence ??


On Jul 6, 10:38 pm, Sarbajit Roy <sroy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The CCS (Cabinet Committee on Security) and/or EGOM is to examine whether
> the Armed Forces should be brought under ambit of LokPal Act or taken out of
> RTI Act u/s 24 like the CBI (there is now a strong case considering Military
> Intelligence functions of the 3 service wings). This is in the context of a
> note to the PM circulated by some Chief Justices which inter-alia refers to
> the inconsistency of applicability of RTI Act to our Armed Forces.whilst
> keeping armed forces out of Lokpal scrutiny.
> The need for amending / harmonising the various Armed Forces Acts.(Army Act,
> Navy Act etc) is also likely to be discussed.
>
> Views of our members with services background is requested.




Re: [HumJanenge] Consumer Forum can not take cognizance of consumer complaint against BSNL? jurisdiction is barred?

Disputes concerning telephoe bills can be heard by consumer forums. My brother-in-law, DS Chohan, who lives in Jaipur, had a dispute with BSNL regarding his bill. It was heard by the District Forum, the State Commission and the National Commission. After the decsion went in his favour, BSNL went for arbitration. But since the dispute had already been decidedMr. DS Chohan refused to appear. Finally, the BSNL accepted the decision of the Consumer Commisssion and cancelled the bills.
 
Maj Gen VK Singh
On 7 July 2011 23:35, Awdhesh Kumar <jhajee9999@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
http://www.dot.gov.in/Acts/telegraphact.htm

7B. Arbitration of disputes � (1) Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, if any dispute concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus arises between the telegraph authority and the person for whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is, or has been provided, the dispute shall be determined by arbitration and shall, for the purposes of such determination, be referred to an arbitrator appointed by the Central Government either specially for the determination of that dispute or generally for the determination of disputes under this section.

--- On Wed, 22/6/11, Mathre Rangarajan <rangajan@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Mathre Rangarajan <rangajan@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Consumer Forum can not take cognizance of consumer complaint against BSNL? jurisdiction is barred?
To: "humjanenge@googlegroups.com" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>, "antibriberycampaign@yahoogroups.com" <antibriberycampaign@yahoogroups.com>, "DailySouthAsian@yahoogroups.co.uk" <DailySouthAsian@yahoogroups.co.uk>, "eGovINDIA@yahoogroups.com" <eGovINDIA@yahoogroups.com>, "IHRO@yahoogroups.com" <IHRO@yahoogroups.com>, "IHRO-" <IHRO-@yahoogroups.com>, "LoksattaUttarpradesh@yahoogroups.com" <LoksattaUttarpradesh@yahoogroups.com>, "Praja-Vol@yahoogroups.com" <Praja-Vol@yahoogroups.com>, "rtimahilamanchup@gmail.com" <rtimahilamanchup@gmail.com>, "Urvashiriti" <urvashirti@yahoogroups.co.in>, "RTI Empowerment Google Group" <rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com>, "rti4empowerment@yahoogrouips.com" <rti4empowerment@yahoogrouips.com>, "rti4ngo@yahoogroups.com" <rti4ngo@yahoogroups.com>, "Karamyog" <karmayog@yahoogroups.com>, "adhikaar@yahoogroups.com" <adhikaar@yahoogroups.com>, "humanrightsactivist" <humanrightsactivist@yahoogroups.com>, "Issues Online Worldwide" <issuesonline_worldwide@yahoogroups.com>, "map_india@yahoogroups.com" <map_india@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Wednesday, 22 June, 2011, 6:51 PM

It is mensioned that Apex Court has ruled "there is special remedy provided under Section 7(b) of Indian Telegarph Act regarding he disputes in respect of telephone bills,"
can somebody do some research and inform this forum - What is this rule (section)? and what is the procedure?
From: rajneesh madhok <rajneesh_madhok@yahoo.com>
To: antibriberycampaign@yahoogroups.com; DailySouthAsian@yahoogroups.co.uk; eGovINDIA@yahoogroups.com; IHRO@yahoogroups.com; IHRO- <IHRO-@yahoogroups.com>; LoksattaUttarpradesh@yahoogroups.com; Praja-Vol@yahoogroups.com; rtimahilamanchup@gmail.com; Urvashiriti <urvashirti@yahoogroups.co.in>; humjanenge@googlegroups.com; RTI Empowerment Google Group <rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com>; "rti4empowerment@yahoogrouips.com" <rti4empowerment@yahoogrouips.com>; rti4ngo@yahoogroups.com; Karamyog <karmayog@yahoogroups.com>; adhikaar@yahoogroups.com; humanrightsactivist <humanrightsactivist@yahoogroups.com>; Issues Online Worldwide <issuesonline_worldwide@yahoogroups.com>; map_india@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 22 June 2011 5:52 PM
Subject: [HumJanenge] Consumer Forum can not take cognizance of consumer complaint against BSNL? jurisdiction is barred?
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, KAPURTHALA.
Complaint No. 61 of 2011
Date of Instt. ..11.05.2011
Date of Decision :..18.05.2011
Rajneesh Madhok, B-xxx/63, Nehru Nagar, St. No 2, Railway Road, Phagwara-144401 (Pb) 094173-06415 (M)
...............Complainant
Versus
1.     Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, through its Divisional Engineer, BSNL, Telephone Exchange Building, Phagwara.
2.     Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, through its General Manager, Telcom District CTO Complex, Jalandhar.
3.     Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, through its General Manager, Telephone Exchange Building, Room No. 1, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh-160022
---------------------------------------------------------- Respondents.
 
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
 
Before:    Shri Surinder Mohan (President)
               Mrs. Shashi Narang   (Member)
 
Present:   Shri Rajneesh Madhok complainant in person.
 
ORDER
               Surinder Mohan  (President)
1.            Heard, Complaint be registered. This order will decide the present complaint at preliminary stage. Rajneesh Madhok has filed the present complaint against Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and others on the grounds that the Broad Band Connection from Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Phagwara office was taken by him by depositing Rs 5515/-. Due to deficient service of service provider, the information regarding the deficiency in service of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited collected from department and it is proved tht the department could not provide proper service to the consumers. The Department provided misleading information on various points and the Refund sought on deficient service and amount charged under unfair trade practice not refunded as per the deposited amount and failed to provide any guidelines framed by the Department of Telecommunication. The complainat filed various representations about fault Broad Band connection and inflated bills, but the complainant failed to get justice. The representations were also made to different authorities to refund the amount illegally charged from the consumer, but the Department failed to settle the claim sought. The complainant spent Rs 3000/- towards collection of information which was not provided to the applicant and due to negligence of the BSNL, the complainant has to be present in Central Information Commission to get the sought information and again vague and misleading reply by dodging the complainant, the Broad Band was faulty due to OFC cable cutting by NHAI according to reply by opposite party No. 1. The document submitted with letter dated 24.2.2010 that 100 pair of OFC cable and 50 Pair of OFC damaged. Any manufacturer worldwide has never manufactured the said sizes of OFC cables. So the BSNL is dodging the consumers by giving vague and misleading reply. This is deficiency in Service. As per reply dated 2.3.2010, the misleading information provided that the fault was due to old Broad Band system of Phagwara. As the complainant's system is created unde new system as informed by Mr. Gurcharan Singh TTA while providing the connection. The misleading and vague reply is deficiency in service. The information provided by BSNL, D.E. (Phones) vide letter dated 9.4. 2010 has again deficiencies. That there is unfair trade practice on behalf of the opposite parties. A relief has been sought that the respondents are misleading the complainant and they be directed to refund full amount deposited with BSNL without any termination charges and service tax charges, that complainant may be compensated towards expenses met by him in getting misleading information, that complainant may be provided exemplary costs, Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for tension and mental physical agony. Further prayer has been made that opposite parties be directed to settle the claim of the complainant as per loss suffered and to pay the same with interest @ 12% per annum, to pay Rs 5000/- as litigation expenses, the complainant be compensated for the period of Broad Band connection failed to connect and amount charged under unfair trade practice by BSNL, to take action against the official with whose negligence, the consumer has to suffer an action may be directed to be initiated against officials those have provided vague and misleading information to the consumer.
2.                    We have heard complainant in person and have gone through the file. The complainant has sought number of reliefs from BSNL due to alleged deficiencies in services. He has also sought refund of Rs 5515/- and refund of full amount deposited with BSNL and amount for mental and physical agony as well as tension etc. The law has been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a case with the General Manager Telecom Versus M. Krishnan another reported as 2009 (8) SCC 481, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe that there is special remedy provided under Section 7(b) of Indian Telegarph Act regarding he disputes in respect of telephone bills, then remedy under Consumer protection Act is by implication barred. The Hon'ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has also followed the Apex Court judgment referred above in  a case with title as Bharti Cellular Limited Vs. Sudarshan Kumar in first appeal No. 668 of 2005, decided on 24.2.2011. Similarly, the Hon'ble Chandigarh Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in appeal No. 671 of 2009 decided on 29.1.2010 with the title Bharti Airtel Limited Vs. Sunil Kumar has also followed the above said Apex Court Authority. Hon'ble Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has also followed the above said authority in first appeal No. 642 of 2009 decided on 29.12.2010 with the title Bharti Airtel Limited Vs. Jagdish Lal. All these authorities were related  to private telecommunication companies. The Hon'ble Apex Court has given its verdict in the case of Government Agency. Therefore, we are of the view that this Forum can not take cognizance of the complaint as the jurisdiction is barred. Therefore, the complaint is ordered to be returned. The complainant may file appropriate application for appointment of an arbitrator. The complaint be returned against a proper receipt. Photostat copies of complaint and its documents attached with the complaint be retained. Original documents be returned. Copy of the order be communicated to the complainant free of costs. Photostat papers retained by this forum be consigned to the record room.
 
Dated:                              Sd/-                                         Sd/-
18.5.2011                                Member                           Member
Certified to be a true copy
Raman Sharda
Superintendent,
Distt. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Kapurthala 20/6/2011
Rubber Stamp put on order:
1.   Case No. 61/2011
  1. Date of Disposal 18/05/2011
  2. Date of issued of Free Copy 20/6/2011
  3. Party's name Applicant/ Respondent:  Complainat
  4. Order sent by Post/ hand   : By Regd Post.
  5. Date of issue of duplicate copy---------
Sr. No. 299 Dt 20/6/2011
Sd/-
Signature with date.
===============================================

[HumJanenge] Fwd: [samukhya] Letter to the Governor, Orissa



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: pravat sancharr <pravatsancharr@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 9:23 PM
Subject: [samukhya] Letter to the Governor, Orissa
To: samukhya <samukhya@yahoogroups.com>


 

Dear Friends
Please find the scanned copy of letter sent to Governor of Orissa.

regards

Kunja Bihari Patra
Daspalla, Nayagarh, Odisha

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

[HumJanenge] Fwd: [भारत-चिँतन:6029] press release by petitioners on salwa judum order

Dear Nandini Sundar ji,

Our congratulations to you and your team for getting this Order from SC. Pl. beware that SC on review appeal sometimes dilutes its tough posture taken in the beginning.

In reply to a friend of mine I wrote yesterday the following and circulated to various groups where your post is getting forwarded today. It may interest you.

In my view IPC and CrPC are in the core of all the problems faced in the system of democratic governance of this country and I am surprised why much more intelligent and elderly people than me did not attempt to get these laws repealed already. The laws still exist today in the same letter and spirit as the Britishers framed them for success of their Raj by punishing the Indian people. They were not democrats and were not required to be that for administering a Colony. Hence the toughest of laws against the Indians were the need of the hour for them. Our present Rulers are no different from the Britishers. After all A Ruler is a Ruler-White, grey or black is the colour of the skin , not the color of right to Rule. 

And this is not true about Education or Health or corruption or black money etc. One takes one step and if that one step does not suit the Rulers one is behind bars for the unfounded charges of tresspassing the law in some manner or the other. One should not be surprised if he goes behind bars with broken ribs, hands or legs etc or he may reach the other world straight away like many good and well eaning people have been sent. A Jharkhand court has recently ordered death to awell known innocent cultural activist named "Jeetan marandi" who has nothing to do with the crime committed by somebody of the same name. Similar is the case with others too. No body should know these facts better than you.

In my view a movement is required to repeal the IPC and Cr PC and replace them by an appropriate law for proper Rule of Law.


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Nandini Sundar <nandinisundar@yahoo.com>
Date: 2011/7/8
Subject: [भारत-चिँतन:6029] press release by petitioners on salwa judum order
To: chhattisgarh-net@yahoogroups.com, bharat-chintan@googlegroups.com
Cc: forestrights <forestrights@yahoogroups.com>


Please help us by circulating as widely as possible esp. to press. Thanks

 

PRESS RELEASE

STATEMENT ON SUPREME COURT ORDER DATED 5.7.11 ON SALWA JUDUM/SPOs BY

JUSTICE SUDERSHAN REDDY AND JUSTICE SS NIJJAR

We warmly welcome the order by Justice Reddy and Justice Nijjar directing the State of Chhattisgarh to stop using SPOs in counterinsurgency operations, disarm them and stop supporting vigilante movements by any name. We also welcome the order to the Centre directing it to cease from financially supporting SPOs to engage in counterinsurgency.

Judging from the personal reactions we have had – from a very wide variety of people many of whom we do not even know – the order has been widely hailed as a landmark restatement of constitutional values.  If the state is to be recognised as legitimate it must act lawfully and cannot sacrifice the law and Constitution for immediate expediency.  As the judges have so succinctly observed "the power of the people vested in any organ of the State, and its agents, can only be used for promotion of constitutional values and vision." However, judging by the reaction of the Home Ministry and the Chhattisgarh government,  this basic constitutional principle is being willfully ignored. This simply reinforces the point that the judgement makes about the way in which the respondents are undermining the Constitution and thereby the basic human values enshrined in it.  Instead of accepting the Court order for the sake of good governance and the national interest, they are talking about a review petition.

Right from 2007 when the case was first heard before the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land has consistently maintained that the state cannot arm civilians. This, it is clear from the record, has been the considered opinion of not simply Justices Reddy and Nijjar, who issued the present order, but of the judges at previous hearings, such as Justice Balakrishnan, Justice Kapadia, and Justice Aftab Alam.

That the SPOs and Salwa Judum have been engaged in horrific crimes is a matter of record. The judgement therefore directs the State of Chhattisgarh to "investigate all previously inappropriately or incompletely investigated instances of alleged criminal activities of Salwa Judum, or those popularly known as Koya Commandos, filing of appropriate FIRs and diligent prosecution."

At the same time, the judgement is as much a lesson for the Maoists as for the government. It makes it clear that the Maoists too cannot take the law into their own lands. For  when the Constitution does swing into action, it has the power of people's aspirations behind it, and is a far more powerful and credible weapon in their hands than the gun.  As the judges say, "the fight against Maoist/Naxalite violence cannot be conducted purely as a mere law and order problem to be confronted by whatever means the State can muster. The primordial problem lies deep within the socio-economic policies pursued by the State on a society that was already endemically, and horrifically, suffering from gross inequalities. Consequently, the fight against Maoists/Naxalites is no less a fight for moral, constitutional and legal authority over the minds and hearts of our people. Our constitution provides the gridlines within which the State is to act, both to assert such authority, and also to initiate, nurture and sustain such authority."

We therefore appeal to the Maoists to join all right thinking citizens in hailing this historic judgement and to desist from harming SPOs, or any other group of citizens in any way. They should be allowed to peacefully reintegrate into their villages. We also appeal to both the Maoists and the government to initiate peace talks on the basis of justice and constitutional principles, since ultimately that is the only way forward.

 

Nandini Sundar

Ramachandra Guha

EAS Sarma

(Petitioners in WP 250/2007)




--
डा वी एन शर्मा / Dr.V.N.Sharma
Cell No.9431102680,
Member, Secretariat, All India Forum for Right to Education (AIF-RTE), 
Working Committee Member, Jan Sansad & 
Co-ordinator, Jharkhand Shanti evam Nyaya Yatra (JSNY)

Re: [HumJanenge] Re: CCS to discuss including Indian Armed Forces under Lokpal etc

From Wg Cdr S.D Karnik
I am proud to state/inform that I got a 32 Colt Pistol in 1956 as a Pilot Officer from COD Allahabad
when I alongwith my Squadronmates had applied for the same - only 2 of us out of the whole Squadron of 16 Fighter Pilots got allotment merely on our application withou applying any pressures etc.
I am indeed happy to inform that I still have the weapon in my custody even after retirment (with Police licence). In 1960 I was offered Rs. 50,000/- for sale.  In 1968-69mI was offered Rs.One Lakh. In 1982
I was asked to name my price for sale.  I DID NOT YIELD TO ANY TEMPTATION. I still have the weapon as
my personal weapon with an emotional attachment as I had it with me on my person during sorties on  the offensive missions in 1971 war.
I am indeed sad to read the present happenings.
Wg Cdr Suresh Damodar Karnik Vr,C

On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 7:30 AM, C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> wrote:
This type of illegality is not restricted only to the Army. Politicians in various States regularly usurp weapons confiscated from "terrorists".

Here is one such example from Punjab - revealed through RTI:


Interesting to note that even the (then) Punjab State Chief  Information Commissioner had a 0.32 bore revolver and so did his son ! Maybe he was too scared of RTI applicants (LOL).

RTIwanted


From: Janardan Sharma <contactjps@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, July 8, 2011 7:55 AM

Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: CCS to discuss including Indian Armed Forces under Lokpal etc

This unfair practice of obtaining NSP weapons by using influence/ incentives and later  selling it at highly inflated price to the highest bidder has been going on for more than forty years. If disciplinary action is proposed, then a thorough investigation needs to be made and all concerned irrespective of Rank and position need to be brought under its ambit.The figure may run into thousands and will be an eye opener on the extent of the malpractises and the rot that has been allowed to set in by our senior officers who seem to be escaping the so called exemplary action.I know of atleast one Brigade Commander who was instrumental in allotment,collection and delivery of a weapon to the Collector of the district.Another young captain who had his roots in Delhi and had good links in the Army HQ managed to get more than one weapon and disposed it off soon after allotment.Needless to say my application for either a pistol or a gun never materialised.

It is high time that exemplary action begins with the High and Mighty ,the icons of Integrity and exemplary character




Col JP Sharma (Retd)






On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 7:30 AM, sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Court-martial-likely-against-27-serving-Army-officers/articleshow/9131270.cms

"Court martial likely against 27 serving Army officers"
NEW DELHI: In an unprecedented move, the Army is on the verge of
ordering stringent action, in all probability general court martial,
against 27 officers for illegally selling off weapons procured for
their personal use. It is for the first time in the Army's history
that so many serving officers, in this case lieutenant colonels and
colonels, are facing such serious action.

But WHAT ABOUT THE 2 former Lieut Generals who committed the identical
offence ??


On Jul 6, 10:38 pm, Sarbajit Roy <sroy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The CCS (Cabinet Committee on Security) and/or EGOM is to examine whether
> the Armed Forces should be brought under ambit of LokPal Act or taken out of
> RTI Act u/s 24 like the CBI (there is now a strong case considering Military
> Intelligence functions of the 3 service wings). This is in the context of a
> note to the PM circulated by some Chief Justices which inter-alia refers to
> the inconsistency of applicability of RTI Act to our Armed Forces.whilst
> keeping armed forces out of Lokpal scrutiny.
> The need for amending / harmonising the various Armed Forces Acts.(Army Act,
> Navy Act etc) is also likely to be discussed.
>
> Views of our members with services background is requested.




Friday, July 8, 2011

Re: [HumJanenge] Re: CCS to discuss including Indian Armed Forces under Lokpal etc

Dear Col SS CHAUHAN,

How are you Sir, after a long time .
Hope you are seeing the mail in AFP07 also.

I too have applied for NSP but could not get it. 
But now I know that  i dont need one
as I have learnt the techniques which are powerful enough
making weapons redundant .
Want to learn it ?


Regards 

Col TS kaundal

9873379995





On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Col S S Chauhan <sardar.s.chauhan@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear all,
While the weapon was procured with some purpose and it
involved lot of efforts.Depositing it back with the source
from where it came is not there after the delivery with lic.

Notwithstanding this one is always allowed to deposit the
 weapon with nearest Police Station for safe custody.The
Licncee can with draw it as and when required.It is free service.

With best wishes and kind regards
Col(veteran)S S Chauhan
0124-2218749,09350041734
On 7/8/11, Raj Bansal <bansalraj@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You have had the privilege of keeping a weapon while in service. Now that
> you have retired, I would suggest that the weapon be deposited back with
> DGOS and be at peace. Let some other officer enjoy the pleasure! The
> implication of a weapon falling in wrong hands could be disastrous.
>
> Best wishes.
>
> Brig R K Bansal.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --- On Fri, 7/8/11, upendra mathur <upmathur@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> From: upendra mathur <upmathur@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: CCS to discuss including Indian Armed Forces
> under Lokpal etc
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> Date: Friday, July 8, 2011, 9:17 PM
>
> Hello,
> I was not so unlucky and got one pistol without using any influence before I
> retired.  Can some knowledgeable person inform what is the process if I want
> to dispose off at some point of time when it will not be safe to keep it
> with old age and non acceptability for depositing in an army kot.
> U P Mathur
>
>
>


--
Thanks and Regards
Col.S.S.Chauhan
9350041734