Crookbond Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 Dexter, stop jumping the gun. Your enthusiasm is admirable but this thread only substantiates that all of the discussion in last week has been by and muck slander and dirth of facts / evidences. If India needs to take this beyond debates on ICF, they i.e activists have to approach the court of law eventually. We all want politicians who are corrupt to be brought to justice irrespective of their leanings. All of us in India are effected by corruption be it BJP / Kangress / SP etc led govt. Slander on TV will have impact for 1 or 2 days. A week at most. All the allegations should be taken to the court of law just like Swamy did. It is a painful process but it is most likely to yield results. I want to see RTI activist including Kejriwal do the exposes on TV and generate discussions, but it is ironic that same people who want to re-inforce the foundations of democracy do not want approach one of the pillars of it, coz "it takes too long". But they do seem to provide a lot of fodder for keyboard ninjas :winky: I do get your point but allocation of land was illegal was my point and I think I have provided enough proof. The land allocation was illegal whichever way you look at it. In addition, there is proof that the trust run by Gadkari is polluting the waters. There are two letter sent by Gram Panchayat and the Fishermen co-operative about waste disposal of the Purti Sugar factory (Gadkari's trust). So, he can be investigated on ecology claims as well as collusion.
Crookbond Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 Last thing Gadkari needed :haha: Pawar defends Gadkari I find that extremely funny too for some reason. :cantstop: Corruption is a disease, a cancer which has spread in the society; but no other party has done what Cong has done to fight it, says Sonia Gandhi :hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical:
Crookbond Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 I fail to see any illegality done by Mr Gadkari. It wasnt if he misrepresented or lied or did any financial impropriety. He personally did not get any land, it was a cooperative which got it. That too only on a lease of 11 years. The govt can anytime cancel the lease if it wants to. Whether the rules were broken is also unclear - the govt always has the authority to give the land on lease for public benefit. Apparently, it does not from the legal order I posted dated 6 April 2005. I believe it is a cooperative company. Gadkari is not a major shareholder. Also' date= I believe that this particular area is not a suicide prone part of Maharashtra. So convenient! Gadkari is not a "major share holder". :two_thumbs_up:
ganeshran Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 You have a point there. But let us look into it completely and understand what's going on. The law you state is from 1997. However, let me quote Order No JAY1097/(309/97) dated 6 April 2005 by the Maharashtra government : Clearly, allocation of land to Gadkari's trust is violated by this. However, this does not stop here - the Department Secretary raised this issue but was overruled. There can not be a more damning example of illegality in terms of allotment of land as well as collusion. This still doesnt prove your original point - i.e. the government was bound by law to return the land back to the framers. The SC in fact clearly prohibits that. Violation of a government letter shows that the allocation of land to the NGO was improper since the norms for the irrigation department were flouted and hence should be probed, but that still doesnt make the allotment illegal.
Crookbond Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 This still doesnt prove your original point - i.e. the government was bound by law to return the land back to the framers. The SC in fact clearly prohibits that. Violation of a government letter shows that the allocation of land to the NGO was improper since the norms for the irrigation department were flouted and hence should be probed, but that still doesnt make the allotment illegal. If such red herrings is all that matters, I accept your view point. Irregularity in my books is illegal but I am ok with you thinking otherwise. It will be interesting to know that amongst the scams which are exposed till now - what part of them were "irregularities" versus "illegals". My suspect would be more of the former than the latter. Finally, I don't think a person of political importance should have any irregularities more so in sensitive areas like Vidarbha where farmers are dying due to poverty.
urbestfriend Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 Dexter, stop jumping the gun. Your enthusiasm is admirable but this thread only substantiates that all of the discussion in last week has been by and muck slander and dirth of facts / evidences. If India needs to take this beyond debates on ICF, they i.e activists have to approach the court of law eventually. We all want politicians who are corrupt to be brought to justice irrespective of their leanings. All of us in India are effected by corruption be it BJP / Kangress / SP etc led govt. Slander on TV will have impact for 1 or 2 days. A week at most. All the allegations should be taken to the court of law just like Swamy did. It is a painful process but it is most likely to yield results. I want to see RTI activist including Kejriwal do the exposes on TV and generate discussions, but it is ironic that same people who want to re-inforce the foundations of democracy do not want approach one of the pillars of it, coz "it takes too long". But they do seem to provide a lot of fodder for keyboard ninjas :winky: Writing here is easy, but if you are so concerned why dont you take it to court? As far as I know, there are many PIL's are filed by Prashant bhushan , and he fights many cases of public interest filed by others without taking any fee. I guess it is too much to expect every corruption case is fought only by IAC, other people also have to do their bit.
urbestfriend Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 Seedhi, check how much time it took for him to get the approval. 4 days I believe. Yes, 4 days. There is little doubt that cronyism at work here. There is no legal case against him, to my knowledge and understanding. It may be just 4 days to sanction , but land is leased only after 2 years. Since when fastracking some thing which is for public good became a crime?
seedhi Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 Apparently, it does not from the legal order I posted dated 6 April 2005. So convenient! Gadkari is not a "major share holder". :two_thumbs_up:The Supreme Court judgment on this matter says that the land can be given out for a public purpose. A Supreme Court judgment is the law of the land. And Gadkari is not building apartments or real estate on the land. It is on a lease to a cooperative which does sapling cultivation. There is nothing remotely illegal about this, especially by Gadkari.
Crookbond Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 The Supreme Court judgment on this matter says that the land can be given out for a public purpose. A Supreme Court judgment is the law of the land. And Gadkari is not building apartments or real estate on the land. It is on a lease to a cooperative which does sapling cultivation. There is nothing remotely illegal about this, especially by Gadkari. I was letting Ganesh play, does not mean I am naive. There is no Supreme Court judgment which states anything like that. The case posted by Ganesh dates back to 1997 and also the properties of the case are not for excess damn land. So, please produce the Supreme Court judgment which talks about excess land left after building a dam before drawing conclusions.
urbestfriend Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 I do get your point but allocation of land was illegal was my point and I think I have provided enough proof. The land allocation was illegal whichever way you look at it. In addition, there is proof that the trust run by Gadkari is polluting the waters. There are two letter sent by Gram Panchayat and the Fishermen co-operative about waste disposal of the Purti Sugar factory (Gadkari's trust). So, he can be investigated on ecology claims as well as collusion. This is most ridiculous allegation I ever heard..Every sugar factory or for that matter power plant results in some kind of pollution , can we close down all of them and hang the businessmen for pollution :cantstop: In fact Gadkari should be applauded for producing power from renewable energy. http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/bjp-president-nitin-gadkari-rs-500-crore-purti-group-produces-36-mw-of-power-energy-every-month/1/135345.html
ganeshran Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 I was letting Ganesh play, does not mean I am naive. There is no Supreme Court judgment which states anything like that. The case posted by Ganesh dates back to 1997 and also the properties of the case are not for excess damn land. So, please produce the Supreme Court judgment which talks about excess land left after building a dam before drawing conclusions. On the contrary, The Supreme court judgement states just that. The bench interpreted the Land acquisition act for the state government and forbade it from selling back acquired land to the original owner. It didn't say that it is only applicable to land acquired for building roads, but instead to any piece of land acquired for a public purpose.
PaceAttack Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 This is most ridiculous allegation I ever heard..Every sugar factory or for that matter power plant results in some kind of pollution , can we close down all of them and hang the businessmen for pollution :cantstop: In fact Gadkari should be applauded for producing power from renewable energy. http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/bjp-president-nitin-gadkari-rs-500-crore-purti-group-produces-36-mw-of-power-energy-every-month/1/135345.html Why should it be done at the cost of farmers land?
Crookbond Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 On the contrary' date=' The Supreme court judgement states just that. The bench interpreted the Land acquisition act for the state government and forbade it from selling back acquired land to the original owner. It didn't say that it is only applicable to land acquired for building roads, but instead to any piece of land acquired for a public purpose.[/quote'] I am not yet ready to extrapolate land for construction of national highway to land used to build dams. Any other case?
Crookbond Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 Why should it be done at the cost of farmers land? + Fishing waters too.
urbestfriend Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 + Fishing waters too. It is known fact that sugar production affect soil and water, but can we close down all sugar factories in India for polluting environment ? http://environment.about.com/od/pollution/a/sugar.htm
ganeshran Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 I am not yet ready to extrapolate land for construction of national highway to land used to build dams. Any other case? What you are not ready to do or not to do is immaterial when the court's judgement clearly states land acquired for public purpose instead of land acquired for building roads/ dams in which case it could be interpreted differently for both cases. In any case the original act that the court interpreted also doesn't have the rule that the government is bound by law that the acquired land has to be sold back to the original owner of the land which was your point I was refuting.
Crookbond Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 This is most ridiculous allegation I ever heard..Every sugar factory or for that matter power plant results in some kind of pollution , can we close down all of them and hang the businessmen for pollution :cantstop: In fact Gadkari should be applauded for producing power from renewable energy. http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/bjp-president-nitin-gadkari-rs-500-crore-purti-group-produces-36-mw-of-power-energy-every-month/1/135345.html Gram Panchayat's complaint about Purti Sugar Factory due to waste disposal https://www.box.com/s/znszlwlek2sxe32sl42p Fishermen co-operative complaint about Purti Sugar Factory due to waste water causing pollution https://www.box.com/s/znszlwlek2sxe32sl42p I rather believe them than me and you.
Crookbond Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 What you are not ready to do or not to do is immaterial when the court's judgement clearly states land acquired for public purpose instead of land acquired for building roads/ dams in which case it could be interpreted differently for both cases. In any case the original act that the court interpreted also doesn't have the rule that the government is bound by law that the acquired land has to be sold back to the original owner of the land which was your point I was refuting. The court took a judgment on land acquisition for national highway construction and not for building dams. I am talking specifically with respect to excess land for dams. In addition, your interpretation is way back in 1997 and there is chance things may have changed.
Crookbond Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 It is known fact that sugar production affect soil and water, but can we close down all sugar factories in India for polluting environment ? http://environment.about.com/od/pollution/a/sugar.htm Does not mean that you knowingly set your own sugar factory at the cost of other businesses as well.
urbestfriend Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 Does not mean that you knowingly set your own sugar factory at the cost of other businesses as well. Huh? these factories are giving employment to thousands and helping the sugar cane farmers to sell their product and byproducts are used for power generation.
Recommended Posts