Delhi must see opportunity in the new envoy, to be prepared for hurdles, yet be forward-looking and free of preconceived notions that could spoil any chances of a breakthrough.
New bill aims to fix key issues with IBC 2016, including delays & patchy implementation, and protect creditors, with window for genuine promoters to retain control of their companies.
At Ran Samvad seminar, defence minister spoke about reasons behind success of Op Sindoor, explained how warfare changed in real time & called for upgradation of tech & cyber infra.
Putin sees this as a victory. Europeans have decided to deal with Trump on his terms for the sake of the larger Western alliance. We look at the lessons for us in India.
Let the Military enjoy exclusivity in a Military Station
As an AF veteran on the side of justice, I feel it is only appropriate to examine the specious reasoning proffered by the distinguished General, who had held exalted appointments, and some of them security related, whilst in uniform. The emotional article has only proclaimed that the MoD/COAS’s order has left the Gen bereft. The flabbergasting justifications are a legal and factual travesty: it is a desperate attempt to hijack the issue with irrelevant and non-issues. Instead of repeating the factual and legal position of the case, as enunciated in my tweets, I have a few questions for the General.
1. Is a Military Station and a Cantonment same?
2. Are the citizens clamouring for any space within the exclusive zone of a Military Station?
3. Are ‘A1’ roads and ‘A1’ land the same?
4. Did the Public roads (A1) roads come up after the establishment of cantonments?
5. Does the Military have authority to subvert the legal provisions/Acts/Schedules of the country?
6. Is there any other org more robust than the MoD & AF combined to assess the security situation of the country?
7. Is there any force more professional than our Army to rise to/negotiate any security challenge?
8. Any data to cite untoward incidents/security breach in the cantts prior to the roads being closed?
And the last question: 9. “Did the Gen ever disobey a direct order of the MoD through the COAS?”
If the answer to any of the above questions is in the positive, perhaps the General might like to make use of the research facilities available to him and then it could be discussed in the public forum.
We respect army as a displined n dedicated force but that doesn’t mean they (LMA) shouldn’t respect constitution passed by Parliament n running away from law.Let LMA respect Section 258.
Section 258 के कानून से भाग कयो रही है LMA लोकसभा मे जो कानून पास किया है उसका उलंघन करना आरमी को शोभा नही देता भारत के नागरिक आरमी की इज्ज़त करते है इससे भारत देश का नाम बदनाम होता है किसी भी पब्लिक की समस्या का भारत सरकार हल कानून के मुताबिक निकालती है वो अच्छी बात है हम सबको उस फेसले का welcome करना चाहिए. ओम शांति.
Have you ever heard “per incuriam” ..Means, through or characterized by lack of due regard to the law or the facts.. . If you want more to be precise, it means literally translated as “through lack of care”, refers to a judgment of a court which has been decided without reference to a statutory provision or earlier judgment which would have been relevant.
Dear LT GENERAL PRAKASH MENON and RAM GANESH KAMATHAM,
This article by you both per say is not factual on judgement of Hon.AP High Court. You did not consider certain facts such as the Sec 258 of Cantt Act was never known nor discussed when the hearing was going on. That is called as “per incuriam” ..Means, through or characterized by lack of due regard to the law or the facts.. . If you want more to be precise, it means literally translated as “through lack of care”, refers to a judgment of a court which has been decided without reference to a statutory provision or earlier judgment which would have been relevant. Later, we have filed a fresh petition and is under hearing in Hon High court.
Moreover, the Sec 258 says that even if the security issues are there, irrespective of the nature of the land, the rule of law must be followed, that is Cantt Act 2006.
Interestingly, you did not mention few other courts orders, which were in favor of the civilians and the same is updated for your information herein. WA 3949 of 1997. Dated 23rd Jan 1998. More recently, the order of the Hon.Allahabad high court.
Thus the very passage and convenience of morning and evening walkers within the Cantonment area is acknowledged by the respondents themselves. The aforesaid stand taken in the above mentioned public interest litigation by the respondents themselves leaves no room for doubt that the petitioners are not unwelcome on the streets in question as morning and evening walkers. In such a situation, 29 imposing a condition for obtaining passes is neither a legal requirement under any law as discussed hereinabove nor does it appear to be in conformity with the rights protected and guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India. There is no discernible rational nexus for asking morning and evening walkers to obtain a military pass for commuting on a street as involved presently in the case. The aforesaid discussion is also necessary for any action to be taken in future as public convenience cannot be overlooked. A person suffering from any immediate serious ailment like a heart-attack at midnight, would not obviously be asked to wait upon to obtain a pass for commuting on a road if he resides in the vicinity to reach the hospital. This is just one practical aspect of the matter and there are many such shades which require consideration including other public conveniences. It is for all the aforesaid reasons that we hold that the petitioners are right in their submission that they do not require to be imposed with a condition of obtaining a pass from the military authorities in the background and purpose aforesaid. We also are of the opinion that in case the Cantonment Board proceeds to take any steps in future in the light of the letter dated 7th January, 2015, it may inform to the public at large and particularly to institutions like the High Court before taking up any such measures for discussion so that the point of view of public convenience may not be left unheeded in any of its dimension. The respondents are therefore directed to act
accordingly. The writ petition stands allowed with the aforesaid directions and observations.
Order Date :- 18.11.2015. Sahu
Consequently, this petition is also disposed of with a direction that the respondent authorities shall not impose any restriction unless the aforesaid procedure as acknowledged by them under the letter dated 7th January, 2015 is followed read with the provisions of Section 258 of the Cantonments Act 2006 and Section 2(zza) of the said Act. This is necessary as the road which is disputed in the present petition admittedly does not fall out of the definition of a street as provided for under the 2006 Act. The writ petition therefore stands disposed of with the said observations.
Order Date :- 18.11.2015. Sahu
I hope this will enlightens you more of the legal position. Many of the citizens get mislead with such articles without facts and truth. Hence I thought ti would be appropriate to educate the citizens with such more clarity for their own good.
Laws and Legal points apart, let us look at some common sense issues : (1) Contonments were in existence even before the cities developed. They were located where they are, for strategic and safety reasons, and the security systems around them were put in place for the same reasons. Civil population went there and chose to stay close to them knowing fully well the safety and security systems in these spaces. So why should they want now, a freeway through them, and jeopardiise the security of those living there. It is unlikely the ‘people ‘ want it. It is more likely to be a ploy by the land mafia. Most surprising that the top defence officers are not standing up against it.
(2) The Govts have shown that they are in no position to provide the required security to its citizens ( men and women). One has to only look back a few months or years. So how could they even think of insisting that the insecurity should be extended to those in the cantonments?
(3) Today, every other ‘enclave’ and ‘gated community’ creates private roads and exercises access control. Is the Govt likely to bring in a law prohibiting all access controls in any living space? By an extension of that logic, all security sytems around all our politicians and ministers must be withdrawn first and forthwith.
Only 2100000 civilians are living in 62 cantonment we a accept 50% voting around 1000000 people’s and this figure is just a very low for center election I don’t agree with that opening of doors in cantonment is for political motives SORRY COUNTRY CANT BAY THES
Service chiefs would have held ground if they were not already sold out. The previous as well as present Chief are planning to join BJP after retirement. Gen Suhag has already joined and Gen Rawat will follow soon.
The smartest move was appointing Gen Rawat as Chief surpassing two other highly qualified professionals so that their illogical orders can be implemented without any problems from the Chief. He should act like their pet.
Let the Military enjoy exclusivity in a Military Station
As an AF veteran on the side of justice, I feel it is only appropriate to examine the specious reasoning proffered by the distinguished General, who had held exalted appointments, and some of them security related, whilst in uniform. The emotional article has only proclaimed that the MoD/COAS’s order has left the Gen bereft. The flabbergasting justifications are a legal and factual travesty: it is a desperate attempt to hijack the issue with irrelevant and non-issues. Instead of repeating the factual and legal position of the case, as enunciated in my tweets, I have a few questions for the General.
1. Is a Military Station and a Cantonment same?
2. Are the citizens clamouring for any space within the exclusive zone of a Military Station?
3. Are ‘A1’ roads and ‘A1’ land the same?
4. Did the Public roads (A1) roads come up after the establishment of cantonments?
5. Does the Military have authority to subvert the legal provisions/Acts/Schedules of the country?
6. Is there any other org more robust than the MoD & AF combined to assess the security situation of the country?
7. Is there any force more professional than our Army to rise to/negotiate any security challenge?
8. Any data to cite untoward incidents/security breach in the cantts prior to the roads being closed?
And the last question: 9. “Did the Gen ever disobey a direct order of the MoD through the COAS?”
If the answer to any of the above questions is in the positive, perhaps the General might like to make use of the research facilities available to him and then it could be discussed in the public forum.
We respect army as a displined n dedicated force but that doesn’t mean they (LMA) shouldn’t respect constitution passed by Parliament n running away from law.Let LMA respect Section 258.
Section 258 के कानून से भाग कयो रही है LMA लोकसभा मे जो कानून पास किया है उसका उलंघन करना आरमी को शोभा नही देता भारत के नागरिक आरमी की इज्ज़त करते है इससे भारत देश का नाम बदनाम होता है किसी भी पब्लिक की समस्या का भारत सरकार हल कानून के मुताबिक निकालती है वो अच्छी बात है हम सबको उस फेसले का welcome करना चाहिए. ओम शांति.
Have you ever heard “per incuriam” ..Means, through or characterized by lack of due regard to the law or the facts.. . If you want more to be precise, it means literally translated as “through lack of care”, refers to a judgment of a court which has been decided without reference to a statutory provision or earlier judgment which would have been relevant.
Dear LT GENERAL PRAKASH MENON and RAM GANESH KAMATHAM,
This article by you both per say is not factual on judgement of Hon.AP High Court. You did not consider certain facts such as the Sec 258 of Cantt Act was never known nor discussed when the hearing was going on. That is called as “per incuriam” ..Means, through or characterized by lack of due regard to the law or the facts.. . If you want more to be precise, it means literally translated as “through lack of care”, refers to a judgment of a court which has been decided without reference to a statutory provision or earlier judgment which would have been relevant. Later, we have filed a fresh petition and is under hearing in Hon High court.
Moreover, the Sec 258 says that even if the security issues are there, irrespective of the nature of the land, the rule of law must be followed, that is Cantt Act 2006.
Interestingly, you did not mention few other courts orders, which were in favor of the civilians and the same is updated for your information herein. WA 3949 of 1997. Dated 23rd Jan 1998. More recently, the order of the Hon.Allahabad high court.
WRIT – C No. – 18086 of 2014 and Case :-
http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do
Thus the very passage and convenience of morning and evening walkers within the Cantonment area is acknowledged by the respondents themselves. The aforesaid stand taken in the above mentioned public interest litigation by the respondents themselves leaves no room for doubt that the petitioners are not unwelcome on the streets in question as morning and evening walkers. In such a situation, 29 imposing a condition for obtaining passes is neither a legal requirement under any law as discussed hereinabove nor does it appear to be in conformity with the rights protected and guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India. There is no discernible rational nexus for asking morning and evening walkers to obtain a military pass for commuting on a street as involved presently in the case. The aforesaid discussion is also necessary for any action to be taken in future as public convenience cannot be overlooked. A person suffering from any immediate serious ailment like a heart-attack at midnight, would not obviously be asked to wait upon to obtain a pass for commuting on a road if he resides in the vicinity to reach the hospital. This is just one practical aspect of the matter and there are many such shades which require consideration including other public conveniences. It is for all the aforesaid reasons that we hold that the petitioners are right in their submission that they do not require to be imposed with a condition of obtaining a pass from the military authorities in the background and purpose aforesaid. We also are of the opinion that in case the Cantonment Board proceeds to take any steps in future in the light of the letter dated 7th January, 2015, it may inform to the public at large and particularly to institutions like the High Court before taking up any such measures for discussion so that the point of view of public convenience may not be left unheeded in any of its dimension. The respondents are therefore directed to act
accordingly. The writ petition stands allowed with the aforesaid directions and observations.
Order Date :- 18.11.2015. Sahu
AND:
WRIT – C No. – 38989 of 2014
http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do
Consequently, this petition is also disposed of with a direction that the respondent authorities shall not impose any restriction unless the aforesaid procedure as acknowledged by them under the letter dated 7th January, 2015 is followed read with the provisions of Section 258 of the Cantonments Act 2006 and Section 2(zza) of the said Act. This is necessary as the road which is disputed in the present petition admittedly does not fall out of the definition of a street as provided for under the 2006 Act. The writ petition therefore stands disposed of with the said observations.
Order Date :- 18.11.2015. Sahu
I hope this will enlightens you more of the legal position. Many of the citizens get mislead with such articles without facts and truth. Hence I thought ti would be appropriate to educate the citizens with such more clarity for their own good.
Thanking you, with regards,
Yours sincerely,
S.Chandrasekhar,
OSCAR. .
Kindly see a Rejoinder to this article here: https://goo.gl/PCnxax
Laws and Legal points apart, let us look at some common sense issues : (1) Contonments were in existence even before the cities developed. They were located where they are, for strategic and safety reasons, and the security systems around them were put in place for the same reasons. Civil population went there and chose to stay close to them knowing fully well the safety and security systems in these spaces. So why should they want now, a freeway through them, and jeopardiise the security of those living there. It is unlikely the ‘people ‘ want it. It is more likely to be a ploy by the land mafia. Most surprising that the top defence officers are not standing up against it.
(2) The Govts have shown that they are in no position to provide the required security to its citizens ( men and women). One has to only look back a few months or years. So how could they even think of insisting that the insecurity should be extended to those in the cantonments?
(3) Today, every other ‘enclave’ and ‘gated community’ creates private roads and exercises access control. Is the Govt likely to bring in a law prohibiting all access controls in any living space? By an extension of that logic, all security sytems around all our politicians and ministers must be withdrawn first and forthwith.
Only 2100000 civilians are living in 62 cantonment we a accept 50% voting around 1000000 people’s and this figure is just a very low for center election I don’t agree with that opening of doors in cantonment is for political motives SORRY COUNTRY CANT BAY THES
Service chiefs would have held ground if they were not already sold out. The previous as well as present Chief are planning to join BJP after retirement. Gen Suhag has already joined and Gen Rawat will follow soon.
The smartest move was appointing Gen Rawat as Chief surpassing two other highly qualified professionals so that their illogical orders can be implemented without any problems from the Chief. He should act like their pet.