MCC violating government order once again

MGP had recently issued a press statement highlighting the violation of a Government Order by Mysore City Corporation.This referred to the Karnataka State Government notification No. NaAI:628:MNY:2003 dated 19-12-2003 which mandates that all high-rise buildings (HRBs meaning, buildings having five (1+4) floors or more or taller than 15 meters) in Mysore should strictly follow the National Building Code on the provision of fire prevention and fire-fighting equipment. The GO further states that a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the fire department is mandatory before licence to build a multi-storeyed building is issued. Also, a clearance certificate from the fire department is compulsory for issuing a completion report. Despite this GO and numerous reminders from the fire department, MCC has continued to allow high-rise buildings without the required NOC from the fire department.

Now another violation of a government notification has come to our notice. According to Sec. 827 of the Indian Railways Works Manual, any building constructed within 30 meters (about 100 feet) from a railway line by either private parties or municipal authorities must obtain a No Objection Certificate from the railways before construction. The purpose of this restriction is obvious. It is to conserve adjacent lands to meet future development needs of the railways (such as double tracking, electrification, etc.). Construction in this corridor makes acquisition of the land very difficult if structures exist in the corridor. Understanding this necessity of the Railways, the Government of Karnataka has issued an order No. HUD 128 GEL 84 (dated 20-10-1984) to all the local bodies in Karnataka that NOC from the Railways is mandatory for any construction in the 60 m wide corridor through which a railway line passes.

But MCC is levelling the land in Yadavagiri next to the Arasikere Railway line to construct some buildings supposedly under the JNNURM project. This land is within 30 m of the railway line and despite the nearby residents raising legal objections, work seems to be going on without getting an NOC from the Railways. Why is MCC so bent on violating the Government notification? Why are the Railways keeping quiet?

B.V. Shenoy, Mysore Grahakara Parishat 

Lawyers' strike: is it legal?

Lawyers are striking work  and boycotting courts frequently these days, mostly alleging injustice to one of their colleagues. At first, the boycotts were limited to the cities in which the injustice allegedly occurred, but now, lawyers all over the state are boycotting the courts about an incident that took place in Bengaluru. The day may not be far off when there will be nationwide strikes when a lawyer in manhandles by someone.

Lawyers' strikes are not only paralyzing our judicial system, but also, many a time paralyzing every day life by blocking roads and other essential services. Many people are interested in knowing what the laws and the courts say about such strikes.

All lawyers in India are bound by the Advocates Act, 1961. Under Sec. 49(1)(c) of the this Act,  the Bar Council of India has framed rules governing the conduct of advocates. Various High Courts and the Supreme Court have repeatedly interpreted these rules to completely ban strikes by advocates. In one judgment ((2003) 2 SCC 45), the Supreme Court said that the lawyers can ventilate their grievances by giving press statements, TV interviews, carrying banners or placards, wearing black bands, holding peaceful protest marches, dharnas or relay fasts, etc. (all these outside the court premises), but not by striking work and abstaining from courts. In another judgment ((1999) 1 SCC 37), the Supreme Court held that if any lawyer does not want to appear in a particular court, he should return the briefs of his clients so that they can engage another lawyer. But retaining the brief of his client and at the same time abstaining from appearing in a court is unprofessional as unbecoming of the status of an advocate.

Lawyers have often argued that they have a right to strike as guaranteed by Article 19 of the Constitution (Freedom of Speech). But the courts have held that a litigant has a fundamental right for a speedy trial of his case as guaranteed by Article 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty) of the Constitution. A strike by lawyers will infringe this fundamental right of the litigants and such infringement cannot be permitted. The exercise of the right under Article 19 comes to an end when such exercise threatens the fundamental right of another, the courts have said. 

Since the litigant has a fundamental right to a speedy trial, it automatically follows that the courts are bound to conduct hearings and pass orders even when lawyers for both sides are absent because of a strike. In a judgment ((1998) 8 SCC 624), the Supreme Court has held that courts should conduct hearings in such a situation as otherwise it would amount to the courts participating in the strike. It is not known how many courts follow this order of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has also ruled against enforcing Bandhs or Rasta Rokos during a strike. In a judgment (AIR 1998 SC 184), it has said that the fundamental rights of the people as a whole cannot be subservient to the claim of fundamental right of a section of the people. Therefore, there cannot be any right to call a Bandh which interferes with the fundamental freedoms of other citizens.

If a lawyer who works for a fee does not appear at the hearing because of a strike or a boycott, he or she can be prosecuted in a consumer forum for deficiency of service, according to a judgment of the National Consumer Grievances Redressal Commission (II (2002) CPJ 118 (NC)). In this judgment, the National Commission has also ordered that the Consumer Fora should not give adjournments for lawyer strikes. 

In its order, the National Commission observed, "Strike is a virus which should not be allowed to infect the Fora constituted under the Consumer Protection Act. It should never be ground for adjournment in a Forum that the lawyers are on strike....We have to guard ourselves against the pernicious practice of strike by lawyers spreading to the Fora under the Act. Nonappearance of a lawyer in a court or tribunal or any Authority after being engaged and having charged his fee could itself be deficiency on his part. There is already a public criticism that Fora under the Act are fast becoming Civil Courts where adjournments are granted as matter of course. This should not be permitted, otherwise the purpose of the Act will be lost. State Commissions should ensure that no adjournment is granted on the ground of strike by lawyers. If the lawyers do not appear before the District Forum or State Commission, it can decide the matter on the basis of the record, if it so chooses. A request for adjournment on the ground of strike by lawyers is not justifiable ground for adjourning the matter."

V.Mahesha, Mysore Grahakara Parishat 

ATM machines - what you should know

Since their inception five decades ago, ATMs (Automated Teller Machines) have rapidly proliferated worldwide. In India also, they are spreading at breakneck speed. The public seem to prefer ATM transactions to credit cards since they are less risky and do not involve the payment of interest. 

Customer complaints about ATMs are also increasing rapidly. They include non-disbursal of cash and excessive debit from the customer's account. When a customer encounters such a problem, very often he does not know how to get it redressed. 

The following are the Reserve Bank of India guidelines regarding ATMs (available at their website).

1. Customer Charges: 
a. For use of own ATMs for any purpose - Free 
b. For use of other bank ATMs for any purpose - Five transactions per month free.
After 5 free transactions, typical fees are Rs. 20 per financial transaction and Rs. 10 per non-financial transaction (such as checking account balance).   
c. For cash withdrawals using credit cards - Fee can be charged.  (Typically, the fee is equivalent to 25-35% annual interest.)

2. Security Measures:

The machine should not respond unless Personal Identification Number is entered separately for each transaction. So even if a customer forgets his card at the ATM, the next person will not be able to misuse it.

3.Resolution of customer complaints:

a. Banks have to resolve customer complaints within 7 working days from the date of receipt of the complaint.

b. If the complaint is lodged within 30 days of the date of transaction and the bank does not resolve it within 7 days from the date of lodging the complaint, it has to pay the customer Rs. 100 for each day of delay. 

The RBI also requires all ATMs to be user-friendly for persons with disabilities. The ATMs should be provided with ramps and their height should be such that they are accessible to wheelchair users. At least one third of new ATMs installed should be talking ATMs with Braille keypads which can be used by visually impaired persons. 

Any customer who faces any problem at an ATM should immediately complain to the bank which issued the ATM card to him/her and the bank which operates the ATM. If the problem is not resolved, he/she can approach the consumer courts against the deficieny in service.

Pooja Kini, Mysore Grahakara Parishat 

State Information Commission hearings

Complaints about violations of the Right to Information Act from Mysore district were heard by the Karnataka Information Commission on 19-12-11. The hearings were conducted via teleconferencing, with the two opposing parties sitting at the DC's Office, Mysore and the State Chief Information Commissioner at his office in Bangalore. These are my experiences at the hearings.

Notices had been issued to the complainants and defendants to be present at the teleconferencing room at the DC's office at 10 AM. But at 10 AM, only two complainants and two defendants were present. The video operator came at 10.05 and started setting up the call to Bangalore. At 10.15 the Mysore City Commissioner came and the DC came at 10.30. The telelink to Bangalore was established at 10.30 but the SCIC had not come. At 10.45, most of the complainants and the defendants had assembled and the room was full. At 10.55 a message was received from Bangalore that the hearings would start at 11.15. The SCIC came on the screen at 11.22, said that he was held up by traffic and apologized for the delay in the start of the proceedings. The hearings finally started at 11.24. 

Most of the complainants were rural people who had not received the information they had sought from village or taluk level information officers. It appeared that most of these officers who were attending the hearings were not at all well-prepared. Many had come without the concerned files and "I am new to this job" and "The file is missing" were common answers to the SCIC's questions. The SCIC was so exasperated at one point that he remarked "No one is telling the truth!" 

The lack of preparation by the information officers may be related to the fact that the Information Commissions are reluctant to punish the errant officers. In the present hearings, there were only a couple of cases in which the information had been supplied within one month (the period specified by the RTI Act), but in the 30 odd other cases in which the information had not been supplied within the prescribed time limit, the SCIC imposed a punishment only once. 

According to the RTI Act, if the information officer does not provide the information in 30 days, the applicant should first appeal to the appellate authority (who is usually the head of the government institution where the information is sought) and if the information is still not forthcoming, he should appeal to the Information Commission. So if a complaint is filed before the Information Commission, it means that both the information officer and the appellate authority have not done their job. But the RTI act prescribes punishment only to the information officers and none to the appellate authorities. This is not right. 

But there seems to be a way around this shortcoming of the law. According to Sec. 19(8)(b) of the Act, the Commission can require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered. Combining this provision of the law with the order of the Supreme Court (III(1993) CPJ 7 (SC)) which says that when a government department is fined for deficiency in service, the official responsible for the deficiency must be personally held liable for the fine, the Information Commissions can punish the appellate authority also for dereliction of duty. 

One problem with the teleconference hearings was that the SCIC could not hear clearly what the parties were saying. This was because the microphone was at the head of the table and the seats just behind the microphone were occupied by the DC and MCC Commissioner and the parties had to take seats to one side. When the parties were looking at the screen to see the SCIC, their voices were not being picked up by the microphone. This problem can be easily solved by seating the parties themselves at the head of the table. 

The inability of the SCIC to hear the parties clearly led to at least one unfair decision, in which the SCIC ordered that the complainant should pay the required page fees to obtain the information. This information had not been supplied to the complainant within 30 days of his application and so according to Sec. 7(6) of the RTI Act, the page charges have to be waived. The complainant was arguing this point, but obviously the SCIC did not hear him and passed the order for the payment of page charges.

Surya Prakash, Mysore Grahakara Parishat

MGP conducts lecture-demo on food adulteration

Mysore Grahakara Parishat recently conducted a lecture-demonstration on food adulteration detection at the following places: 

Government Higher Primary School, Bhagamandala, Government Higher Primary School, Murnadu, Government High School, Napoklu, Morarji Residential School, Basavanahalli, Government High School, Kodagarahalli, Rotary High School, Kushalanagar, Government Higher Primary School, Hakattur, K.Puttaswamy P.U. College, Vijayanagar, Government High School, Hinkal, Government High School Nizamia, Lashkar Mohalla, Chinmaya Vidyalaya P.U. College, Jayalakshmipuram and Gopalaswamy P.U. College, Nanju Malige. 

Under the direction of C.V. Nagaraj (formerly Senior Chemist, Regional Agmark Laboratory, Bangalore), students themselves conducted simple tests to detect adulteration in various food items. C.V. Nagaraj also spoke about the harmful effects of various types of adulteration and on the laws that exist in India against food adulteration. Prof. S.K. Ananda Thirtha and D.V. Dayanand Sagar assisted.

Associations interested in arranging such lecture-demos can contact C.V.Nagaraj (Ph: 2521640).

Photos from December 2011 edition of Grahaka Patrike

Uncleared building debris. 

Sewage leaking from overhead pipes in the parking lot. 

Walls of the parking lot stained by leaking sewage. 

Densely packed two-wheelers in the parking lot.