Sunday, December 26, 2010

Conviction of Dr. Binayak Sen

One comments in Times of India regarding the verdict on Dr. Binayak sen that it proves the influence of feudalist elements in the government. Why feudalist influence? Dont you see the monopoly houses of India? Do you think those 4 Indians who are among ten top richest men of the world are feudal lords? How then it can be the influence of feudalist elements?
It is the monopoly houses of India who are plundering the resources. Activities of people like Dr. Binayak Sen make people conscious about this plundering. The verdict actually proves how much shameless the state could be. It shows how openly the state could serve as a servent of TATA, GOENKA, AMBANI, VEDANTA and others. It is shame that KALMADI, A RAJA etc will remain outside the bar as a patriot and the people who selflessly fight Malaria among adivasis, demands women’s right or tribal right will be behind bar. Let every ‘stupid common man’ of India make a demand to put himself behind the bar with Dr. Binayak Sen and let the place outside free for KALMADI (Common Wealth Scam), RAJA (2G Scam), SONIA( Bofor’s Scandal), SING (2G Scam), PRANAB (Ambani’s servent), SOREN (Endless Scam), LALU (Chara Ghotala), BUDDHA (Singur & Nandigram) etc etc.

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

PROF. AJIT KUMAR RAY, MEMBER, EXECUTIVE COUNCIL ON FINANCIAL CORRUPTION IN NORTH BENGAL UNIVERSITY

As a member of the Executive Council of North Bengal University, Prof Ajit Kumar Ray wrote a letter to the Honourable Chancellor, the Governor of West Bengal regarding the role of the Vice Chancellor in dealing with the corruption case against few officers of the university. Though the Inquiry Officer specifically mentioned the names of Sri Ranju Gopal Mukherjee, Sri Pijush Saha and Dr. Dilip Kumar Sarkar, the vice-chancellor, being a party-loyalist, could not mention the names of first two.
Secondly, knowing very well that he has no jurisdiction to suspend someone under Clause 27 of University services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1975 without the approval of the Executive Council,he served suspension notice without the approval of the EC to Dr. Sarkar who, as expected, approached High Court for justice and sought injunction on suspension order. Honourable Single Bench immediately in the interim order made the judgment on 13th May 2010 that “the order of suspension is without jurisdiction”. Without rectifying his order according to single bench's observation, the vice-chancellor appealed to the division bench and, thereby, unnecessarily mis-using public money.
Thirdly, as ordered by the Division Bench, the Vice-Chancellor did not itemize the issue of suspension for the consideration of EC in its meeting on 23rd June, 2010, instead he tried to approve his suspension order which was subjudiced and was enlisted for hearing on 1st July. Interestingly, he itemized the issue fraudulently mentioning that he had applied section 10(6)which was neither true nor the plea was accepted by the Ld Single Bench of the Highcourt.
Those who are interested to know details please see the blog http://social-praxis.blogspot.com/ where the copy of my press release and letter to the Chancellor were posted.