Vishwasta

1

Je<e& 1 ues ♥ DebkeÀ 5 ♥ veesJnWyej 2008

2

Je<e& 1 ues ♥ DebkeÀ 5 ♥ veesJnWyej 2008

ceveesiele ne ne cnCelee efoJeeUer ³esTve iesueer. DeeHlemJekeÀer³eeb®es Deeiele mJeeiele Peeues. DebceU nele mewue mees[le DeeJJee®³ee meJJee Ke®e&ner Peeuee. He´³elve keÀªvener Ke®ee&uee ueieece jeefnueer veener. Deelee Depetve efoJeeUer®e DeefmlelJe ªbpeer Ieeuetve Deens. Hejbleg keÀeU meeo Ieeuelees Deens. Geflle<þ peeie´le! megmleer IeeueJee Je Hejle peesceeveb keÀeceeuee ueeiee. ceneieeF&®es Je meCeeJeejeb®es Jee{les Ke®e& efJe®eejHe´JeCe keÀª ueeieleele. lees®e meJe&$e DebieJeUCeer He[uesu³ee Ye´<ìe®eeje®es JeCeJes Lesì peeieeflekeÀ keÀerleea®³ee ueerueeJeleer ne@mHeerìueener ie´emet ueeieu³ee®eb Jele&ceeve keÀUueb. ueerueeJeleer®³ee Hee®e efJeMJemleeb®es (Trustees)®es efveuebyeve Peeues. íesìîee ceesþîee mebmLee Je efJeMJemle J³eJemLesleerue Ye´<ì keÀejYeeje®eer keÀLee vesnceer®e keÀeveeJej He[les HeCe SkeÀe DeJee{J³e mebmLeeefvekeÀeb®³ee DeefOejep³eemeejK³ee ueerueeJeleer ì^mìceOeerue Hee®e ì^mìerpe mebmeHeW[ nesleele Je keÀjes[es ªHe³eeb®ee Ye´<ì keÀejYeej ®eJneìîeeJej ³eslees ner yeeye Deece®³ee Jee®ekeÀebHe³e¥le Heesn®eefJeCes iejpes®es Jeeìu³eeves ceens veesJnsbyej®³ee `efJeMJemle` ®³ee ³ee DebkeÀele Deecner `o#elee pevepeeie=leer meHleen` efveefcelle Ye´<ìe®eejeJej He´keÀeMe ìekeÀC³ee®ee HegjsHetj He´³elve kesÀuee Deens. ceneje<ì^e®³ee cee. Oecee&oe³e Dee³egkeÌleeb®³ee mebceleerves Deecner ueerueeJeleer ne@mHeerìue®eer meefJemlej kesÀme®eb Jee®ekeÀebmeeþer meeoj keÀjerle Deenesle. ceneje<ì^e®³ee cee. meb®eeuekeÀ uee®e ueg®eHele He´efleyebOekeÀ efJeYeeie ³eebveer Dee³eesefpele kesÀuesu³ee o#elee pevepeeie=leer meHleeneefveefcelle Ye´<ìe®eeje®³ee DeYeê JeemleJee®ee Jee®ekeÀebvee Heefj®e³e keÀªve l³eeJejerue GHee³e ³eespevee GOe=le keÀjerle Deenesle. ner keÀer[ meceepeeletve GHeìtve keÀe{C³eemeeþer meJe&®e meceepeeves o#e jeefnues Heeefnpes Je l³ee efJeªOo®eer iebYeerj HeeJeues G®eueueer Heeefnpesle lej®e osMeeuee Je osMeeleu³ee meeOeve meecegie´er®ee DeHenej keÀªve GÐee®³ee YeefJe<³eeuee®e ie´emeCeeN³ee ³ee og<ì He´Lesuee cegþceeleer osCes Deiel³ee®es Deens.

ceveesnj efMe. FbieUs mebHeeokeÀ Nothing gives one person so much advantage over another as to remain always cool and unruffled under all circumstances.

3

Je<e& 1 ues ♥ DebkeÀ 5 ♥ veesJnWyej 2008 NOV. 2008 VOL. 1 ISSUE 5

3

Devegke´ÀceefCekeÀe efJeMJemle DeeefCe Ye´<ìe®eej He´efleyebOekeÀ keÀe³eoe .................... 4 - ceveesnj FbieUs o#elee pevepeeie=leer .......................................... 9 - uee®e ueg®eHele He´efleyebOekeÀ efJeYeeie mebHeeokeÀ, He´keÀeMekeÀ

ceveesnj efMe. FbieUs men³eesieer mebHeeokeÀ

pes. yeer. þeketÀj J³eJemLeeHeefkeÀ³e mebHeeokeÀ

jepeWê meesveJeCes meuueeieej mebHeeokeÀ

DebMeoeveemebyebOeer Lees[smes ................................... 13 - De@[. Deej.Heer. jCeefoJes }er}eJeleer Ye´<ìe®eej- 5 efJeµJemle®e efve}befyele ................. 16 - pes.yeer. þeketÀj vewmeefie&keÀ v³ee³e .......................................... 47 - [e@. yeer.Sve. JeeIeceejs

DeªCe Heeìerue He$eJ³eJeneje®ee Hellee mebke´ÀceCe HeefyuekesÀMevme De@v[ keÀvmeuìbìmed, 40, oeoespeer keÀeW[osJe mìsef[³ece, Keejìve jes[, þeCes -400 601.

HeÀesve: 022-22963986 He@ÀkeÌme 022-25398080 ceesyeeF&ue ë 9869342980 F&cesue ë vishwasthamagazine@gmail.com keÀesCel³eener ceefnv³eebHeemetve Jeie&Ceeroej neslee ³esF&ue Jeeef<e&keÀ Jeie&Ceer efJeMes<e DebkeÀemen ©.400/-

v³eemeemeeþer ³eespevee keÀjC³eeHetJeea Keyejoejer®eer iejpe...... ......... 51 - De@[. Deej.Heer. jCeefoJes keÀHeeì& - keÀHeeì& ®eer leªCe J³eeJemeeef³ekeÀemeeþer ³eespevee ........... 57 ceefnuee ye®ele ieìebvee ³eMemJeerveer DeefYe³eeveeÜejs yeepeejHesþ ......... 61

efkeÀjkeÀesU DebkeÀ ©.40/ns ceeefmekeÀ mebke´ÀceCe HeefyuekesÀMevme De@v[ keÀvmebuìbìmed®³ee Jeleerves He´keÀeMekeÀ Je ceeuekeÀ ceveesnj efMe. FbieUs ³eebveer ces.meer-ìskeÀ Dee@HeÀmesì efHe´vìmed, 21, p³eesleer Fb[mì^er³eue Fmìsì, vetjer yeeyee oiee&, ceKeceueer leueeJe, þeCes ³esLes íeHetve 40, oeoespeer keÀeW[osJe mìsef[³ece,Keejìve jes[, þeCes - 400 601 ³esLes He´keÀeefMele kesÀues. meoj®es ceeefmekeÀ ns mJe³ebmesJeer mebmLee Je Oecee&oe³e v³eemeeb®³ee mebyebOeele ceeefnleer Jee®ekeÀebme JneJeer ³ee GÎsM³eeves He´keÀeefMele kesÀuesues Deens. ³ee ceeefmekeÀeleerue $eg=ìer mebyebOeele He´keÀeMekeÀ Je ceeuekeÀ ns peJeeyeoej jenCeej veenerle, l³ee®e He´ceeCes ³ee ceeefmekeÀeleerue meeefnl³eele He´keÀeefMele Peeuesu³ee uesKekeÀeb®³ee celeeMeer cegK³e mebHeeokeÀ mencele Demeleerue®e Demes veener. meJe& v³ee³eeue³eerve keÀecekeÀepeemeeþer þeCes Menj ner keÀ#ee jeefnue.

Truth stands on its own evidence. It does not require any other testimony to prove it true, it is self-effulgent.

4

Je<e& 1 ues ♥ DebkeÀ 5 ♥ veesJnWyej 2008

efJeMJemle DeeefCe Ye´<ìe®eej He´efleyebOekeÀ keÀe³eoe Ye´<ìe®eej ne Deveeoer keÀeUeHeemetve ³ee He=LJeerleUeJej þeCe ceeb[tve yemeuee Deens. l³eecegUs l³eeuee DeepekeÀeue®³ee peceev³eele efMe<ìe®eej ³ee veeJeeves oseKf eue DeesUKeues peeles. l³eeuee DeeOegevf ekeÀ peieeleerue meceepee®eer {emeUuesueer veweflekeÀlee peemle keÀejCeerYetle Deens. meceepeeleerue iejerye Þeerceble ³ee Ye´<ìe®eejer keÀke&Àjesieeves keÀe³ece Deepeejer Deensle. l³ee®eer ueeieCe Peeueer keÀer l³eeletve megìkeÀe veener.

Meemevee®es Demes SkeÀner #es$e Ye´<ìe®eej cegkeÌle veener. efMe#eCe Je v³ee³eoevee®eer HeefJe$e ceeveueer iesuesueer #es$es oseKf eue ³ee®³ee efJeUK³eeletve cegkeÌle veenerle. Fbie´peebveer 1860 ceO³es Yeejleele Yeejleer³e ob[ efJeOeevee®eer efveefce&leer keÀ©ve l³eeleerue 161 les 165-De ner keÀueces keÀe³eoseMf ejefjl³ee Ye´<ìe®eejcegkeÌle keÀjC³ee®³ee DeHes#esves ie´eLf ele kesÀueer nesleer. Fbie´peebveer ³ee osMeeuee iegueece keÀ©ve mJele뮳ee osMeele ueeskeÀMeener keÀe³ece þsJeueer, ne®e l³eeb®ee ceesþe Ye´<ìe®eej neslee.

DeMee Ye´<ìe®eejer Fbie´peebveer kesÀuesuee ne keÀe³eoe Ye´<ìe®eejeJej He´nej keÀjC³eele DeHesMeer þjCeej ³ee®es YeeefkeÀle keÀjC³eeme p³eesefle<³ee®eer iejpe veJnleer. mellee DeeefCe Ye´<ìe®eeje®es meeìsueesìs Deens.

1947 meeueer osMeeuee mJeeleb$³e efceUeu³eeveblej lelkeÀeueerve veslesceb[Uerbvee ³ee Ye´<ìe®eeje®ee DeeJeekeÀe ue#eele Deeuee. cnCetve osMee®³ee keÀe³eosceb[Ueves l³ee®eJe<eea Ye´<ìe®eejeme He´efleyebOe keÀjC³eemeeþer SkeÀ keÀe³eoe Heejerle kesÀuee. l³eele ueeskeÀmesJekeÀeb®³ee J³eeK³ee DeefOekeÀ J³eeHekeÀ keÀjC³ee®ee He´³elve Peeuee. Hejbleg ³ee Ye´<ìe®eeje®³ee keÀke&Àjesieeuee veJeerve keÀe³eoe osefKeue GHee³e þ© MekeÀuee veener. l³ee®e JesUer osMeele menkeÀej ®eUJeUerves pevce Iesleuee Je veHeÀe ve keÀceefJeCeeN³ee mesJeeYeeJeer mebmLeeb®es efJemle=le peeUs efvecee&Ce nesT ueeieues. osMee®³ee jep³eIeìvesle keÀu³eeCekeÀejer jep³ee®eer keÀuHevee ©peueer Je jbpeu³ee ieebpeu³eeb®³ee keÀu³eeCeemeeþer Meemeve HeÀejmes keÀener keÀ© MekeÀCeej veener. l³eemeeþer mesJeeYeeJeer J³eefkeÌle Je J³eefkeÌleb®ee mecegn ne leUeieeUe He³e¥le Heesn®etve oeefjê³e

efvecet&ueve, efMe#eCe, Deejesi³e, meceepe keÀu³eeCeeoer keÀu³eeCekeÀejer ³eespevee meekeÀeju³ee. osMee®³ee DeLe&mebkeÀuHeele keÀjes[es ©He³es ³ee keÀeceemeeþer veeWoCeerke=Àle mebmLee, efJeMJemle J³eJemLee (v³eeme) ³eebvee Devegoeveemeeþer cebpetj keÀjC³eele Deeu³eele. Devegoevee®³ee DeLe&mene³³eeletve DeMee mesJeeYeeJeer mebmLeeb®³ee ceeO³eceeletve leUeieeUe He³e¥le peeC³ee®ee Meemeveeves He´³elve kesÀuee. ³ee meeþer 1860 ®³ee mebmLee veeWoCeer DeefOeefve³ece, jep³eeb®es efJeMJemle J³eJemLee efJe<e³e DeefOeefve³ece, lemes®e Fb[er³eve ì^mì De@keÌì, 1956 ®³ee kebÀHeveer keÀe³eÐee®³ee keÀuece 25 DevJe³es veeWouesu³ee mesJeeYeeJeer kebÀHev³eebvee DeMee ³eespevee jeyeefJeC³eemeeþer efceUt ueeieu³ee.

Meemevee®ee GÎsM³e ³ee ceeies ®eebieuee®e neslee, keÀener mesJeeYeeJeer mebmLee Je v³eeme ³eebveer oseKf eue Meemevee®³ee GÎsMeeuee keÀe³ece ue#eele þsTve ®eebieues keÀe³e& kesÀues. l³eecegUs ieesjiejerye, ceeieeme, JeveJeemeer ³eeb®eer ®eebieueer Mew#eefCekeÀ He´ieleer megOoe Peeueer. 1947 les 1985 He³e&le DeMee mesJeeYeeJeer mebmLeebveer Je l³eeb®³ee efJeMJemleebveer He´eceeefCekeÀHeCes keÀece kesÀues. Deepener keÀjerle Deensle. Hejbleg 1980 veblej ³ee mesJeeYeeJeer #es$eele osefKeue ceesþ³ee He´ceeCeele Ye´<ìe®eej yeeskeÀeUuee.

MeemekeÀer³e Devegoeves Je DeLe&mene³³ee®³ee ueeKees keÀjes[eW®³ee jkeÌkeÀceeb®ee efyeveefokeÌkeÀle DeHenej nesCes meg© Peeues. Devegoevee®³ee jkeÌkeÀcee p³ee keÀeceemeeþer MeemeveekeÀ[tve efceUeu³ee l³eeb®ee efJeefve³eesie l³ee®e keÀeceemeeþer ve keÀjlee, ueyee[er,HeÀmeJeCetkeÀ, efnMesyeele Kee[eKees[ keÀ©ve Flej iewjceeiee&®ee DeJeuebye meg© Peeuee. p³ee p³ee mebmLeeb®ee Demee Ye´<ìe®eej Devegoeves osCeeN³ee MeemekeÀer³e efJeYeeie/ceb$eeue³es ³eeb®³ee ue#eele Deeu³ee veblej DeMee mebmLeeb®eer Devegoeves LeebyeefJeCes Je l³ee mebmLeeb®ee keWÀê Meemevee®³ee keÀeU³ee ³eeoerle meceeJesMe keÀjCes Demes He´keÀej meg© Peeuesle. Kejslej mesJeeYeeJeer keÀece Debeif ekeÀeju³eeveblej l³ee keÀecee®ee ³eesie#escee®ee J³eJemee³e neslee keÀecee ve³es. Hebjleg ogoJz eeves lemes Peeues. cenelcee ieebOeeRveer efJemle=le DeMeer efJeMJemle mebkeÀuHevee ceeb[ueer. l³ee mebkeÀuHevesuee keÀener mebmLee®eeuekeÀebveer De#ejMeë

A man ought to read just as inclination leads him; for what he reads as a task will do him little good.

5

Je<e& 1 ues ♥ DebkeÀ 5 ♥ veesJnWyej 2008

ueeLee[ues. l³eecegUs Yeejle mejkeÀejves ueeskeÀmesJekeÀeb®³ee J³eeK³eeb DeefOekeÀ efJemle=le DemeeJeer, meJe&J³eeHeer Je meJe&mHe<eea DemeeJeer cnCetve veJeerve keÀe³eoe Ye´<ìe®eeje®³ee He´efleyebOeemeeþer Heejerle keÀjC³ee®eer DeefleJe iejpe efvecee&Ce Peeueer. cnCetve 1988 meeueer Ye´<ìe®eej He´efleyebOekeÀ DeefOeefve³ece mebmeosves Heejerle keÀ©ve lees 9.9.1988 Heemetve l³ee®eer osMeYej DebceueyepeeJeCeer meg© Peeueer. meoj®ee veJeerve keÀe³eoe ne HeÀkeÌle 31 keÀueceeb®ee Deens. Fbie´peebveer Dee³e.Heer.meer.le meceeefJe<þ kesÀuesueer keÀueces 161 les 165(De) ner ³ee veJeerve keÀe³eÐee®³ee keÀuece 31 vegmeej jÎyeeleue þjefJeueer Deensle. ³ee keÀe³eÐee®³ee keÀuece 2 ceO³es ueeskeÀmesJekeÀeb®³ee meefJemlej, meJe&J³eeHeer Je meJe&mHeMeea J³eeK³ee efouesu³ee Deensle. l³eecegUs ueeskeÀmesJekeÀ Demeuesu³eeb®eer keÀ#ee Jee{ueer Demetve les ³ee keÀe³eÐeele veceto iegbvn³eemeeþer Gllejoeef³e þjefJeuesues Deensle. leHeemeemeeþer JesieJesieU³ee mlejeJej mJeleb$e leHeemeer ³eb$eCeeb®eer efveceealeer kesÀueer Deens. ef®eHeÀ Jnerefpeuevme keÀefceMvej osMeHeeleUerJej, l³eeveblej meber.yeer.Dee³e. ®ee De@vìer keÀjHMHeve y³egjes keWÀêer³e mlejeJejerue ueeskeÀmesJekeÀebmeeþer lemes®e He´l³eskeÀ jep³eele De@vìer keÀjHMeve y³egjes Je efJnpeeruevme y³egjes®eer mLeeHevee, efJeMes<e v³ee³eeue³es ³ee He´keÀjCeeb®ee v³ee³eefveJee[e keÀjC³eemeeþer osMeYejeleerue efpeun³eele mLeeefHele keÀjC³eele Deeueer Deensle. ³eeleerue DeejesHe efmeOo keÀjC³eemeeþer ye[&ve Dee@HeÀ HegH´ eÀ ne iegvn³eeleerue DeejesHeerJej ìekeÀC³eele Deeuee Deens. cnCepes®e l³ee®esefJe©Oo ueeJeuesues DeejesHe keÀmes Keesìs Deensle ns l³eeves efmeOo keÀ©ve osC³ee®eer iejpe Deens. keÀesCel³eener DeejesHeer efJe©Oo Üs<eceguekeÀ YeeJevesves DeejesHe þsJeuesues veenerle ³ee®eer Keelejpecee keÀjC³eemeeþer keÀuece 19 vegmeej v³ee³eeue³eele ®eepe&eMf eì oeKeue keÀjC³eeHetJeea keÀe@cHeerììb De@Lee@ejf ìer®eer cebpetjer Fl³eeoer efJeMes<ekeÀ ³ee veJeerve keÀe³eÐeele Deensle.

Deelee DeeHeCe DeeHeu³ee cegK³e efJe<e³ee keÀ[s JeUt ³ee. efJeMJemle DeeefCe mebeHe´le®ee keÀe³eoe ³eele vescekeÀe keÀe³e mebyebOe Deens Demee He´Mve DeveskeÀ efJeMJemle Je Jee®ekeÀebvee He[uee DemeeJee. Deieesoj®e veceto kesÀu³eevegmeej uesekeÀmesJekeÀeb®³ee J³eeK³ee efJemle=le, meJe&J³eeHeer Je meJe&mHe<eea ³ee veJeerve keÀe³eÐeele keÀjC³eele Deeuesu³ee Deensle. ³eeleerue

keÀuece 2(keÀ)(12) vegmeej mesJeeYeeJeer mebmLee Je efJeMJemle v³eemee®es HeoeefOekeÀejer Je efJeMJemle ns ueeskeÀmesJekeÀ þjefJeC³eele Deeuesues Deensle. cee$e DeMee mebmLee/v³eemeeuee Meemeve efkebÀJee keÀesCelesner mLeeefvekeÀ He´eefOekeÀjCeekeÀ[tve Devegoeve efkebÀJee DeLe&mene³³e efceUCes DeeJeM³ekeÀ Deens. Deelee DeeHeCe ³ee keÀueceeleerue J³eeK³es keÀ[s JeUt ³ee.

1988 ®³ee Ye´<ìe®eej He´efleyebOekeÀ DeefOeefve³ecee®³ee keÀuece 2(keÀ)(yeeje) DevJe³es `` keÀesCel³eener He´keÀejs mLeeHeve kesÀuesu³ee, keWÀê Meemeve efkebÀJee keÀesCelesner jep³eMeemeve efkebÀJee mLeeefvekeÀ efkebÀJee Flej meeJe&peefvekeÀ He´eefOekeÀjCe ³eeb®³ee keÀ[tve keÀesCeleerner DeeefLe&keÀ ceole IesCeeN³ee efkebÀJee Iesle Demeuesu³ee Mew#eefCekeÀ, Jew%eeefvekeÀ, meeceeefpekeÀ, meebmke=ÀeflekeÀ efkebÀJee Flej mebmLes®ee HeoeefOekeÀejer efkebÀJee keÀce&®eejer Demeuesueer keÀesCeleerner J³eefkeÌle.`` ³ee Je©ve ue#eele ³esF&ue keÀer p³ee mesJeeYeeJeer mebmLee ceie l³ee keÀMeener He´keÀejeves mLeeHeve / veeWoCeer Peeuesu³ee Demeleerue DeMee mebmLeeb®es HeoeefOekeÀejer cnCepes®e efJeMJemle ns GkeÌle DeefOeefve³ecee®³ee keÀ#esle ueeskeÀmesJekeÀ cnCetve ieCeues peeleele. l³eecegUs Devegoeefvele Je ceev³eleeHe´eHle, veeWoCeerke=Àle mebmLeeb Je l³eeb®es efJeMJemleebvee ³ee DeefOeefve³eceeb®³ee lejletoer Flej ueeskeÀmesJekeÀebHe´ceeCes®e ueeiet Deensle. oj veesJnWyej ceefnv³eele keWÀêer³e meleke&Àlee Dee³eesie (meer.Jner.meer.) (CENTRAL VIGILENCE COMMISSION), keWÀêer³e DevJesMeve ³eb$eCee (meer.yeer.Dee³e.), (CENTRAL BURUEAU OF INVESTIGA-

lemes®e He´l³eskeÀ jep³e Meemevee®³ee DeKl³eejerle Demeuesues uee®eueg®eHele He´efleyebkeÀ Keeleer (De@vìer keÀjHMeve y³egjes) ns meJe&meeceev³eeb®³ee pevepeeie=leerkeÀefjlee o#elee meHleen HeeUleele. meoj®ee meHleen ne ueesnHeg©<e mejoej JeuueYeYeeF& Heìsue ³eeb®³ee pevceefovee®es Deewef®el³e meeOetve ³eeb®³ee HeefJe$e mce=leeruee GpeeUe efceUeJee cnCetve HeeUC³eele ³eslees. ³ee meHleenele efJeefJeOe keÀe³e&ke´ÀceebÜejs pevemeeceev³eeb®es He´yeesOeve Ye´<ìe®eej He´efleyebOeelcekeÀ keÀe³ee&Üejs keÀjC³eele ³esles. l³ee®ee o#elee pevepeeiejCe meHleene®es Deewe®f el³e cnCetve mebmLee Je v³eemeeb®³ee efJeMJemleebvee meoj®ee DeefOeefve³ece ueeiet Deens. cnCetve DeeHeues efveefnle keÀe³e& keÀjleebvee DeeHeCeekeÀ[tve ³ee keÀe³eÐee®³ee lejletoeR®es

TION)

The true meaning of education is all round development of character and personality of a person.

6

Je<e& 1 ues ♥ DebkeÀ 5 ♥ veesJnWyej 2008

GuuebIeve peeCeles DepeeCelesHeCeeves nesT ve³es cnCetve meoj®³ee uesKee®es cegK³e He´³eespeve Deens. ³ee yeeyeleerle He´mletle®³ee uesKekeÀeves 1991 meeueer l³eeb®³ee cegueeuee cejeþer ceeO³ecee®³ee F³ellee Heefnueerle He´JesMe IesC³eemeeþer Devegoeefvele, ceev³eleeHe´eHle, Keemeieer mebmLes®³ee He´eLeefcekeÀ MeeUskeÀ[s Depe& meeoj kesÀuee neslee. cee$e mebmLes®³ee meb®eeuekeÀebveer l³eeb®eskeÀ[s He´JesMeemeeþer ©. 4000/- ®eer ceeieCeer kesÀueer. meoj®eer jkeÌkeÀce keÀMeemeeþer DeeHeCe Iesle Deenele Demee He´Mve efJe®eejuee Demelee, MeeUe ®eeueefJeC³eemeeþer efveOeer®eer iejpe Yeemeles, Meemeve osle Demeuesues Devegoeve DeefleMe³e leeskeÀ[s Deens cnCetve mebmLesves He´JesMeemeeþer osCeieer IesC³ee®es þjefJeues Deens, l³ee vegmeej meoj®eer jkeÌkeÀce ner osCeieer cnCetve les Iesle Demeu³ee®es l³eebveer meebefieleues. l³eeJej ceer l³eebvee meebefieleues keÀer ceuee MeeUeb®es efve³ece Je keÀe³eos ceeefnleer Deensle. DeeHeu³ee He´eLeefcekeÀ MeeUsle keÀece keÀjCeeN³ee meJe& efMe#ekeÀ Je efMe#ekesÀlej keÀce&®eeN³eebvee ceneHeeefuekeÀe Jesleve Devegoeve 100 ìkeÌkesÀ osles, l³ee efMeJee³e cesvìsvevme ie´Bì cnCetve mee[syeeje ìke̳eeb®eer jkeÌkeÀce efoueer peeles, l³eeefMeJee³e Fceejle ner mebmLes®³ee ceeuekeÀer®eer Demeu³eecegUs Je leer MeeUe l³ee Fceejleerle Yejles cnCetve mebmLesuee Fceejle Yee[s Devegoeve osefKeue osC³eele ³esles. DeMee HeefjefmLeleerle mebmLesuee Hewmee keÀceer He[lees ns DeveekeÀueveer³e Deens. ceeP³eekeÀ[s pej lesJe{er jkeÌkeÀce He´JesMeemeeþer osCeieer osC³eemeeþer vemesue lej ceer ceneHeefuekesÀ®³ee MeeUsle ceeP³ee cegueeuee He´JesMe ÐeeJee. lesLes keÀesCeleer®e HeÀer IesC³eele ³esle veener Demesner ceuee meb®eeuekeÀebveer meebeif eleues. l³ee®e He´ceeCes l³eeb®³ee keÀe³ee&ue³eeletve yeensj ³esTve ceuee l³ee ceneHeeefuekeÀe MeeUs®eer Fceejle osefKeue oeKeefJeueer. meoj®es meb®eeuekeÀeb®es Jele&ve ceeP³ee efpeJnejer ueeieues Je keÀesCel³eener HeefjefmLeleer ceer ceeP³ee cegueeuee ³ee®e MeeUsle He´JesMe IesTve oeKeefJeCeej cnCetve Fjsme Hesìuees. cnCetve ceer ceneHeeefuekeÀ®³ee efMe#eCe ceb[Uele peeTve ceeP³ee cegueeuee meoj®³ee MeeUsle He´JesMe efceUeJee cnCetve ceer He$e efceUefJeues Je les IesTve ceer Hegvne l³ee®e meb®eeuekeÀebkeÀ[s Heesn®euees. Je ceneHeeefuekeÀ®es He$e l³eebvee efoues. l³eeJej l³eebveer ceuee meebefieleues keÀer Deelee legcner He$e DeeCeu³eecegUs ®eej npeeje DewJespeer SkeÀ npeeje®eer

jkeÌkeÀce Ðee. ceuee leer osefKeue osC³ee®eer veJnleer cnCetve ceer l³eebvee meebefieleues keÀer, ceeP³eekeÀ[s lesJe{er jkeÌkeÀce Deepe veener. lesJne l³eebveer otmeN³ee efoJeMeer leer jkeÌkeÀce IesTve ³esC³eeme meebeif eleues. lesLetve ceer mejU De@vìer keÀjHMeve y³egjes®³ee keÀe³ee&ue³eele iesuees. lesLes ceer efHeÀ³ee&o efoueer Je 1988 ®³ee Ye´<ìe®eej He´efleyebOekeÀ keÀe³eÐee®³ee lejletoer vegmeej meoj®³ee MeeUe Je MeeUs®³ee J³eJemLeeHeveeJej keÀejJeeF& keÀjC³ee®eer efJevebleer kesÀueer. meoj®es He´keÀjCe pesJne De@vìer keÀjHMeve y³egjes®³ee cegK³eebveer DewkeÀues l³eeJesUer l³eebveer ceuee mebebefieleues keÀer, MeeUe n³ee l³eeb®³ee keÀ#esle ³esle veenerle.l³eecegUs l³eebveer ceuee efMe#eCe Keel³eekeÀ[s ke@ÀHeerìMs eve HeÀer IesC³eeme He´elf eyebOe keÀe³eÐeevegmeej efMe#eCe Keel³ee keÀ[tve keÀejJeeF& keÀjC³ee®eer met®evee kesÀueer. l³eeJesUer meoj®ee 1988 ®³ee keÀuece 2(keÀ)(yeeje) ®ee DeY³eeme keÀ©ve®e ceer le³eejermen iesuees neslees. ceer meoj®es keÀuece l³eebvee oeKeefJeues Je l³ee keÀueceevegmeej ner mebmLee DeeHeu³ee MeeUe Meemevee®³ee DevegoeveeJej meb®eeefuele keÀjerle Demeu³eecegUs l³ee mebmLes®es meb®eeuekeÀ ns ueeskeÀmesJekeÀ þjleele. 1988 ®³ee keÀe³eÐee®eer DebceueyepeeJeCeer He´LeceeJemLesle Demeu³eecegUs lejletoeb ®r eer mebHetCe& ceeefnleer ne keÀe³eoe jeyeefJeCeeN³ee DeefOekeÀeN³eebvee veJnleer. l³eeveblej De@vìer keÀjHMeve y³egjes®³ee cegK³eebveer ³ee ueeskeÀmesJekeÀ Demeuesu³ee meb®eeuekeÀe efJe©Oo meeHeUe j®etve keÀejJeeF& keÀjC³ee®eer le³eejer kesÀueer. keÀejJeeF&®eer mekeÌle iegHlelee jeKeC³ee yeeyele ceuee meebieC³eele Deeues. ogmeN³ee efoJeMeer þjuesu³ee JesUer ceeP³ee men efkeÀceeve 10 les 12 DeefOekeÀejer Je Heesueerme keÀce&®eejer meeO³ee keÀHe[îeele MeeUsle Deeuesle. meoj®³ee meeHeU³ee®es JesUer ceeP³ee meesyele oesve MeemekeÀer³e keÀce&®eejer mee#eeroej cnCetve GHeefmLele nesles, l³eeb®eer DeesUKe ceer ceePes veelesJeeF&keÀ cnCetve meoj®³ee meb®eeuekeÀebvee keÀ©ve efoueer. l³eeb®es keÀ[tve®e ceer jkeÌkeÀce GmeveJeej cnCetve Iesleueer Deens, leer jkeÌkeÀce KejesKej®e ceer MeeUs®eer HeÀer YejC³eemeeþer JeeHejlees Deens efkebÀJee keÀmes ³ee®eer Keelejpecee keÀjC³eemeeþer les ceeP³ee meesyele Deeuesues Deensle Demes osefKeue ceer meb®eeuekeÀeb®eer Kee$eer HeìJetve osC³eemeeþer meebefieleues. l³ee He´ceeCes meoj®³ee meb®eeuekeÀebveer ceeP³ee ceguee®ee He´JesMe Depe&, pevcee®ee oeKeuee Je ceneHeeefuekeÀves efouesues efMeHeÀejme

From the unreal lead me to the real. From darkness lead me to light. From death lead me to immportality.

7

Je<e& 1 ues ♥ DebkeÀ 5 ♥ veesJnWyej 2008

He$e IesTve He´JesMe ÐeeJee Demee Mesje efuentve mener keÀ©ve leer keÀeieoHe$es mebyebOeerle efueefHekeÀeme osC³eemeeþer meebeif eleues Je ceer DeeCeuesueer osCeieer®eer jkeÌkeÀce osefKeue l³ee®es keÀ[s®e osC³ee®es efveoxMe efouesle. l³eevegmeej ceer keÀeieoHe$es Je SkeÀ npeej ©He³eeb®³ee ®eueveer veesìe p³eeb®es ke´ÀceebkeÀ Deieesoj®e De@vìer keÀjHMeve y³egjesves peJeeyeele Je Heb®eveec³eele veceto keÀ©ve IesTve l³ee veesìebvee HeeJe[j ueeJetve J³eJeefmLeleefjl³ee ceeP³eekeÀ[s efou³ee nesl³ee. l³ee veesìe ceer meoj®³ee MeeUs®³ee efueefHekeÀekeÀ[s efou³eele, l³ee®ee efmJekeÀej Peeu³ee veblej ceer pesJne keÀe³ee&ue³ee®³ee oejeletve yeensj He[leebvee DeefOekeÀeN³eebveer þjeefJekeÀ neJeYeeJe keÀjC³ee®³ee met®evee ceuee Deieesoj®e efou³ee nesl³ee l³ee JesUer MeeUs®³ee Heefjmejele, Jnjeb[îeele meoj®es meeO³ee keÀHe[îeeleerue Heesueerme DeefOekeÀejer keÀce&®eejer ceer yeensj He[C³ee®eer Je þjeefJekeÀ KegCes®eer He´efle#ee keÀjerle nesles. ceer KetCes®es neJeYeeJe keÀjlee®e meJe& DeefOekeÀejer Je keÀce&®eeN³eebveer meoj®³ee efueefHekeÀeuee SkeÀoce Iesjues Je ceer efouesueer keÀeieoHe$es Je efouesueer jkeÌkeÀce efJeveeefJeuebye leey³eele Iesleueer. leer jkeÌkeÀce mJeerkeÀejC³eeHetJeea l³ee veesìeb®eer ieCeleer efueHeerkeÀeves kesÀueer Demeu³eecegUs l³ee®³ee neleeuee HeeJe[j ueeieuesueer nesleer. l³eeveblej meb®eeuekeÀ Je efueefHekeÀe®ee keÀmetve leHeeme meg© Peeuee. Deieesoj®e le³eej kesÀuesu³ee Heb®eveec³eeleerue veesìeb®es vebyej Je efmJekeÀej Peeuesu³ee veeWìeb®³ee vebyejeb®ee Hegvne Heb®eveecee IeìveemLeUer keÀjC³eele Deeuee.

DeMee efjleerves ne meeHeUe ³eMemJeer Peeuee. l³ee IeìveemLeUeJej DeeCeKeer leHeeme keÀjlee Demes efometve Deeues keÀer, DeMee HeOoleerves iesjceeiee&ves osCei³ee IesC³eele Deeuesu³ee Demetve l³eeb®eer jkeÌkeÀce l³eeJesUer 40 ueeKe ©He³eeb®³ee DeemeHeeme nesleer. leer meJe& keÀeieoHe$es De@vìer keÀjHMeve y³egjes®³ee DeefOekeÀeN³eebveer peHle kesÀueer Je mebyebOeerle meb®eeuekeÀ Je efueefHekeÀ ³eebvee DeejesHeer keÀ©ve l³eeb®es efJe©Oo iegvne oeKeue keÀjC³eele Deeuee. He´JesMee®es JesUer efJeefnle MegukeÀe J³eefleefjkeÌle jkeÌkeÀcee IesCes, (HeeJeleer osTve / ve osTve) ne ke@ÀHeerìsMeve HeÀer IesC³eeme He´efleyebOe DeefOeefve³ecee vegmeej osKeerue oKeueHee$e iegvne Deens, l³ee keÀe³eÐeeleerue keÀueces megOoe veceto keÀ©ve mebyebOeerle mebmLesefJe©Oo HeÀewpeoejer keÀejJeeF& keÀjC³eele Deeueer.

Deepe ceePee cegueiee MeemekeÀer³e efJeOeer ceneefJeÐeeue³e, cegbyeF& ³esLes keÀe³eÐee®³ee MesJe쮳ee Jeiee&le efMekeÀle Deens. DeMee efjleerves He´l³eskeÀ veeiejerkeÀebveer DeeHeu³ee cetueYetle nkeÌkeÀebyeeyele o#e jenCes iejpe®es Deens®e. Hejbleg pes efJeMJemle Je mebmLee®eeuekeÀ peveefnleemeeþer Je meeceeefpekeÀ yeebefOeuekeÀer®ee Jemee IesTve mebmLee mLeeHeve keÀ©ve l³ee®ee ogoJ&w eeves J³eJemee³e keÀjleele DeMee efJeMJemleebveer ue#eele þsJeeJes keÀer, DeeHeCe Ye´<ìe®eej DeefOeefve³ecee®³ee lejletoeRvegmeej ueeskeÀmesJekeÀ Deenesle. DeefleMe³e o#elesves DeeHeues HeefJe$e keÀle&J³e keÀjeJes. ceer mJeleë efYeJeb[er®³ee He¨eÞeer DeCCeemeensye peeOeJe Yeejleer³e meceepe Gvveleer ceb[U ³ee osMeHeeleUerJejerue mebmLes®ee efJeMJemle neslees Je Deens. l³ee mebmLes®eer mLeeJej Je pebiece ceeuecellee ner SKeeÐee `keÀ ` Jeiee&®³ee veiejHeefj<eos®³ee yejesyejer®eer Demetve MeemeveekeÀ[tve l³ee mebmLesuee ojJe<eea 20 keÀesìer ©He³eeb®es Devegoeve He´eHle nesles. l³ee mebmLes®³ee Deieesoj®³ee efJeMJemle ceb[Ue efJe©Oo ceer De@vìer keÀjHMeve y³egjeskeÀ[s 3 leke´Àejer oeKeue keÀ©ve l³eebveer mebieveceleeves efkeÀceeve 15 keÀesìer ©He³eeb®ee Ye´<ìe®eej kesÀu³ee®es efveefJe&Jeeoefjl³ee efmeOo Peeues Deens. ceer p³ee mebmLes®ee efJeMJemle Deens DeMee mebmLes®ee Ye´<ìe®eej Gpes[ele DeeCeC³eemeeþer ceuee 12 Je<ee&®es Ke[lej He´³elve keÀjeJes ueeieuesle. meoj®es leerve iegvns oeKeue Demetve osefKeue Deieesoj®³ee DeO³e#eeves Je l³ee®³ee Helveerves efceUtve DeeCeKeer 2 les 3 keÀesìer®³ee MeemekeÀer³e Degveoevee®ee DeHenej kesÀu³ee®es þesme HegjeJes efceUeues Deensle. l³ee yeeyele®³ee leke´Àejer efHeÀ³ee&oer mebyebOeerle Keel³eekeÀ[s keÀjC³ee®es uesKeer met®evee Deelee®³ee J³eJemLeeHeve meefceleeruee kesÀu³ee Deensle. Hejbleg l³eebveer l³eeyeeyele Deepeleeiee³ele keÀesCeleerner keÀe³e&Jeener kesÀueer veener Je Ie[uesuee iegvne lemee®e oeyetve þsJeuee Deens. cnCetve efJeMJemleHeoeJej Demeleebvee kegÀCeerner keÀenerner yeskeÀe³eosefMej keÀece kesÀues lej les lemes®e o[Jetve ve þsJelee, l³ee yeeyele®eer ceeefnleer leHeemeer DeefOekeÀeN³ebeve osTve leHeeme keÀeceele DeeHeues meefke´À³e menkeÀe³e& ÐeeJes. ceeP³ee Demesner ue#eele Deeues Deens keÀer, meoj®³ee mebmLes®³ee efJeÐeceeve HeoeefOekeÀejer ³eebveer ceesþ³ee He´ceeCeele DeeefLe&keÀ yesefMemle mebmb Les®³ee keÀejYeejele ©peJetve Iesleueer Deens. l³eecegUs oesve efJeÐeeL³ee&vee

It is better to deserve honours and not to have them than to have them and not deserve them.

8

Je<e& 1 ues ♥ DebkeÀ 5 ♥ veesJnWyej 2008

DeeHeuee peerJe ieceJeeJee ueeieuee. ceuee DeveskeÀ Jele&ceeveHe$eebveer DeMeer met®evee kesÀueer keÀer ceer keÀjerle Demeuesues keÀece ns efJeMJemle J³eJemLeeb®³ee Je mebmLeeb®³ee efJekeÀemeele keÀejCeerYetle þjCeejs Deens. lemes®e l³eebveer DeMeerner met®evee kesÀueer keÀer, efJeMJemle ceeefmekeÀeves peeieu³ee®eer Yetecf ekeÀe Heej Hee[eJeer, Ye´<ì efJeMJemle mebmLeevee He´keÀeMeele DeeCeeJes ` Je©ve efkeÀle&ve Deeletve leceeMee ` Demes keÀe³e& keÀjCeeN³ee mebmLeeb®es iewjJ³eJenej ®eJneì³eeJej DeeCetve l³eebvee ³eesi³e l³ee He´eefOekeÀjCeekeÀ[s ®eewkeÀMeermeeþer GYes keÀjeJes. DeefuekeÀ[s®e cegyb eF&leerue SkeÀ Deie´ieC³e JewÐeefkeÀ³e v³eeme p³eeb®³ee Jeleerves DeeefMe³eeleerue SkeÀ Glke=À<ì JewÐeefkeÀ³e mesJee osCeejs efueueeJeleer ne@mHeerìue ³ee veeJee®es FefmHeleU ®eeueefJeues peeles. l³ee v³eemee®³ee 9 efJeMJemleebveer v³eemee®³ee DeLe&J³eJenejele keÀesì³eeJeOeer ©He³eeb®ee Ye´<ìe®eej kesÀuee, DeveskeÀ DeHeke=Àl³es Je og<ke=Àl³es kesÀueerle, efveOeer®ee GHe³eesie mJeleëmeeþer keÀ©ve Iebsleuee Je ceesþ³ee He´ceeCeeJej v³eemee®eer HeÀmeJeCetkeÀ kesÀueer. HeefjCeeceer l³ee v³eemee®³ee keÀe³ece efJeMJemle Demeuesu³ee SkeÀe ðeerves Oecee&oe³e Dee³egkeÌleebkeÀ[s Depe& meeoj keÀ©ve ³ee Ye´<ìe®eejer efJeMJemleebbvee v³eemeeletve keÀe{tve ìekeÀC³ee®eer efJevebleer kesÀueer. l³ee Depee&Jej He´efoIe& metveeJeCeer nesTve mevcee. men Oecee&oe³e Dee³egkeÌleebveer Dee@keÌìesyej ceO³es®e oes<eer efJeMJemleebefJe©Oo DeejesHe efveefM®ele keÀ©ve l³ee HewkeÀer 5 efJeMJemleebvee efJeMJemle HeoeJe©ve efveuebefyele keÀ©ve meKeesue ®eewkeÀMeer meg© kesÀueer Deens. l³eeHewkeÀer ®eej ‡ ‡ ‡

efJeMJemleebveer jepeerveeces osTve ³ee He´keÀjCeeletve yeensj He[C³ee®ee ceeie& efmJekeÀejuee. l³ee yeeyele efveuebyevee®³ee Depee&Jej pees v³eeef³ekeÀ DeeosMe Heejerle nesTve 5 efJeMJemleeb®es efveuebyeve Peeues Je DeejesHe efveefM®eleer®³ee Depee&Jej osefKeue He´efoIe& metveeJeCeer nesTve He´l³eskeÀ DeejesHeerle efJeMJemleebeJf e©Oo DeejesHeeb®eer efveefM®eleer keÀjC³eele Deeueer. l³ee oesvner Depee&Jej Heejerle Peeuesuee v³ee³e efveCe&³e Je DeeosMeeb®³ee He´efle Deece®³ee Jee®ekeÀebvee Deecner peMee®³ee leMee ³ee DebkeÀele osle Deenesle. Kejslej meoj®es v³ee³eefveCe&³e Je DeeosMe ns ì^e³eue keÀesìe&®³ee mlejeJej®es Deensle. Demes v³ee³eefveCe&³e He´emf eOo keÀjC³eele ³esle veenerle. lejer osefKeue ceer ³ee®ee meceie´ DeY³eeme kesÀu³ee veblej ns oesvner efveCe&³e Je DeeosMe ns DeefleMe³e G®®ekeÀesìer®es Demetve p³eebvee ueB[ceeke&À pepeceWì cnCelee ³esleerue DeMee lees[er®es Demeu³eecegUs ³ee o#elee pevepeeie=leer meHleene®es Deewef®el³e meeOetve mebmLee / v³eemeele keÀMee efjleerves Ye´<ìe®eej neslees, l³ee Ye´<ìe®eejeuee keÀe³eoe keÀMee efjleerves JeeieCetkeÀ osles ³ee®es Gllece GoenjCe cnCetve ceer ³ee oesvner pepeceWì keÀ[s Heenlees. l³eeb®es efpe%eemetbveer keÀeUpeerHetJe&keÀ Jee®eve kesÀu³eeme mesJeeYeeJeer keÀece keÀjerle Demeleebvee keÀe³eÐeeves efkeÀleer peJeeyeoejer efJeMJemleebJej meesHeefJeuesueer Deens ³ee®eer ³eLeeLe& peeefCeJe Je ceeefnleer JneJeer ne ³ee ceeefieue GÎsM³e Deens. ³ee He´efoIe& uesKee®ee meceejesHe keÀjleebvee ceneve keÀefJe kegÀmegceeie´peeb®³ee ’mJeeleb$³eosJeer®eer efJeveJeCeer“ ³ee keÀefJelesceOeerue keÀener DeesUer ³ee efþkeÀeCeer GOe=le keÀjCes Gef®ele Jeeìles

’Jesleve KeeTve keÀece ìeUCes nes osMee®ee êesn Demes~ keÀjleerue otmejs, yeIeleerue eflemejs Demes meebiegveer megìt vekeÀe~~ pevemesJesmleJe Demes keÀ®esjer leer [eketgbÀ®eer vemes iegne~ cespeeKeeuetve cespeeJejletve êJ³e kegÀCee®es uegìt vekeÀe~~ ieesjiejeryee íUt vekeÀe ~ efHeb[ HegÀkeÀe®es efieUt vekeÀe ~ iegCeerpeveebJej peUt vekeÀe ~“ ceveesnj FbieUs mebHeeokeÀ `efJeMJemle`

Some of us think, more of us think we think, and most of us don’t even think of thinking.

9

Je<e& 1 ues ♥ DebkeÀ 5 ♥ veesJnWyej 2008

o#elee pevepeeie=leer ceneje<ì^ uee®eueg®eHele He´elf eyebOekeÀ efJeYeeiee®³ee keÀe³e&HeOoleerö uee®eueg®eHele He´efleyebOekeÀ keÀe³eoe meve 1988 ®³ee J³eeK³esvegmeej uee®eueg®eHele He´efleyebOekeÀ efJeYeeie, MeemekeÀer³e keÀce&®eejer / ueeskeÀmesJekeÀ ³eeb®esefJeªOo Ye´<ìe®eeje®³ee leke´ÀejeRceO³es ®eewkeÀMeer keÀjles. ³ee J³eeK³esvegmeej MeemekeÀer³e keÀce&®eeN³eebJ³eefleefjkeÌle, veiejHeefj<eo, ie´eceHeb®ee³ele, ceneveiejHeeefuekesÀceO³es efveJe[tve Deeuesues ueeskeÀHe´elf eefveOeer DeeefCe keÀce&®eejer ³eeb®ee osKeerue meceeJesMe neslees. ³ee keÀe³eÐeeceO³es efouesu³ee J³eeK³esvegmeej uee®eueg®eHele He´efleyebOekeÀ efJeYeeie, Deeuesu³ee leke´ÀejeR®eer DeeefCe MeemekeÀer³e keÀce&®eeN³eebeJf eªOo Ye´<ìe®eejeyeeyele efceUefJeuesu³ee ceeefnleer®eer ®eewkeÀMeer keÀjles. keWÀê Meemevee®³ee DeKel³eeefjleerue keÀce&®eeN³eebmebyebOeer Ye´<ìe®eeje®³ee leke´ÀejeR®eer oKeue meer.yeer.Dee³e.®³ee uee®eueg®eHele He´efleyebOekeÀ efJeYeeieekeÀ[tve Iesleueer peeles. meoj keÀe³ee&ue³ee®ee Hellee Je ogjOJeveer ke´ÀceebkeÀ Keeueerue He´ceeCes Deens. meWì^ue y³egjes Dee@HeÀ FbvJnsefmìiesMeve, ìvvee neTme, veeLeeueeue HeejsKe ceeie&, cegbyeF&. og j OJeveer ö 22021490, 22842816 He@ÀkeÌmeö22040405, 22842816 uee®eueg®eHele He´efleyebOekeÀ keÀe³eÐeevegmeej uee®eueg®eHele He´efleyebOekeÀ efJeYeeie leerve He´keÀej®³ee kesÀmesmeceO³es ®eewkeÀMeer keÀjles.

1) meeHeUs (ì^@He), 2) DeJewOe ceeiee&ves efceUefJeuesu³ee mebHelleer®eer ®eewkeÀMeer (DeHemebHeoe), 3)DeefOekeÀeje®ee ogªHe³eesie keÀªve Meemevee®es DeeefLe&keÀ vegkeÀmeeve DeeefCe Jew³eefkeÌlekeÀ HeÀe³eoe.

1) meeHeUs (ì^@He)ë ³eeceO³es efHeÀ³ee&oerves peeleerves npej nesTve uee®e ceeieCeeN³eebeJf eªOo efkebÀJee IesCeeN³eebeJf eªOo

efkebÀJee keÀce&®eeN³eebefJeªOo He´eLeefcekeÀ Keyej oeKeue keÀjeJeer ueeieles. uee®eueg®eHele He´efleyebOekeÀ efJeYeeieekeÀ[tve l³eeb®eer MeneefveMee keÀªve DeMee uee®e IesCeeN³ee MeemekeÀer³e DeefOekeÀeN³eebefJeªOo meeHeUe ueeJeuee peelees.

2) DeJewOe ceeiee&ves efceUefJeuesueer mebHelleer (DeHemebHeoe)ë veeieefjkeÀebveer MeemekeÀer³e keÀce&®eeN³eebyeeyele efouesu³ee ceeefnleer®³ee DeeOeejs ®eewkeÀMeer keÀjC³eele ³esles. DeMee keÀce&®eeN³eeb®es GlHevve, Ke®e&, ceeuecellee, iegbleJeCetkeÀ F. iees<ìer efJe®eejele IesJetve keÀejJeeF& keÀjC³eele ³esles.

Hejbleg ³eemeeþer Kee$eeruee³ekeÀ DeeefCe MeneefveMee keÀjC³eepeesieer ceeefnleer DemeCes peªjer®es Deens.

3) DeefOekeÀeje®ee ogªHe³eesie ë DeMee He´keÀejeceO³es MeemekeÀer³e keÀce&®eejer efkebÀJee DeefOekeÀejer DeeHeu³ee DeefOekeÀeje®ee iewjJeeHej keÀªve Meemevee®es DeeefLe&keÀ vegkeÀmeeve keÀjlees DeeefCe efkebÀJee mJeleë®ee DeeefLe&keÀ HeÀe³eoe keÀªve Ieslees. ³eeyeeyeleerle ®eewkeÀMeer keÀªve keÀe³eÐeevegmeej DeMee keÀce&®eeN³eebefJeªOo keÀejJeeF& keÀjC³eele ³esles. mHe<ìerkeÀjCeë MeemekeÀer³e owvebefove keÀecekeÀepeeleerue $e=ìer efkebÀJee efkeÀjkeÀesU efve³eceeb®eer Hee³eceuueer ³eemeejK³ee Ieìvee uee®eueg®eHele He´efleyebOekeÀ Keel³ee®³ee DeKel³eeefjle ³esle veenerle. ³eeyeeyele mebyebOeerle Keeles He´cegKeekeÀ[tve ®eewkeÀMeer keÀjC³eele ³esles. ³eemeeþer DeMee mJeªHee®³ee leke´Àejer mebyebOeerle Keeles He´cegKeekeÀ[s keÀjeJ³eele. Hejbleg DeefOekeÀeje®ee iewjJeeHej keÀªve Meemevee®es DeeefLe&keÀ vegkeÀmeeve Peeues DeMeer leke´Àej kesÀue³eeme mebyebOeerle Keel³eekeÀ[tve He´eLeefcekeÀ ®eewkeÀMeer nesCes iejpes®es Demeles. keÀejCe mebyebOeerle Keel³eeleerue efve³eceeJeueer, keÀe³e&HeOoleer, meg®eveeb®eer DebceueyepeeJeCeer F. iees<ìer efJe®eejele IesTve leke´ÀejeR®eer MeneefveMee keÀªve efve<keÀ<e& keÀe{eJee ueeielees. ³ee ®eewkeÀMeerceO³es Jejerue iees<ìeR®es GuuebIeve Peeuesues Dee{Uu³eeme DeeefCe Meemevee®es

The possibility that we may fail in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just.

10

Je<e& 1 ues ♥ DebkeÀ 5 ♥ veesJnWyej 2008

Peeuesues vegkeÀmeeve He´eLeefcekeÀ mJeªHeele efveoMe&veeme Deeu³eeme l³eeb®eer ®eewkeÀMeer uee®eueg®eHele He´elf eyebOekeÀ efJeYeeieekeÀ[s meesHeefJeueer peeles. Ye´<ìe®eeje®³ee ¢<ìer keÀesveeletve uee®eueg®eHele He´efleyebOekeÀ efJeYeeieeceeHe&Àle Heg{erue ®eewkeÀMeer kesÀueer peeles DeeefCe uee®eueg®eHele He´efleyebOekeÀ keÀe³eÐeeHe´ceeCes keÀejJeeF& kesÀueer peeles.

SkebÀoj Peeuesu³ee ®eewkeÀMeeryeeyele leke´Àejoej pej meceeOeeveer vemesue lej ner leke´Àej Keeueerue Hell³eeJej ceneje<ì^e®es ueeskeÀ Dee³egkeÌle ³eeb®³ee vepejsle DeeCelee ³esles. ueeskeÀ Dee³egkeÌle keÀe³ee&ue³e, veJeerve He´MeemekeÀer³e Fceejle, Heefnuee cepeuee, ceeoece keÀecee jes[, ceb$eeue³eemeceesj, cegbyeF&ö400 032 uee®eueg®eHele He´efleyebOekeÀ efJeYeeiee®³ee cegK³eeue³ee®ee Helleeë- cenemeb®eeuekeÀ, uee®eueg®eHele He´elf eyebOekeÀ efJeYeeie, ceOeg Fb[efmì^³eue Fmìsì, Heefnuee cepeuee, Heeb[gjbie yegOekeÀj ceeie&, ueesDej Hejsue, cegbyeF&ö400 013. ogjOJeveer ke´ÀceebkeÀë 24974721, 24922618 uee®eueg®eHele He´efleyebOekeÀ efJeYeeiee®³ee efve³eb$eCe keÀ#ee®ee ogjOJeveer ke´ÀceebkeÀ 24921212 Demetve ne je$ebefoJeme keÀe³e&jle Demelees. veesJnWyej 2008 ceO³es Ye´<ìe®eej efvecet&ueve peeieªkeÀlee meHleen ceneje<ì^Yej HeeUC³eele ³esle Deens. ³ee keÀeUele efvejefvejeȳee GÐeesieOebÐeele, keÀejKeev³eebceO³es efkebÀJee Keepeieer J³eJemee³eebceO³es Debleie&le o#elee meefcel³ee mLeeHeve keÀjC³ee®eer met®evee uee®eueg®eHele He´efleyebOekeÀ efJeYeeieeves efouesu³ee Deensle. l³ee®eHe´ceeCes JesieJesieȳee J³eJemee³eeleerue meefceleer®³ee HeoeefOekeÀeN³eebvee met®evee keÀjC³eele Deeu³ee. efJeMes<e yewþkeÀ yeesueeJetve ner yeeye HesÀ[jsMeve Dee@HeÀ DemeesefmeSMeve Dee@HeÀ ceneje<ì^, Fbef[³eve ce®e&Cìmed ®eWyej, Deiveer ³ee meejK³ee mJe³ebmesJeer mebmLee, p³es<þ veeieefjkeÀeb®ee ieì, ie´enkeÀeb®eer megj#ee DeeefCe Deejesi³e mebmLee, ceesnuuee meefceleer F. ceO³es ®e®ee& keÀªve Debleie&le o#elee meefcel³ee mLeeHeve keÀjC³eeJej Yej osC³eele Deeuee.

DeMee meefcel³eebceO³es mebyebOeerle J³eJemee³eeleerue peeCekeÀej ceb[UeRvee

meYeemeo nesC³ee®es Je He[u³eeme keÀe³eosMeerj meuueeieejeb®eer vesceCetkeÀner keÀjC³ee®es DeeJneve keÀjC³eele Deeues. DeMee Debleie&le mebmLee®eer keÀe³e&He´Ceeueer Keeueerue He´ceeCes Demesue.

De) DeeHeu³ee J³eJemee³eeleerue meYeemeoebvee HeeJeueesHeeJeueer iejpe He[CeeN³ee keÀe³eÐeeb®eer efve³eceeJeueeR®eer DeeefCe MeemekeÀer³e keÀecekeÀepee®³ee HeOoleeR®eer ceeefnleer keÀªve osCes, pesCeskeÀªve Ye´<ìe®eejer DeefOekeÀeN³eebkeÀ[tve DeMee J³eeJemeeef³ekeÀeb®es Mees<eCe nesCeej veener. ye) ner meefceleer mebyebOeerle Keel³ee®³ee Jeefj<þ DeefOekeÀeN³eeb®³ee melele mebHekeÀe&le jentve JesieJesieȳee keÀe³eÐeeb®eer DeeefCe efve³eceeb®eer ceeefnleer IesJetve meYeemeoebHe³e¥le Heesn®eJesue. keÀ) DeMeer meefceleer jeKeCeoej cnCetve keÀece Heenleebvee Ye´<ìe®eejeme He´efleyebOe keÀªve Ye´<ìe®eej ®eJneìîeeJej DeeCesue. [) DeMee meefceleer®es meYeemeo JesUesJeUer ceO³emleer keÀªve Ye´<ìe®eeje®³ee leke´Àejer mebyebOeerle Keel³ee®³ee Jeefj<þ DeefOekeÀeN³eebHe³e¥le Heesn®eJeleerue.

F) DeMee meefcel³ee uee®es®³ee ceeieCeeryeeyele Ye´<ìe®eejer DeefOekeÀeN³eebyeeyele®eer ceeefnleer DeeefCe l³eebveer DeJewOe ceeiee&ves peceefJeuesu³ee mebHelleeryeeyele®eer ceeefnleer uee®eueg®eHele He´efleyebOekeÀ efJeYeeieekeÀ[s keÀUefJeleerue.

Ye´<ìe®eej jesKeC³eemeeþer DeeHeCe keÀe³e keÀª MekeÀlees.

De) pevelee Deiej meceepe keÀe³e keÀª MekeÀlees. ö ö ö ö ö ö

Ye´<ìe®eejeefJeªOo ceveeves le³eej JneJes ueeiesue.

Ye´<ì ueeskeÀebefJeªOo leke´Àejer keÀjCes (veeJeer/efveveeJeer) Ye´<ìe®eejeefJeªOo pevecele / He´yeesOeve keÀjCes. ueeskeÀeb®eer ceveeleerue efYeleer IeeueefJeCes. keÀejYeej HeejoMeea þsJeC³ee®ee Deeie´n OejCes. uee®e osCes Je IesCes iegvne Deens ns mecepeeJeCes,peeCeerJe keÀªve osTve HeefjCeecener meebieeJesle. ö uee®eueg®eHele He´efleyebOekeÀ Keel³ee®eer lemes®e Dev³e keÀe³ee&ue³eeb®eer keÀe³e&He´Ceeueer mecepetve IesTve l³ee®ee DeeOeej IesCes. ö DeeHeCener Ye´<ìe®eejeuee KeleHeeCeer ve IeeueCes. ö Ye´<ìe®eejecegUs osMee®eer He´ieleer Kegbìles, keÀeUe Hewmee Jee{lees,

Crown of home is Godliness. Beauti of home is orderlines. Blessings of home is contentment.

11

Je<e& 1 ues ♥ DebkeÀ 5 ♥ veesJnWyej 2008

HewMee®eer GIe[îee J³eJenejeleerue ieleer keÀceer nesles. osMeeHeg{erue Deeefj<ìîes Je mebkeÀìs Jee{leele. ö keÀe³eÐee®es GuuebIeveeer He´Je=lleer ìeUeJeer.

ueeskeÀmesJekeÀ Je ueeskeÀHe´efleefveOeer keÀe³e keÀª MekeÀleeleö 1) Ye´<ìe®eejer He´Je=lleer®eer ceeveefmekeÀlee IeeueefJeCes DeeJeM³ekeÀ Deens.

2) uee®eueg®eHele He´efleyebOekeÀ keÀe³eÐee®es keÀejJeeF&®ee HeefjCeece mecepeeJeCes l³eele He´ecegK³eeves De) iegvne oeKeue neslees, efveuebyevee®eer keÀejJeeF& nesles. ye) meceepeele vee®ekeÌkeÀer nesles Je pevecele JeeF&ì nesles. keÀ) DeeHeueer meeceeefpekeÀ He´eflecee [eieeUles. [) kegÀìgbyeeJej DeeefLe&keÀ Deeefj<ìîe ³esles.

F) uee®e IesCes ne iegvne Deens.

3) DeeHeCe DeeHeuee keÀejYeej HeejoMeea þsJeCes DeeJeM³ekeÀ Deens.

4) DeeefLe&keÀ He´ieleer®ee O³eeme DemeeJee, Hejbleg ³eele nJ³eemeer Je=lleer DeJewOe ceeiee&ves DeLee&peve vekeÀes ns peeCeues Heeefnpes.

5) DeeHeCe DeeHeuee ceeefmekeÀ Heieej Iesleevee pevelesleerue He´l³eskeÀ J³ekeÌleer®es Ieeceeletve l³eeleerue He´l³eskeÀ ªHe³ee Je ve³ee Hewmee le³eej Peeuee Deens. ³ee®eer peeCeerJe þsJetve efkeÀceeve keÀenermee lejer pevemesJes®ee ¢<ìerkeÀesve DemeeJee. 6) DeeHeCeeme peer Keg®eea Meemeveeves efoueer leer meceepe mesJesmeeþer GHe³eesieele DeeCet MekeÀlees. ³ee meceepee®es DeeHeCe osCeskeÀjer Je $e+Ceer Deenesle ns meeceeefpekeÀ Gllejoe³eerlJe ue#eele IesCes iejpes®es Deens. veeskeÀjer ner Heieej osJetve pevemesJes®eer efceUeuesueer mebOeer Deens.

DeeHeCeebme De@vìer keÀjHMeve y³egjes leLee uee®egueg®eHele He´efleyebOekeÀ Keel³ee®eer keÀe³e&He´Ceeueer meebielees Deens. He´ecegK³eeves MeemekeÀer³e veeskeÀj leLee ueeskeÀmesJekeÀ Je ueeskeÀ He´efleefveOeer efkebÀJee MeemekeÀer³e HewMee®es efJeefvece³ee®ee DeefOekeÀej Demeuesues meJe& #es$eeleerue efJeMJemle ³eeb®eskeÀ[tve nesT MekeÀCeej efkebÀJee nesCeeje Ye´<ìe®eej ³eeHegjleer ceeefnleer efmeefcele þsJeueer Deens.

Ye´<ìe®eejeefJeªOo leke´Àejerme keÀe³eosMeerj DeefOekeÀej keÀe³e?

Yeejleer³e ob[ efJeOeeve mebenf lesle Je uee®eueg®eHele He´elf eyebOekeÀ keÀe³eÐeeleerue lejletoervegmeej DeeHeCe ueeskeÀmesJekeÀ Je ueeskeÀ He´elf eefveOeer, efJeMJemle ³eeb®es efJeªOo efjlemej leke´Àej keÀª MekeÀlee ns iegvns oKeueHee$e Deensle. ueeskeÀmesJekeÀ Je ueeskeÀHe´efleefveOeer cnCepes keÀe³e? meJe& MeemekeÀer³e veeskeÀj, efveceMeemekeÀer³e mesJeebleerue veeskeÀjoej, MeemekeÀer³e kebÀHev³eeleerue veeskeÀjJeie&, ueeskeÀHe´efleefveOeer ³eele ceb$eer, Deeceoej, Keemeoej, veiejmesJekeÀ, efpeuneO³e#e, veiejeO³e#e, mejHeb®e, Heesueerme Heeìerue Je MeemeveekeÀ[tve Heieej, ceeveOeve IesCeejs ns ueeskeÀmesJekeÀ Je ueeskeÀHe´efleefveOeer, MeemekeÀer³e Devegoeveerle mebmLee, efJeMJemle ceb[U, þjleele Je l³eeb®esefJeªOo DeeHeCe Des.meer.yeer.keÀ[s leke´Àej keÀª MekeÀlee. ³eele ueeskeÀmesJekeÀeJej He´YeeJe Hee[tve keÀeces keÀªve osCeejs Je DeMee iegv¿eele ceole keÀjCeejs ns ueeskeÀmesJekeÀ vemeues lejer l³eeb®es efJeªOoner leke´Àej Iesleu³ee peeleele. MeemekeÀer³e ceole leLee Devegoeveerle MeeUeleerue MeemeveekeÀ[tve Heieej IesCeejs DeefOekeÀejer keÀce&®eejer ns ner ueeskeÀmesJekeÀe®es J³eeK³esle ³esleele.

Ye´<ìe®eeje®es yeeyeleerle leke´Àej keÀesCeekeÀ[s keÀª MekeÀlee?

1. mebyebOeerle Keel³ee®es He´cegKe Je l³ee l³ee Keel³ee®es o#elee HeLekeÀekeÀ[s.

2. cee. cenemeb®eeuekeÀ, De@vìer keÀjHMeve y³egjes, ceneje<ì^ jep³e, cegbyeF&.

3. De@vìer keÀjHMeve y³egjes, ®es efpeune keÀe³ee&ue³e 4. meer.yeer.Dee³e. ³eele keWÀê Meemevee®es DeKel³eeefjleerue MeemekeÀer³e veeskeÀjoej ³eeb®es efJeªOo leke´Àej meer.yeer.Dee³e.keÀ[s kesÀueer peeles.

6. ueeskeÀe³egkeÌle.

7. Ye´<ìe®eejeefJeªOo ue{CeeN³ee mebIeìvee Je mebmLee ³eeb®eskeÀ[s peeJetve l³eeb®eer ceole Ieslee ³esF&ue.

While the right to talk may be the beginning of freedom, the necessary of listining is what makes that right important.

12

Je<e& 1 ues ♥ DebkeÀ 5 ♥ veesJnWyej 2008

uee®e ceeefieleu³ee®eer leke´Àej kegÀþs Je keÀMeer keÀjlee ³esF&ue?

1. DeeHeu³eekeÀ[s keÀesCeer MeemekeÀer³e veeskeÀjeves ueeskeÀHe´efleefveOeerves uee®e ceeefieleueer lej l³eeb®es efJeªOo uee®e osC³eeHegJeea DeeHeCe De@vìer keÀjHMeve y³egjes®es mebyebOeerle keÀe³ee&ue³eele leke´Àej keÀjeJeer ner leke´Àej uesKeer mJeªHeele Iesleueer peeles. DeMee leke´Àejer kesÀJeU ogjOJeveer Jeªve keÀUJetve efkebÀJee Depee&ves ve keÀjlee mece#e keÀjeJeer.

2. DeHemebHeosyeeyele leke´Àej ëö keÀesCeer MeemekeÀer³e veeskeÀj ueeskeÀHe´efleefveOeer ³eeves l³eeb®es keÀe³eosMeerj ceeiee&ves efceUeuesu³ee GlHevveeHes # ee Deef O ekeÀ mLeeJej Je peb i ece ceeuecellee le³eej kesÀu³ee®eer ceeefnleer DeeHeu³eekeÀ[s Demesue lej l³ee yeeyele®es Jemlegefve<þ ceeefnleer®eer uesKeer veeJes Deiej efveveeJeer leke´Àej ner DeeHeCe keÀª MekeÀlee.

3. SKeeÐee J³eJenejele MeemekeÀer ³ e vees k eÀj/uees k eÀmes J ekeÀ ueeskeÀHe´efleefveOeer/efJeMJemle ³eebveer Meemevee®ee Hewmee iewj ceeiee&ves Ke®eea Ieeleuee Deiej yeveeJeì J³eJenej keÀªve MeemekeÀer³e Hewmee mJeleë®es mJeeLee&meeþer keÀe{tve Iesleuee lej l³eeyeeyelener leke´Àej keÀª MekeÀlee.

4. Keepeieer #es$es Je Keepeieer J³ekeÌleer ³eeb®esefJeªOo Keepeieerleerue J³eJenejeleer u e Ye´ < ìe®eejeyeeyele leke´ À ej keÀjlee ³es l e veener.

De@vìer keÀjHMeve y³egjes®eer keÀe³e&He´Ceeueerëö 1. He´l³e#e uee®e ceeefieleu³ee®eer leke´Àej Deeueer lej l³eeb®eer uesKeer leke´Àej IesJetve l³eeHe´ceeCes mebyebOeerle ueeskeÀmesJekeÀ ueeskeÀHe´efleefveOeer efJeªOo meeHeUe DeepeceeJeCes. 2. Depe& Je efveveeJeer leke´Àejer DeeOeejs mebyebOeerle ueeskeÀmesJekeÀ ueeskeÀHe´efleefveOeer ³eeb®es ceeuecelles®eer iegHle Deiej GIee[ ®eew k eÀMeer keÀjCes . ®eew k eÀMeer l e meb y eb O eer l e uees k eÀmes J ekeÀ ueeskeÀHe´efleefveOeer ³eebveer l³eeb®es efjlemej GlHevveeHes#ee DeefOekeÀ ceeuecellee le³eej kesÀu³ee®es efve<Hevve Peeues lej l³eeb®es ef J eªOo Je l³eele l³eeb ® eer Helveer Je Dev³e keÀes C eer Keepeieer Fmece menYeeieer Demesue lej l³eeb®esner efJeªOo ieg v ne oeKeue keÀjCes Je leHeeme keÀªve keÀes ì e& l e

Keìuee HeeþefJeCes. 3. meeJe&peefvekeÀ yeebOekeÀece efJeYeeie lemes®e MeemekeÀer³e Kejsoer, ef J eke´ À er ³eele Ye´ < ìe®eej Peeuee lej l³eelener Jejer u e He´ceeCes ®eewkeÀMeer keÀªve iegvne oeKeue neslees.

4. iegHle ®eewkeÀMeer ³eemeeþer DeeJeM³ekeÀ Demeles keÀer, keÀener JesUe Kees[meeU leke´Àejerner nesleele. DeMee JesUer l³ee ueeskeÀmesJekeÀe®es owvebefove keÀle&J³eele keÀesCeleener ceeveefmekeÀ oyeeJe le³eej nes J et ve³es ef k eb À Jee l³eeves Kejes K ej®e Ye´<ìe®eej kesÀuee Demesue lej l³eeves l³ee ceeuecelles®eer Deiej HewMeeb®eer efJeunsJeeì ueeJeC³eeHegJeea®e ®eewkeÀMeerle ceeefnleer ieesUe keÀªve leelkeÀeU keÀejJeeF& keÀjCes.

uee®es®³ee meeHeȳee®eer leke´Àej osleebvee I³eeJe³ee®eer o#eleeëö 1) HetCe& ieesHeefve³elee HeeUeJeer.

2) uee®es®eer jkeÌkeÀce meesyele DeeCeCes. Meemeve DeeHeCeebme mebyebOeerle jkeÌkeÀce Hejle osles.

Dev³e cenlJee®es cegÎs ëö De@vìer keÀjHMeve y³egjeskeÀ[erue keÀejJeeF&le ueeskeÀmesJekeÀ/ ueeskeÀHe´efleefveOeer ³eeb®es efJeªOo®es leke´Àejerle l³eele Keepeieer Fmecee®es,l³eeb®es Helveer, cegues, veeleueie ³eeb®es mene³³e Je mebievecele mHe<ì Peeues lej lesner iegvnsieej þjleele. uee®e Keepeieer Fmeceeves ueeskeÀmesJekeÀ Deiej ueeskeÀHe´efleefveOeer keÀjerlee Iesleueer efkebÀJee He´YeeJe oeKeJetve Iesleueer lej lees ner DeejesHeer neslees. ³eele Deecner iegHlelee HeeUlees. leke´Àej osleebvee DeeHeCener iegHlelee HeeUe. Deecner iegHlelee HeeUC³eele ®egkeÀuees efkebÀJee keÀceer He[uees lej DeeHeCe Deece®es Jeefj<þebkeÀ[s leke´Àej keÀª MekeÀlee. leke´Àejer kesÀJeU iewjmecepeeJej DeeOeejerle vemeeJ³eele. leke´Àej kesÀJeU uee®es®³ee jkeÌkeÀcesyeeyele®e nesles Demes veener. keÀener Jemlet ceeieCes, SKeeos efyeue YejeJe³eeme ueeJeCes, veeskeÀjerme ueeJeCes DeMee He´keÀejelener leke´Àej nesles. meewpev³eë cee. Hees}erme GHee³egkeÌle De@vìer keÀjHµeve y³egjes, þeCes

When there is a conflict between human rights and property rights, human rights must prevail.

13

Je<e& 1 ues ♥ DebkeÀ 5 ♥ veesJnWyej 2008

DebMeoeveemebyebOeer Lees[smes 1950 ®es cegbyeF& meeJe&peefvekeÀ v³eeme DeefOeefve³eceele veceto kesÀuesHe´ceeCes Oecee&oe³e Dee³egkeÌle, Flej DeefOekeÀejer Je veeskeÀjJeie& ³eeb®eer vesceCetkeÀ kesÀu³eeJej Jesleve, Yelles Jeiewjs Ke®e& DeeefCe Flej Deeveg<ebeif ekeÀ Ke®ee&meeþer meeJe&peefvekeÀ v³eeme He´Meemeve efveOeer®eer efveefce&leer kesÀueer Deens. DeefOeefve³eceevegmeej veeWoCeer HeÀer Je Flej GlHevveeKesjerpe DebMeoevee®eer jkeÌkeÀce ceesþîee He´ceeCeeJej Oecee&oe³e Dee³egkeÌle ³eeb®es meJe& keÀe³ee&ue³eele pecee nesle Demeles. ojJe<eea v³eemee®es þeskeÀ Jeeef<e&keÀ GlHevveeJej 2 ìkeÌkesÀ FlekeÀer jkeÌkeÀce He´l³eskeÀ v³eemeeves DebMeoevee®es ªHeeves YejeJe³ee®eer Demeles.

DeefOeefve³eceele peer lejleto Deens l³eeHe´ceeCes þeskeÀ Jeeef<e&keÀ GlHevve DebMeoeve DeekeÀejCeermeeþer OejeJes Demes pejer veceto Demeles lejer He´l³e#eele keÀener peceeKe®ee&®³ee yeeyeeRmeeþer peer JepeeJeì efceUles l³eeJej DebMeoeve DeekeÀejCeer keÀjC³eele ³esles Je l³eeme efveJJeU GlHevve cnCelee ³esF&ue. meO³ee®³ee MeemekeÀer³e DeeosMeeHe´ceeCes efveJJeU Jeeef<e&keÀ GlHevvee®³ee 2 … FlekeÀer jkeÌkeÀce DebMeoeve cnCetve YejeJeer ueeieles. jep³eele efvejefvejeȳee efþkeÀeCeer meeJe&peefvekeÀ v³eeme veeWoCeer keÀe³ee&ue³es Deensle. lesLes uesKeeefJeJejCe He$ekeÀemeesyele DebMeoevee®eer jkeÌkeÀce Yejlee ³esles. keÀener v³eemeebvee DebMeoeve YejC³eeHeemetve HetCe&le³ee metì osC³ee®es DeefOekeÀej Meemeveeme Deensle. l³eevegmeej Meemeveeves JesUesJeUer efveOeceea efMe#eCe, JewÐekeÀer³e ceole (peveeJejebmeeþer keÀjC³eele ³esCeejer JewÐekeÀer³e ceole Oeªve) Je vewmeefie&keÀ DeeHel³eebcegUs ie´mle Peeuesu³eebmeeþer ceole keÀe³e& DeMee GÎsMeemeeþer Demeuesu³ee v³eemeebvee DebMeoeveeletve HetCe&HeCes metì efoueer Deens. cee$e p³ee v³eemeeb®es DeveskeÀ GÎsMe Deensle (p³eebvee efceÞe GÎsMee®es v³eeme Demes cnCelee ³esF&ue) l³eebvee keÀe³eÐeele HetCe&le³ee metì efoueer veener. DeMee v³eemeeb®es GÎsMeele Jej Heefj®íso 3 ceO³es veceto kesÀuesues GÎsMe pej Demeleerue lej mebyebeOf ele Je<ee&®es GlHevveeletve l³eeJej kesÀuesu³ee Ke®ee&®es jkeÀcesFlekeÀer JepeeJeì efceUles. þeskeÀ Jeeef<e&keÀ GlHevveeletve p³ee keÀener peces®³ee efkebÀJee Ke®ee&®³ee jkeÀceebmeeþer

JepeeJeì efceUles. l³eemebyebOeer meJe& ceeefnleer 1951 ®es cegbyeF& meeJe&peefvekeÀ v³eeme efve³eceeleerue efve³ece 32(3) ceO³es veceto kesÀueer Deens Je l³eemeeþer DebMeoeveeme Hee$e Demeuesu³ee efveJJeU GlHevveemebyebOeer efJeefnle vecetvee HeefjefMe<ì 9 keÀ ³ee He$ekeÀele ceeieCeer keÀªve JepeeJeì oeKeJelee ³esles. efceÞe GÎsMe Demeuesu³ee DeMee v³eemeebvee keÀe³eÐeele pejer metì efoueer vemeueer lejer, Meemeveeme keÀener Keeme DeefOekeÀej efoues Deensle, l³eeHe´ceeCes DeuHe Jeeef<e&keÀ GlHevve Demeuesu³ee v³eemeebvee DeLeJee GÎsMeeb®es mJeªHe efnMesyeele IesTve keÀener v³eemeebvee DebMeoeveeHeemetve metì osC³ee®es DeefOekeÀej Meemeveeme efoues Deensle. meoj DeefOekeÀejevegmeej meO³ee efveJJeU Jeeef<e&keÀ GlHevveª. 25,000/- Demeu³eeme DeMee v³eemeebvee DebMeoeve os C ³eeHeemet v e ceg k eÌ l e kes À ues Deens . meoj Deef O emet ® evee efo. 1-4-1984 Heemetve Debceueele Deens. keÀe³eÐee®³ee keÀuece 58 Devegmeej DebMeoeve DeekeÀejCeer keÀjC³eemeeþer þeskeÀ Jeeef<e&keÀ GlHevve cnCepes Jej veceto kesÀuesu³ee JepeeJeìer®³ee jkeÀcee Jepee keÀªve Gjuesueer efveJJeU GlHevvee®eer jkeÌkeÀce OejeJeer. DeMeer efveJJeU GlHevvee®eer jkeÌkeÀce pej ª. 25,000/- Hes#ee DeefOekeÀ Demesue lej leer DebMeoeveeme Hee$e Deens.

DeeCeKeer SkeÀ cenlJee®eer iees<ì efJeMJemleebveer ue#eele þsJeC³eemeejKeer veceto keÀjCes peªjer®es Deens. efJeMJemle efveOeer efkebÀJee ì^mì keÀe@He&me ne efveOeer pees Yeeb[Jeueer mJeªHee®ee Demelees l³ee®eer jkeÌkeÀce ìeUsyeboele (HeefjefMe<þ 8) oMe&Jeleele (p³eele efceUkeÀleer Je peyeeyeoeN³ee oeKeJeu³ee peeleele) Je l³ee efveOeerle Jee{ JneJeer cnCetve pej Yeeb[Jeueer mJeªHee®³ee osCei³ee pecee keÀjC³ee®es pej þjJeues lej, SkeÀ efJeMes<e keÀeUpeer I³eeJeer ueeieles. efJeMJemle efveOeerle osCeieer pecee keÀjeJeer DeMeer efJeefMe<ì met®evee osCeieeroeje®es menerves oHeÌlejer þsJeCes DeeJeM³ekeÀ Deens. v³eemee®es þeskeÀ Jeeef<e&keÀ GlHevvee®ee Yeeie cnCetve meoj osCeieer®ee meceeJesMe nesT ve³es Demes mHe<ìHeCes uesKee Hejer#ekeÀebvee oeKeJelee Deeues Heeefnpes. ne SkeÀ HegjeJ³ee®ee

A smile acts upon difficulties as the sun upon the clouds - it disperses them.

14

Je<e& 1 ues ♥ DebkeÀ 5 ♥ veesJnWyej 2008

Yeeie Deens Je l³eemebyebOeer leHeemeCeer Oecee&oe³e GHeDee³egkeÌle efkebÀJee mene³³ekeÀ Oecee&oe³e Dee³egkeÌle ³eeb®eskeÀ[tve ner nesT MekeÀles. ceeP³ee HeeneC³eele Demes Deeues keÀer, efJeMJemle efveOeer He´elr ³eLe& osCeieer pecee keÀjC³eemeeþer mJeleb$e HeeJeleer HegmlekeÀe®ee JeeHej kesÀuee peelees Je HeeJeleer®ee DeekeÀej ceesþe þsTve ceeieerue yeepetme ’meoj osCeieer®eer jkeÌkeÀce efJeMJemle efveOeer He´erl³eLe& osC³eele Deeueer Deens“ DeMee DeeMe³ee®ee cepeketÀj íeHetve Iesleuee peelees Je l³eeJej osCeieeroeje®es veeJe, Hellee Je mener DeMeer veeWo kesÀueer peeles.

DebMeoevee®eer jkeÌkeÀce DeekeÀejCeer keÀjleebvee þeskeÀ Jeeef<e&keÀ GlHevve Je meoj osCeieer®ee meceeJesMe nesT ve³es ³eemeeþer ne KeìeìesHe keÀjeJee ueeielees.

DebMeoeveemeeþer Hee$e Demeuesu³ee jkeÀces®eer ceeefnleer HeefjefMe<ì 9 keÀ ®es vecegv³eeleerue He$ekeÀele ÐeeJeer ueeieles Je l³eemeeþer JepeeJeì efceUC³eemeeþer keÀener yeeyeeR®ee Kegueemee keÀjeJee ueeielees. Lees[ke̳eele meoj yeeyeer KeeueerueHe´ceeCes Deensle.

(1) efceÞe v³eemeeb®es GÎsMeeleerue DemeC³eeme efveOeceea efMe#eCeemeeþer kesÀuesuee He´l³e#e Ke®e&.

(2) efceÞe v³eemeeb®es GÎsMeeleerue JewÐekeÀer³e ceoleermeeþer kesÀuesuee He´l³e#e Ke®e&.

(3) efceÞe GÎsMe Demeuesu³ee v³eemeebveer iegjebmeeþer JewÐekeÀer³e ceole ³ee GÎsMeeJej kesÀuesuee He´l³e#e Ke®e&.

(4) Flej meeJe&peefvekeÀ v³eemeebkeÀ[tve efceUeuesu³ee osCei³ee.

(5) vewmeefie&keÀ DeeHelleercegUs ie´mle Peeuesu³eebvee ceole keÀe³e& keÀjC³eemeeþer efceUeuesu³ee osCei³eebletve kesÀuesuee He´l³e#e Ke®e&.

(6) Meemeve DeLeJee mLeeefvekeÀ mJejep³e mebmLeebkeÀ[tve efceUeuesu³ee osCei³ee.

(7) GlHevve (Yee[s efkebÀJee Flej) efceUle veener DeMee mLeeJej efceUkeÀleeRmeeþer Deboepes GlHevvee®³ee 10… FlekeÀe ogªmleer®ee Ke®e& (lejleto) (8) Fceejle efveOeer DeLeJee Iemeeje efveOeer®es iegbleJeCegkeÀerJejerue J³eepe.

(9) keÀpe&HesÀ[ermeeþer efvecee&Ce keÀjC³eele Deeuesu³ee efveOeer®es Sink-

ing Fund iebgleJeCegkeÀerJej J³eepe.

(10) MesleerHeemetve efceUCeeN³ee GlHevveeletveö (De) peceerve cenmetue Je mLeeefvekeÀ keÀj (ye) Yee[s Demeu³eeme (Yee[îeeves Iesleuesu³ee peefceveermeeþer (keÀ) GlHeeove Ke®e& (Jejerue yeeyeer ³ee GlHevvee®³ee ce³ee&osHe³e¥le®e JepeeJeì oeKeJelee ³esleerue) (11) efyeiejMesleer JeeHejemeeþer Demeuesu³ee mLeeJej efceUkeÀleer®es GlHevveeletveö (De) MeemekeÀer³e osCeer, mLeeefvekeÀ mJejep³e mebmLesmeos³e Demeuesues keÀj Je Flej DeekeÀej (ye) YegF&Yee[s (keÀ) efJecee nHlee ([) ogªmleermeeþer 10 … lejleto (F) Yee[s Jemetueermeeþer GlHevee®³ee 4… He³e¥leJemegueer Ke®ee&meeþer lejleto.

(Jejerue yeeyeer GlHevvee®es ce³ee&osHe³e¥le oeKeJelee ³esleerue) (12) iegbleJeCegkeÀerJejerue J³eepe Jemegueer keÀjC³eemeeþer ueeieCeeN³ee Ke®ee&®es 4… He³e¥le lejleto.

Jejerue leHeMeerueele pesLes lejleto ns Meyo JeeHejues Deensle lesLes He´l³e#e Ke®e& Peeuee Deens efkebÀJee keÀe³e ns HeeneC³ee®eer iejpe veener. l³ee jkeÀcee cnCepes JewOeeefvekeÀ JepeeJeìer Deensle.

Jej Heefj®íso 6 ceO³es veceto kesÀuesu³ee JepeeJeìer mebyebOeer SkeÀ iees<ì O³eeveele IesCes peªjer®es Deens. SkeÀeÐee pecee efkebÀJee Ke®ee&®es yeeyeermeeþer pej osCeieer DeLeJee Devegoeve jkeÌkeÀce pecee Peeuesueer Demesue lej oesvner yeeyeermeeþer JepeeJeì ceeielee ³esCeej veener.

SkeÀeÐee v³eemeekeÀ[tve pej J³eeHeejer mJeªHee®ee GHeke´Àce (Oeboe) ®eeueJeuee peele Demesue lej efveJJeU veHeÀe ne efveJJeU GlHevve mecepeues peeles Je l³eeJej DebMeoevee®eer DeekeÀejCeer keÀjeJeer ueeieles.

DebMeoeveeme Hee$e Demeuesues efveJJeU GlHevve oMe&efJeCeeN³ee

Success without a positive attitude is called Luck. Success with a positive attitude is called Achievement.

15

Je<e& 1 ues ♥ DebkeÀ 5 ♥ veesJnWyej 2008

HeefjefMe<þ 9 keÀ ³ee He$ekeÀeJej efJeMJemle Je uesKee Hejer#ekeÀ ³ee oesIeeb®eerner mener Demeles. l³eeJej DebMeoevee®eer jkeÌkeÀce YejCee kesÀu³eeJej pej Oecee&oe³e GHeDee³egkeÌle DeLeJee mene³ekeÀ Oecee&oekeÀ Dee³egkeÌle ³eebme pej MebkeÀe Demesue lej efJeMJemleebkeÀ[tve MebkeÀe efvejmeve keÀªve IesCes peªj Deens. HeCe leMeer lejleto efve³eceele veener. pej efJeMJemleebveer Yejuesueer jkeÌkeÀce ³eesi³e DebMeoeveeHes#ee keÀceer Deens Demes Jeeìle Demesue lej p³ee jkeÀcee JepeeJeìerle Oejlee ³esle veenerle Demes Jeeìle Demesue l³eeJej DebMeoevee®eer DeekeÀejCeer keÀªve ceeieCeer®eer veesìerme HeeþJeC³ee®ee DeefOekeÀej Oecee&oe³e GHeDee³egkeÌle Je mene³ekeÀ Oecee&oe³e Dee³egkeÌle ³eebme Deens. meoj ceeieCeer jemle veener Demes JeeìC³eeme efJeMJemleebveer DeeHeueer njkeÀle 30 efoJemeeb®es Deele HeeþJeeJeer. l³eeveblej megveeJeCeer nesTve efvekeÀeue efouee peeF&ue.

meyeU keÀejCe Demesue lej efJeuebye Peeu³eeJejner cegole Jee{ osC³ee®ee DeefOekeÀej Deensle. Oecee&oe³e GHeDee³egkeÌle DeLeJee mene³ekeÀ Oecee&oe³e Dee³egkeÌle ³eeb®ee efvekeÀeue pej Dev³ee³ekeÀejkeÀ Deens Demes Jeeìle Demesue lej, Oecee&oe³e Dee³egkeÌle (Jee Oecee&oe³e menDee³egkeÌle) ³eeb®eskeÀ[s 30 efoJemee®es Deele efjefJnpeve Depe& keÀjlee ³eslees.

Jej Heefj®íso 3 ceO³es veceto kesÀuesu³ee Jeiee&le (DebMeoeve ceeHeÀ kesÀuesues v³eeme DeLeJee osCei³ee) SkeÀeÐee v³eemee®ee meceeJesMe keÀjCes ³eesi³e Deens efkebÀJee keÀe³e Demee pej cegÐee GHeefmLele Peeuee lej jep³e Meemevee®ee efveCe&³e Debeflece Demesue. je.He´.jCeefoJes (efveJe=lle Oecee&oe³e GHee³egkeÌle)

efJeMJemle ceeefmekeÀe®³ee Jeie&Ceeroejeb®eer veeWoCeer keÀjC³eemeeþer ceneje<ì^eleerue He´l³eskeÀ efpeu¿eemeeþer efpeune He´efleefveOeer vesceCes Deensle. megefMeef#ele yesjespeieejebvee mJe³ebjespeieeje®eer mebOeer ³eeÜejs Deecner osle Deenesle. efJeMJemle ceeefmekeÀemeeþer DeeHeu³ee efpeu¿eeletve Jeie&Ceeroej veeWoefJeC³eemeeþer Glmeener Gcesoer cesnveleer, ®eebieuee pevemebHeke&À DemeCeeN³ee J³ekeÌleeRvee DeekeÀ<e&keÀ keÀefceMeve osC³eele ³esF&ue. ner mebOeer Je=lleHe$e efJelejkeÀebvee megOoe Deens. efJeÐeeLeea, v³ee³eeue³eerve, MeemekeÀer³e, efvece MeemekeÀer³e keÀce&®eeN³eebvee mebHekeÀe&leerue pevelesle `efJeMJemle` ceeefmekeÀ efJeleefjle keÀjlee ³esF&ue.

DeeHeuee yee³ees[sìe HeeþJetve DeeHeu³ee mebHetCe& ceeefnleer men Deece®³ee þeCes keÀe³ee&ue³eeMeer mebHeke&À meeOee. vesceCetkeÀer veblej DeesUKeHe$e Je ceeefmekeÀeletve DeeHeueer ceeefnleer HeÀesìesmen osC³eele ³esF&ue. jepe<eea í. Meent cenejepeeb®³ee

mebHeke&À meeOee - mebHeeokeÀ - cees. 9869342980 When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.

16

Je<e& 1 ues ♥ DebkeÀ 5 ♥ veesJnWyej 2008

}er}eJeleer Ye´<ìe®eej- 5 efJeµJemle®e efve}befyele ueer}eJeleer keÀerleea}e} cesnlee cesef[keÀ} ì^mì ¿ee cegbyeF&leu³ee peieYejeletve efJeK³eele Deme}su³ee ne@mHeerì}®³ee 5 ì^mìeRpevee Ye´<ìe®eejeefveefcelle memHeW[ keÀjCeeje efvekeÀe} meeJe&peefvekeÀ efJeµJemle J³eJemLee DeefOeefve³ece 1950®³ee meske̵eve 41 [er Kee}er ì^e³e} keÀesìe&keÀ[tve efo}e ies}e. ì^e³e} keÀesìe&®ee efvekeÀe} mebyebefOele Keìu³ee®ee µesJeìHe³e¥le l³ee®ee HeÀe³eve} efvekeÀe}eHetJeea menmee He´efmeOo kesÀ}e peele veener. Hejbleg meoj®ee ³ee meske̵eveKee}er} efvekeÀe} ne keÀe³eÐee®³ee DeeOeejeJej Glke=À<þHeCes DeeOeeefjle meJe& meeceev³e Jee®ekeÀebveer oKe} IesC³eepeesielee `ceemìj Heerme`Je ueB[ceeke&À Demes Demeu³eeves ³ee ye[îee efJeµJemle J³eJemLesleer} ye[îee (efJeµJemle) OeW[evee keÀmee leeW[eJej Hee[lees ¿ee®es He´l³e³ekeÀejer GoenjCe cnCeeJes }eies}. ³ee efvekeÀe} He$eele kesÀ}s}e keÀe³eÐee®ee GneHeesn Je efJeefJeOe meb%ee®es DeLe& efvekeÀe}e®³ee meboYee&le }er}³ee GOe=le keÀjerle cee. v³ee. osµecegKe ³eeb®³ee efveëHe#eHeeleerHeCee efJeÜles®es oµe&ve meJe&meeceev³e Jee®ekeÀebveener Ie[eJes ne ³ee mebHetCe& efvekeÀe}He$e®e ceeefmekeÀele meceeefJe<þ keÀjC³ee®ee GÎsµe Deece®³ee ceveeµeer Deens.ueerueeJeleer ì^m쮳ee keÀe³ece efJeMJemle Þeerceleer ®eeªyesve kesÀ. cesnlee ³eebveer meskeÌMeve 41 [er, yee@cyes HeefyuekeÀ ì^mì De@keÌì 1950 DevJe³es efJeMJemle He´yeesOe cesnlee ³eeb®³ee efJejesOeele Þeer cesnlee ³eebvee yesefupe³ece®³ee v³eeef³ekeÀ efpeune DebìJeHe& ®³ee Tribunal Court of first instance keÀ[tve l³ee®³ee efoveekebÀ 6-11-07 ®³ee efvekeÀeueHe$e®³ee 5686 DevJe³es DeìkeÀ nesJetve mene ceefnv³eeb®³ee kewÀos®eer efMe#ee He´Àe@[, HeÀespe&js er F. iegv¿eemebyebOeele cesnleeb®³ee Moral Turpitude ceO³es meceeJesMe Peeu³eeves l³eebvee efJeMJemle cnCetve DeHee$e ceeveues iesues. Þeerceleer ®eeªyesve ³eebveer HeÌuesecf eMe pepeceWì Je l³ee®³ee Fbeif ueMe Yee<eeblej He´elf eJej DeeOeeefjle DeeHeu³ee Depee&®ee Hee³ee DeeOeejuee. SKeeÐee J³ekeÌleer®es peieeleues kegÀþuesner ogje®eeje®es og<ke=Àl³e l³eeuee peieYejeletve l³ee®³ee

DeJeveleer®ee DeeOeej nesles. ns l³ee®es þUkeÀ GoenjCe Deens. keÀe³eÐee®³ee HekeÀ[erle meeHe[uesuee ceeCetme DeeHeu³eeJejerue DeejesHe HesÀìeUleevee Je ye®eeJeemeeþer DeveskeÀ KeN³ee Keesìîee keÌuegHl³eeb®³ee DeeOeej Ieslees HeCe DeKesj les ueìkesÀ®e þjles. ns efvekeÀeueeletve ue#eele ³eeJes. v³ee³eeue³eele keÀe³eÐeeleerue Meyoebvee efJeefMe<ì keÀe³eosMeerj DeLe& Demelees. meJeex®®e v³ee³eeue³eeves ceêeme®³ee Keìu³ee meboYee&le mesue Dee@HeÀ ieg[med ³ee ceêeme pevejue mesue ì@keÌme De@keÌ쮳ee meb%esuee mesue Dee@HeÀ ieg[med®ee keÀe³eÐeele DemeCeeje keÀe³eosMeerj DeLe&®e ueeJee³euee Heeefnpes. keÀe³eoe keÀjleevee®ee vescekeÀe, lebleesleble keÀe³eosceb[Ue®³ee GefÎ<ìebvee Oeªve Demeuesuee DeLe& efJe®eejele I³ee³euee nJee Demee efveCe&³e efouee Deens. lemes®e ogmeN³ee SkeÀe Keìu³eele Deved [er®eepe& Fvmee@uJeve ³ee®³ee DeLee&meboYee&le Fvmee@uJevì Meyoe®ee DeLe& meeceev³eHeCes efkebÀJee MeyokeÀesMeeleu³ee He´ceeCes mebyebeOf ele vemeu³ee®es meJeex®®e v³ee³eeue³eeves cnìues Deens. uee@ Dee@HeÀ Fvmee@uJevmeerKeeueer efJeMes<e keÀe³eosMeerj DeLe& ³esLes DeefYeHe´sle Deens. cee. G®®e v³ee³eeue³eele meoefjue efvekeÀeueeme DeeJneve efoues Demelee cee. v³ee³eeue³eeves efJeMJemleeuee keÀe{tve ìekeÀC³ee®eer ke=Àleer iebYeerj Demetve Charges of mis feasance are serious charges of quasicriminal nature. but that does not lead one to conclude the criminal procedure code is to be followed.

Demes meggmHe<ì cele veeWoJetve He´sÀefcebie Dee@HeÀ oer ®eepexme®eer efvekeÀ[ DeveeJeM³ekeÀ þjJeueer Deens. The end product or re-

sult of criminal prosceution is either conviction or acquittal of the accused against whom the charges are framed. The inquiry of present nature, never ends in conviction if the charges are not established, the trustee against whom the proceding is intiated is discharge. if the charges are established, he may be removed or discharge or suspended. as a trustee.

Section 41 D (1) (f) this provision is in-

We owe almost all our knowledge not to those who have agreed, but to those who had differed.

17

Je<e& 1 ues ♥ DebkeÀ 5 ♥ veesJnWyej 2008

tended with specific object of giving more powers to the Charity Commissioner for better control over the trust and trustees stringent action of suspension, removal or dismissal of the trustees is contempleted under the provision on finding some evidence of default , misdeeds, willful this obedience, negligence, mal feasance, mis feasance, mis appropriation of the trust property etc. against them. The this qualification under subclause (f) is with a view that no person who is convicted for having committed serious offences should continue as trustee as that may bring disrepute to the trust.

A trustee has to exercise same care as a man of ordinary prudence in dealing with the trust affairs, funds, or property as if they were his own. It is expected that he should be honest, he should not harm the charity but must worked good for the charity. A conviction of a trustee for offeance involving moral turpitude in personal capasity would bring down the name of the trust. and harms its reputation. The disqualification under subclause (f) is with specific intention to prevent such harm. The power is given to the Charity Commissioner so that a convict of offeance of moral turpitude does not continue as trustee of a trust and his association with the trust may be brought to an end, exciserging the power keÀ[tve Moral Turpitude ner

meb%ee ceesOece Demetve l³ee®es JesieJesieȳee mebboYee&le JesieJesieUs DeLe& efveIeleele. meJe&meeOeejCeHeCes ³ee meb%es®ee DeLe& Dev³ee³³e JeeieCetkeÀ, DeÒeeceeefCekeÀHeCee, DeewOel³e efkebÀJee Devewelf ekeÀ Je mebyebeOf ele J³ekeÌleer efkebÀJee mebmLesMeer meJe&meeOeejCeleë JeeieC³ee®es meewpev³e vemeCes nes³e. keÀe³eÐeeleues efMe#ee DeefYeÒesle DemeCeejs kegÀþuesner ke=Àl³e Moral Turpitude sMeer mebyebefOele vemeles. cee. Oecee&oe³e men Dee³egkeÌle cebybg eF& Þeer. Sve. Jner osMecegKe ³eebveer He#ekeÀejeb®es cnCeCes SsketÀve Je GHeueyOe HegjeJ³eeleerue cegÎs ue#eele IesTve meskeÌMeve 41 [er (2) ³eevegmeej efJeéeebmleebefJe©×

meecevesJeeues ¬eÀceebkeÀ 1 les 9 efJejesOeele efo. 3 petve 2008 ®³ee DeeosMeevJe³es DeejesHe efveef½ele kesÀuesle.

DeejesefHele efJeéemle ¬eÀ 1 les 9 ³ee ueerueeJeleer cesef[keÀue ì^m쮳ee efJeéemleebveer ©He³es 15 keÀesìeRntve DeefOekeÀ ceesþer jkeÌkeÀce ces. cee³eHesÀ³ej efj³euìme& Òee. efue. Je Jesmìe Fbef[³ee Òee. efue. ³ee kebÀHev³eevee Deie´sef<ele kesÀueer. Je<e& 2001-02 les 2003-04 ceO³es kegÀþueerner keÀeUpeer ve Ieslee ³ee keÀbHev³eeb®³ee cesef[keÀue FeqkeÌJHeceWì®ee HegjJeþe ve Peeu³eeJejner Deie´sef<ele jkeÌkeÀce Hejle Jemetue ve keÀjCes Je peyeeyeoejer ogue&ef#ele keÀjCes, ne Misfeasance Je efJeéemle J³eJemLes®³ee mebHeÊeer®³ee iewjJ³eJenej kesÀu³ee®ee DeejesHe þsJeuee. efJeéemle mebmLes®³ee GefÎ<ìebmeeþer®e Hewmes Ke®e& nesleerue keÀe, ³ee®eer MeneefveMee ve keÀjlee®e ceOegue#ceer ì^mìuee efve³eefceleHeCes Je<e& 2003-04 les 2005-06ceO³es ©He³es 6.36 keÀesìerÒeceeCes osCei³ee efou³ee. nener Misfeasance Je efJeéemle J³eJemLes®ee iewjJ³eJenej kesÀuee. l³eele Yej cnCetve keÀer keÀe³e ì^m쮳ee HewMeeletve neW[e DekeÀe@[& keÀej Sce.S®e 4343 og<³eble cesnlee ³eeb®³ee veeJeeJej Je l³eeb®³ee JeeHejemeeþer Kejsoer kesÀueer.

DeejesHeer efJeéemle ¬eÀ. 9 ³eebveer DeeefLe&keÀ Je<e& 2003-04 les 2005-06 ojc³eeve l³eeb®³ee ¬esÀef[ì keÀe[e&®³ee Kejsoermeeþer ©He³es 36,06,470 SJe{er jkeÌkeÀce JeeHejueer. DeejeseHf ele efJeMJemle ke´À. 1 les 9 ³eebveer efJeMJemleeb®eer yewþkeÀ lemes®e Flej yewþkeÀer yesupeer³ece ceOeerue De@vìJeHe& ³ee efJeosMeer þsTve l³eemeeþer ©He³es 58,40,458/- SJe{e Ke®e& meve 2002-03 les Dee@ie<ì 2006 ceO³es keÀ©ve iewjJ³eJenej kesÀuee. Þeer megjsMe ceesìJeeveer ³ee ì^mìMeer mebyebOeerle vemeuesu³ee J³eefkeÌlemeeþer He´JeemeKe®e& ieesJee Je ogyeF& meeþer keÀ©ve iewjJ³eJenej ®eeuet þsJeuee. DeejesefHele efJeMJemle ke´À. 1 les 9 ³eebveer Deeuyeervee [sJnueHeme& He´e.efue. ³eebvee l³eeb®³ee HetJe&J³eJenejeb®eer Keelejpecee ve keÀjlee ©. 2.75 keÀesìer Deie´es <f ele kesÀuesle Je efve<keÀeUpeerHeCes iewjJ³eJenej kesÀuee. DeejeseHf ele efJeMJemleebveer ieesu[ve meer Mesue meer.S®e. ³eeb®³eeMeer kebÀ[smìeF&ve ì^evPeskeÌMeve keÀ©ve ì^m쮳ee efnMesyeele ogJe&J³eJenej kesÀuee. DeejesHe He$e þsJeu³ee Jej mebyebOeerleebvee efveuebefyele ve keÀjlee l³eebvee ì^m쮳ee

Love of God and love of neighbour are the two sides, inward and outward, of a truly religious person.

18

Je<e& 1 ues ♥ DebkeÀ 5 ♥ veesJnWyej 2008

OeesjCeelcekeÀ efveCe&³e lemes®e kegÀþu³eener DeeefLe&keÀ J³eJenejele menYeeieer nesC³eeme Je meJeex®®e v³ee³eeue³eeves ne@mHeerìue®³ee keÀejYeejemeeþer efve³egkeÌle kesÀuesu³ee He´MeemekeÀ v³ee³ecetleea Þeer nUyes (efveJe=lle v³ee³ecetleea cegbyeF& G®®e v³ee³eeue³e) Je [e@ vejWê ef$eJesoer ³eeb®³ee HetJe& HejJeeveieer efMeJee³e ceveeF& kesÀuesueer Deens. cee. Oecee&oe³e men-Dee³egkeÌle Þeer Sve.Jner osMecegKe ³eebveer DeeHeu³ee efvekeÀeueHe$ee®³ee DeeosMeele DeejesHeeefOeve efJeMJemle ke´À. 1 Þeerceleer jsKeeyesve Mesþ, ke´À. 3, megefMeuee cesnlee, ke´À.

6 [e@. Dece=leueeue Mene, ke´À. 8 Þeer efvekesÀle cesnlee, Je ke´À.

9 Þeer efJepe³e cesnlee ³ee Hee®ener efJeMJemleebvee efveuebefyele kesÀuesues Deens. ne DeeosMe mevcee. G®®e v³ee³eeue³ee®³ee uesìme& Hesìbì DeHeerue ke´À. 3849/2008 Je uesìme& Hesìbì DeHeerue ke´À.330/ 2008 (efjì efHeìerMeve vebyej 5732/2008 ®³ee He´uebefyele) efvekeÀeueeOeerve DeeosMee veblej®e Debceueele ³esF&ue Demee efveCe&³e efouee Deens.

In the matter of – Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust, P.T.R.No. E 6892 (Bom).

of any judicial record of any foreign country. The application was heard and dismissed by an order dt. 27.6.08. By the same order, the respondent was directed to make statement about the facts of the conviction.

3.

On 21-6-2008, during course of arguments on application (Ex. 11), the applicant moved application (Ex.14) for taking copies of the Flemish Judgment and its English translation on record. The respondent resisted it and filed say (Ex.18). By an order dt. 7-7—8, the application(Ex.14) was allowed.

In other words, the objections taken were turned down.

4.

Another application (Ex.13) was filed on 21.6.08 by the respondent seeking dismissal of the proceeding, once again raising objections, similar to the objections that he took in application (Ex.11).

The application was also rejected by an order dt.

28-8-08.

5.

The rerspondent filed Writ Petition No.4787/ 08 before the Hon. High Court, against the order of this authority on application (Ex.11). By an order dt.11.7.2008 the Hon. High Court stayed the order directing the respondent to make statement.

Directions are given to proceed with the inquiry on regular basis and decide it expeditiously within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of the order. All the points and objections raised are

ORDER BELOW EX. 1 IN APPLICATION NO. 5 OF 2008 (Under Section 41D of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950) 1.

Smt Charuben K. Mehta, a permanent trustee of “ Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust “ (in short, the “the trust”), P.T.R.No. E 6892(M) has moved this application under Section 41D of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, for suspension/ removal/ dismissal of anoter trustee, Shri. Prabodh Mehta, on the ground that he has been convicted by the Tribunal Court of First Instances of Judicial District of Antwerp (Belgium) in the Judgment No. 5686 dtd. 6-12-2007 and was sentenced to imprisonment of six months for having committed offences of fraud, forgery etc. involving moral turpitude, and thus, he is disqualified from acting as a trustee. She is mainly relying on the copy of Flemish judgment with its English translation.

2.

The respondent after appearance before ths authority, filed application (Ex.11) raising several objections, that the judgment on which the applicant relies, does not fulfill the requirements of Section 86 of the Evidence Act, regarding genuineness oand accuracy of documents purported to be certified copy

Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding.

19

Je<e& 1 ues ♥ DebkeÀ 5 ♥ veesJnWyej 2008

kept open. The respondent was given liberty to file written statement.

6.

The respondent filed written statement (Ex.27) on 2.9.08. He denied that he has been convicted for offence involving moral turpitude as contemplated

by Section 41D. According to him, the contentions raised by the applicant are false and there is complete distortion and misquoting of purported documents projected as judgment. It is his case that he is a trustee of the trust appointed on 15.1.07.

The applicant does not admit him as a trustee and still seeks his dismissal. This is not permissible.

Jurisdiction of this authority is barred in view of her pleading that he is not a trustee. The next objection is that, this authority can not look into the judgment of a foreign court and maker the same basis for action under section 41D. It is also claimed that the judgment was not against him in his personal capacity. He was joined as a party in the capacity of M.V.Gmbel Company. It is his further contention that the conviction, if any, is not in relation to the trust. It does not affect the function of the trust and so the provisions of Section 41D(1)(f) would not be attracted.

7.

Re-agitating his earlier stand, he claims that the judgment of a foreign court and its copy do not fulfill the requirements of section 86 of the Evidence Act. According to him, this is a quasi criminal proceeding., in which charges hare to be framed.

The applicant should be directed to lead evidence before framing of the charges.

8.

According to him, the applicant, her husband and their sons have filed several cases against him and other trustees. Many criminal cases are pending against them. The application is filed with malafide intention. No case is made out under Section 41D(1)(f) of the Act. On these grounds, he prays for dismissal of the application.

9.

A separate application (Ex.28) is also moved by him that this being quasi criminal proceeding, inquiry before framing of the charges be held and

the applicant be directed to produce evidence by way of affidavit before framing of the charges as required under Criminal Procedure Code.

10. Heard advocate, Mr. Sibbal for the applicant, Advocate Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar instructed by M/ s. Paras Kuhad for the respondent.

11. Written submissions (Ex.36) on behalf of the applicant and written submissions (Ex.37) on behalf of the respondent are also filed.

12. The respondent has challenged the proceeding raising several legal and technical objections. Before proceeding further, it would be necessary to consider those objections. a.

This is a quasi criminal proceeding and charges are to be framed, so provisions of Cr.P.C.would apply 13 It was argued by advocate, Shri. Guru Krishna Kumar for the respondent that, this is a quasi criminal proceeding and framing of charges is contemplated.

This phrase “framing of the charges” has acquired a special meaning in criminal law. It must be assumed that the phrase is used in this Act in its legal sense.

14 In case of Birichh Bhujan Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1963, Supreme Court, 1120, it is held that a charge is not an accusation made or information given in abstract but an accusation made against a person in respect of an act committed or omitted in violation of a penal law forbidding or commanding it. In other words, it is an accusation made against a person in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by him.

15 It was submitted that the words framing of the charges appearing in such section 41D are to be given the same meaning as in the criminal procedure code. This legal meaningunder Cr.P.C.attached to this phrase is to be applied here too.

16 In case of, The State of Madras Vs. Gannon Dunkerley & Co. AIR 1959 SCR 379, the apex court, considered the expression “ sale of

The difference between ordinary and extraordinay is that little extra.

20

Je<e& 1 ues ♥ DebkeÀ 5 ♥ veesJnWyej 2008

goods” appeared in Madras General Sales Tax Act, it was observed that if the words “sale of goods” have to be interpreted in their legal sense, that that sense can only be what it has in the law relating to sale of goods. It is laid down that the ratio of the rule interpretation that words of legal import occurring in a statute should be construed in their legal sense is that those words have, in law, acquired a definite and precise sense, and that accordingly, the Legislature must be taken to have intended that they should be understood in that sense. In interpreting an expression used in a legal sense, therefore, we have only to ascertain the precise connotation, which it possesses in law.

17 In case of Thampanoor Ravi Vs. Charupara Ravi and others, (1999) 8 Supreme Court Cases 74, discussing the phrase “undischarged insolvent”, it is held that meaning of insolvent as understood in common parlance or as given in dictionary not relevant. It is only the special legal meaning under the Law of insolvency that is applicable.

18 Advocate Shri. Guru Krishna Kumar submits that this proceeding is to be equated with a “case instituted otherwise than on police report” falling under Chapter XiX of Criminal Procedure Code. Sec. 244 to 246 lays down the procedure the procedure for framing of the charges. It requires, adducing evidence before framing charges, by the prosecution. The question is whether mere use of words “ framing of charges “ would make this a criminal proceeding for which Cr.P.C.should be made applicable.

19 Advocate, Shri. Guru Krishna Kumar relied on, Mallikarjunappa Sidramappa Bidwe Vs. Joint Charity Commissioner, 2008(1) Bom.C.R.172, arguing that this is a quasi criminal proceeding and can not be treated as an adversary trial in stricto sensu. In that case, an application under Section 41D was moved before Joint Charity Commissioner for removal of trustees of a trust. The

application was initially decided only on the basis of affidavits. Said order was set aside in a writ petition by the Hon. High Court. Directions were given to allow oral evidence of the parties. An order passed after the inquiry for removal of the trustees holding that some of the charges were proved was challenged in Charity Applications before the District Court. It was partly allowed. Said order was challenged before the Hon. High Court in 2nd appeal. the Hon.High Court observed that the action of removal of a trustee is a drastic actions and charges of misfeasance are serious charges of quasi criminal nature. But, that does not lead one to condlude the criminal procedure code is to be followed.

20 In case of Shantikumar Panda Vs. Shakuntala Devi, 2004(1)S.C. cases 438, it is held that the proceedings under Sec. 145, 146 of the Cr.P.C. are quasi civil, quasi criminal in nature or an executive or police action. It is necessary to mention that a special procedure is prescribed for inquiry under these provisions, which is different than the procedure of a criminal trial.

21 Reliance was placed in Laxmi Narayan Nayak Vs. Ramratan Chaturvedi (1990) 2, Supreme Court Cases, 173. It was an appeal against an order in an election petition. An election petition where corrupt practices are imputed are regarded as proceedings of quasi criminal nature, wherein strict proof is necessary. This judgment does not lay down that in a proceeding of such nature, provisions of Cr.P.C. are to be applied. On the contrary , reference of the words like “ pleadings” and the powers of the court “ to strike down or delete the pleadings,” for the purpose of inquiry, found in that judgment suggests that the proceeding is equated with a civil proceeding.

22 The proceedings for contempt, are quasi criminal and summary in nature. In case of, J.R. Parashar Vs. Prashant Bhushan, (2001)6 Supreme Court Cases 735, it is laid down that the acts for

If a man does not give thought to problems which are still distant he will be worried by them when they come nearer.

21

Je<e& 1 ues ♥ DebkeÀ 5 ♥ veesJnWyej 2008

which proceedings are intended to be launched must be intimated to the person against whom action is proposed to be taken with sufficient particularly so that he can effectively defend himself. If there is reasonable doubt about existence of state of facts.

It must be resolved in favour of that person. For inquiry of such quasi criminal proceeding, certain rules are framed under Contempt of Court Act. Said procedure is to be followed in the inquiry and not that of criminal procedure code.

23 In case of H.V.Panchaksharappa Vs. K.G.Eshwar, (2006)6, Supreme Court Cases 721, charge of professional misconduct against an advocate is held to be quasi criminal charge. It is held, the charge must be proved beyond doubt in the manner of proving criminal charge. But there too, the law does not provide for inquiry as prescribed under Criminal Procedure Code. On the contrary, in that inquiry “ issues” are to be framed, as required in a civil suit.

24 In case of Chhotu Ram Vs. Urvashi Gulati, (2001)7 Supreme Court Cases 530, it is laid down that a proceeding under Contempt of Court Acts is quasi criminal and such the standard of proof required is that of a criminal proceeding and the breach shall have to be established beyond all reasonable doubt.

25 In case of Vajubhai Patel Vs. Charity Commissioner (1990) 2 Bom.C.R. 702, it is held that a proceeding under Section 41D is not a criminal proceeding. However, it was observed that the proof required to sustain charges therein must satisfy a higher standard than that normally required in cases governed by the rule of preponderance of probability.

26 All the judgments referred above deal with inquiries of quasi criminal nature under various Acts for disqualification. They lay down as to what should be the standard of proof. However, none lays that the inquiry should be conducted following procedure of criminal procedure code.

27 Section 41D was inserted in Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 by an amendment, in order to empower the Charity Commissioner to exercise effective contral over the public trusts. As per the “ statement, objects and reasons” of the bill for the amendment of the Act, published in Maharashtra Government Gazette dated 26th February, 1970, the powers of the Charity Commissioner were considerably limited and there were not powers to withhold the trustees from continuing any loss and causing further damage to the trust. The Charity Commissioners are judicial officers of status of District Judges, already enjoying some powers under Civil Procedure Code. There was not reason why same powers should not be given to them while administering the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. It was necessary to invest the Charity Commissioner with more powers of Civil Courts regarding removal, dismissal, suspension of trustees etc.

28 Above is sufficient to assume the legislative intent to give powers of Civil Courts under Civil Procedure Code to the Charity Commissioner for removal, dismissal, suspension of trustees under Cr.P.C. or to follow Cr. P.C. for enquiries under this provision.

29 Rule 7 of Bombay Public Trusts Rules, 1951 provides that inquiry under Sec. 41D in Greater Mumbai shall be held in accordance with the procedure prescribed for trial of suits under Presidency Small Causes Courts Act. 30 In case of Vithoba Vs. Balkrishna, AIR 1968 Bom. 14, question of applicability or provisions of code of civil procedure to an inquiry under Sec. 19 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 was considered. Referring Rule 7, it was observed that the procedure prescribed for the trial of the suits under Provincial Small Causes Courts Act will apply to enquiries under that Act as far as possible. Section 17 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, makes the code of Civil Procedure Code applicable to

People who cannot find time for recreation are obliged sooner or later to find time for illness.

22

Je<e& 1 ues ♥ DebkeÀ 5 ♥ veesJnWyej 2008

Courts, constituted under that Act. Therefore, it was held that Civil Procedure Code indirectly becomes applicable to inquiries under the Act. The code is made applicable as far as possible.

31 Section 73 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, provides that in holding inquiries under that Act, the officers holding inquiry shall have the power of Civil Court for a) proof of facts by affidavits b) summoning and inforcing the attendance of any person andexamining him on oath. c) considering discovery and inspection, and compelling the production of documents. d) issuing commissions.

32. Having regard to above, it becomes difficult to accept the argument, that as the the charges are to be framed in this proceeding of quasi Criminal nature, the inquiry should be held in accordance with procedure laid down under Section244 onwards of Cr. P.C.for cases instituted otherwise than on police report.

33) Section 244 Cr.P.C. on which the respondent is relying reads as below: 2 4 4 .Evidence for prosecution – 1) When, in any warrant case instituted otherwise than on a police report, the accused appears or is brought before a Magistrate, the Magistrate shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution.

2) The Magistrate may, on the application of the prosecution, issue a summons to any of its witnesses directing him to attend or to produce any document or other thing.

34) This provision makes it mandatory for the Magistrate to take all the evidence, as may be produced by the prosecution. It does not direct that the evidence should be oral. More-over, discretion is given to the prosecution to produce the evidence.

The word “may” used there is of much significance.

In a given case, on the basis of material on record,

without adducing oral evidence, the prosecution may succeed in establishing a case for framing of the charges. In other words, even in the absence of oral evidence, the other material may be sufficient for the Magistrate to form an opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence. Thus, oral evidence by the complainant before framing charge is not must.

Thus oral, evidence by the complainant before framing charge is not must. The application (Ex.28) moved by the respondent for directing the applicant to adduce oral evidence is liable to be rejected.

35) Mere use of phrase framing charge in the provisions would not change the nature of inquiry to a criminal proceeding. The standard of proof required for proving charges would be higher. Of course, the question of degree of proof would be relevant at a later stage. We are at a stage of framing of the charges against the trustee as contemplated under Section 41D(2). It is not the stage of final hearing. One can not expect the accuser to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt at the initial stage of framing of the charges. It is sufficient, if a prima facie case is made out from the pleadings and the documents on record.

36) The action under Section 41D can be initiated even on a report under Section 41(B) or suo motu, besides, on application of a trustee as in this case or of any person interested in the trust. Section 41B contemplates a detailed inquiry by an officer, including taking evidence on oath. The inquiry officer has to submit report of the inquiry to the officer who entrusted the inquiry to him.

37) It was submitted that some material in the form of evidence collected in inquiry may be available when the inquiry is initiated on report under Section 41(B). However, such evidence would not be available in other cases. Therefore, evidence before charge is must.

38) Section 41D(2) reads as below:

Blessed are they who are loved; but twice blessed are they who have the ability to love ad give.

23

Je<e& 1 ues ♥ DebkeÀ 5 ♥ veesJnWyej 2008

“ When the Charity Commissioner proposes to take action under sub section (1), he shall frame charges against the trustee or the person against whom action is proposed to be taken and give him an opportunity of meeting such charges of testing the evidence in his favour. The order of suspension, removal or dismissal shall state the charges framed against the trustee, his explanation and the finding on each charge, with the reasons therefore.

39) The provision lays down procedure for the inquiry, to some extent. It does not speak of evidence before charge. The charges are to be framed on the basis of material available on record. The evidence is to be adduced after framingof the charges.

40) There is one more reason for which, I am not ready to acceipt the arguments. The end product or the result of a criminal prosecution is either coviction or acquittal of the accused against whom the charges are framed. The inquiry of present nature, never ends in conviction. If the charges are not established, the trustee against whom the proceeding is initiated is discharged. If the charges are established, he may be removed or discharged or suspended as a trustee. For these reasons, the objection is turned down. b) The application ought to be rejected, on a demurrer on the basis of the very case pleaded by the applicant, and as such suffers from lack of pleading on jurisdictional facts – 41) In para 3 of the application, the applicant pleads that the respondent is not even a trustee of the trust. However, since, he has been allowed to act as a trustee and has been acting in capacity as a tustee, she has no other option but to approach this authority under Section 41-D for his removal.

42) In para 7, she further claims that, if this authority comes to a conclusion that he is not a trustee, then it may be hekd that he is disqualified from becoming a trustee or managing trustee since he is convicted for an offence involving moral turpitude.

43) Referring above, it is argued on behalf of the respondent that the action under Section 41D is to be initiated against a trustee only. As the applicant is coming with a case that, the respondent is not a trustee, provisions of Section 41D can not be invoked. Jurisdiction of this authority is barred in view of this pleading.

44) In case of Exphar and another Vs. Eupharma Laboratories (2004) 3 Supreme Court Cases 688, it is laid down that when an objection to jurisdiction is raised by way of demurrer and not at the trial, the objection must proceed on the basis that the facts as pleaded by the initiator of the impugned proceedings are true. The submission in order to succeed must show that granted those facts the court does not have jurisdiction as a matter of law.

45) In Carona Ltd. Vs. Parvathy Swaminathan (2007) 8 Supreme Court Cases 559, it is held as below: “ The facts upon which the jurisdiction of a court, a tribunal or an authority depends can be said to be “jurisdictional facts “. If the jurisdictional facts exists, a court, tribunal or authority has jurisdiction to decide other issues. If such fact does not exist, a court, tribunal or authority can not act.”

46) In case of Sushil Kumar Mehta Vs. Gobind Ram Bohra, (1990) 1 Supreme Court Cases 193, it is held that a decree passed by a court without jurisdiction over the subject matter or on other grounds which goes to the root of its exercise or jurisdiction, lacks inherent jurisdiction. It is a “ coram non judice.”

47) In our case, the above judgments can not be pressed into action. Though the applicant claims that the respondent is not a trustee, immediately she has clarified that he is allowed to act as a trustee and in fact he is acting in that capacity. In other words, she admits that he is acting as a trustee. It would be wrong to throw out the application relying on a stray sentence appearing in it. The application

Young people tell what they are doing, old people what they have done and fools what they wish to do.

24

Je<e& 1 ues ♥ DebkeÀ 5 ♥ veesJnWyej 2008

is to be considered in totality. One also can not overlook the response or reply of the other side. The respondent is coming with a specific case that he is a trustee and was appointed as such on 15.1.2007 Whether she admits or not, the fact is that, he is a trustee. In such a situation, the provisions of Section 41D can be made applicable. It would be improper to adopt too technical approach as tried to be canvassed on behalf of the respondent.

48) Section 41D does not contemplate inquiry of status of a person as a trustee. This authority is not expected to give a finding as to whether the respondent is a trustee or not. The alternative submission/prayer made in the application in para 7 is to be ignored. The application can not be dismissed on the ground that some portion of the pleading is untenable in the eye of law. c) The copy of Flemish judgment and its English translation are in admissible.

49) Several objections regarding admissibility of the foreign judgment and its translation were raised under application (Ex.11), say Ex.18 and application (Ex.13). As referred earlier, this authority by separate orders has turned down those objections. The order on application (Ex.11) dt 27.6.08 is under challenge before the Hon. High Court in Writ Petition No. 4787/ 2008. It was submitted that in view of the directions of the Hon. High Court in the order dtd. 11.7.08, as well as order dt. 2.9.2008, all those points and contentions are kept open. Arguments were advanced on those aspects.

50) It is submitted that the copy is not as per the requirement under Section 86 of the Evidence Act and so it is not admissible so this Authority cannot take its cognizance and the action cannot be initiated on its basis.

51) Section 86 of Indian Evidence Act is as below: Sec. 86 : Presumption as to certified copies of foreign judicial records – The Court may presume that any document purporting to be a certified copy of any judicial record

of (any country not forming part of India or) of Her Majesty’s dominions is genuine and accurate, if the document purports to be certified in any manner which is certified by any representative of the (Central Government)(in or for)(such country), to be the manner commonly in use in (that country) for the certification of copies of judicial records.

52) In case of Y. Narasimha Rao and others Vs. Venkata Lakshmi (1991) 3 Supreme Court Cases 451, discussing the question of admissibility of foreign judgments, the apex court has held as below : “Under Sec.74(1)(iii) of the Indian Evidence Act, (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) documents forming the acts are public documents. Under Section 76 read with Section 77 of the Act, certified copies of such documents may be produced in proof of their contents. However, under Section 86 of the Act there is a presumption with regard to the genuineness and accuracy of such certified copy only if it is also certified by the representative of our Central Government in or for that country that the manner in which it has been certified is commonly in use in that country for such certification. “ 53) It is further observed that the Photostat copy per se is not inadmissible in evidence. It is inadmissible because it has not further been certified by the representative of our Central Government in the United Staters as required by Section 86 of the Act of the Code has to be read consistent with the requirements of Section 86 of the Act. 54) The allegation is that the respondent is convicted by a court in Belgium. The Flemish Judgment or its translation were not filed with the application. However, a specific contention is made in the application that the applicant craves, leave and rely upon the said original judgment alongwith its English translations, when produced.

Subsequently,certified copy of Flemish Judgment alongwith English translation is filed on record.

The only definition that can be given of morality is this: that which is selfish is immoral and that which is unselfish is moral.

25

Je<e& 1 ues ♥ DebkeÀ 5 ♥ veesJnWyej 2008

Certificate is found on the original. It was submitted that the certified copy is given by the concerned authority. The translated copy is with endorsement of certification by Indian Embassy in Belgium and Government Seal. Following endorsement is found below the certificate issued by Smt Asha Angora, Attache(Cons) Embassy of India.

“Signature of Verfaillie arnaud, attested.

The Embassy of India, Brussels takes no responsibility for the contents of this document:.

55) It can be gathered that the Flemish Judgment is translated in English by Verfaillie Parnaud and her signature is attested by the Officer attached Embassy of India. The judgment is not translated by the officer attached to Indian embassy and therefore, it is certified that Embassy of India does not take responsibility for the contents. However, it would be wrong to say that the translation is not correct. As referred earlier, certification by the Belgium Authority alongwith official seal are found on the copy of the judgment. There is nothing to suggest that certification is not done in the manner in which it is certified commonly and in use in that country for such certification.

56) It was submitted that the certification does not state that Vermerien Andre was the translator. It is not explained who did the translation and or the affirmation that the same is proper and correct.

According to me, these facts are not of much importance at this stage.

57) A statement is made on behalf of the applicant before me that certification is correct. The respondent does not say what is the manner of certification of such document. In such condition, it would be wrong to say that certification over the document is not correct at least at this stage.

58) For the above reasons, I am not impressed with the arguments advanced on behalf of the respondent. I do not find any reason to take any different view on this aspect, than the one taken earlier. Consequently, the objection is turned down.

e) The case involves issues of foreign law. It should have been pleaded and proved.

59) It was submitted that the case is based entirely on the conviction of the respondent by a Belgian Court under Belgian Law. It was necessary that there should have been a specific pleading on foreign law. It is submitted that the general rule is that, if a party wishes to rely on a foreign law he must plead it in the same way as any other fact. The foreign law must be proved and it must be proved by expert evidence. The burden of proving foreign law lies on the party who basis his claim or defence on it.

60) On the other hand, Adv. Shri. Sibbal submitted that there is no question of pleading of foreign law.

The conviction of the respondent by a Belgian Court is a question of fact. I find much substance in this argument. A foreign law is to be differentiated from a foreign judgment, under which she claims that the respondent is convicted. The judgment, is under a foreign law. But the judgment itself is not a “ foreign law “. The fact that the conviction is under a foreign law does not mean that, the foreign law should be pleaded. The statement of fact in the application that he is convicted for having committed offences involving moral turpitude is sufficient to take cognizance. The application is not defective on that count. f) Section 41D(1)(f) is restricted to convictions for offences related to trust, trust property and trustees only and not for other convictions involving moral turpitude.

61) Section 41-D empowers the Charity Commissioner to suspend, remove or dismiss any trustee of a public trust, if he, a) makes persistent default in the submission of accounts, report or return; b) willfully disobeys any lawful orders issued by the Charity Commissioner under the provisions of this Act or rules made thereunder by the State Government;

Force generated by non-violence is infinitely greater than the force of all arms invented by man’s ingenuity.

26 c)

Je<e& 1 ues ♥ DebkeÀ 5 ♥ veesJnWyej 2008

continuously neglects his duty or commits any mal feasance or mis-feasance or breach of trust in respect of the trust; d) mis-appropriates or deals improperly with the properties of the trust of which he is a trustee; e) accepts any position in relation to the trust which is in consistent with his position as a trustee or f) is convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude 62) Advocate, Shri. Guru Krishna Kumar vehemently argued that the alleged conviction on which the applicant is relying does not relate to the functioning of the respondent in his capacity as a trustee. Powers under section 41D can be exercised by the Charity Commissioner to control monitor and reugulate the trust affairs. Sub clauses (a) to (e) of Section 41D(1) deal only with commissions/ omissions of a trustee, as such and of a trust. It is in continuation of and following these provisions, that Section 41D(f) finds place. The collocation of words and the setting of the provision in the statute is decisively indicative of the legislative intent to cover only trust and trustees by Section 41D. He argued in detail on the doctorine of “ejusdem generis”.

63) In case of M/s. Siddheshwari Cotton Mills Vs. Union of India, (1989)2 Supreme Court Cases 458, the question was whether process of plan “calendaring of cotton fabrics” was covered by expression “any other process” in Section 2(f)(v) of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Dealing with those expressions, the rule of “ejusdem generis” is explained as below : “The expression “ejusdem generis” – ‘ of the same kind or nature – signifies a principle of construction whereby words in a statue which are otherwise wide but are associated in the text with more limited words are, by implication, given a restricted operation and are limited to matters of the same class of genus as preceding them. If a list of string or family of genus describing terms are

followed by wider or residuary or sweeping up words, then the verbal context and the linguistic implications of the preceding words limit the scope of such words.

The preceding words in the statutory provision which, under this particular rule of construction, control and limit the meaning of the subsequent words, must represent a genus or a family which admits a number of species or members. If there is only one species it can not supply the idea of a genus. The “ejusdem generis” rule then is not attracted and such broad construction as the subsequent words may admit will be favoured.

64) The principle underlying this approach to statutory construction is that the subsequent general words were only intended to guard against some accidental omission in the objects of the kind mentioned earlier and were not intended to extend to objects of a wholly different kind. This is a presumption and operates unless there is some contrary indication.”

65) In case of A.C. Chakraborty Vs. Collector of Excise, 1972, S.C. cases 442, it is held that ejusdem generis rule strives to re-council the incompatibility between specific and general words.

This doctrine applies when i) the statute contains and enumeration of specific words, ii) the subjects of the enumeration constitute a class or category; (iii) that class or category is not exhausted by the enumeration; (iv) the general term follows the enumeration and (v) there is no indication of a different legislative intent.

66) In case of Housing Board of Haryana Vs. Haryana Housing Board Employees Union and ors.

(1996) 1 Supreme Court Cases 95, as observed as below: “When particular words pertaining to a class of genus are followed by general words, the letter, namely, the general words are construed as limited to things of the same kind as those specified. This is known as the rule of “ejusdem generis” reflecting an attempt to reconcile incompatibility between the specific and general words.

Every good movement passes through five stages : Indifference, Riducule, Repression, Hatred and Respect.

27

Je<e& 1 ues ♥ DebkeÀ 5 ♥ veesJnWyej 2008

67) The question is whether the rule would be applicable here & whether scope of Section 41D(1)(f) is to be restricted to the conviction of offences connected with trust, trustees and trust matters only? As referred earlier, this provision was inserted with specific object of giving more powers to the Charity Commissioner for better control over the trusts and trustees. Stringent action of suspension, removal or dismissal of the trustees is contemplated under this provision on finding some evidence of default, misdeeds, willful disobedience, negligence, malfeasance, misfeasance, misappropriation of the trust property etc. against them. The disqualification under sub clause (f) is with a view that no person who is convicted for having committed serious offences should continue as a trustee, as that may bring disrepute to the trust.

68) The trustees are responsible persons in whom the trust property is vested. Section 36(A) provides for powers and duties and restrictions on trustee. A trustee has to exercise same care as a man of ordinary prudence, in dealing with trust affairs, funds, or property, as if they were his own. It is expected that he should be honest. He should not harm the charity but must work good for the charity. A conviction of a trustee for offence involving moral turpitude in personal capacity would bring down the name of the trust & harms its reputation.

The disqualification under sub clause(f) is with specific intention to prevent such harm. The power is given to the Charity Commissioner so that a convict of offence involving moral turpitude does not continue as a trustee of a trust & his association with the trust may be brought to an end, exercising the power.

69) On plain reading of Section 41D 1(a) to (f), one can not agree with the arguments that the scope of 41D(1)(f) is restricted. The interpretation tried to be made would shrink the powers of that does not seem to be the legislative intent.

70) Section 47 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 provides for powers of the Charity Commissioner to appoint, suspend, remove or discharge trustees and to vest properties. Relevant portion of the provision is reproduced as below: 1) Any person interested in a public trust may apply to the Charity Commissioner for the appointment of a new trustee, where there is no trustee for such trust or the trust can not be administered until the vacancy is filled, or for the suspension, removal or discharge of a trustee, when a trustee of such trust – a) disclaims or dies; b) is for a continuous period of six months absent from India without the leave of the Charity Commissioner or the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner or the Officer authorized by the State Government in this behalf; c) leaves India for the purpose of residing abroad; d) is declared an insolvent; e) desires to be discharged from the trust; f) refuses to act as a trustee; g) becomes in the opinion of the Charity Commissioner unfit or physically incapable to act in the trust or accepts a position which is inconsistent with his positionastrustee; h) in any of the cases mentioned in Chapter III, is not available to administer the trust; i) is convicted of an offence punishable under this Act or an offence involving moral turpitude or j) had been dismissed as a trustee of that trust under sub section(i) of section 41D. 2) The Charity Commissioner may, after hearing the parties and making such enquiry as he may deem fit by order appoint any person as a trustee or may also remove or discharge any

Without faith in Supreme Being human life will be like a building without a foundation or a ship without a ballast.

28

Je<e& 1 ues ♥ DebkeÀ 5 ♥ veesJnWyej 2008

3)

trustee for any of the reasons specified in sub section (1).

————————————

4)

————————————

5)

————————————

71) According to Advocate Shri Guru Krishna Kumar, this provision takes care of the trustees who are convicted for other offences involving moral turpitude. In other words, Section 41D(1)(f) applies for the conviction for offences related to the trust and trust matters, while Section 47 applies for conviction of offences involving moral turpitude which are not connected with the trust properties.

The argument at the face of it looks attractive.

However, after going through the provisions I do not find any merit in it.

72) The powers under Section 47 can be invoked, only on an application to the Charity Commissioner by a person interested in the trust. They can not be invoked ‘suo motu’, by the Charity Commissioner or on receipt of a report under Section 41B, as provided under Section 41D. The argument, if accepted, would restrict the powers of the Charity Commissioner against o convict trustee. The legislative intent is not to limit the powers. The fact of conviction of a trustee may be brought to the notice of the Charity Commissioner by various means other than by an application by a person having an interest in the trust. In appropriate cases, the Charity Commissioner may proceed sou motu on the basis of such information against the trustee. He is not expected to wait till a formal application from a person having interest in the trust, to that effect, in moved. This may lead to a strange situation. Inaction on his part for want of an application by interested person would be against the spirit of the Act. 73) It was argued that finding of the term “disqualification on account of conviction” in both

the provisions, make it clear that the disqualification operates in different situations. It was submitted that though same words are used in two different provisions, they are used in different context.

Reliance was placed on Shamrao Parulekar Vs. The District Magistrate, Thane, 1957 Supreme Court 23(S) AIR V 44 C. In preventive detention Act, 1950, a phrase “grounds on which the order has been made” appeared in two different sections, section 3(3) & Section 7 of that Act. Section 3 provided powers for passing order of detention of a person by the authority in the circumstances enumerated there. The authority passing the order, under Section 3(3) was required to submit its report to the government “with the grounds on which the order has been made” etc. White under Section 7(1), the authority passing the order, was to communicate the person detained, “the grounds on which the order has been made” etc. Analyzing these provisions, the apex court observed that the purpose of both the sections is so different that it can not be presumed that the expression “the grounds on which the order has been made” is used in section 3(3) in the same sense which it bears in Section 7.

74) After reading both the provisions Section 41D and 47, it can not be said that the phrase “is convicted for offence involving moral turpitude” in Section 41d(1)(f) is used in different context than it is used in Section 47(1)(i).

75) It is material to note that this is not the only “disqualification” which appears in both provisions.

Section 41D(1) (e) provides for suspension / dismissal of a trustee “for accepting any position in relation to the trust which is inconsistent with his position as a trustee. Section 47(1)(g) also provides for similar action for same act. Two separate/ parallel remedies are provided in two different provisions. No explanation in this regard, is given on behalf of the respondent.

76) According to advocate, Shri Sibbal, powers under Section 47 are to be invoked only for

Failures are divided into two classes- those who thought and never did and those who did and never thought.

29

Je<e& 1 ues ♥ DebkeÀ 5 ♥ veesJnWyej 2008

appointment of the trustees. For Section 47, the new section except class(j) was substituted by Maharashtra Act No. XX of 1971 (M.G.G. Pt. IV date 29.4.1971). Clause 32 of statements of objects and reasons date 11.2.1970 of the bill for the amendment of the Act reads as below: Clause 32, “It is felt that in order to take immediate action in the interest of trusts, powers vested in the court under section 47 for appointment of a new trustee should be vested in the Charity Commissioner, Who is generally a District Judge, Section 47 has been recast accordingly.”

77) It is material that powers of appointment under Section 47 may be exercised to fill the vacancies on dismissal/removal of trustees under section 41D. To sum, at the most, it can be said that Section 47 provides a parallel remedy to a person having interest in the trust for seeking appointment of trustees in certain conditions or for dismissal etc. of trustees of a trust in the circumstances enumerated there, including the conviction of a trustee for offence involving moral turpitude. Said provision will not nullify the powers of the Charity Commissioner under Section 41D to proceed against a trustee for having committed offence involving moral turpitude, though not related to the trust or trust matters, on an application of a trustee, or any person interested in the trust, or on a report under section 41B or sou motu. It can be further said that “a person interested in the trust” has two remedies, one under Section 41D and other under Section 47 for removal of a trustee. These can be availed on two counts. One against a trustee accepting position in relation to the trust which is inconsistent with his position as a trustee and second against a trustee who is convicted for offence involving moral turpitude. f) Action under Section 41D(1)(f) not tenable on the basis of conviction by a foreign court— It was submitted that the applicant is seeking enforcement of a foreign penal law in India and this

is impermissible in the light of settled principles of conflict of laws.

78) In case of Govind Keshav Pawar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 1995, Cr. Law Journal, 1275, the respondent therein was convicted under Rule 72(4) Defence of Hyderabad Rules and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10/- and to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the Court, by a Magistrate in erstwhile Hyderabad State. When he was convicted Hyderabad was not a part of Indian union. Subsequently, after independence he contested the elections for Janapada Sabha (Municipal Council) Pusad and was elected. Section 10 of C.P. and Berar Local government Act provides that no person shall be eligible for election or selection or appointment as a councilor of a Sabha, if such person has been sentenced by any court to imprisonment or whipping for an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding six months or to transportation. The question was whether notice of said conviction can be taken, to disqualify him The conviction was by a person does not travel beyond the State in which it was committed. It was held that the respondent has not incurred any disqualification and his election was not void.

79) In case of Union of India Vs. Sushanta Kumar Mukherjee MANU/WB/0296/1976 (Equivalent citation: (1977)IILLJ 460 Cal, an officer of Food Corporation of India was convicted by a Municipal Magistrate in Switzerland on charge of committed repeated thefts and was sentenced to imprisonment for eight days. After serving the sentence he returned to India and resumed his duties. He alleged that he was convicted and sentenced illegally and was not given opportunity to defend. On receiving the information of the conviction, his employer (Union of India) suspended him under services rules. The order of suspension was challenged in the High Court of Calcutta. It was quashed. The Union of India filed appeal before a Division Bench. The appeal was dismissed

Good gives you enough trials to make you strong, enough sorrow to keep you human and enough hope to make you happy

30

Je<e& 1 ues ♥ DebkeÀ 5 ♥ veesJnWyej 2008

holding that conviction of a Government servant by a court beyond the territory of India is not contemplated by the service rules and action for suspension, removal, dismissal, retirement can not be based on it.

80) On the other hand, on behalf of the applicant, reliance is placed on a Judgment of a Division Bench of a Hon’ble Bombay High Court, in case of Narendra Kumar Khare Vs. S.Gopalkrishnan and other, (O.O.J.C. W.P. No.2988/1999) dated 24.8.2000) reported in 2001, I.L.L.J, Bombay 221.

An officer of a Bank of India was serving as Chief Executive at Tokyo, Japan. Two female Japanese / employees of the bank who were subordinates to him, alleged that he repeatedly misbehaved with them and committed acts of sexual molestation and committed rape. A civil suit for damages was filed in Civil Court in Japan against him. After inquiry, he was found guilty & damages were awarded against him and also against the bank, by the court. On the basis of this judgment, show cause notice was issued by the bank to him, in view of the service rules calling upon, him why he should not be dismissed from service. This show cause notice was challenged by him. The petition was rejected.

The Hon’ble High Court observed that the show cause notice proceeded on conclusions arrived at by a judicial Tribunal in Japan. The Tribunal had recorded findings of fact holding the petitioner guilty of raping and subjecting to sexual harassment of female employees. In other words, the action for disqualification of an employee by the employer, on the basis of a foreign judgment was found legal and correct by a Division Bench of our Parent High Court. The case is identical to our case. Here also, the intended action is on the basis of a foreign judgment.

81) It was tried to argue that the judgment referred in this case was of a foreign civil court and not that of criminal court and that the judgment is Perincuriam. The arguments can not be accepted.

82) The judgments of the parent High Court have binding effect on its sub ordinate courts. White the judgments of other High Courts have persuasive value only.

83) In view of the direct judgment of a division bench of the parent High Court, on this point, I am not inclined to consider the other two judgments referred on behalf of the respondent.

84) To sum, the application is not defective on the ground that it is relying on a judgment of a foreign court.

85) Thus, I have dealt with all the objections, raised by the respondent. I do not find any defect in the application. Therefore, I reject the objections & proceed further.

86) The applicant is seeking action only on the basis of Section 41D(1)(f). The only fact that needs to be considered is whether the respondent has been convicted for having committed offence involving moral turpitude, by the Tribunal Court of First Instances of Juridical District of Antwerp (Belgium) in the Judgment No. 5686 date 6.12.2007.

87) The applicant in her application states that respondent is convicted for offence involving moral turpitude and that he sentenced to imprisonment for six months, She further states that he has concealed the fact of conviction and order from the board of trustees.

88) Referring the written statement, it was submitted that above facts are not denied by the respondent or that the denials are evasive and this amounts to admission of the facts pleaded by the applicant.

89) Advocate Shri Guru Krishna Kumar submitted that this being a quasi criminal proceeding, much importance can not be given to the written statement.

In fact, the respondent is not supposed to make any statement in view of order of the Hon. High Court date 7.11.08. The onus is on the applicant to

A great pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do.

31

Je<e& 1 ues ♥ DebkeÀ 5 ♥ veesJnWyej 2008

establish that he is convicted. Besides, there is specific denial in para 13 of the written statement.

90) The arguments are not acceptable. It is true the order of this authority date 27.6.2008 directing the respondent to make a statement about the conviction is stayed by the Hon. High Court by order date 11.7.2008 in Writ Petition 4787/08. But by the same order the respondent was given liberty to file “written statement” in this proceeding. Accordingly, the written statement is filed.

91) This is not a pure criminal proceeding. As discussed earlier, this authority exercises power of Civil Court in dealing with the inquiry Provisions of Civil Procedure Code are applicable as far as possible. Having regard to this, provisions under order 8 about written statement are to be kept in mind. Once the written statement is filed on record, it can not be ignored. It is to be taken into consideration in the light of provisions of order 8 of C.P.C. Order 8 rule 3 reads as below: Denial to be specific : It shall not be sufficient for a defendant in his written statement to deny generally the grounds alleged by the plaintiff, but the defendant must deal specifically with each allegation of fact of which he does not admit the truth, except damages.

92) This rule provides that general denial of the grounds alleged in plaint is not sufficient. Each allegation of fact of which truth is not admitted, should be denied specifically.

Order 8 rule 4 reads as belowEvasive denial – Where a defendant denies an allegation of fact in the plaint, he must not do so evasively, but answer the point of substance. Thus, if it is alleged that he received a certain sum of money, it shall not be sufficient to deny that he received that particular amount, but he must deny that he received that sum or any part thereof, or else set out how much he received. And if an allegation is made with diverse circumstances, it

shall not be sufficient to deny it along with those circumstances.

93) This rule provides that the denials of the facts which are not admitted, must not be evasive. The point of substance should be answered. If the allegation is with diverse circumstances, it is not sufficient to deny the allegation along with those circumstances.

Order 8 rule 5 reads as below – Specific denial 1) Every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the defendant, shall be taken to be admitted except as against a person under disability; Provided that the Court may in its discretion require any fact so admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admission.

(2) Where the defendant has not filed a pleading, it shall be lawful for the Court to pronounce judgment on the basis of the facts contained in the plaint, except as against a person under a disability, but the court may, in its discretion, require any such fact to be proved.

(3) in exercising its discretion under the proviso to sub rule(1) or under sub rule(2), the Court shall have due regard to the fact whether the defendant could have, or has, engaged a pleader, 4) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under this rule, a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with such judgment and such decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced.

94) Under this rule, an allegation of fact if not denied, nor stated to be not admitted in the written statement, it is to be taken to be admitted.

95) Referring above, it was submitted that, the respondent did not deny the fact of conviction specifically. He has only denied the legal consequence which is contended by the applicant to follow from the essential bundle of the facts which form part of cause of action. The denial is evasive.

The ignorant are like saline soil; they are there, but useless.

32

Je<e& 1 ues ♥ DebkeÀ 5 ♥ veesJnWyej 2008

Therefore, the allegations are to be taken as admitted by him.

96) In case of National Sports Club of India Vs. Nandilal Dwarkadas 1997(3) Bom. C.R. the plaintiffs, life members of defendant club, a society, filed a suit for declaration that, the office bearers of the society were not entitled to terminate membership of the plaintiff. In the plaint, para 11, several statements in support of the allegation that the plaintiff’s daughter was refused duplicate identity card, comprising of 15 sentences were made against the defendants. In the reply, the defendants denied the allegations in one sentence that they deny that the plaintiff’s daughter has been refused duplicate identify card. It was held that many of the allegations in the plaint are not denied in written statement except one sentence. The denials were not specific. This was treated as admission of the fact.

97) Advocate, Shri Sibbal submitted that as per Section 58 of Evidence Act, facts admitted need not be proved. In case of M. Venkataramana Hebbar Vs. M. Rajagopal Hebbar (2007)6 Supreme Court Cases 401, it is laid down that where a plea which was relevant for the purpose of maintaining a suit had not been specifically traversed, the court was entitled to draw an inference that the same had been admitted. In terms of Sec. 58, Evidence Act, 1872,facts admitted need not be proved.

98) Reliance was also placed on, S.Sadagopa Ramanujam Vs. S.R.Rengasamy Iyengar, 1995(1)CTC 547, in support of the argument that every allegation of fact in plaint, if not denied in written statement, shall be taken to be admitted by defendant. Mere denial is not sufficient to satisfy requirement of order 8 Rule 3&5.

99) Advocate, Shri Sibbal also relied on, M.Gordhandas & Co. Vs. D.Arvind Mils, 1971 Vol. LXXVI B.L.R. 119.

100) Relying on Shankarlal Ganulal Khandelwal Vs. Balmukund Surajmal Bharuka, 1999(2) ALL

MR 85, it was submitted, on behalf of the respondent that specific denial of particular fact in the written statement is not necessary. There the defendant in his written statement had denied averments made by the plaintiff in each and every paragraph. In the peculiar facts of that case, it was held that though there was no specific denial of any particular fact, it can not be said that the defendant admitted the same. The case differs on facts from this case.

101) My attention was drawn to the page 13 of the written statement.

The relevant portion from the written statement is reproduced below: “Without prejudice to what is mentioned hereinabove and with reference to paragraph 1 of the alleged cause of action, this opponent submits that what is stated therein, is false and there is a complete distortion and misquoting of the so called purported document projected as Judgment No. 5686 dated 6th December 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the “said document”). With further reference to the said paragraph, this opponent denies that he has concealed the said fact and the conviction and the order passed therein from the Board of trustees and therefore, the opponent has committed a breach of trust, misrepresentation of facts and concealment of facts from the purported Board of trustees and puts the applicant to the strict proof thereof”.

In para 3(r), the respondent alternatively claims that he was joined to the said proceedings in his capacity as Manager of the company M.V. Gambel and not his personal capacity. The so called tax offences were company related and not personal.

He further states that he was joined to that proceeding on account of his being vicariously liable for and on behalf of the company.

102) After going through the written statement, para, 3 (r to s) as well as para 1 on page 13, it can be said that what is denied by the respondent is the allegation that he has been convicted in any offences

One mahinecan do the workof fifty ordinary man. No mahinecan do the workof ne xtraordinayman.

33

Je<e& 1 ues ♥ DebkeÀ 5 ♥ veesJnWyej 2008

involving moral turpitude. There is no specific denial of the fact of his conviction. What is denied is the consequence, as argued by Advocate, Shri Sibbal.

There is specific denial of the fact that he did not inform the board of trustees about the judgment.

These denials are not the denials of the fact of conviction. It would be improper to ignore all these while framing the charges.

103) Advocate, Shri Sibbal took me through the English translation of the Flemish judgment in case No. 5686 – Note Number AN.27.97.00137/99 CASE1, delivered by the Tribunal of First Instance of the Juridical District of Antwerp (Belgium) date 6.12.2007. Name of respondent appears at serial no.18 in the array of the accused. The allegations are found on page F-7 & F-8. They are reproduced below – F-7 – The eighteenth Between October 20th 1994 and January 15th, 1999, on dates which are not determined, and/or among others on the below mentioned dates, the fact being the successive and continuous expression of the same intention, the last fact known by date having been committed on December 14th, 1998, the period of limitation being interrupted by lawful acts of investigation or persecution, namely by the disposition of communication by the investigation magistrate dated April 2nd, 2003.”

F–8 “By issuing and/or having made issued false export documents and/or having signed these and/ or having them made to be signed, more in particular invoices, EXI declaration forms, weighing notes, export licenses from the Central service for Contingents and Licenses or the Service for Licenses of the Ministry of Economical Affairs, expert’s assessments and valuation reports issued by the Diamond Office, and Shipper’s letter of instruction for the shipping agent while in reality there were no export shipments to the mentioned

destination and/or the shipped diamonds were evadingly re-imported and/ or the value of the shipped diamonds were grossly exaggerated, with the fraudulent intent to obscure the facts of money laundering such as described below in charges B and C.I up to and including C.XV. 104) The findings of the court are, at page F 109.

They are reproduced below: “It has been established that the sale of the diamonds was not declared. The defendants admit this, but even now they still not wish to divulge their real customers. In order to balance their accounting, they installed the previously outlined construction with the fictive exportation of diamonds for which false invoices were issued which the so called customers paid by bank transfer afterwards.

105) As the defendants have made fictitious sales and export by using false invoices and bank transfers under a false name, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the defendants rendered themselves guilty of the acts meant by art. 505, 1st part, par 4th P C, namely that they have concealed or veiled the kind, origin, finding place, alienation, replacement or property of the objects meant by article 42.3rd although they knew at the beginning the illegal origin of it or they were supposed to know it.”

106) Before awarding punishment it is observed at pate F 113, that the facts are serious and witness of a far reaching fraudulent mentality with which not only personal gains was aimed at but also the legal trade traffic was disturbed amounts others by the distortion of the competition. This respondent is referred as “actual principal”.

107) On page F 120, he is shown in the list of the convicts. Sentence of imprisonment of six months is awarded. However, he seems to have been released on probation for a period of three years.

108) It was submitted that another case bearing Notification No. A.N.27.97.000154/07 – CASE II was also heard and disposed of alongwith the above case by a common judgment. This respondent was

The more experience I gather, the more I realise that man himself is the cause of his happiness as well as his misery.

34

Je<e& 1 ues ♥ DebkeÀ 5 ♥ veesJnWyej 2008

accused No. 29 in that case. The company M.V. Gambel was also arraigned as accused. The charges were of forgery. However, the accused in that case, reached a settlement with the prosecution. Reference of this, is found on page F 107.In the case, he was co-accused alongwith the company. It was submitted that in Case I, the respondent was prosecuted in individual capacity and not as a Manager of the company .

109) It is necessary to mention here that none of these submissions with reference to the judgment and its contents were contradicted on behalf of the respondent. No arguments were advanced with regard to the charges, findings, and conviction, of the respondent mentioned in that judgment.

110) Advocate, Shri Guru Krishna Kumar submitted that it can not be said whether the alleged offence committed in Belgium was involving moral turpitude.

The concept of “moral turpitude” is extremely vague and susceptible of various meanings depending on the society / geographical territory and is conditioned by the cultural and social ethos of a place.

111) In case of Pawan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana (1996)4 Supreme Court Cases 17, discussion the term moral turpitude, it is held that “Moral turpitude” is an expression which is used in legal as also societal parlance to describe conduct which is inherently base, vile, depraved or having any connection showing depravity.

112) In case of, Dr. Pandurang Hari Kulkarni Vs. Manohar Gopal Vadelkar, 1998(1) Bom.C.R. 648, a trustee of the trust was convicted under provisions of Poona University Act, 1974 on the charge of not giving effect to an order passed by a Tribunal, later on confirmed by Supreme Court, against the trustee, to reinstate an employee of an Educational Institution, run by the trust, who was retired before attaining the age of retirement. Said employee filed proceeding for removal of the trustee under Section 47 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. Pending

inquiry, he was suspended. That order was challenged before the Hon. High Court. On facts, it was held that the offence was not involving moral turpitude. The expression moral turpitude was discussed in detail. It was observed as below: “The term “moral turpitude” is rather vague one and it may have different meanings in different context. The term has generally been taken to mean to be a conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals and contrary to what a man owes to fellow man or to society in general. Every act punishable in law would not amount to an offence involving moral turpitude. If that had been the intention then there was no necessity to say that a person convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude would be exposed to certain consequences or disqualifications. The Legislature would have merely stated that a person who is punished for violation of any law would be exposed to such consequences. The question whether a particular offence involves moral turpitude will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. However, in order to come within the ambit of said phrase, there must be element of baseness, and depravity in the act alleged. The act must be vile or harmful to society in general or contrary to accepted rules or rights and duties between man and man. It can not be forgotten that some time a person may be technically guilty without any intention on his part.”

113) In case of Allahabad Bank and anr. Vs. Deepak Kumar Bhola, (1997)4 S.C. Cases 1, a bank employee was prosecuted on the charges of forgery and wrongful withdrawal of money from the bank.

The bank suspended him under service rules. Said suspension order was quashed by High Court. The bank filed appeal before the Supreme Court.

Allowing the appeal, it was held that what is offence involving moral turpitude must depend upon the facts of each case. However, one of the most serious offences involving moral turpitude would be where

Never forget the goal. Never stop aspiring. Never half in your progress, and you are sure to succeed.

35

Je<e& 1 ues â&#x2122;Ľ DebkeĂ&#x20AC; 5 â&#x2122;Ľ veesJnWyej 2008

a person employed in a banking dealing with money of the general public, commits forgery and wrongfully withdraws money which he is not entitled to withdraw.

114) To sum, on going through the application, written statement and the judgment, it is apparent that respondent was convicted by a competent court for having committed offences of fraud with fraudulent mentality, for personal gains. There is finding of that court that he committed forgery and offences were serious in nature. At the face of it, prima facie these can be termed as offences involving moral turpitude. The case squarely falls within ambit Section 41D(1)(f). A case is made out for framing charge against him. Charge be framed against him accordingly.

CHARGE That you, the respondent Shri Prabodh Mehta, a trustee of the trust is convicted for an offence involving moral turpitude by the Tribunal Court of First Instances of Juridical District of Antwerp (Belgium) in the Judgment No. 5686 date 6.12.2007.

115) Section 41D(3) provides that pending disposal of the charges framed against a trustee, the Charity Commissioner may place the trustee under suspension.

116) An unreported judgment of a Division Bench of Hon. Bombay High Court in case of Gulabsingh Chavan Vs. Joint Charity Commissioner (Special Civil Application No. 1912/1976) date 18.12.1978 was placed on record on behalf of the applicant. In that case, on complaint by a former Secretary of Satpuda Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Dhulia trust about serious irregularities committed by the trustees, a suo motu inquiry under Section 41D was initiated. From the material available on record, it was found that the charges were of very serious nature. The authority exercised the powers under Section 41D(3) and suspended the trustees, pending the inquiry. Invoking powers under Section

41D(4) a fit person was appointed a discharge the duty and perform the functions of the trust during period of suspension. Said order was challenged before Hon. High Court. One of the grounds, challenging the order was that, the contention, it was observed that there is no provision in the Act of issuance of notice prior to passing of interim order of suspension. It was further observed that the powers are exercised only in the cases where the Joint Charity Commissioner is satisfied that the trustee is mismanaging the affairs of the trust and causing loss to the interest of the trust.

117) Thus, it is not necessary to give notice or an opportunity of hearing to the trustees before considering the aspect of suspension. It goes without saying that it would also not be necessary to give opportunity of hearing to the applicant, at this stage. The decision is to be taken by this authority, using the discretion under Section 41D(3).

Gravity of the charges, interest of the trust, likelihood of misuse of powers by the charged trustee, interest of the trust are somewhat important considerations to be kept in mind before passing the order.

118) Admittedly, the offence for which the respondent is convicted is not connected with the trust or trust property. There is no allegation against him of mismanagement of the offence of the trust of causing loss to the interest of the trust. In the fact situation, there is no question of tampering with prosecution evidence. There is nothing to suggest that, his remaining as a trustee would be detrimental for the trust. In such conditions, I do not find it necessary to pass order of suspension.

119) As per the order of the Hon. High Court, the inquiry will have to be completed before the end of this month. There is no material on record, from which it can be said that the respondent is likely to misuse his position as trustee and is going to act against the interest of the trust, within this short period. This is another reason for which order of suspension is not required.

Mass discipline is an essential condition for a people who aspire to be a great nation.

36

Je<e& 1 ues ♥ DebkeÀ 5 ♥ veesJnWyej 2008

120) The inquiry to proceed further. The applicant to adduce evidence in support of the charges on the next date. She should submit list of the witnesses in this office on 14.10.2008 at 2.30 p.m.

Copy be supplied in advance to the respondent.

The case to proceed on day to day basis.

In the matter of Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust P.T.R. No.E 6896 (M) ORDER BELOW EX.2 IN APPLICATION NO.17 OF 2006 (Under Sec. 41D of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950) 1/- The applicant, Smt. Charuben K.Mehta a permanent trustee of, Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust (in short, “the trust”) P.T.R. No.E 6892(M) has moved the application under Sec.41D of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (in short “the Act”) against other trustees of the trust.

2/- This authority after hearing the parties & after going through the material available on record, framed following charges under Section 41D(2) of the Act against the trustees, respondent Nos.1 to 9 by order date. 3.6.2008-

1)

2)

CHARGES The opponents No. 1 to 9, trustees of the trust advanced huge amounts more than Rs. 15 crores to M/s. Mayfair Realtors Pvt. Ltd. & Vesta India Pvt. Ltd. for procuring medical equipments during years 2001-02 to 2003-04 without taking proper care & despite failure by these companies to supply the equipments, did not take steps to recover the money & thus, continuously neglected their duties & committed mis feasance & also dealt improperly with the trust property.

The opponents No.1 to 9, trustees of the trust, gave donations regularly to the tune of Rs. 6.36 crores from year 2003-04 to 2005-06 to Madhulaxmi Trust, without verifying that the donations are utilized to fulfill objects of the trust & thus, continuously neglected their duties & committed mis feasance & also dealt improperly with the trust property.

(N.V. Deshmukh) Joint Charity Commissiner Greater Mumbai Region , Mumbai.

Mumbai Dated : 8.10.2008

3)

4)

5)

6)

7)

8)

The opponents No. 1 to 9, trustees of the trust & committed mis feasance & also dealt improperly with the trust property purchased a Honda Accord Car MH 02 MA 4343 for and in the name of Mr. Dushyant Mehta & thus dealt improperly with trust funds & mis appropriated the trust money.

Opponent No. 9, a trustee of the trust, utilized the trust funds to the tune of Rs. 36,06,470/during financial years 2003-04 to 2005-06 towards payments of his credit cards & thus received personal benefits from trust funds & thereby mis-appropriated the trust money & committed mal feasance.

The opponents No. 1 to 9, trustees of the trust arranged meetings of the trustees as well as other meetings at Antewerp, Belgium & other foreign countries instead of India & spent huge amounts to the tune of Rs. 58,40,456/- from year 2002-03 to August, 2006 & squandered the trust money & committed mis feasance & also dealt improperly with the trust property.

The opponents No. 1 to 9, trustees of the trust have spent money from trust funds to meet traveling expenses of Mr. Suresh Motwani who has no concern with the trust, for his trips to Goa & Dubai & committed mis feasance & also dealt improperly with the trust property.

The opponents No. 1 to 9, trustees of the trust, advanced amount of Rs. 2.75 crores to M/s.

Albina Developers Pvt. Ltd. without verifying its track record & without taking proper care & acted negligently in dealing with this transaction & committed mis feasance & also dealt improperly with the trust property.

The opponents No. 1 to 9, trustees of the trust, allowed mis use of a trust account for the purpose of clandestine transaction in favourr of Golden Sea Shell C.H. & thereby committed mal feasance.

Real greatness lies in a pure and simple life.

37

Je<e& 1 ues ♥ DebkeÀ 5 ♥ veesJnWyej 2008

3/- Application (Ex.2) was given by the applicant under Section 41D(3) of the Act for suspension of the trustees. After framing charges, instead of suspending the trustees, they were directed not to take any policy decision and not to enter into any financial transaction with regard to the trust, till further orders, without prior approval of the administrators, appointed by the Supreme Court for administration of the Hospital run by the trust, justice, Shri Halbe (retired judge of Bombay High Court) and Dr. Narendra Trivedi.

4/Above order date 3.6.08 was challenged before Hon. High Court in Writ Petitions No. 3849/ 08 & 3850/08. The order of interim directions passed by this authority was set aside. Directions were given to pass fresh interim orders. However, the order framing charges is upheld by the Hon. High Court.

5/- Thereafter, fresh interim directions were issued by this authority against trustees, respondents No. 1 to 9 by order date 12.7.08. This order was again challenged before Hon. High Court by some of the respondents in Writ Petition No. 5732/08. Disposing of said petition, by order date 9.9.2008, the Hon. High Court has modified the order date 23.7.08. The respondents, trustees are directed not to take any policy decision and not to enter into any financial transaction with regard to the trust without prior approval of this authority.

Directions are given to dispose of application (Ex.2) filed by the present applicant for suspension of the trustees, pending the inquiry in the main application. The parties are given liberty to file additional documents or pleadings before this authority.

6/- It is submitted by both the parties that, both the orders passed by the Hon. High Court referred above, are challenged before a Division Bench of Hon. High Court in two separate Letters Patent Appeals. They are listed for final hearing on 20.10.2008. It was informed that this authority is directed to proceed with application (Ex.2). But, if any, adverse order against the respondent trustees is passed, it shall not be implemented till 20.10.08.

7/- The copy of the order date 9.9.2008 was produced before authority on 18.9.2008. On 23.9.2008, the respondent No. 9, trustee filed his affidavit/additional reply (Ex.81) and documents with list (Ex.83). During course of hearing, some documents were filed with application (Ex.99).

8/- Respondent No. 1 adopted the say of respondent no. 9, vide purshis (Ex.82).

9/- The applicant filed affidavit in rejoinder (Ex.88).

10/- Respondent No. 8 has filed additional affidavit (Ex.84A) and say (Ex.86) 11/- Respondent No. 10 filed affidavit in rejoinder (Ex.91).

12/- Respondent Nos. 11 & 12 have adopted the affidavit filed by respondent No.10, vide purshis (Ex. 92&93) 13/- Respondent Nos. 2,6&7 filed additional say (Ex.96).Respondent Nos. 1,3&9 field additional say (Ex. 97) to the affidavit in rejoinder of the applicant.

14\- Heard senior Advocate, Mr. Mahesh jethmalani alongwith advocate, Shri Kadam for the applicant, senior advocate, Shri Shri Hari Aney alongwith adv.

Shri Inamdar for respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 9, Adv. Shri Sanjay Jain instructed by M/s. Paras Kuhad for respondent Nos. 2, 6 & 7, Adv. Shri Sibbal for respondent No. 10 & Advocate, Shri Bhadeka for respondent Nos. 11 & 12. Written arguments (Ex. 101) are filed by respondent No.8 15/- During course of arguments, it was submitted that respondent No.2, Shri Sandeep, Respondent No.4, Shri Sanjay have resigned from the trust. They are not in the management of the trust. Advocate, Shri Kadam admitted this fact. From this, it is clear that they are no more trustees. Therefore, the order of suspension, if any, will have to be passed against respondent Nos. 1,3,6,8 & 9 only.

16/- Section 41D(3) provides for suspension of the charged trustee, pending inquiry. The powers given to this authority, in that regard are discretionary. As directed by the Hon. High Court, the questions arising, while hearing the application (Ex.2) have to be answered, keeping in mind, the parameters to be applied for passing such order of suspension, on the basis of the charges framed.

17/- There are no fixed parameters for passing order of suspension. Replying on Shri Digyadarsan Rajendra Ramdassjivare Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh, 1969(1) Supreme Court Cases 844, it was argued that possibility of tempering with evidence and further misappropriation or defalcation of the trust properties may be good grounds for suspension. In that case, these were considered, as sufficient grounds for suspension of a madhadhipati (Manager) of a temple trust, pending inquiry of similar nature under provisions of Andhra

The powers of the mind are like rays of the sun, if dissipated when they are concentrated, they illumine.

38

Je<e& 1 ues â&#x2122;Ľ DebkeĂ&#x20AC; 5 â&#x2122;Ľ veesJnWyej 2008

Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowment Act, 1966.

18/- An unreported judgment of a Division Bench of Hon. Bombay High Court in case of, Gulabsingh Chavan Vs. Joint Charity Commissioner (Special Civil Application No. 1912/1976) date 18.12.1978 was placed on record. On a complaint by a former Secretary of Satpuda Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Dhulia trust. About serious irregularities committed by the trustees, a suo motu inquiry under Section 41D was initiated. On the basis of material available on record, it was found that the charges were of very serious nature. The trustees were suspended exercising the powers under Section 41D(3), pending the inquiry. Said order was challenged before Hon. High Court. Dismissing the petition, it was observed that the powers are exercised only in the cases where the Joint Charity Commissioner is satisfied that the trustee is mismanaging the affairs of the trust and causing loss to the interest of the trust. On facts, It was found that the whole management was in the hands of the President and other trustees were converted to secondary position. They were aiding and abetting the President in misappropriating the trust property and had not taken any action against the President for a long period. The order of suspension was upheld and the petition was dismissed.

19/- Senior Advocate, Shri Jethmalani vehemently argued that in this case, the entire management is with respondent No. 9. Other trustees are converted to secondary position. The charges framed are of serious nature. There is prima facie evidence that on various occasions, the trustees committed various acts and thereby caused loss to the trust. It is not case of an isolated incident of error of judgment on their part. The mismanagement and duping of the trust continued for a period of more than five years from 2001 to 2006. It was submitted that despite orders of this authority, the trustees made payments to the advocates from trust funds for defending them. This is misuse of the powers.

He also submitted that they may tamper with evidence, if allowed to continue.

20/- On the other hand, it was submitted on behalf of respondents, trustees, that the charges are not so grave, as tried to be projected. The trustees have given explanations regarding the charges. They have taken steps to make good the losses. The allegation of tempering with evidence is vague. From

time to time, statements, audited accounts are submitted in this office and other various offices.

There is no likelihood of tampering with that record.

Since the respondent No. 9 took up the management of the trust, there is considerable rise in the income of the hospital. There is no contravention of the order of this authority. No payments are made, violating the orders.

21/- Senior Advocate, Shri Shri Hari Aney submitted that gravity of the charges can not be the only consideration for suspension of the trustees. Most of the charges are misfeasance. According to him, misfeasance is not as grave as malfeasance. The acts are minor lapses or business mistakes.

According to him, their continuing as trustees would not hamper the course of inquiry and would not affect the trial adversely. Their presence will not obstruct the functioning and welfare of the trust Suspension is not in the interest of the trust. It can not be punitive.

22/- Following judgment were also referred by advocate, Shri Aney to argue, what should be the consideration for suspension. a) K.K. Ramamurtty Vs. State of Kerala, 1972, II.L.L.J. 509, The petitioner in this case, was a member of board of revenue of Kerala. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him regarding acquisition of land of an Agriculture University. Charges were framed against him.

During course of the inquiry he was placed under suspension by the Government. A petition was filed by him challenging the suspension. The suspension was based on rule 3(1) of All India Services (Conduct Rules).

It was observed that, there must be material for satisfaction that during the course of disciplinary proceeding it is necessary to keep the officer under suspension. The suspension of a member of an All India Service or for that matter of any civil servant against whom disciplinary proceedings are initiated is not to be intended as a punishment. The order of suspension should not normally depend merely on the gravity of charges but should depend upon a consideration of the question whether it is necessary to keep him away from the post or office that he occupies. The effect of passing an order of suspension is to keep such officer away from his office for the time

We gather in the present the harvest prepared by the noble efforts of our ancestors in the past.

39

b)

Je<e& 1 ues ♥ DebkeÀ 5 ♥ veesJnWyej 2008 being and is intended to deprive him of the powers of the office temporarily. Its objective is to remove him from his sphere of influence during the investigation into and trial of the charges against him and this may be necessary to avoid embarrassment to the officer as well as his subordinates and associates in office.

State of Orissa Vs. Bimal Kumar Mohanti (1994) 4 S.C. Cases 126. In this case, on the allegations of financial irregularities relating to certain purchases and suppression of audit reports, the Government decided to suspend, the manager of Orissa State guest house, pending further action. The State Administrative Tribunal directed, not to suspend him. Thereafter, a raid was conducted at his house and an offence was registered against him under Section 13(1) of Prevention of Corrupotion Act, for possessing disproportionate assets. The government suspended him from service. The State Administrative Tribunal immediately suspended the suspension order. Said orders of the Tribunal were challenged before the Hon. Supreme Court. The appeals were allowed.

The apex court observed as below“Normally when an appointing authority or the disciplinary authority seeks to suspend an employee, pending inquiry or contemplated inquiry or pending investigation into grave charges of misconduct or defalcation of funds or serious acts of omission and commission, the order of suspension would be passed after taking into consideration the gravity of the misconduct sought to be inquired into or investigated and the nature of the evidence placed before the appointing authority and on application of the mind by disciplinary authority.

Appointing authority or disciplinary authority should consider the above aspects and decide whether it is expedient to keep an employee under suspension pending aforesaid action.

It would not be as an administrative routine or an automatic order to suspend an employee.

It should be on consideration of the gravity of the alleged misconduct or the nature of the allegations imputed to the delinquent employee. The Court or the Tribunal must

consider each case on its own facts and no general law could be laid down in that behalf.

Suspension is not a punishment but is only one of forbidding or disabling an employee to discharge the duties of office or post held by him. It would be another thing if the action is actuated by malafides, arbitrary or for ulterior purpose. The suspension must be a step in aid to the ultimate result of the investigation or inquiry. The authority also should keep in mind public interest of the impact of the delinquent’s continuance in office while facing departmental inquiry or trial of a criminal charge.”

23/- These judgment relate to suspension of government servants during disciplinary proceeding or a criminal prosecution. However, it can not be disputed that many factors to be considered for suspension, there, would also be applicable in the case of present nature.

24/- In case of, Sub Divisional Officer Vs. Shambhu Singh 1969 (1)S.C. Cases, 825, the respondent therein was elected Pradhan of the village. He was suspended by the sub division officer, pending inquiry into charges leveled against him. He challenged the order before apex court. It was dismissed. It was held that where an Act confers a jurisdiction, it impliedly also grants the power of doing all such acts, or employing such means as are essential necessary to its execution. But, before implying the existence of such a power the court must be satisfied that the existence of that power conferred and not merely that it is convenient to have such a power.” The Hon. Supreme Court did not find favour with the submission of the appellant mainly for the reason that, the respondent was not a government servant but an elected representative.

There was no contractual relationship between him and the government.

25/- It was submitted that suspension is an interim relief. It can be granted only when a strong prima facie case is made out and the considerations of balance of convenience and irreparable injury tilt the balance of the case in favour of the applicant. In support of this, reliance was placed on 1) Devraj Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2004) 4, S.C. Cases 697 2) State of U.P. Vs. Ramsukhdevi (2005) 9, Supreme Courses cases 733.

One should be content with what he has got and should not worry about things he does not have.

40

Je<e& 1 ues ♥ DebkeÀ 5 ♥ veesJnWyej 2008

26/- Both these judgment can not be pressed into action, in this case, for the reason that, they deal with totally different issues. Exercising powers under Sec. 41D(3), this authority is not granting any interim relief as such, in favour of any individual. It is an administration order, which is to be passed in the interest of the trust, for its better management & to prevent further misuse of the trust affairs at the hands of charged trustees & to prevent trustees from hampering course of investigation.

27/- The order of suspension, pending inquiry of present nature, may be passed mainly for two purposes. One, for smooth functioning of the trust and the second, for smooth inquiry. In a given case, gravity of the charges, the conduct of the trustees, apparent from the record, may lead one to conclude that his remaining in the management would be against interest of the trust. There many be possibility of his indulging in further acts of misappropriation or squandering trust money for own benefits. In such cases, suspension would be necessary, to keep him away from the trust management and to prevent further losses to the trust.

28/- Obstructing course of inquiry by tampering with evidence or by influencing the witnesses may be the reasons, for which, suspension would be necessary, as such acts may come in way of fair inquiry.

29/- Thus, gravity or seriousness of the charges, nature of evidence, necessary to keep the charged trustees away from the administration of the trust and from the sphere of influence, are the important aspects to be kept in mind before passing order of suspension. Each case differs on facts. The circumstances apparent on record, alone would decide fate of this application.

30/- Before proceeding further, it is necessary to consider the arguments on behalf of the respondent No. 9 about maintainability of the main application.

The submission was that, main application is not maintainable and so the interim application is bound to fail. Most of these objections are reagitated. They were raised at the time of hearing on framing of the charges. They were dealt with & were rejected by order date 3.6.2008. Those findings are still intact. On the basis of prima facie evidence on record, eight charges are framed against the respondent No. 1 to 9. It is necessary to mention here that the order to frame charges in upheld by

the Hon. High Court. The respondent are not permitted to claim dismissal of the main application on those grounds. It is not permissible to go back & reopen these issues already decided. No. grounds for review are made out.

31/- One objection is that the application is barred by limitation. Reliance is placed on, Rajkumar Vs. Shantaram, (2008), 4 ALL M.R. 747, this case differs on facts from our case. Besides, the objection of limitation was turned down in the earlier order date 3.6.2008. Discussion in that regard, at para No. 74.

32/- The other objection is that, the application is barred by principle of res-judicata. This objection was also turned down. Discussion to that effect is a para Nos. 64 to 67.

33/- The applicant’s son (respondent No. 12) had filed two criminal complaint cases against the respondents, trustees making allegations similar to the allegations made here. Both the complaint applications (No. 351 – Misc/ 06 & No. 361 – Misc / 06) were dismissed by the Court, where they were filed. It was submitted that the respondents trustees can not be tried again for the similar allegations. It would be contrary to Article 20 (2) of the Constitution.

The arguments are not acceptable, for the reasons, given by me in para No. 66, rejecting similar arguments with regard to civil proceedings pending between the parties.

34/- There is one more reason for which, I am not ready to accept the arguments. An application under Sec. 41D is not a criminal prosecution. The end product or the result of a criminal prosecution is either conviction or acquittal of the accused against whom the charges are framed. The inquiry of present nature, never ends in conviction. If the charges are not established, the trustee against whom the proceeding is initiated is discharged. If the charges are established, he may be removed or discharged or suspended as a trustee. The principle of double jeopardy could not apply.

35/- It was submitted that, names of some of the trustees, are not on record, but change reports are pending. Their status as trustees is accepted by the Hon. High Court by order date 11.7.2008 in Writ Petition Nos. 3849/08 & 3850/08. Those trustees are necessary parties. The proceeding is defective as they are not main parties.

36/- Reliance was placed on Jankiram Vs. Neelkanth, AIR 1965 S.C. 603. It was a civil suit by beneficiaries for removal of the trustees, for

It is for us to make effort. The result is always in the hands of God. Satisfaction lies in the effort not in the attainment.

41

Je<e& 1 ues ♥ DebkeÀ 5 ♥ veesJnWyej 2008

appointment of new trustees and for delivery of possession of the trust property etc. The ratio laid down in that case can not be made applicable here.

37/- Judgment in case of Venkatesh Iyer Vs. Bombay Hospital, AIR 1998, Bom.373 was also referred. The case differs on facts. It was a civil suit for compensation for negligence by doctors working in a hospital run by a trust.

38/- The issue of non joinder parties was raised earlier and was turned down by this authority by giving reasons in para Nos. 48 to 50. There is no new ground for which this question could be reopened and answered in different manner.

39/- The question of jurisdiction of the authority was again raised, on the ground that the applicant pleaded that she does not admit the respondents, as trustees. In view of this, as the relief is not claimed against the trustees, this authority has no jurisdiction to entertain the application.

40/- In case of Dinkar Vs. Sheshrao (2008) 4, ALL MR 706, it is laid down that unless status of being a trustee is available with Assistant Charity Commissioner, the application under Section 41A need not be entertained for issuing directions.

41/- The applicant may not accept some of the respondents as trustees, but the fact is that they are trustees on record. The applicant also knows this and it is clear from the application. It would be wrong to dismiss the application, relying on some statements made in the application. It is to be considered in totality. A technical objection of such nature would not be sufficient to throw away the application, at this stage.

42/- It was also tried to argue that some of the charges are factually incorrect. At the cost of repetition, it is to be mentioned that, the order framing of the charges is upheld by the Hon. High Court, in two separate Writ Petitions. In such conditions, re-appreciation of the evidence on which the charges were framed is not permissible. Still opportunity was given to explain charges and to put o record material in support of the explanation. It will be considered at appropriate stage.

43/- Advocate, Shri Aney tried to distinguish between the acts of malfeasance and misfeasance, arguing that in later, element of criminal intention is present while in, former such intention is absent.

Taking through each and every charge, it was tried to submit that they are, at the most acts of errors of judgment or business mistakes on the part of the

trustees. They are acts of misfeasance and not of malfeasance and so they are of lesser degree.

44/- According to me, instead of relying on the words, “malfeasance” or “misfeasance”, used in the charges, it would be necessary to look into the actual facts alleged, the manner in which, they were committed, the amounts involved as well as effect of those acts on the trust, and beneficiaries. These will be suggestive of the gravity of the charges.

Besides, the trustees are also charged of improper dealing with the trust properties. Let us consider the charges and the explanations offered by the respondents, trustees.

45/- Charge No.1, is with respect to advancing more than Rs. 15 crores to M/s. Mayfair Realtors Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Vesta India Pvt. Ltd. for purchase of medical equipments from the years 2001-02 to 2004. Till today, no medical equipments are received. No steps were taken for that and also for recovery of the money. The amount adjusted to the tune of Rs. 75 lacs by purchase / security of the properties is too meager, considering the amount advanced. No record is available that these companies deal in medical equipments. The only step by the trustees is to pass resolution in the meeting date 29.4.2008 for taking action against the trustees. These are some of the reasons which are discussed in detail from para 97 to 104 of the order date 3.6.08.

46/- The explanation to this charge, is that there was error of judgment or business mistake on the part of the trustees. The explanation is not acceptable, at this stage. The amounts were not advanced in one stroke. They were advanced every year, despite the knowledge that in past, the companies did not provide medical equipments.

There is no proper explanation about the silence on the part of the trustees to take steps.

47/- At the fag end of the hearing, along with application (Ex.99), a letter allegedly written by Shri Suresh Motwani who controls these companies was placed on record. It was submitted that said Suresh Motwani has given a proposal for settlement of the dues. According to advocate, Shri Inamdar, this shows that, through out, the trustees were pursuing the matter and the proposal given is beneficial to the trust. Thus, there would be no loss to it in above transaction.

48/- It is alleged by the applicant that the letter is fabricated. Several objections are raised with regard

Look upon God as your only true friend.

42

Je<e& 1 ues â&#x2122;Ľ DebkeĂ&#x20AC; 5 â&#x2122;Ľ veesJnWyej 2008

to it. Some of them, can not be totally ignored. No affidavit of the trustees, is filed in support of the contention that such proposal is received and that the letter is signed by Shri Motwani. It is not explained when and how the negotiations took place.

49/- It was submitted that said Suresh Motwani is a proclaimed absconder. His whereabouts are not known. Therefore, it looks doubtful that he had negotiations with the trustees. The fact that he is proclaimed absconder is not denied. How, all of a sudden, those related with the companies, offered the proposals, is a question which could be answered only after a full-fledged inquiry. The documents produced, in such form, in such manner, at this stage, do not support the explanation and do not mitigate, the gravity of the charge.

50/- Charge No. 2, is with regard to donations given of a Madhulaxmi trust. The explanation is that the donations are given to fulfill the objects of the trust to set up a medical research centre. The recipient a trust, is given five years time to set up the centre from the date of last disbursement. Said period of five years had no expired. Copy of an affidavit filed

by Mr. Dushyant Mehta is suit No. 1224/08 is filed on record in support of the explanation. According to the respondents, the affidavit explains the efforts made by that trust to set up the centre. The written statement did not mention about such time granted to the recipient trust. The affidavit of Mr. Dushyant Mehta is not sufficient to accept the explanation.

Why such concession was given to that trust is not explained. It is difficult to accept that it was also a case of error of judgment.

51/- The third charge is of purchase of car from trust funds for and in the name of Mr. Dushyant Mehta, who is not related with the trust. It was submitted that the car is not purchased by the trust.

This charge I s framed on the basis o f the contentions in the written statement. The payment was made from trust funds. The explanation is not acceptable.

52/- The fourth charge is regarding, payment from trust funds for credit cards o f respondent No. 9.

The explanation in this regard is that an amount of approximately Rs. 14 lacs being personal expenses through credit cards have been reimbursed to the trust. How and when the reimbursement was made is not clear. Whether subsequent repayment of such entrusted amount, could justify, its use for personal

benefit by a trustee, is another question which can be considered in the inquiry. The explanation can not be accepted at this stage.

53/- The fifth charge is of spending trust money for holding various meetings at places outside India.

The amount is to the tune of Rs. 58,40,456/(Rupees fifty eight lacs forty thousand four hundred fifty six only). The explanation was that such meetings, outside India were necessary for promotion of the hospital. I do not find any merit in this submission.

54/- The sixth charge is that payments were made from trust funds to meet traveling expenses of Shri Suresh Motwani, who is not connected with the trust.

It was submitted that only when he traveled in connection with trust work, the payments were made from trust funds. This contention is very vague. No details of the travels and the purpose and the nature of work are given. Worth of this submission could be judged only when such details and some evidence in support of them is produced.

55/- The seventh charge is about advancing Rs. 2.75 crores to Albina Developers. The explanation which was given earlier is repeated that the amount has been repaid to the trust. This does not explain the questions which were raised while framing charge. One can find reference of these in para 122 of the earlier order. The questions are still unanswered.

56/- The last charge, of misuse of trust account for a transaction in favour of Golden Sea Shell, was tried to be justified by submitting that sanction under Sec. 35 for investment of the trust funds, was obtained by the trust from this office. Relevant documents in that regard were placed on record.

There is nothing from which, it can be said, that the sanction was accorded for such investment in such manner.

57/- The argument is that, the hospital run by the trust has yearly turn over of hundreds of crores rupees. Since, the respondent No 9 took over the charge of the hospital management, there is considerable rise in the income and consequently in the profit of the trust. The amounts under the charge are comparatively meager amounts. The lapses, if any, on the part of the trustees is minor.

58/- In my view, above can not be a justification. No amount is small, not even a rupee. The trustees are holding the trust properly on behalf of the trust & beneficiaries. Basic expectation from the trustees

The reason for the loss of peace in the world is the disappearance of fear of sin and love of God.

43

Je<e& 1 ues â&#x2122;Ľ DebkeĂ&#x20AC; 5 â&#x2122;Ľ veesJnWyej 2008

is that, each and every pie belonging to the trust, is utilized only to achieve its objects and not for any other purpose. The trustees are not expected to use the trust moneys for themselves. They have to deal with the trust funds and properties with care and caution of an ordinary prudent man, dealing with his own properties. The allegations on the basis of which charges are framed show otherwise.

An error of judgment, or a business mistake, a casual approach, omission to take immediate steps to cure the defects may be excused, if singular in number. Repeated acts occurring every year, in one ore other form, which result in losses to the trust are to be viewed from different angel. In this case, each of the acts alleged, for which the trustees are charged, prima facie evince the approach and attitude of the charged trustees. There is repeated misuse of the trust funds on different occasions, by different means. These acts, leave cumulatively, even individually, can not be termed as minor lapses. The magnitude of the charges is amplified, if they are considered in totality.

59/- It was submitted that because of the marathon efforts by respondent No. 9, Shri Vijay Mehta, this hospital has become one of the best hospitals in Asia. He has spent 18 years of his life to bring fame and fortune both to the trust and the hospital. He and some of other trustees are experiencing last years of their lives. He is bed ridden. Their suspension at this stage would be against interest of the trust.

60/- Old age or sickness of a trustee, can not be a ground to take any different view, if the circumstances show his involvement, in the misdeeds. Same can be said about the efforts, if any, made by him to establish the hospital.

61/- It was submitted that there is no likelihood of misuse of the powers by the trustees. Accounts and other record for period for which the charges are framed is already submitted in the office. There could be no tampering of this evidence. Besides, in the presence of other trustees on record, there would be no possibility of further misuse of powers.

62/- It was argued on behalf of the applicant, that the trustees, in violation of orders of this authority committed further acts and this shows that the trust management is not safe in their hands. The direction in the order date 3.6.2008, not to take any policy decision and not to enter into financial transaction

with regard to the trust without prior approval of justice, Shri Hable, (retired Judge of Bombay High Court) and Dr. Narendra Trivedi was in force till 11.7.2008. After passing of that order, the trustees issued certain cheques from account of the hospital run by the trust in favour of the advocates who were representing them.

63/- One of the administrators, justice, Shri Hable, took objection that the trust is formal party to those proceedings and the dispute is between trustees inter-se. Justice, Shri Halbe by a letter date 27.6.2008 informed this office that payments are made by the trustees in breach of the order date 3.6.2008. The fact that the cheques were issued, is not denied, by the respondents, trustees. But it is submitted that, in fact the cheques were not dispatched. They remained with the trust.

64/- In view of the order of Hon. High Court, date 11.7.2008, the order of directions for seeking prior approval was vacated. Subsequently, fresh order imposing restrictions, was passed by this authority on 23.7.2008. But, from 11.7.2008 to 22.7.2008 the restrictions were not in force. On 13th &14th July, 2008, immediately, after the restriction order was vacated, fresh cheques were issued by the trustees, to their advocates. This is not denied. But it is submitted that the cheques are still with the trust.

65/- As per the other letter of justice, Shri Halbe, he issued a circular on 24.7.2008 to the Heads of the Departments of the hospital, to communicate the order of this authority date 23.7.08. However, respondent No. 9, threatened the Heads of the Department as to why they accepted the circular and called upon them to tender their explanation.

66/- The respondents severely criticized both the reports contending that they do not depict correct facts and they are biased. Various arguments are advanced that the administration is not empowered to issue directions and to take objections to the payments. His powers are restricted. He had filed reports of similar nature before Hon. High Court, making allegations against these respondents. But, the Hon. High Court has not taken cognizance of his reports. The payments to the advocates are legal. The decision to make payments to the advocates for defending the trustees was taken in the board meeting date 29.4.2008 prior to the order date 3.6.2008. The cheques were issued in pursuance of the resolution. That resolution was challenged by this applicant before Hon. High Court,

Manavatha (humaneness) means the complete harmony of thought, word and deed.

44

Je<e& 1 ues ♥ DebkeÀ 5 ♥ veesJnWyej 2008

but she could not succeed. There is no violation of the order of this authority.

67/- The arguments criticizing reports of justice, Shri Halbe are not relevant to decide the question before me. Therefore, it is not necessary to consider the same. The facts of issuance of cheques by the trustees, objections raised by justice, Shri Halbe are not in dispute. Making payments to the advocates, as per the resolution which was prior to the order of this authority may not be viewed as illegal per-se. However, the matte does not end there.

68/- The applicant has raised serious objections in the main application about the payment of advocates fees from trust funds for fighting personal litigations of the trustees. Cognizance of those allegations was not taken for the reason, that there was no sufficient material to frame charges.

However, it was made clear that if and when sufficient material in support of the allegations is placed on record, this authority may take cognizance.

69/- The question is whether in fact situation, it was appropriate on the part of the trustees, to make payments to the advocates, who were defending them in the matter, in which objections, to such payments are taken.

70/- It was submitted that defending the trustees by engaging advocates through trust funds was necessary for protection of the trust and trust property. Reference of Sections 13 & 36 of the Indian Trust Act, as well as Clause 11 of the Trust Deed, was given in this regard. It is also submitted that there is no allegation in Ex. 2 about the payments to advocates.

71/- Having regard to the allegations and the charges framed, it becomes difficult, atleast, at this stage, to accept that the trustees are fighting the litigations, to protect the trust or trust property. The allegations of misuse of powers are directed against them and not against the trust. Technically, there may be no violation, as such, of the order, in making the payments. But that does not provide any answer to the question, that payments. But that does not provide any answer to the question, that whether it was proper to make payments to the advocates, in this proceeding, at this stage, in this way, when the charges are framed.

72/- It is also material that, when objections were taken by one of the administrators, the cheques

were withheld. Probably because, at that time, the restriction order, was in operation. But, as soon as, the order was stayed by Hon. High Court immediately they re-issued the cheques. It seems that the trustees are in search of opportunities, to see that their purpose is served and simultaneously they are saved from tentacles of law.

73/- It was submitted that still the cheques are with the trust and they are not issued. The fact remains that the cheques were prepared. That was to be followed by delivery. It was not done probably because of the objections. Subsequent change of mind, is of little consequence, to ignore the preparations, which in other words, may be termed as an attempts.

74/- Several allegations were made against the applicant and her husband and sons that they have filed false cases including this one against the trustees with ulterior motive to gain control over the trust. It was submitted that several criminal cases are pending against them. They failed to get relief before various forums against the trustees. This application is termed as an attempt to oust the present trustees. Without going into the merits of the arguments, it can be said that the application is to be decided on the basis of what the respondents trustees were and are. And not on what the applicant and her near one’s are. This authority found substance in the allegations made by her against them. So the charges are framed. At this stage, after framing of the charges, the conduct and the history not that of the applicant but that of the respondents trustees would be only relevant.

75/- It was also submitted that despite several proceedings before various courts, filed by the applicant with similar grievances, no court thought of suspending the trustees. It is not explained whether remedy of similar nature was available there. Section 41D(3) makes specific provisions for suspension of trustees, pending inquiry. It would be wrong not to exercise those powers, only for the reason that no other court has taken such step.

76/- It was also submitted that there are other trustees on record, who can take care of the hospital, and check the activities of the respondents trustees.

This can not be a ground to reject the prayer under application (Ex.2).

77/- It was submitted that suspension of the trustees, would be against interest of the trust. They

To realise your own inherent divinity, service to the people is the best kind of sadhana.

45

Je<e& 1 ues ♥ DebkeÀ 5 ♥ veesJnWyej 2008

are the main pillars of the trust. What is achieved by the trust and the hospital is because of their efforts.

Nobody is in-dispensable. When one goes out, some body takes his place. The functions of the trust, will continue even when the charged trustees are not in the management. In fact, it is likely that, looking to the consequences which the charged trustees are facing, the others will learn lessons and act with more care and diligence and in the interest of the trust.

78/- But, allowing the charged trustees to continue, with the management during inquiry may have some adverse effects. There is likelihood of their taking further decisions, for their benefits. There may be repetition of past errors and lapses. Some of the witnesses may be employees of the trust and the hospital. They would be reluctant to come forward and give evidence against the persons who are holding posts as trustees.

79/- The subsequent conduct, referred above, as well as the letter to Heads of the Department with respect to the circular of Justice, Shri Halbe do not inspire confidence in one’s mind that the further functioning of the trust would be smooth and would be in the interest of the trust, in the hands of the respondents, trustees. Certain questions raised by the applicant about the genuineness of the letter by Suresh Motwani filed with the application (Ex.99) can not be brushed aside lightly.

80/- Reliance was placed on Vasantrao Vs. Apparao(2008), 3 Mh.L.J242. In that case, discussing the power of Charity Commissioner under Section 50A, it is held that the powers are supervisory in nature. The Charity Commissioner has no superior power to manage the trust in way he likes and to the persons he would nominate. He can not usurp the powers which are not expressly available under the provisions of Section 50A. The judgment differs on facts.

81/- Respondent No. 8, Niket Mehta is son of Managing trustee, respondent No.9, Shri Vijay Mehta. In the written notes of arguments, Ex.101, he has tried to separate himself from other charged trustees including his father. He was appointed as a trustee on 16.10.2002. According to him there is no specific allegation against him. He was not party to any of the decision. He was not actively involved in the working of the trust. He had issued power of attorney in favour of his father on 9.7.2004. It was subsequently withdrawn in March, 2007. He has

tried to blame his father, remaining trustees and some others, for the present situation. He claims that they did not inform him about the decisions taken. He was also not informed about the litigations. His father and the lawyers obtained his signatures on blank papers and vakalantnama & documents without informing him about the details and contents of the documents. He was given evasive replies about the developments in the hospital by them. Several other facts which are not related with this matter are also contended by him.

They are not relevant and so are ignored. The explanations given by him can not be used against charged trustees. However, they are not useful for his own cause too. They infact show that he was inactive, negligent & over dependent on his father in administering the trust. Admittedly, most of the time, he used to be out of India and so he could not actively participate in the trust functions. This show his inactiveness. Signing blank papers and documents without verifying their contents shows both negligence and over dependence on his father.

He has tried to depict a glossy picture of his own in functioning of the trust. It is self contradictory. The contentions do not hold much water. They are to be rejected.

82/- To sum, considering gravity of the charges, likelihood of further misuse of powers and likelihood of influencing the witnesses and tampering with the evidence, in the fact situation, it would be necessary for the purpose of smooth inquiry and smooth functioning of the trust, to suspend the trustees.

83/- The next question is whether, on suspension of the trustees, fit persons as provide under Section 41D(4) is / are required to be appointed to manage the trust. Admittedly, as per the Trust Deed, the minimum number of the trustees provided is three.

As per the schedule-I, there are thirteen trustees on record. Out of them, some have resigned, some are removed by the trustees and some are appointed to fill vacancies. Though the changes are not recorded in P.T. Register, yet various change reports are filed to add and delete name accordingly.

Besides, the charged trustees, respondent No.1 (Smt. Rekhaben Seth), Respondent No. 3 (Smt. Sushila Mehta), Respondent No. 6(Dr. Amrutlal Shah), Respondent No. 8 (Shri Niket Mehta) & respondent No.9 (Shri. Vijay Mehta), there are some more trustees. Shri Prabodh Mehta, Shri Chetan

The road to man’s liberation is barred by three gates : Kama (lust), Krodha (hatred) and Lodha (greed).

46

Je<e& 1 ues ♥ DebkeÀ 5 ♥ veesJnWyej 2008

Mehta and Nanik Rupani are amongst them. They were petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3850/08 before the Hon. High Court against order of this authority date 3.6.2008, Their status as trustees can be said to be upheld by the order of Hon. High Court dated 11.7.2008. In view of this, though their names are not appearing on record as trustees, they can perform functions as trustees. At present, there is no impediment in their way to work as trustees.

Besides, the applicant herself is also a trustee.

Thus, even on suspension of the charged trustees, there are more than three trustees on record. They can function and administer the trust. In such a situation, there is no necessity to appoint a fit person to look after the trust on suspension of charged trustees, as provided under Section 41D(4) 84/- For the reasons discussed above, I am of the view that, charged trustees – respondent No. 1 (Smt. Rekhaben Seth), Respondent No.3 (Smt. Sushila Mehta), Respondent No. 6 (Dr. Amrutlal Shah), Respondent No. 8 (Shri Niket Mehta) & respondent No. 9 (Shri Vijay Mehta) are required to be suspended, for the purpose of smooth inquiry and smooth functioning of the trust.

Hence order.

efoveebkeÀ 16 veesJnWyej 2008 Jee{efoJemee®³ee neefo&keÀ MegYes®íe

Þeer jepeWê meesveJeCes, J³eJemLeeHekeÀer³e mebHeeokeÀ ³eebvee efJeMJemle HeefjJeejeleHexÀ Jee{efoJemee®³ee neefo&keÀ MegYes®íe

1)

2)

3)

ORDER Pending disposal of charges, the trustees, respondent No. 1 (Smt. Rekhaben Seth), Respondent No. 3 (Smt. Sushila Mehta), Respondent No. 6 (Dr. Amrutlal Shah), Respondent No. 8 (Shri Niket Mehta) & respondent No. 9 (Shri Vijay Mehta) of Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical trust are put under suspension.

This order will not be implemented till further directions are received from Hon. High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 328 of 2008 In Writ petition No. 3849/2008 with Letters Patent Appeal No. 330 of 2008 in Writ Petition No. 5732/2008, pending there.

The application (Ex.2) is accordingly disposed of.

(N.V. Deshmukh) Joint Charity Commissiner Greater Mumbai Region , Mumbai.

Mumbai Dated : 10.10.2008

jepeWê meesveJeCes He´efle efce$ee, ceeP³ee peerJeveeleuesö Del³eble megKee®es #eCe, DeeHeCe SkeÀ$e peieuees~ ceeP³ee efHe´³elece efce$eele legPeer ieCeleer ceeP³ee DeeblejerkeÀ Ëo³eeves kesÀueer³e~~ Gllejesllej ceer legPee menJeeme Yeesieuee legP³ee peJeUerkeÀer®eer Gye DevegYeJeuee~ DeeefCe pesJne ceuee He´eslmeenvee®eer iejpe nesleer lesJne kesÀJeU let®e nesleeme efce$ee~ JesUesJesUer legP³ee ces$eermeeþer ceer GlejeF& Deens. peerJeveYej®ee cew$e cnCee³euee, efJeMJeemee³euee, ceewefuekeÀ ieCeleerle let®e let~ keÀe³ece legPee®e efce$e ...... cevees n j Fb i eUs

An aimless life is always a miserable life.

47

Je<e& 1 ues ♥ DebkeÀ 5 ♥ veesJnWyej 2008

vewmeefie&keÀ v³ee³e

SKeeÐee IeìvesmeboYee&le DeejesHeer J³ekeÌleerJejerue DeejesHeeb®³ee mel³eemel³eles®ee efveCe&³e nesleebvee meboYee&Oeerve J³ekeÌleerves keÀe³eoeYebie kesÀuesuee Deens cnCetve lees iegvnsieej þjJeC³eeHetJeea lelkeÀeueerve HeefjefmLeleer Je HeefjefmLeleer®ee He´YeeJe mecepetve IesCes eflelekesÀ®e cenlJee®es þjles. cegUele J³ekeÌleer®ee nslet®e iegvne keÀjC³eekeÀ[s Demeu³ee®es efmeOo nesCes ner Heefnueer v³ee³ee®eer Hee³ejer cnCeeJeer ueeiesue. ³eemebyebOeele DeejesHeerme l³ee®es l³eemeboYee&leerue cnCeCes SsketÀve IesCes Je l³eemeeþer l³eeuee megveeJeCeer®eer mebOeer efceUCes ns efvekeÀesHe v³ee³ee®es DeefOe<þeve Deens. v³ee³elelJeevegmeej SkeÀ lej v³ee³e osCeeN³ee J³ekeÌleerme IeìvesmeboYee&le J³eefkeÌleiele mJeejm³e Demet ve³es Je meoj J³ekeÌleer HetJe&ie´notef<ele Demet ve³es. ceO³e³egieerve keÀeUele Oecee&®es DeefOe<þeve DeeefCe F&MJejeJej ÞeOoe ³eebvee He´eOeev³e nesles. ceeCemee®ee efveCe&³e DeHegje Je ®egkeÀer®ee Demet MekeÀlees. HeCe HejcesMJeje®ee v³ee³e cnCepes vewmeefie&keÀ v³ee³e ®egkeÀle veener. DeMeer l³ee keÀeUele OeejCee nesleer. ie´erkeÀ veeìkeÀkeÀej meesHeÀeskeÌueerpe®eb SkeÀ Je®eve Deens. `v³ee³e lelJe kesÀJeU YetlekeÀeueerve efkebÀJee meÐekeÀeueerve Deens Demes vemetve ³ee lelJeeme keÀeUe®eer ce³ee&oe keÀesCeer Ieeueg MekeÀle veener.` efoJeeCeer keÀe³eÐeele HeÀsjyeoue keÀjleebvee vewmeefie&keÀ v³ee³e lelJeeb®ee DeeÞe³e I³eeJee ueeielees Demeb mej

pee@ve meeceb[ ³eebveer veceto kesÀues Deens. jesceve keÀe³eÐeele keÀe³eÐee®es Ieeuetve efouesues leerve ob[keÀ veceto kesÀues Deensle. ns cnCepes 1)mel³eeves JeeieCes, 2)keÀesCee®es vegkeÀmeeve ve keÀjCes, Je 3)osCes, ceie les keÀesCel³eener J³ekeÌleer®es keÀe Demesvee les osJetve ìekeÀCes. keÀe³eÐee®³ee #es$eele v³ee³emet$eebvee Devev³emeeOeejCe cenlJe efouesues Deens. S[Je[& keÀeskeÀ³eebveer ³ee met$eebvee Fceejleer®³ee Hee³ee®es cenlJe efouesues Deens. l³eeb®³ee cnCeC³eevegmeej v³ee³emet$eele lelJe Je efve³ece meceeefJe<þ Demeleele. Je les mJe³ebefmeOo Demeleele. cenlJee®eer v³ee³emet$esö 1) keÀe³eÐee®³ee mebenf les®ee Debceue HetJe& keÀeueerve vemeeJee, lees meÐekeÀeueerve Je YeefJe<³e keÀeueerve DemeeJee. 2)keÀesCel³eener J³ekeÌleer®es cnCeCes, keÀLeve Je Kegueemee SskeÀu³eeefMeJee³e l³ee®esefJeªOo efveCe&³e keÀª ve³es. 3)keÀesCeerner mJele뮳ee He´keÀjCeele mJeleë®e v³ee³eeOeerMe nesJet MekeÀle veener. 4)ceesþîee nkeÌkeÀele ueneve nkeÌkeÀe®ee menpe®e meceeJesMe neslees. 5)peer yeeye cetueleë jÎ yeelleue Deens leer yeeye efkeÀleerner keÀeU J³eleerle Peeuee lejer keÀe³eosMeerj þjle veener. 6)p³ee p³ee yeeyeleerle nkeÌkeÀ Deensle, l³ee l³ee yeeyeleerle keÀe³eÐeeves oeo efoueer peeles. 6)keÀesCeerner DeeHeu³ee DeHeke=Àl³ee®ee HeÀe³eoe IesJet MekeÀle veener. 7)SkeÀe®e keÀejCeekeÀefjlee keÀecekeÀepe ®eeuetve efveCe&³e Peeu³eeJej Hegvne l³ee®e keÀejCeekeÀefjlee keÀe³eoe peyeeyeoejer ìekeÀle veener. 9)cegK³e nkeÌkeÀ efouee Demeleebvee Deveg<ebefiekeÀ nkeÌkeÀ efouee peelees, Hejbleg Deveg<ebefiekeÀ nkeÌkeÀ efouee Demeleebvee cee$e cegK³e nkeÌkeÀ efouesuee vemelees.

10)HejcesMJeje®³ee ke=Àl³eeyeeyele keÀesCeleener ceeveJe, peyeeyeoej Deens, Demes keÀe³eoe mecepele veener. SkebÀojerle meceepeeleu³ee efJeJeskeÀer J³ekeÌleer efkebÀJee efJe®eejJeble pes ³eesi³e Demeu³ee®eb ceeveleele. l³eeuee v³ee³e cnCelee ³esF&ue. ³ee®e OeejCesJejerue Fundamental of Natural Justice Fbie´peerleuee

We can discover our joy in the precision and perfection of the work that we turn out whether others recongnise it or not.

48

Je<e& 1 ues ♥ DebkeÀ 5 ♥ veesJnWyej 2008

ne uesKe meeoj keÀjerle Deenesle. ³ee uesKee®es uesKekeÀ Deensle jsuJes mesJesleerue ef®eHeÀ keÌuescHme Dee@efHeÀmej [e@.yeer.Sve. JeeIeceejs IRTS ³ee [e@. yeUerjece JeeIeceejs ³eebvee cegbyeF& efJeÐeeHeerþeves DeefuekeÀ[s®e keÀe³eÐeeleerue [e@keÌìjsì He´oeve kesÀueer Deens. l³eeb®es keÀe³eoeefJe<e³eele KetHe mJeejm³e Demetve les vesnceer®e ®eewHesÀj Je mepeie Demeleele. mebyebefOele uesKeeletve l³eeb®eer He´efleYee Je He´eflecee mJe³ebmHe<þ JneJeer.

FUNDAMENTAL OF NATURAL JUSTICE “Fairness is what justice really is” Potter Stewart The word ‘nature’ literally means the innate tendency and the word ‘just’ means upright, fair or proper. The expression ‘natural injustice’ would, therefore, means the innate quality of being fair.

Natural justice, which is another name of common sense justice. Natural justice accordingly stands for the fundamental quality of fairness which being adopted, justice may not only be done but also appear to be done. The soul of natural justice is ‘fair play in action’.

“Natural Justice” was considered as “that part of natural law which relates to the administration of Justice.”

But what is Justice? It is a question which has been asked for thousand of years, by men of eminence and Socrates asked it 2000 years ago, and never got a satisfactory answer. Lord Danning said.

Justice is not something temporary it is eternal and the nearest approach to a definition that I can give is, “Justice is what the right thinking member of the community believe to be fair”. Rules of natural justice are principles ingrained into conscience of men.

Natural justice is the part of rule of Law. Indeed from the legendary days of Adam and of Kaushaliya’s Arthshastra-the rule of Law has had

this stamp of natural Justice which makes it social justice. The purpose of following the principles of natural justice is prevention of miscarriage of justice and hence the observance thereof is the pragmatic requirement of fair play in action. Rule of natural justice operate as check on the freedom of administrative action. Where a statute confers wide powers on an administrative authority coupled with wide discretion, the possibility of its arbitrarily use can be controlled or decided by insisting on their being exercised in a manner which can be said to be procedurally fair. Rules of natural justice are devised for ensuring fairness and promoting satisfactory decision making. Since the rules of natural justice operate as an implied mandatory procedural, requirement its non-observance. invalidates the exercise of power. What particular rule of natural justice should apply to a given case must depend upon to a great extent on the facts and circumstances of that case subject to certain limitations, however, natural justice is now a brooding omnipresence although varying in its play.

Natural justice and legal justice co-relation.

Natural justice when authoritatively formulated by law becomes legal justice. The expression of natural justice and legal justice do not present a water-tight compartment.

It is a substance of a justice which is to be secured by both and whenever legal justice pays to achieve that solemn purpose, natural justice is called in aid of legal justice and in that event it leaves legal justice from unnecessary technically and logical pre-variation and supplies the omission of a formulated law.

What is the requirement of natural justice i.e. fairness demand when anybody domestic administrative or judicial has to make a decision which will affect the right of individual depend on the character on the decision making body, the kind of decision it has to make and the statutory and other frame work in which it operates.

In general, the essential principles of natural justice are that (i) the persons whose rights are to be affected must be given notice or the case or the changes which he has to meet (ii) he must be given an opportunity to make representation and to explain the allegations made against him and to have his say in the matter; and (iii) the authority conducing

To know how to wait is to put time on your side. With patience one arrives always. A persevering will surmounts all obstacles.

49

Je<e& 1 ues ♥ DebkeÀ 5 ♥ veesJnWyej 2008

the proceedings must not be biased and should act in good faith.

In short they all come down to the two :- that there should be a hearing and the hearing should be done by a person having no bias towards one or other party.

S.A.de Smith said: English law recognizes two principles of natural justice; that and adjudicator be disinterested and unbiased (themo jusex in causa saa) and that the parties be given adequate notice and opportunity to be heard (andi alteran portem).

The above two rules are the basic ingredients of the concept of natural justice. In these rules consist the minimum requirement of justice.

Legal position in India – In India, the precedence was set by the Supreme Court in Binapari Dei’s case with the observation that, if tehse is a power to decide and determine to the prejudice of a person, duty to act judicially is implicit in the exercise of such power. If the essential of justice be ignored and an order to the prejudice of a person is made the order is nullify. Any order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice is a nullify. Failure to confirm to the principles of natural justice would make a judicial or quasi judicial order void an such an order cannot be validated by the appellate or revisional order.

Natural justice vis-à-vis the Constitution of India It is an natural incidental question that arises in this context is: to what esteem ‘natural justice’ is looked upon in the constitution of India? Negation of natural justice does not sound in denial of fundamental rights guaranteed constitutionally but it does sound in jurisdiction. Natural Justice is not a fundamental right in our country where the founding fathers of the constitution deliberately eschewed the expression ‘due process’ found in the American Constitution. Nevertheless its non observance, in the context of the constitutional inhibition against arbitrary and unequal exercise of power in Art-14 and unreasonable restrictions on the freedoms enshrined in Art. 19 may result in the contravention of fundamental rights.

It has been upheld by the Apex Court the violation of a rule of natural justice results in arbitrariness which is the same as discrimination and where discrimination is the result of the state action, it is a violation of Art. 14. The principles of

natural justice thus form part of Art. 14 of the constitution. In cases, therefore where an order is made in violation of the rules of natural justice relief under Art. 226 of the constitution will not be declined.

In case of Leary V. National Union of vehicles Builders Megarry J. observed that a failure of natural justice in the trial body cannot be cured by a sufficiency of natural justice in an appellate body.

Nowadays, principles of natural justice are embedded in statute itself. It is judicially acknowledged that a mandatory procedural requirement can be waived by the person if it is conceived in his interest and not in public interest.

The rules of natural justice are not cut and died. They vary infinitely.

Rules of natural justice have no application in matters legislative in character.

When there is neither provision nor prohibition in the statute, it is to be guided by the ordinary principles of common sense justice equity and good conscience. Principles of natural justice are to be read in every enactment in the absence of a provision to the contrary where, therefore, the stature is silent and a contrary intension cannot be implied, the requirement of the applicability of the rate of natural justice is read into it to ensure fairness and to protect the action from the charge of arbitrariness.

On the limitations in application of the principles of natural justices: Constitutional limitation : Through the principles of natural justice are fundamental in the constitutional set up of India; it has, in given conditions, been waived. For example, Art. 311 (2) of the constitution of India which essentially embodies the concept of natural justice, itself contemplates that there may be situation which warrant or permit the non-applicability of the principles underlying Art. 311(2).

Art. 311 of the constitution of India run as under:311 (1) No person who is a member of a civil services of the Union or an all India service or a civil service of a state or holds a civil post under the union or a state shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he appointed.

(2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank after an

Man’s destined purpose is to overcome the evil in him and to restore good to its rightful place.

50

Je<e& 1 ues ♥ DebkeÀ 5 ♥ veesJnWyej 2008

enquiry in which he has been informed of the changes against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges.

Again satisfaction of the president under Art. 356 (1) of the constitution in the matter of imposition of ‘President’s rule’ is subjective and principles of natural justice need not be observed for satisfaction.

The limitation and restrictions imposed by the courts in application of the principles of natural justice on different occasions due to urgency of the matter or public interest are reverberative.

Maintenance of discipline in academic bodies the limitation is equally applicable to school, colleges and universities where the prevalence of discipline is essential. The absence of bias, the need of a fair hearing, the taking into account of relevant consideration, the failure of an opportunity to appeal can all be ignored in maintaining strict academic discipline.

Not giving of opportunity of hearing before granting sanction for prosecution under the prevention of corruption Act does not vitiate the order of sanction for violation of the principles of natural justice such an action being purely an administrative function. [Superintendent of police (CBJ)] V. Deepak Chaudhary AIR 1996.SC. 186.

Compulsory Retirement in Government Service.

Principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an order of compulsory retirement when it is not a punishment or the order has to be passed by the Govt. or forming the opinion that it is

in public interest to retire a Govt. Servant compulsorily. (Baikuntha Nath Das V. Chief Medical Officer Paripada K. Kandaswami V. Union of India AIR 1996 SC 277.

Termination of a probationer in Govt. Service.

Principles of Natural Justice are not applicable in the case of termination of services of Probationer.

When the letter of appointment provides that during the period of probationary services may be terminated without assigning any reason therefore.

Reservation to substantive post in Govt.

Service.

When an employee is given promotion purely on adhoc basis his reservation to his substantive post without following the rule of natural justice in the form of giving an opportunity of hearing does not amount to punishment.

In this articles, we have seen that what is meant by principles of natural justice, how they originated? And what is their applicability and limitation etc. In the next article I am going to discuss the practice and procedure of administrative adjudication viz-a-vis Rules of Natural Justice context i.e. I “Nemo in propria causa judex else debet”- No one should be a make judge in his own cares or the rule against bias “Rules against the bias…

“Audi alterm Partem” – Hear the others or the rule of fair hearing or the rule that no one should be condemned unheard.

Don’t forget to read to protect your fundamental right in the form of Natural Justice.

meoj uesKee®es uesKekeÀ [e@. Þeer. yeUerjece vee. JeeIeceejs ³eebvee cegbyeF& efJeÐeeHeerþeves DeefuekeÀ[s®e HeerS®e.[er.(uee@) ®eer [e@keÌìjsì®eer meJeex®®e HeoJeer osTve Mew#eefCekeÀ Je meeceeefpekeÀ ¢<ìîee mebHevve kesÀues Deens. les keWÀêer³e ueeskeÀ mesJee De³eesieeleHexÀ meveoer DeefOekeÀejer cnCetve (Dee³e.Deej.ìer.Sme) ³ee Üejs Yeejleer³e jsuJesle meÐee ceO³es jsuJes®es cegK³e He´MeemeefkeÀ³e He´cegKe cegK³e oeJee DeefOekeÀejer (®eerHeÀ keÌuescme Dee@HeÀermej) cnCetve ceO³ejsuJes®³ee cegbyeF& cegK³eeue³eele keÀe³e&jle Deensle. keÀe³eoe ne efJe<e³e l³eeb®ee DeefleMe³e DeeJe[er®ee efJe<e³e Demetve l³eebveer l³ee efJe<e³eele meJeex®®e HeoJeer HeerS®e.[er.(keÀe³eoe) He´eHle kesÀueer Demetve l³eeb®³ee He´yebOee®ee efJe<e³e (Human Rights in Indian Constitutions and Role of Supreme Court) ne neslee Our faith should be like an everburning lamp which not only gives us light but also illuminates the surroundings.

51

Je<e& 1 ues ♥ DebkeÀ 5 ♥ veesJnWyej 2008

v³eemeemeeþer ³eespevee keÀjC³eeHetJeea Keyejoejer®eer iejpe cegbyeF& meeJe&peefvekeÀ v³eeme DeefOeefve³ece 1950 ceOeerue ’meeJe&peefvekeÀ v³eeme“ ner J³eeK³ee HeÀej®e J³eeHekeÀ ¢<ìerkeÀesve þsJegve keÀjC³eele Deeueer. v³eeme efveefce&leermeeþer SKeeoe omleeJespe efkebÀJee efJeMJemle He$e Je ce=l³egHe$e, nmleelejCe omleeJespe Jeiewjs meejK³ee yeeyeeR®eer iejpe Demeles. lemes®e keÀenerner omleeJespe vemeleebveener v³eeme efveefce&leer nesle Demeles, ns ue#eele þsJetve Constructive Trust cnCepes®e ieefYe&le DeLee&ves efveefce&leer Peeuesu³ee v³eemeeb®ee meceeJesMener meoj J³eeK³esle kesÀuee iesuee. p³ee v³eemeebmeeþer efve³ece Jee efve³eceeJeueer veener, DeLeJee efJeMJemleHe$eemeejKee SkeÀeoe omleeJespener veener, DeMee v³eemeeb®es megJ³eJeefmLele Je megjUerle keÀe³e&#ecelesmeeþer ³eespevee le³eej keÀjC³ee®eer iejpe Demeles cnCetve lemes DeefOekeÀej keÀe³eÐee®³ee keÀuece 50De DevJe³es Oecee&oe³e Dee³egkeÌle ³eebme efoues Deensle Je 1961 HetJeea l³eemeeþer HeÀkeÌle v³ee³eeue³eele oeJee oeKeue keÀjC³ee®eer iejpe nesleer. leer Deelee otj Peeueer. 1961 ceO³es keÀe³eÐeele kesÀuesu³ee ogªml³eebDevJe³es v³eemeeb®es keÀece HeÀej®e megueYe Peeues. veblej 1986 ceO³es Meemevee®es DeefOekeÀejele meoj®es DeefOekeÀej Oecee&oe³e GHe Dee³egkeÌle Je mene³ekeÀ Oecee&oe³e Dee³egkeÌle ³eebveener osC³eele Deeues. (He´oeve keÀjC³eele Deeues). keÀuece 50 De DevJe³es SkeÀ cenlJee®eer Deì efJeefOeceb[Ueves veceto kesÀueer Deens. leer cnCepes SkeÀeÐee v³eemee®es megjUerle J³eJemLesmeeþer ³eespeves®eer iejpe Deens. DeMeer Oecee&oe³e Dee³egkeÌleeb®eer Kee$eer Peeueer Heeefnpes. cnCepes®e ³eespeves®eer iejpe Deens Demes meceeOeeve nesC³eeme Hegjsmee HegjeJee Deens Jee leMeer HeefjefmLeleer efvecee&Ce Peeueer Deens ³eemebyebOeer meceeOeeve Peeues lej®e v³eemeemeeþer ³eespevee le³eej keÀjC³eeme keÀe³e&Jeener keÀjlee ³esF&ue. ³eespevee le³eej keÀjles JesUer v³eemee®es GÎsMeeb®eer J³eeefHle Jee{JeCes efJeMJemleeb®³ee vesceCegkeÀe keÀMee jerleerves DemeeJ³eele ns þjJeCes. efJeMJemleeb®eer veJeerve vesceCetkeÀ keÀjCes DeLeJee l³eele yeoue keÀjCes Jeiewjs yeN³ee®e yeeyeeR®ee efJe®eej keÀjlee ³eslees. Hejbleg DeMee Je Flej

yeeyeer leHeMeerue ³eele yeoue keÀjCes ner iejpe Deens efkebÀJee keÀmes ns leHeemetve HeneCes peªjer®es Deens.

Jej veceto kesÀu³eeHe´ceeCes ³eespevee ner v³eemee®es megJ³eJeefmLele Je megjUerle keÀe³e&#ecelesmeeþer iejpes®eer Deens. ³eemebyebOeer mJeleë®es meceeOeeve keÀjC³eemebyebOeer keÀejCes leHeemetve ve Iesleu³eecegUs Deewjbieeyeeo efpeu¿eeleerue SkeÀe v³eemeemeeþer kesÀuesueer ³eespevee jÎ yeeleue kesÀueer iesueer. l³eeuee He´efmeOoer efceUeueer. v³ee³ecetleea [er.peer.keÀefCe&keÀ ³eeb®es efo. 13-08-2008 ®es efvekeÀeueecegUs l³eemebyebOeer Þeer. ef®ebleeceCeer HeeMJe&veeLe efoiebyej pewve DeefleMe³e #es$e keÀe®evesj meeJe&peefvekeÀ v³eeme veeWoCeer ke´ÀceebkeÀ S 3054 (Deewjbieeyeeo) ³ee v³eemeemeeþer efoveebkeÀ 28 SefHe´ue 1961 jespeer SkeÀ efJeMJemleHe$e DeefmlelJeele Deens. l³eevegmeej efJeMJemleeb®eer ves c eCet k eÀ Jeiew j s yeeyeeR m eeþer lejlet o kes À ues u eer nes l eer . efJeMJemleJ³eJemLes®³ee iewj keÀejYeejemebyebOeer keÀener leke´Àej Deeu³eecegUs efJeMJemleebefJeªOo meeJe&peefvekeÀ v³eeme veeWoCeer keÀe³ee&ue³eeleerue efvejer#ekeÀeves He´eLeefcekeÀ leHeeme keÀªve SkeÀ DenJeeue mene³ekeÀ Oecee&oe³e Dee³egkeÌle ³eebvee efoveebkeÀ 15/01/2004 jespeer meeoj kesÀuee Je veblej mene³ekeÀ Oecee&oe³e Dee³egkeÌleebkeÀ[tve veesìerme efceUeu³eeJej efJeMJemleebveer 14/05/2004 jespeer Gllej HeeþJeues. meoj v³eemeemeeþer SkeÀ ³eespevee keÀe keÀª ve³es ³eemebyebOeer SkeÀ ’keÀejCes oeKeJee“ veesìerme efJeMJemleebvee 25/08/2004 ®es DeeosMeeHe´ceeCes HeeþJeueer iesueer. efJeMJemleeb®es cnCeCes SsketÀve Iesleu³eeJej efoveebkeÀ 31/03/2006 jespeer mene³ekeÀ Oecee&oe³e Dee³egkeÌle ³eebveer v³eemee®es megJ³eJemLesmeeþer SkeÀ ³eespevee le³eej kesÀueer Je keÀener J³eefkeÌleb®eer efJeMJemle cnCetve vesceCetkeÀ kesÀueer. mene³ekeÀ Oecee&oe³e Dee³egkeÌle ³eeb®es 31/03/2006 ®es efvekeÀeuee efJeªOo keÀener mebyebeOf ele J³eefkeÌlebveer efpeune v³ee³eeue³eele DeHeerue kesÀues. He´l³e#e 3 efvejefvejeȳee J³eefkeÌlemecetnebveer leerve DeHeerues kesÀueer. (efpeune v³ee³eeue³eele 141/2006, 155/ 2006 Je 156/2006 Demes leerve Depe& oeKeue kesÀues) meoj®es

If you constantly dwell upon that which is selfish and debasing, you will ultimately become selfish and debased.

52

Je<e& 1 ues ♥ DebkeÀ 5 ♥ veesJnWyej 2008

Depee¥®ee SkeÀef$ele efJe®eej keÀªve efpeune v³ee³eeOeerMe ³eebveer SkeÀ®e cegÎe Jeeoemeeþer efJe®eejele Iesleuee. l³eevegmeej mene³ekeÀ Oecee&oe³e Dee³egkeÌle Deewjib eeyeeo ³eebveer v³eemee®³ee megJ³eJeefmLele keÀejYeejemeeþer SkeÀeÐee ³eespeves®eer iejpe Deens efkebÀJee keÀe³e ns leHeemetve Heeefnues veener ³ee SkeÀe®e cegÐeeJej DeHeerue Keejerpe kesÀues. SketÀCe 3 DeHeerueeb®ee SkeÀef$ele efvekeÀeue G®®e v³ee³eeue³eevet efouee, Je SkeÀe 10/03/2008 ®³ee meceeF&keÀ efvekeÀeueeefJe<e³eer efJe®eej kesÀuee. keÀe³eÐeeleerue lejletoerle cetueYetle cegÎe cnCepes meeJe&peefvekeÀ v³eemee®³ee megJ³eJemLesmeeþer SkeÀeoer ³eespevee keÀjC³ee®eer iejpe Deens efkebÀJee keÀe³e ³eemebyebOeer mene³ekeÀ Oecee&oe³e Dee³egkeÌle ³eeb®es mJeleë®es meceeOeeve Peeu³eeefMeJee³e Heg{erue keÀe³e&Jeener keÀjlee keÀecee ve³es. efoveebkeÀ 28/04/1961 ®es efJeMJemleHe$eele p³ee lejletoer Deensle. l³ee J³eJemLesmeeþer DeHetCe& Demeu³eeyeÎue ®e®ee& kesÀueer vemeeJeer.

keÀe³eÐee®³ee ¢<ìerves SkeÀe cenlJee®³ee cegÐee®ee GneHeesn Jejerue efvekeÀeueele Peeuee. lees cnCepes efpeune v³ee³eeue³eeves JemlegefmLeleer (Statement of Fact)Heeefnueer. veblej G®®e v³ee³eeue³eele kesÀuesues DeHeerue ns ogmeN³eeboe kesÀuesues DeHeerue Deens Je l³eeJej HeÀkeÌle keÀe³eosMeerj cegÐeeb®ee®e efJe®eej keÀjlee ³eslees. efoJeeCeer v³ee³eeue³eeleerve He´ekf e´À³ee 1908 ³eeleerue 100 ke´ÀceebkeÀe®ee GuuesKe keÀªve mHe<ì efvekeÀeue efouee Je l³eeHe´ceeCes ogmeN³eeboe kesÀuesueer DeHeerues Keejerpe kesÀueer. meoj®ee efvekeÀeue ceens Dee@iemì 2008 ceO³es ueeieuee Je l³eemeeþer HetJeea®es cegbyeF&®es Keb[Heerþe®es SkeÀe efveCe&³ee®ee DeeOeej Iesleuee iesuee (AIR 1998 Bombay

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 487 OF 2008 1. Paraskumar S/o Bhalchand 2. Mukesh S/o Ramlal Kasliwal,.. .

Appellents (Ori. Resp. no.3 and 11) VERSUS 1. Sureshkumar Hukumchandji Kasliwal, 2. The Asstt. Charity Commissioner, Aurangabad, C/o Office of the Joint Charity Commissioner, near Baba Petrol Pump, Aurangabad 3. Shri Kailashchandji S/o Uttamchand Chandiwal, 4. Dipak S/o Uttamchand Thole, Respondents (Ori. Resp. 1 to 3) 5. Shri Mansukhlaji S/o Ganeshlaji Jain, 6. Kulbhushan S/o Motisa Savaji, 7. Dilip S/o Fhulchand Kala, 8. Manikchandji S/o Balchandji 9. Hiralalji S/o Fakirchand Chudiwal, 10. Hiralalji S/o Motilal Kasliwal, 11. Asaramji s/o Dhondiramji Respondents (Ori. Resp. 4 to 11)

WITH SECOND APPEAL NO. 488 OF 2008 1. Paraskumar S/o Bhalchand Thole, 2. Mukesh S/o Ramlal Kasliwal, Appellents (Ori Resp. 3 and 11) VERSUS 1. Shri Babanlal S/o Chunnilal 2. Shri Trilokchandji S/o Bansilal Pande Honorary 3. Shri Rajabhau S/o Bansilal Patni, 4. Prakash S/o Shikharchand Ajmera, 5. Ravindra S/o Punamchand Bakliwal, Respondents (Ori. Appellant 1 to 5) 6. Shri Kailashchandji S/o Uttamchand Chandiwal, 7. Dipak S/o Uttamchand Thole, Respondents (Ori. Resp. 1 and 2) 8. Shri Tansukhlaji S/o Ganeshlaji Jain, 9. Kulbhushan S/o Motisa Savaji 10. Dilip S/o Fhulchand Kala, 11. Manikchandji S/o Balchandji 12. Hiralalji S/o Fakirchand Chudiwal, 13. Hiralalji S/o Motilal Kasliwal, 14. Asaramji S/o Dhondiramji Shirsagar, 15. Suganchandji S/o Punamchandji

131)

je.He´.jCeefoJes (efveJe=lle Oecee&oe³e GHe Dee³egkeÌle)

What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters when compared to what lies within us.

53

Je<e& 1 ues ♥ DebkeÀ 5 ♥ veesJnWyej 2008

16. The Asstt. Charity Commissioner, Aurangabad C/o Office of the Jt. Charity Orig.Resp. 4 to 10 Ori. Resp. 12 and 13 WITH SECOND APPEAL NO. 490 OF 2008 1. Paraskumar S/o Balchand Thole, 2. Mukesh S/o Ramlal Kasliwal, Respondents (Ori. Resp. 3 and 11) VERSUS 1. Trilokchand Shivlal Pande, 2. Shri Madanlal S/o Khushalchand Kasliwal, 3. Ramanlal S/o Shantilal Kasliwal 4. Chandrakumar S/o Zumbarlal Patni 5. Arun S/o Kesharchand Patni, Respondents (Ori. Appellants 1 to 5) 6. Vardhaman S/o Bansilal Pande, 7. Dr. Ramesh S/o Kshushalchand Badjate, 8. Mahavir S/o Mishrilal Thole, 9. Sunil S/o Sundarlal Ajmera, 10. Rajendra Kumar S/o Sukhlal Patni, Respondents (Ori. Appellants 1 to 10) Mr. D.S. Bharuka for the Appellants Mr. S.V. Gangapurwala for Respondent nos. 4, 6 to 9 and 11 in SA. 487/2008 Mr. V.J. Dixit, Sr. Advocate h/f. Mr. S.S. Dambe for respondent no.1 in SA. 487/2008 and for respondent nos. 2 to 5 in SA. 488/2008 and for respondent nos. 1, 2, 4 to 10 in SA. 490/2008 Mr. R.B. Deshpande h/f. Mr. S.S. Dambe for respondent no.1 in SA. 488/2008 CORAM : D.G.KARNIK, J. DATE : 13.08.2008 ORAL JUDGMENT:1. Heard.

2. These three appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 10.3.2008 passed by the District Judge-2, Aurangabad allowing applications bearing MARJI nos. 155 of 2006, 141 of 2006 and 156 of 2006, filed under section 72 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (for short the B.P.T.Act).

3. At the outset it may be mentioned that in Shivprasad Shankarlal Pardeshi v. Leelabai Badrinarayan Kalwar reported in AIR 1998 BOMBAY 131 a Division Bench of this Court

has held that an appeal against the order passed by the District Judge in application under section 72 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, is in the nature of second appeal and would be governed by the limitations imposed by section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure and can be admitted only as regards a substantial question of law.

4. A trust by name Shri Chintamani Parshwanath Digambar Jain Atishay Kshetra Kachner is registered under the B.P.T. Act under registration no. BTR/A/3054 and the same is hereinafter referred to as “the Trust”. It appears that some persons made a complaint about mis-administration and mis-management by the trustees of the Trust. The Assistant Charity Commissioner, appointed an Inspector working in his office to conduct a preliminary enquiry and submit a report. After the preliminary enquiry the Inspector submitted his report on 15.1.2004. On the basis of the report of the Inspector the Assistant Charity Commissioner issued a notice to the trustees.

The trustees sent their reply on 14.5.2004.

After consideration of the report of the Inspector and the reply of the trustees the Assistant Charity Commissioner, initiated a suo-motu enquiry vide an order dated 25.8.2004 and issued notices of enquiry to the complainant and trustees to show cause why a scheme under section 50-A of the B.P.T. Act be not framed for the better administration of the trust.

All the trustees appeared and filed their response to the notice. After hearing the trustees the Assistant Charity Commissioner, by his judgment and order dated 31.3.2006, framed a scheme for the better management and administration of the Trust and appointed persons as the first trustees of the trust.

Aggrieved by the decision of the Assistant Charity Commissioner framing the scheme, three groups of persons filed three separate applications under section 72 of the B.P.T. Act before the District Court for setting aside the decision of the Charity Commissioner. All the three applications were heard together and by a common judgment and order dated 10.3.2008 the District Judge 2, Aurangabad allowed the applications and set aside the order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner.

Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money. It lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort.

54

Je<e& 1 ues â&#x2122;Ľ DebkeĂ&#x20AC; 5 â&#x2122;Ľ veesJnWyej 2008

That order is impugned in these appeals.

5. Appellants were two of the existing trustees of the Trust before the scheme; they are also the trustees appointed as first trustees under the scheme framed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner under section 50-A of the B.P.T. Act. However, since the scheme framed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner has been set aside by the District Court fearing that they may lose original trustyship they appear to have approached this Court challenging the order of the District Court setting aside the order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner framing the scheme.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the original applications made by three group of applicants under section 72 of the B.P.T. Act were not maintainable as they had no locus standi to challenge the order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner. He therefore submitted that the order of the District Judge requires to be set aside. He further submitted that the observations made by the learned District Judge in paragraph 16 and 25 of his order tend to suggest that the notices were not issued to the original trustees. These observations were patently incorrect inasmuch as notices were issued to all the trustees and they were heard in the matter. The order of the District Judge proceeds on the wrong premise that the Assistant Charity Commissioner passed the order without notice to the trustees and therefore the order of the District Judge is erroneous and perverse and is required to be set aside.

7. As regards the first ground about the maintainability of the applications before the District Court, section 72 of the B.P.T. Act provides that any person aggrieved by the decision of the Charity Commissioner under section 40,41, (41C and 43(2) (a) and (c), 50A, 70 or 70-A or on the questions whether a trust exists and whether such trust is a public trust or whether any property is the property of such trust may, within sixty days from the date of the decision, apply to the Court to set aside the said decision. Thus any person aggrieved by the decision of the Charity Commissioner under section 50-A of the B.P.T. Act is entitled to file an application under section 72 for

setting aside of the order. In my view, a person aggrieved by the decision of the Charity Commissioner need not be a trustee. Any member of a trust, or a beneficiary who has a right to participate in activities of a trust may also feel aggrieved by a decision of the Charity Commissioner framing or refusing to frame a scheme under section 50-A of the B.P.T. Act. For example if by the original trust deed a person has right to do a certain thing and under the scheme proposed and approved by the Charity Commissioner under section 50A that right of the person is taken away, he would be a person aggrieved. It would depend upon facts and circumstances of each case as to who is a person aggrieved. No general proposition can be laid down that only the trustees would be the persons aggrieved by an order of the Charity Commissioner passed under section 50-A of the B.P.T. Act. A person whose rights under the existing Trust are taken away by a scheme framed under section 50A of the B.P.T. Act would ordinarily be a person aggrieved. Similarly in case of a religious trust, wherein a member of public has right to worship at a particular place may also feel aggrieved if his right to worship is taken away by the proposed scheme under section 50-A of the B.P.T. Act. The respondent no.1 in second appeal no. 487 of 2008, who was the applicant in MARJI no. 141 of 2006 was a member of a special committee framed in accordance with clause no.17 of the trust deed. Under the said clause no.17 he had certain rights in the management of the trust. These rights do not appear to have been preserved by the scheme under section 50-A of the B.P.T. Act. Learned counsel for the appellants was unable to point out any provision in the scheme preserving his right which he had as a member of the special committee under the original trust deed. In the circumstances it cannot be said that respondent no.1 in second appeal no.

487 of 2008 was not a person aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Charity ommissioner framing of the scheme.Consequently he had a right to file an application under section 72 of the B.P.T. Act. Similar appears to be the position in respect of applicants in MARJI no.

155 of 2006 as well as MARJI no. 156 of 2006.

A teacher who can smile at each student, who can greet each student with love-can work wonders.

55

Je<e& 1 ues ♥ DebkeÀ 5 ♥ veesJnWyej 2008

Applicants therein also had certain rights under the original trust deed which were not preserved under the scheme framed by the Charity Commissioner under section 50-A of the B.P.T. Act. In any event even if one application was maintainable that would be sufficient inasmuch as in all the applications the same relief namely setting aside the order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner was claimed.

8. As regards the observations made by the learned District Judge in paragraph 16 and 25 of his judgment they do suggest that notices were not served on all the trustees and they were not given an opportunity of being heard.

This appears to be contrary to the observations made by the Assistant Charity Commissioner in his order wherein he has stated that after the receipt of the report of the Inspector notices were issued to the trustees, they appeared and filed their response to the proposed scheme. Thus it appears that these observations made by the District Judge that the trustees were not given a proper opportunity of hearing before framing of scheme under section 50-A are erroneous.

However, that is not the ground or the only ground on which the learned District Judge has set aside the order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner. The District Judge has set aside the order on the ground that it was not proved that Assistant Charity Commissioner, Aurangabad had a reason to believe that the scheme should be settled in the interest of the proper management or administration of the public trust. The first issue framed by the District Court and his answer thereto is quoted below:- Point Finding Amswer “1. Whether Asstt. Charity Commissioner Aurangabad had reason to believe that in the interest of No the proper managementor administration of the public trust, the scheme should be settled for it?”

Thus the order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner has been set aside not on the ground of non-issuance of notices to the trustees but on the ground that there was no reason to belive that in the interest of proper management or administration the scheme should be settled.

9. No arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants that this finding is in any way erroneous, much less perverse. As stated earlier the second appeal can be admitted only on a substantial questions of law and not on a finding of fact. In my view no substantial question of law arises in this appeal, requiring its admission.

10. Section 50-A of the B.P.T. Act provides that where the Charity Commissioner has a reason to believe that in the interest of proper management, or administration of public trust, a scheme should be settled for it, or where two or more persons having interest in public trust make an application to him in writing in prescribed manner that in the interest of proper management, or administration of the public trust a scheme should be settled for it, the Charity Commissioner may, after giving the trustees of such trust opportunity to be heard, after he is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do, permit a scheme for the management or administration of such trust.

The power of the Charity Commissioner to frame a scheme is not un-briddled. It can be exercised only if he is satisfied that in the interest of the proper management or administration of a public trust a scheme should be settled. The Charity Commissioner must have a reason to believe so. That reason to believe must be based on objective assessment of facts. He cannot frame a scheme at the whim or caprice. The existence of a necessity to frame a scheme in the interest of the proper management or administration of a public trust is a sina-qua-non for framing of a scheme under section 50-A of the B.P.T. Act. whether the trust is ancient and it’s origin is not known, the trust has no written constitution or a proper set of rules for the management and administration of trust and there exist circumstances from which it can be reasonably inferred that a trust is not well managed or mismanaged and that mismanagement can reasonably be attributed to absence of a trust deed or a written constitution or set of rules of governance or management the Charity Commissioner may readily believe that it is necessary to frame a

He who gains victory over other men is strong; but he who gains victory over himself is all powerful.

56

Je<e& 1 ues ♥ DebkeÀ 5 ♥ veesJnWyej 2008 scheme for the proper management or administration of the trust. But where a trust is created by a trust deed which contains the basic objects of the trust and the set of rules for he proper management or administration of the trust, the Charity Commissioner’s must have due regard to the wishes of the settlor and cannot on his whim say that the trust could be better anaged f it is governed by another set of rules or another constitution settled by a scheme framed under section 50A of the B.P.T. Act. In the present case the trust was created by written deed of indenture dated 28.4.1961, a copy of which is annexed to the appeal memo. It does contain the rules for the administration and management of the trust.

The order of the Charity Commissioner does

not disclose how these rules are in-sufficient for the proper management and administration of the trust. In the circumstances the finding recorded in the negative by the learned District Judge that the Assistant Charity Commissioner could not in law had a reason to believe that in the interest of the proper management or administration of the Trust a scheme should be settled for it was in any way erroneous, much less perverse.

11. No ground for interference is made out.

Consequently the appeals are dismissed summararily.

(D.G. KARNIK), JUDGE

oerHeeJeueer-MegYeef®ebleve

oerHeeJeueer®³ee Heneìs,~ cebo mJejeb®eer ªCePegCe.... ceve keÀefj Oegbo..... ogj yeemejer®eer Oegve.... cebefojer MegYe DeesbkeÀej.... efJeMJe ®ewlev³ee®es mHebove....~~ p³eesle peCeg.....~ Deble&³eeceer®³ee He´eflekeÀe®eer KegCe....~~ oejer efoHeeb®eer Deejeme...~ ®eboveer efoHee®ee megJeeme....~~

meeje Deemecebleer veebos...~ Jeeme....megJeeme....~~ DebieCeer jebieesUer keÀjerlemes....~ jbiee®eer GOeUCe....~~ oejer ueeefJeues Heeve HegÀueeb®es leesjCe....~ Demee oerHeeJeueer®ee meCe....~~ megKe meewK³ee®es ef®ebleve....~ YeeGÀ yeefnCeer®³ee He´scee®eer HeKejCe....~~ Swmee oerHeeJeueer®ee meCe....~ keÀª oerHeeJeueer MegYeef®ebleve....~~

Prayer needs no speech.

He´ceeso Je meew. Yeejleer Ieg[s, keÀu³eeCe

57

Je<e& 1 ues ♥ DebkeÀ 5 ♥ veesJnWyej 2008

keÀHeeì& - keÀHeeì& ®eer leªCe J³eeJemeeef³ekeÀemeeþer ³eespevee 1988 meeueer `keÀHeeì&` (Council for Advancement of peoples Action and Rural Technology) (CAPART) ceO³es leªCe J³eeJemeeef³ekeÀemeeþer ³eespevee mJeerkeÀejueer iesueer. efJekeÀeme keÀe³e&ke´Àceele J³eeJemeeef³ekeÀlee DeeCeC³ee®es l³eele cegK³e GefÎ<ì nesles. l³eele SkeÀ cnCepes ie´eceerCe efJekeÀeme #es$eeMeer mebyebefOele meceepe keÀe³e&, JeveefJeYeeie, MeslekeÀer DeefYe³eebef$ekeÀer] HeCeve F. MeeKesleu³ee HeoJ³egllejeb®eer Yejleer Je ogmejs cnCepes l³eebvee [er.Deej.[er.S. ceb$eeue³es Je `keÀHeeì&` keÀe³ee&ue³eeletve efve³egkeÌle keÀjCes GcesoJeejeb®eer efveJe[ osMeeleu³ee efJeefJeOe mebmLeebkeÀ[tve efMe#eCe mebmLes®³ee (Campus Interview) DeeJeejele kesÀueer peeles. efveJe[uesu³ee efJeÐeeL³ee¥vee HetJee&vegYeJe He´efMe#eCe 15 efoJeme efoues peeles. l³eele ie´eceerCe #es$eeleerue keÀe³e&jle Je [er.Deej.[er.S. Meer efveie[erle iewj MeemekeÀer³e mebmLeebvee efJemle=le #es$eevegYeJe Demelees. HetJee&vegYeJeeveblej l³ee leªCe J³eeJemeeef³ekeÀeb®eer iewj MeemekeÀer³e mebmLeeceO³es Ke®e& menYeeie lelJeeJej efve³egkeÌleer kesÀueer peeles. He´MeemekeÀer³e Je #esef$e³e mlejeJejerue keÀeceemeeþer DeMee J³eeJemeeef³ekeÀeb®eer efve³ele keÀeueeJeOeermeeþer kebÀ$eeì HeOoleerves efve³egkeÌleer nesles. leªCe J³eeJemeeef³ekeÀebvee efJekeÀeme #es$eele keÀece keÀjC³eemeeþer He´eslmeeefnle kesÀues peeCeeN³ee ³eespevesme `mìeì&j He@kesÀpe` cnìues peeles. l³ee®eer megªJeele meve 1994 ceO³es Peeueer. p³eebvee iewj MeemekeÀer³e mebmLee mLeeHeJe³ee®eer DeMee leªCe J³eeJemeeef³ekeÀebvee SkeÀ JesU®es Devegoeve efoues peeles. Demes Devegoeve mebmLes®³ee veeJeeJej cebpetj nesles. l³ee®ee efJeefve³eesie Hee³eeYetle megefJeOee efvecee&Ce keÀjCes, J³eeJemeeef³ekeÀe®es SkeÀe Je<ee&®es efJeÐeeJesleve, He´eLeefcekeÀ meJnx Je Flej He´MeemekeÀer³e vewefceefl³ekeÀ Ke®e& ³eeb®ee meceeJesMe iewjMeemekeÀer³e mebmLes meboYee&le neslees. ³eespeves®eer JewefMe<ìîes Keeueerue He´ceeCes 1) leªCe J³eeJemeeef³ekeÀeb®ee keÀe³e&keÀeue leªCe J³eeJemeeef³ekeÀeb®³ee vesceCetkeÀer kebÀ$eeì HeOoleerves oesve Je<ee&meeþer®e Demetve l³ee®ee HesÀjefJe®eej kesÀuee peele veener. Demee keÀe³e&keÀeue efþkeÀ 1 Dee@iemì jespeer He´efleJe<eea megª neslees, ceie keÀeceeJej ªpet nesC³ee®ee efoveebkeÀ keÀesCeleener Demees. ne keÀeU keÀesCel³eener HeefjefmLeleerle Jee{Jetve efceUle veener. keÀjej keÀesCelesner keÀejCe ve oslee SkeÀe efkebÀJee ogmeN³ee He#ekeÀejekeÀ[tve mLeefiele nesJet MekeÀlees. l³eemeeþer cee$e SkeÀe ceefnv³ee®eer met®evee ÐeeJeer ueeieles efkebÀJee l³eeSsJepeer SkeÀ ceefnv³ee®ee Heieej DeeJeM³ekeÀ Demelees.

SkeÀ Je<e& Hetjs ve keÀjCeeN³ee, mees[tve peeJet Fef®íCeeN³ee leªCe J³eeJemeeef³ekeÀeme, keÀHeeì&uee SkeÀ ceefnv³ee®³ee met®evesmen SkeÀ ceefnv³ee®es Jesleve Hejle keÀjeJes ueeieles. oesve Je<ee&®³ee keÀeueeJeOeerleerue J³eeJemeeef³ekeÀeme SkeÀ lej, SkeÀ ceefnv³ee®eer met®evee efkebÀJee l³eeSsJepeer SkeÀ ceefnv³ee®es Jesleve Hejle keÀjeJes ueeieles. keÀeueeJeOeer HetCe& keÀjCeeN³ee GcesoJeejeme veeskeÀjer ®eeuet jenC³ee mebyebOeele efkebÀJee keÀHeeì&®³ee efkebÀJee, iewj MeemekeÀer³e mebmLee / [er.Deej.[er.S ceO³es kegÀþsner efve³egkeÌle Demeuesle lejer kegÀþueener DeefOekeÀej efvecee&Ce nesle veener.

2) efve³egkeÌleer®eer He´efke´À³ee - Yeejleeletve meceepe keÀe³e&, ie´eceerCe efJekeÀeme, HeCeve, MeslekeÀer-DeefYe³eebef$ekeÀer Je JeveKeel³ee®³ee HeeMJe&Yetceerleerue HeoJ³egllej leªCe J³eeJemeeef³ekeÀeletve ie´eceerCe Hee³eeJejerue DeeOeeefjle mebmLeebkeÀ[tve efMe#eCe mebmLes®³ee DeeJeejeleerue cegueeKeleerletve efveJe[ He´efke´À³ee nesles.

The health of a democratic society may be measured by the quality of fuctions performed by private citizens.

58

Je<e& 1 ues ♥ DebkeÀ 5 ♥ veesJnWyej 2008

3) Jesleve³ees p eves l eer u e ef v e³eg k eÌ l e Gces o Jeejeb v ee Heef n u³eeJe<eea SkeÀef $ ele Jes l eve ª. 9000/- oj[es ³ eer og m eN³eeJe<eea ª. 10,000/- efoues peeles. efve³egkeÌleer®³ee iewjMeemekeÀer³e mebmLes®ee Jeeìe KeeueerueHe´ceeCes Demelees.

(De) iewjMeemekeÀer³e mebmLes®ee Yeeie keÀHeeì& Yeeie SketÀCe 1 ues Je<e& - 3000/6000/9000/2 js Je<e& - 3000/7000/10,000/(ye) ie´eceerCe efJekeÀeme ³eb$eCee/ Meemeve Yeeie keÀHeeì& Yeeie SketÀCe 1 ues Je<e& - 5000/4000/ª. 9000/2 js Je<e& - 5000/5000/ª. 10,000/3 (keÀ) efve³egkeÌleer keÀHeeì& cegK³eeue³eele / efJeYeeieer³e keWÀês keWÀêMeemeve ceb$eeue³eele Demeleebvee Devegoeve1 ues Je<e& - ª. 9000/- cegK³eeue³e / efJeYeeieer³e keWÀêekeÀ[tve efoues peeles.

2 js Je<e& - ª. 10,000/- cegK³eeue³e / efJeYeeieer³e keWÀêekeÀ[tve efoues peeles. ³eeKesefjpe keÀesCeleener ceneieeF&, YejHeeF& efkebÀJee IejYee[s Yellee efouee peele veener.

4 (4) DeMee leªCe J³eeJemeeef³ekeÀeb®³ee mesJee DeHesef#eCeeN³ee mebmLeebvee efleceener HeOoleerves He´l³eskeÀer ª 9000/- DeeieeT keÀHeeì&keÀ[s Jesleveemeeþer YejeJe³ee®es Deensle. [er.Deej.[er.S me ª. 15000/- He´efle leªCe J³eeJemeeef³ekeÀ (ª. 5000 ƒ 3) He´ceeCes YejeJes ueeieles.

4.5 efve³egkeÌleer leªCe J³eeJemeeef³ekeÀeb®eer efve³egkeÌleer Heefnu³ee Je<eea DeefveJee³e&lesves iewj MeemekeÀer³e mebmLee efkebÀJee ef[. Deej. [er.S le nesT MekeÀles.

4.6. jpes®es efve³ecele©Ce J³eeJemeeef³ekeÀebvee 8 efoJeme efkeÀjkeÀesU jpee, efve³ebef$ele oesve efoJemee®eer megìer lej Deefpe&le jpee 15 efoJemeeb®eer Jeeef<e&keÀ DeeOeejeJej cnCepes Dee@iemì les peguew meeþer Demeles. l³eeb®³ee megªJeeleer®³ee keÀeUele Deejesi³ee®³ee keÀejCeemeeþer JewÐekeÀer³e oeKe´u³eeJej efkebÀJee Flej Iejiegleer cenlJee®³ee Je iebYeerj mJeªHee®³ee efvekeÀ[er Kesefjpe 30 efoJemeeHeefuekeÀ[s jpee cebpetj nesCeej veener. efÜJe<eea³e keÀeueeJeOeer Yeªve keÀe{C³eemeeþer l³eeHe´ceeCeele keÀeueeJeOeer Jee{Ceej veener. pej He´metleer efveefcelle jpee ceeefieleueer, lej SkebÀoj iewjnpesjer®³ee keÀcelejlee keÀeueeJeOeerMeer Je efMeuekeÀer peemleerle peemle 45 efoJemee®³ee DeefOeke=Àle Deefpe&le jpes®ee 30 efoJemeeb®ee keÀeue De[pemì keÀªve He´metleer efyeve Heieejer jpee Oejueer peeF&ue. iewjMeemekeÀer³e mebmLee efkebÀJee ie´eceerCe efJekeÀeme ³eb$eCee efkebÀJee keWÀê Meeefmele mebmLee mìesDeme& efkebÀJee keWÀêer³e / jep³e Keel³eeb®³ee J³eeJemeeef³ekeÀebmeeþer jpee efve³ece ueeiet jenleerue.

4.7 He´Jeeme efve³ece keÀHeeì&®³ee cegK³eeue³eer efkebÀJee efJeYeeieer³e keWÀêele l³ee®eer/efle®eer efve³egkeÌleer Demeu³eeme, keÀe³ee&ue³eerve He´Jeemee®³ee Ke®ee&®eer keÀHeeì& The difference between failure and success is doing a thing nearly right and doing a thing exactly right.

59

Je<e& 1 ues ♥ DebkeÀ 5 ♥ veesJnWyej 2008

cegK³eeue³eekeÀ[tve efkebÀJee efJeYeeieer³e keWÀêekeÀ[tve keÀHeeì&®³ee meJe&ceev³e He´ceeCeevegmeej HeefjHetleea nesles. He´Jeeme Ke®ee&®³ee meboYee&le le©Ce J³eeJemeeef³ekeÀeb®ee He´Jeeme Ke®e& keÀHeeì&®³ee mebMeesOeve DeefOekeÀeN³eeb®³ee meceeve mecepeuee peelees.

4.8 He´ieefle DenJeeue - keÀHeeì&®³ee npesjerJejerue leªCe J³eeJemeeef³ekeÀebvee ceeefmekeÀ DenJeeue J³eJemLeeHeve meefceleerkeÀ[s HeeþJeeJes ueeieleele. keÀHeeì&®³ee cegK³eeue³eer keÀece keÀjCeeje leªCe J³eeJemeeef³ekeÀ l³ee®³ee leªCe J³eeJemeeef³ekeÀ efJeYeeieekeÀ[s DenJeeue HeeþJelees. mebyebefOele (J³eJemLeeHeve meefceleer) He´ieleer DenJeeueeb®³ee Dee{eJee IesJetve l³eeb®ee Mesje cegK³eeue³eeme ojcene HeeþefJeleele. cegK³eeue³eerve leªCe J³eeJemeeef³ekeÀ efJeYeeie He´ieleer DenJeeuee®ee Dee{eJee Ieslees Je DenJeeueemeboYee&leerue cegbÐeeJej Heg{erue ke=Àleer keÀjlees.

4.9 nceerHe$e leªCe J³eeJemeeef³ekeÀebvee ª. 9000/- ®³ee nceerHe$eeJej HetJee&vegYeJe keÀe³e&ke´ÀceeHetJeea mener keÀjeJeer ueeieles. mJes®íe mebmLes®³ee Hee$elesmeeþer®es efvekeÀ<e ö 1) mJes®íe mebmLee veeWoCeerke=Àle DemeeJeer.

2) keÀHeeì&meeþer Depe& keÀjC³eeHetJeea veeWoCeer Peeu³eeuee leerve Je<es& Hetjer DemeeJeerle.

3) keÀHeeì&®³ee efveOeermeeþer®³ee Depee&HetJeea leerve Je<ee&HetJeea®es yeBkeÀ efkebÀJee Heesmìele Keeles DemeeJes. 4) ie´eceerCe efJekeÀeme mJes®íe mebmLes®³ee efve³eceeJeueerleu³ee GefÎ<ìebHewkeÀer SkeÀ GefÎ<ìîe DemeeJes. 5) mJes®íe mebmLes®es cegK³eeue³e pejer Menjer Yeeieele Demeues lejerner ie´eceerCe ueeYeeL³ee¥meeþer l³eeb®³eeyejesyej keÀe³e&jle DemeeJes. 6) mebmLes®es meb®eeueve ie´eceerCe Yeeieele®e DemeeJes. 7) Dee³ekeÀj efJeYeeiee®³ee Hetle&lee kesÀuesu³ee DemeeJ³eele.pemes, He@ve keÀe[&, 12 S He´ceeCes veeWoCeer F. 8) mebIeìves®ee Hee³ee J³eeHekeÀ nJee keÀe³ee&ue³e mebIeìvesle HeeefjJeeefjkeÀ mebyebOe efkebÀJee DeeHemeeleu³ee J³ekeÌleer vemeeJ³eele. yeBkeÀ J³eJenejemeeþer mebIeìvesleerue SkeÀ mennmlee#ejer DemeeJee. 9) mebmLee iewjJ³eJenejeves efveuebefyele Deensle, efkebÀJee efveuebyevee®³ee JeeìsJej Deensle. DeMee mebmLee mJes®íe mebmLeeb®³ee ³eeoerJej ]vemeeJ³eele.

10) keÀHeeì&®³ee keÀe³e&keÀejer meefceleer / je<ì^er³e mLee³eer meefceleer,efJeYeeieer³e meefceleer®es meom³e efkebÀJee HeeefjJeejerkeÀ ueeYeeLeea,keÀHeeì& keÀe³ee&ue³eerve HeoeefOekeÀejer vemeeJesle.

11) keÀHeeì&keÀ[s Depe& keÀjC³ee®³ee JesUer mJes®íe mebmLeskeÀ[s keÀHeeì& efveefOe®³ee leerveHes#ee DeefOekeÀ ³eespevee keÀe³ee&efvJele vemeeJ³eele. mJes®íe mebmLes®³ee He´mleeJeemeesyele keÀHeeì&keÀ[s HeeþefJeC³ee®es omleeJespe - (omleeJespee®³ee He´leer jepeHeef$ele DeefOekeÀeN³eebkeÀ[tve mel³eeefHele DemeeJ³eele) 1) mebmLee veeWoCeer He´ceeCeHe$ee®eer HeÀesìesHe´le, veeWoCeerHeM®eele keÀener yeoue Demeu³eeme veeWoCeer He´ceeCe He$ee®eer JewOelee.

2) mebmLee veeWoCeerHeM®eele mebmLes®es GHeefve³ece, l³eele yeoue Demeu³eeme, yeoue DenJeeue.

Ask yourself these things before you speak : (1) Is it true? (2) Is it necessay (3) Will it hurt anybody?

60

Je<e& 1 ues ♥ DebkeÀ 5 ♥ veesJnWyej 2008

3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11)

mebmLes®³ee HeoeefOekeÀeN³eeb®³ee He´eceeefCekeÀHeCee®eer Kee$eer cnCetve DeÐe³eeJele keÀe³e&keÀejer meefceleer efveJe[, iesu³ee leerve Je<ee¥®ee mebmLes®³ee Ke®ee&®ee Jeeef<e&keÀ DenJeeue. iesu³ee leerve Je<ee¥®³ee mebmLes®³ee uesKeeHeefj#eCee®ee oeKeuee-pecee Ke®e& leeUe Dee³ekeÀj efJeYeeieekeÀ[tve keÀuece 80 peer DeeefCe keÀuece 12 De Keeueerue veeWoCeer, He@ve vebyej, meJeuele-DeeosMe lemes®e l³eemeeþer Dee³ekeÀj efJeYeeieekeÀ[s HeeþefJeuesu³ee Depee&®eer He´le. iesu³ee leerve Je<ee¥®³ee yeBkeÀ/Heesmìe®³ee ye®ele Keel³ee®³ee HegefmlekesÀle veeWoer®eer He´le. mebmLes®es Keeles iesueer leerve Je<ex keÀe³ee&efvJele Demeu³eeves yeBkeÀ J³eJemLeeHekeÀ efkebÀJee Heesmì ceemlej®ee oeKeuee. mJes®íe mebmLes®³ee Jele&ceeve meom³eeb®³ee menerves mebmLes®ee He´mleeJe keÀHeeì&keÀ[s keÀe³e&keÀeefjCeer meom³eeb®³ee He´ceeefCele DeÐe³eeJele HeÀesìes, Hetjs Helles GuuesefKele DemeCeejs Je®eve He$e. mebmLes®³ee efJeefMe<ì He´mleeJeemeesyele, peeiesmebyebOeer, Yetefce efJekeÀeme keÀe³e&ke´Àce lemes®e meeceev³e peeies®³ee ceeuekeÀekeÀ[tve DeveeHelleer He´ceeCeHe$e Fl³eeoer. mJes®íe mebmLeskeÀ[tve He´ceeCeHe$e, keÀer meoj mebmLee kegÀþu³ee mejkeÀejer, iewj mejkeÀejer, Deeblejje<ì^er³e efkebÀJee Flej kegÀþu³ee mebmLeebkeÀ[tve l³ee®e ueeYeeLeeA®³ee veeJeeves HetCe&HeCes efkebÀJee DeebefMekeÀefjl³ee meoj mebmLesves efveefOe GHeueyOe kesÀuesuee veener keÀjerle veener efkebÀJee GHeueyOe keÀjerue efkebÀJee lemee Depe& keÀjerue Demes. GHejeskeÌle omleeJespeemen He´mleeJee®ee efJeefnle vecetC³eele Depe& keÀHeeì&keÀ[s meeoj keÀje³e®ee Demelees.

efJeMJemle ceeefmekeÀe®³ee Jeie&Ceeroejeb®eer veeWoCeer keÀjC³eemeeþer ceneje<ì^eleerue He´l³eskeÀ efpeu¿eemeeþer efpeune He´efleefveOeer vesceCes Deensle. megefMeef#ele yesjespeieejebvee mJe³ebjespeieeje®eer mebOeer ³eeÜejs Deecner osle Deenesle. efJeMJemle ceeefmekeÀemeeþer DeeHeu³ee efpeu¿eeletve Jeie&Ceeroej veeWoefJeC³eemeeþer Glmeener Gcesoer cesnveleer, ®eebieuee pevemebHeke&À DemeCeeN³ee J³ekeÌleeRvee DeekeÀ<e&keÀ keÀefceMeve osC³eele ³esF&ue. ner mebOeer Je=lleHe$e efJelejkeÀebvee megOoe Deens. efJeÐeeLeea, v³ee³eeue³eerve, MeemekeÀer³e, efvece MeemekeÀer³e keÀce&®eeN³eebvee mebHekeÀe&leerue pevelesle `efJeMJemle` ceeefmekeÀ efJeleefjle keÀjlee ³esF&ue.

DeeHeuee yee³ees[sìe HeeþJetve DeeHeu³ee mebHetCe& ceeefnleer men Deece®³ee þeCes keÀe³ee&ue³eeMeer mebHeke&À meeOee. vesceCetkeÀer veblej DeesUKeHe$e Je ceeefmekeÀeletve DeeHeueer ceeefnleer HeÀesìesmen osC³eele ³esF&ue. jepe<eea í. Meent cenejepeeb®³ee

mebHeke&À meeOee - mebHeeokeÀ - cees. 9869342980 Conditional love says : I love you, because I need you! Unconditional love says : I need you because I love you!

61

Je<e& 1 ues ♥ DebkeÀ 5 ♥ veesJnWyej 2008

ceefnuee ye®ele ieìebvee ³eMemJeerveer DeefYe³eeveeÜejs yeepeejHesþ ceefnuee meMekeÌleerkeÀjCee®³ee MeemekeÀer³e OeesjCeeefveefcelle meceepeeleerue ogye&ue ceefnuee ye®ele ieìeb®³ee Hee³eeYetle De[®eCeeR®es Mevewë Mevewë efvejekeÀjCe nesle Deens Je l³eeb®³ee keÀe³e&MekeÌleeruee Demceeve Kegues nesJet ueeieues Deens. mJeeJeuebyeveemeeþer GÐeceMeeruelee He´l³e#eele DeeCeC³eemeeþer pescelesce Yeeb[Jeue, peMeer leMeer GlHeeovee®eer peeiee SJe{s Hetjs vemeles lej DeeHeuee keÀ<ìe®³ee GlHeeove efJeke´Àer®eer Kee$eer Je YekeÌkeÀce OeesjCeeb®ee DeeOeej nJee Demelees. peeieeflekeÀerkeÀjCee®³ee veJ³ee JeeleeJejCeele meceepeeleu³ee keÀefve<þ ceO³ece Jeiee&Heemetve ceO³ece Je G®®e Jeiee&leerue pevelee Deelee Menje-Menjeletve, ieuueer yeesUeletve, GY³ee jeefnuesu³ee Je GY³ee jenCeeN³ee JeeleevegketÀefuele cee@ume Je efyeie yePeej meejK³ee meJe&®e peerJeveeJeM³ekeÀ Je ®ewveer®³ee Jemlet Deiel³eeves GHeueyOe Demeuesu³ee Kejsoer®³ee veJ³ee He³ee&³eekeÀ[s PegkegÀ ueeieu³ee®es efomeles. DeeHeu³ee neletve nkeÌkeÀeves Jemlet neleeUle, efkebÀceleer Heentve JeepeJeer Demeu³ee®eer Kee$eer Peeu³eeJej®eb l³ee efyeueemeeþer Heg{s keÀjCes efkeÀleer ne³emes Jeeìles. l³eeletve HejbHejsves ogkeÀeveoejeb®eer Jemletb®³ee Kejsoer DeeOeer®e efkebÀcele meebietve Kejsoeroeje®eer SsHele peesKeC³eemeejKee GOoì He´keÀej, 5/10 Jemlet oeKeJeu³eeveblej Kejsoer ve kesÀu³eeme, l³ee®³ee keÀHeeUeJej He[CeeN³ee Deeþîee, Je peCet ceeue ve IesCeeje efieNneF&keÀ cnCetle leg®ílee, Je l³ee®³ee ceveeletve nesCeejer keÀeȳee ³eeoerleueer veeWo, ³eeHeemetve DeeHemetkeÀ megìkeÀe Peeueer Deens. DeMee Peieceiel³ee cee@umeceOetve Je `efyeieyePeej` meejK³ee efJeke´ÀerkeWÀo´eletve DeeHeu³ee nmle keÀewMeu³ee®³ee, HeejbHeefjkeÀ Je keÀewìgbefyekeÀ iejpes®³ee

Jemlet efJekeÀu³ee iesu³ee lej? Demeb ogye&ue IeìkeÀeb®³ee ceefnuee ye®ele ieìeleu³ee ceefnueebmeeþer He[uesueb mJeHve Deepe He´l³e#eele `³eMemJeerveer` ³eespevesKeeueer meekeÀejle Deens.

DeeHeu³ee Iejiegleer GlHeeoveebvee efyeie yePeej meejK³ee efþkeÀeCeer mevceeveeves efJeke´Àermeeþer mLeeve efceUeu³ee®ee megKeo Deevebo ³ee ye®ele ieìeleu³eebvee ve efceUeu³eeme®e veJeue! ie´eceerCe Yeeieeletve Je Menjer PeesHe[HeƳeeletve efmLejeJeuesu³ee ye®ele ieìebmeeþer ns vekeÌkeÀer®e megKeo Jele&ceeve Deens. ceneje<ì^eleu³ee Lees[îee Lees[ke̳ee veJnsle lej oesve ueeKe Hevveeme npeejeJejerue ceefnuee ye®ele ieìeb®³ee mJeejm³ee®³ee cenlJee®³ee GlHeeoveeme efyeie yePeej ceO³es mLeeve efceUeues Demetve DeMee He´efleef<þle oeueveeble ³ee GlHeeoveebvee Yeues p³eeoe efkebÀcele ve efceUes HeCe He´efle<þelejer vekeÌkeÀer®e efceUeueer Deens. cegyb eF&®³ee ³eMeJeblejeJe ®eJneCe He´elf e<þeveÜeje DeeefLe&keÀ mene³³e Iesleuesu³ee 6000 ye®ele ieìeb®³ee GlHeeoveeme 35 efyeie yePeej efJeke´Àer keWÀêeletve efJekeÀC³eeme megªJeele Peeueer Deens. ueesCe®eer, ®eìC³eeHeemetve, meeyeCe Je Me@cHet He³e¥le®eer GlHeeoves íesìîee He´ceeCeele Iejiegleer ye®eleer®³ee menkeÀejer lelJeeJej GlHeeove keÀjCeeN³ee ceefnuee mJe³eb mene³³e ieìebvee (Sme S®e peer) DeeefLe&keÀ mJeleb$elee efceUJetve osle l³eeb®³ee Glmeenele Je efveOee&jele Yej ìekeÀCeeje þjsue ³eele MebkeÀe veener.

DeMee ye®ele ieìeb®³ee GlHeeovee®³ee 41 Jemlet `efyeie yePeej` keÀ[tve mebcele Je mJeerke=Àle Peeu³ee Deensle. ner GlHeeoves vesnceer®e Glke=À<þ Demeleele HeCe pescelesce Jes<þveb Je efJeke´Àer®eer efveke=À<þ J³eJemLee ³eecegUs leer ceeies

Faith is a belief in what I do not know now, so that I may soon enough come to know what I believe in.

62

Je<e& 1 ues ♥ DebkeÀ 5 ♥ veesJnWyej 2008

He[leele. ³ee veJ³ee mebOeercegUs ceefnueebvee He´Lece®e yeepeejeleu³ee GlHeeoveeMeer yejesyejer keÀjC³ee®eer DevegkegÀuelee efceUle Deens. Demeb He´elf eHeeove Deens, ³ee #es$eeleu³ee leUceUer®³ee Keemeoej megHe´e³r ee megUs ³eeb®es ³eMeJeblejeJe ®eJneCe He´elf e<þeveeMeer l³ee mebyebefOele Demetve l³eebveer®e ceefnueeb®³ee GlHeeoveemeeþer `efyeie yePeej` ceO³es He´JesMe efceUJetve efouee Deens. l³eeb®³ee cnCeC³eevegmeej ner lej kesÀJeU megªJeele Deens. l³eeHeefuekeÀ[s l³eeb®eer PesHe Demetve, ner ceefnueeb®eer GlHeeoveb ³eeHeg{s ceneje<ì^eyeensjner YeejleYejeleu³ee meJe&®e cee@umeceOetve efJekeÀueer peeleerue. veeefMekeÀ®eer efkebÀJee ueeletj®eer ®eìCeer, ®ebefoie[ efkebÀJee efouueerleu³ee ye[îee cee@umeceO³es efJeke´Àermeeþer HeeþefJeueer peeF&ue, Demeb l³eebveer DeelceefJeMJeemeeves cnìueb Deens. ³ee ³eespevesuee efHebHe´er, keÀesuneHetj Je meebieueeruee iesu³ee oesve ceefnv³eele megªJeele nesJetve leerve efoJemeele ye®ele ieìebveer Hee®e ueeKeeJej efJeke´Àer kesÀueer. l³eeleu³ee SkeÀe ye®ele ieìeleu³ee DeeMee efYemes ³eebveer meWeêf ³e iegUe®³ee 20 ìvee®eer efJeke´Àer kesÀueer. l³ee®eer ceeieCeer Jee{leer®e Deens, `ceer SJe{er ceesþer efJeke´Àer Je SJe{îee He´ceeCeele efkebÀcele ³eeHetJeea keÀOeer®e ieeþt MekeÀues veener` Demeb efYemes cnCeeu³ee. ³ee GoenjCeeves megUs cnCeleele, cejeþJee[îeele meWêer³e iegUe®eer efveefce&leer

JneJeer, keÌJeef®ele®e KeHeCeeN³ee Jemlet®³ee efveefce&leerHes#ee ³ee DevegYeJeeves ueeskeÀefHe´³e Jemletb®³ee efveefce&leerkeÀ[s ue#e Ieeuetve ³eesi³e efoMesves ueeskeÀefHe´³e Jemletb®³ee He´ceeCeele Jee{ kesÀueer Heeefnpes. Heg{®³ee®e ìHHee Deelee Deewjib eeyeeo veeieHetj, þeCes Je keÀu³eeCe®ee Deens. ns ³eMemJeerveer DeefYe³eeve Demetve, GlHeeoves `³eMemJeerveer` veeJeeKeeueer efJeke´Àerle ³esleerue.

DeefuekeÀ[®³ee He´eflemeeoeves SkeÀef$ele 100 Jemlet mebcele keÀjC³ee®ee He´³elve Deens l³eeves ceefnueeb®³ee DeelceefJeMJeemeele ®ecelkeÀej Ie[Jeuee Deens.³eeHeg{s lej veeefJeC³eHetCe& efveefceleer®ee He´³elve jenCeej Deens. Deewjbieeyeeo He´keÀuHee®ee efJe®eej keÀjleebvee kesÀUerbHeemetve ye®ele ieìeb®es 35 HeoeLe& peUieeJe ³esLes efJeke´Àerme þsJeues Demetve l³eeb®eer Oe[eke̳eeves efJeke´Àer megª Deens. Demes ³eMemJeerveer®³ee mìsì keÀesDee@ef[vesìj Deefmcelee Heeìerue cnCeleele.

SkebÀojerle ie´eceerCe ye®ele ieìebmeeþer ner He´js Ceeoe³ekeÀ Ieìvee Demeu³eeves `efJeMJemle` ceeefmekeÀeletve Lesì Jee®ekeÀebHe³e¥le leer vesle Deenesle ceefnueeb®³ee peerJeveele DeelceefJeMJeeme, OecekeÀ Je mJeeJeuebyeve efvecee&Ce JneJes! ner®e ceefve<ee.

ceeefmekeÀ efJeMJemle®es Deelee Jeie&Ceeroej®e Jne lemes®e peeefnjeleer He´efmeOoer keÀjerle DeLe&mene³³e osefKeue keÀje ner Deeie´ne®eer efJevebleer A thoughtless word hardly ever escapes my tongue or pen.

63

Je<e& 1 ues ♥ DebkeÀ 5 ♥ veesJnWyej 2008 `efJeMJemle' ³ee ceeefmekeÀ efve³elekeÀeefuekeÀeleerue peeefnjeleermeeþer

ojHe$ekeÀ 1) keÀJnj Hespe veb. 4 Deeì& HesHejJejerue meHlejbieeleerue peeefnjele ( HetCe& Heeve ) 2) keÀJnj Hespe veb. 2 Je 3 Deeì& HesHej Jejerue meHlejbieeleerue peeefnjele ( HetCe& Heeve )

©. 15,000/-

©. 10,000/(He´l³eskeÀer)

3) Deeleerue Deeì& HesHejJejerue meHlejbieeleerue peeefnjele ( HetCe& Heeve ) .. ..

©. 7,500/-

4) Deeleerue Deeì& HesHejJejerue meHlejbieeleerue peeefnjele ( DeOex Heeve ) .. ..

©. 4,000/-

5) Deeleerue meeO³ee HesHejJejerue ke=À<Ce-OeJeue peeefnjele ( HetCe& Heeve ) ..

©. 3,000/-

6) Deeleerue meeO³ee HesHejJejerue ke=À<Ce-OeJeue peeefnjele ( DeOex Heeve ) ..

©. 1,500/-

6) Deeleerue meeO³ee HesHejJejerue ke=À<Ce-OeJeue peeefnjele ( HeeJe Heeve ) ..

©. 1,000/-

peeefnjeleoejebvee efJevebleer Deens keÀer, l³eebvee l³eeb®eer peeefnjele l³eeb®³ee HeOoleerves He´efmeOo keÀjeJe³ee®eer Demeu³eeme ef[PeeF&ve GHeueyOe keÀ©ve ÐeeJes. pej l³eeb®eer JesyemeeF&ì Demesue lej l³ee Je©ve osefKeue Deeì& Jeke&À Deecner le³eej keÀ©ve IesT, pej meeOeer peeefnjele He´efmeOo keÀjeJe³ee®eer Demeu³eeme peeefnjeleer®ee cepeketÀj megJee®³e mJe©Heele HeeþefJeC³eele ³eeJee. peeefnjeleer®³ee jkeÌkeÀces®es OeveeosMe ke=ÀHe³ee ` mebke´ÀceCe HeefyuekesÀMevme De@v[ keÀvmeuìbìmed ' ³ee veeJeeves keÀe{C³ee®eer efJevebleer Deens. efkebÀJee meoj®es OeveeosMe efkebÀJee jesKe jkeÌkeÀce DeeHeu³ee veefpekeÀ®³ee mìsì yeBkeÀ Dee@HeÀ FbefG³ee®³ee keÀesCel³eener MeeKesle meoj®³ee Keel³ee®³ee veeJes Hes-Fve-mueerHe þjeefJekeÀ jkeÌkeÀces®eer le³eej keÀ©ve leer Deece®³ee keÀjbì Keeles ke´À.

30400472748 ³ee Keel³eeJej pecee keÀ© MekeÀlee. lemes kesÀu³eeme ceesyeeF&ue ke´ÀceebkeÀ 09869342980 ³ee Jej keÀUefJeC³ee yeeyele efJevebleer Deens.

mebHeeokeÀer³e meuueeieej ceb[U v³ee³ecetleea Þeer. Deveble ceeves : ceepeer v³ee³ecetleea, cegyb eF& G®®e v³ee³eeue³e DeeefCe ceepeer DeO³e#e jep³e ceeveJeeefOekeÀej Dee³eesie ceneje<ì^ jep³e, He´e.[e@.efJepe³e ef®eìCeerme : ceepeer efJeOeer efJeYeeie He´cegKe, cegyb eF& efJeÐeeHeerþ DeeefCe ceepeer meom³e, jep³e ceeveJeeefOekeÀej Dee³eesie ce.jep³e, cegyb eF&. [e@. yeer. Sve. JeeIeceejs : meveoer DeefOekeÀejer, (I.R.T.S.) meWvì^ue jsuJes, cegyb eF&. Þeer.Meb. ue. leeboUskeÀj : ceepeer efpeune efveyebOekeÀ, menkeÀejer mebmLee, þeCes. Þeer.He´keÀeMe Deej.kegÀuekeÀCeea : efMe#eCe GHemeb®eeuekeÀ (mesJee efveJe=lle), HegCes. Þeer. S®e. Sve. meeiejs : meceepemesJekeÀ, cegyb eF&.

He´e.Þeer.Sme.Sce.iee³ekeÀJee[ : meveoer uesKeeHeeue Je He´eO³eeHekeÀ.

He´e.Þeer. ieesHeeue ogKeb[s : ceepeer He´eO³eeHekeÀ Je efJe®eejJeble, meceepemesJekeÀ.

De@[.Þeer. Deej.Sve.peeOeJe : De@[JneskesÀì, ne³ekeÀesì,& Deewjib eeyeeo.

De@[.Þeer.Deej.Sme.iegjJe : ceepeer mene³ekeÀ Oecee&oe³e Dee³egkeÌle Je JekeÀerue, HegCes. Þeer. Jner. yeer. meeleJeer : ceepeer GHeefpeuneefOekeÀejer Je ceepeer GHee³egkeÌle, keÀu³eeCe-[esyb eerJeueer.ceneveiej HeeefuekeÀe, keÀu³eeCe, þeCes. Þeer. He´Yet Heer. OeeceCes : efveJe=lle men-efveyebOekeÀ,menkeÀejer mebmLee, ceneje<ì^ jep³e, cegyb eF& He´e.YeeT oe³eoej : He´eO³eeHekeÀ, meceepeMeeðe efJeYeeie, veeieHetjceneefJeÐeeue³e,veeieHetj] [e@.Sme.Sue.JeeIeceejs : Ëo³ejesie lep%e, þeCes.

mebHeeokeÀ Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of true democratic spirit