Dear Gita,
Wrt your various comments on Social Jurist "NGO",
there are some comments allegedly attributed to me
(ca. 2003) available on the net which i reproduce
below for yr edification.
"I also had a small "Right to Information" matter with
the Director of Education (Delhi) regarding nursery
school admissions, unfortunately I couldn't pursue
this matter further since some NGO called Social
Jurist (with Ashok Agrawal) had recently raised
several of these issues at the Delhi High Court and
lost very badly."
Tell me, when was the last time you could repose faith
in Tis Hazari lawyers?
BTW really dug yr DMRC financing clarification for Itu
Chaudhuri.
--- Gita Dewan Verma <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 18/08/05 In court 9 at item 11 onwards came up
> before HMJ Vikramjit Sen the batch of matters in
> which
> most schools in Delhi have challenged the GNCTD 20%
> BPL free seats directive arising (or, rather, not
> arising) from the order of 20/01/2004 in WP
> 3156/2002
> (Social Jurist v/s GNCTD & Ors).
>
> In court 1 at item 23 came up before Acting Chief
> Justice and HMJ Madan B Lokur for directions the
> good
> old WP 3156/2002 (Social Jurist v/s GNCTD & Ors)
> itself.
>
> Acting Chief Justice is very soft-spoken and I could
> not make out what was dictated as order. But the
> proceedings leading to it were re-play of joint
> Govt-NGO anti-schools approach. All the sloganeering
> about common school system notwithstanding the
> central
> issue was classification of schools on basis of who
> allotted land and whether the free-seats condition
> was
> in the lease. Respondents were asked about
> implications of de-recognition and (like in Social
> Jurist free-beds matter) if they had considered the
> *alternative* of letting schools pay the difference
> between the allotment and market rates. Acting Chief
> Justice asked for top officials to be present in
> court
> and also for list of violating school trusts who
> would
> be summoned likewise regardless of any *outcry*.
> The
> matter is listed for 25 August.
>
> The batch matters were heard by HMJ Vikramjit Sen
> for
> the first time (they were being heard by Justice
> Gita
> Mittal before). Supreme Court judgment against
> reservations in private colleges was mentioned.
> Counsel for schools on DDA allotted sites said Union
> of India had not filed its counter-affidavit. UoI
> counsel said they had yesterday and sum and
> substance
> of it was that UoI is not concerned with this issue
> since 2% cess, etc, are for SSA. DDA counsel said
> something about lists. I said we were intervener in
> view of later order by same DB for rectification of
> violations of larger scheme of which condition is
> part
> and that no one was talking of those violations or
> that order and we are the aggrieved (being
> communities). Lordship asked why we were not filing
> a
> separate petition and I said we had and won them too
> but no one has noticed (which I suppose does not
> answer the technicality he was asking). Counsel for
> schools on private land drew attention to prior
> direction asking for classification of schools. HMJ
> Vikramjit Sen instead of asking yet again that GNCTD
> and DDA do this (like DB just had) asked counsel for
> schools to say 1-or-2-or-3-or-4 (this was fun) and
> made the list in his order. Ashok Agarwal said he
> was
> intervener in Action Committee case and petitioner
> in
> the matter leading to the directive impugned and
> Lordship smiled and asked why. I tried again and
> asked
> if he could please ask UoI counsel to give me copy
> of
> their affidavit and was politely explained
> directions
> cannot be given on interventions unless submissions
> are made. The matters were adjourned to 27 September
> for daily hearing thereafter.
>
> GNCTD counsel asked me outside what I was trying to
> say and when I broke into plannerly explanation
> looked
> flummoxed and asked if I was for or against
> free-seats. I was flummoxed, but said against
> free-seats, for common-school-system solutions,
> for-government and for schools, against illegalities
> by both, against interferences by busy-bodies and
> publicity-seekers. she smiled cryptic smile.
>
> What I found oddest was that while Govt-NGO counsel
> had mentioned in Court 1 that the batch matters were
> going to come up in Court 9 during the day, they did
> not mention in Court 9 the proceedings in Court 1. I
> guess we will be seeing a lot in media about the
> Court
> 1 order Social Jurist has *won* against schools.
> This
> is to sort of record that schools also *won* some
> today, as HMJ Sen was I think very rightly very
> disinclined to entertain interveners.
>
> ---
> PS
> Maybe schools could file a PIL seeking directions
> for
> handing over education department to Social Jurist
> (would save them lot of adversarial litigation and
> bad
> press and they have locus to design and grade
> exercises to harness public interest propensities -
> I
> distinctly recall they even used to have subject
> called Socially Useful Productive Work in CBSE 10+2)
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> mpisgmedia mailing list
> mpisgmedia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
http://mail.architexturez.net/mailman/listinfo/mpisgmedia
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Wrt your various comments on Social Jurist "NGO",
there are some comments allegedly attributed to me
(ca. 2003) available on the net which i reproduce
below for yr edification.
"I also had a small "Right to Information" matter with
the Director of Education (Delhi) regarding nursery
school admissions, unfortunately I couldn't pursue
this matter further since some NGO called Social
Jurist (with Ashok Agrawal) had recently raised
several of these issues at the Delhi High Court and
lost very badly."
Tell me, when was the last time you could repose faith
in Tis Hazari lawyers?
BTW really dug yr DMRC financing clarification for Itu
Chaudhuri.
--- Gita Dewan Verma <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 18/08/05 In court 9 at item 11 onwards came up
> before HMJ Vikramjit Sen the batch of matters in
> which
> most schools in Delhi have challenged the GNCTD 20%
> BPL free seats directive arising (or, rather, not
> arising) from the order of 20/01/2004 in WP
> 3156/2002
> (Social Jurist v/s GNCTD & Ors).
>
> In court 1 at item 23 came up before Acting Chief
> Justice and HMJ Madan B Lokur for directions the
> good
> old WP 3156/2002 (Social Jurist v/s GNCTD & Ors)
> itself.
>
> Acting Chief Justice is very soft-spoken and I could
> not make out what was dictated as order. But the
> proceedings leading to it were re-play of joint
> Govt-NGO anti-schools approach. All the sloganeering
> about common school system notwithstanding the
> central
> issue was classification of schools on basis of who
> allotted land and whether the free-seats condition
> was
> in the lease. Respondents were asked about
> implications of de-recognition and (like in Social
> Jurist free-beds matter) if they had considered the
> *alternative* of letting schools pay the difference
> between the allotment and market rates. Acting Chief
> Justice asked for top officials to be present in
> court
> and also for list of violating school trusts who
> would
> be summoned likewise regardless of any *outcry*.
> The
> matter is listed for 25 August.
>
> The batch matters were heard by HMJ Vikramjit Sen
> for
> the first time (they were being heard by Justice
> Gita
> Mittal before). Supreme Court judgment against
> reservations in private colleges was mentioned.
> Counsel for schools on DDA allotted sites said Union
> of India had not filed its counter-affidavit. UoI
> counsel said they had yesterday and sum and
> substance
> of it was that UoI is not concerned with this issue
> since 2% cess, etc, are for SSA. DDA counsel said
> something about lists. I said we were intervener in
> view of later order by same DB for rectification of
> violations of larger scheme of which condition is
> part
> and that no one was talking of those violations or
> that order and we are the aggrieved (being
> communities). Lordship asked why we were not filing
> a
> separate petition and I said we had and won them too
> but no one has noticed (which I suppose does not
> answer the technicality he was asking). Counsel for
> schools on private land drew attention to prior
> direction asking for classification of schools. HMJ
> Vikramjit Sen instead of asking yet again that GNCTD
> and DDA do this (like DB just had) asked counsel for
> schools to say 1-or-2-or-3-or-4 (this was fun) and
> made the list in his order. Ashok Agarwal said he
> was
> intervener in Action Committee case and petitioner
> in
> the matter leading to the directive impugned and
> Lordship smiled and asked why. I tried again and
> asked
> if he could please ask UoI counsel to give me copy
> of
> their affidavit and was politely explained
> directions
> cannot be given on interventions unless submissions
> are made. The matters were adjourned to 27 September
> for daily hearing thereafter.
>
> GNCTD counsel asked me outside what I was trying to
> say and when I broke into plannerly explanation
> looked
> flummoxed and asked if I was for or against
> free-seats. I was flummoxed, but said against
> free-seats, for common-school-system solutions,
> for-government and for schools, against illegalities
> by both, against interferences by busy-bodies and
> publicity-seekers. she smiled cryptic smile.
>
> What I found oddest was that while Govt-NGO counsel
> had mentioned in Court 1 that the batch matters were
> going to come up in Court 9 during the day, they did
> not mention in Court 9 the proceedings in Court 1. I
> guess we will be seeing a lot in media about the
> Court
> 1 order Social Jurist has *won* against schools.
> This
> is to sort of record that schools also *won* some
> today, as HMJ Sen was I think very rightly very
> disinclined to entertain interveners.
>
> ---
> PS
> Maybe schools could file a PIL seeking directions
> for
> handing over education department to Social Jurist
> (would save them lot of adversarial litigation and
> bad
> press and they have locus to design and grade
> exercises to harness public interest propensities -
> I
> distinctly recall they even used to have subject
> called Socially Useful Productive Work in CBSE 10+2)
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> mpisgmedia mailing list
> mpisgmedia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
http://mail.architexturez.net/mailman/listinfo/mpisgmedia
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com