My Quora Answer to: How can I sue a doctor in India for medical negligence?

Read the following paragraphs from the Supreme Court Judgment, before taking a decision of suing the doctor.

94. On scrutiny of the leading cases of medical negligence both in our country and other countries specially United Kingdom, some basic principles emerge in dealing with the cases of medical negligence. While deciding whether the medical professional is guilty of medical negligence following well known principles must be kept in view:-

I. Negligence is the breach of a duty exercised by omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.

II. Negligence is an essential ingredient of the offence. The negligence to be established by the prosecution must be culpable or gross and not the negligence merely based upon an error of judgment.

III. The medical professional is expected to bring a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care. Neither the very highest nor a very low degree of care and competence judged in the light of the particular circumstances of each case is what the law requires.

IV.    A medical practitioner would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field.
 

V. In the realm of diagnosis and treatment there is scope for genuine difference of opinion and one professional doctor is clearly not negligent merely because his conclusion differs from that of other professional doctor.

VI. The medical professional is often called upon to adopt a procedure which involves higher element of risk, but which he honestly believes as providing greater chances of success for the patient rather than a procedure involving lesser risk but higher chances of failure. Just because a professional looking to the gravity of illness has taken higher element of risk to redeem the patient out of his/her suffering which did not yield the desired result may not amount to negligence.

VII. Negligence cannot be attributed to a doctor so long as he performs his duties with reasonable skill and competence. Merely because the doctor chooses one course of action in preference to the other one available, he would not be liable if the course of action chosen by him was acceptable to the medical profession. VIII. It would not be conducive to the efficiency of the medical profession if no Doctor could administer medicine without a halter round his neck.

IX. It is our bounden duty and obligation of the civil society to ensure that the medical professionals are not unnecessary harassed or humiliated so that they can perform their professional duties without fear and apprehension.

X. The medical practitioners at times also have to be saved from such a class of complainants who use criminal process as a tool for pressurizing the medical professionals/hospitals particularly private hospitals or clinics for extracting uncalled for compensation. Such malicious proceedings deserve to be discarded against the medical practitioners. XI. The medical professionals are entitled to get protection so long as they perform their duties with reasonable skill and competence and in the interest of the patients. The interest and welfare of the patients have to be paramount for the medical professionals.

95. In our considered view, the aforementioned principles must be kept in view while deciding the cases of medical negligence. We should not be understood to have held that doctors can never be prosecuted for medical negligence. As long as the doctors have performed their duties and exercised an ordinary degree of professional skill and competence, they cannot be held guilty of medical negligence. It is imperative that the doctors must be able to perform their professional duties with free mind.

Source: Supreme Court of India : Kusum Sharma & Ors vs Batra Hospital &Med.Research ... on 10 February, 2010 Bench: Justices Dalveer Bhandari, Harjit Singh Bedi

And again, in the Judgment - Supreme Court of India - Nizam'S Institute Of Medical ... vs Prasanth S.Dhananka & Ors on 14 May, 2009 Bench: Justices B.N. Agrawal, Harjit Singh Bedi, G.S. Singhvi

(2) Negligence in the context of the medical profession necessarily calls for a treatment with a difference. To infer rashness or negligence on the part of a professional, in particular a doctor, additional considerations apply. A case of occupational negligence is different from one of professional negligence. A simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident, is not proof of negligence on the part of a medical professional. So long as a doctor follows a practice acceptable to the medical profession of that day, he cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative course or method of treatment was also available or simply because a more skilled doctor would not have chosen to follow or resort to that practice or procedure which the accused followed. When it comes to the failure of taking precautions, what has to be seen is whether those precautions were taken which the ordinary experience of men has found to be sufficient; a failure to use special or extraordinary precautions which might have prevented the particular happening cannot be the standard for judging the alleged negligence. So also, the standard of care, while assessing the practice as adopted, is judged in the light of knowledge available at the time of the incident, and not at the date of trial. Similarly, when the charge of negligence arises out of failure to use some particular equipment, the charge would fail if the equipment was not generally available at that particular time (that is, the time of the incident) at which it is suggested it should have been used.

(3) A professional may be held liable for negligence on one of the two findings: either he was not possessed of the requisite skill which he professed to have possessed, or, he did not exercise, with reasonable competence in the given case, the skill which he did possess. The standard to be applied for judging, whether the person charged has been negligent or not, would be that of an ordinary competent person exercising ordinary skill in that profession. It is not possible for every professional to possess the highest level of expertise or skills in that branch which he practices. A highly skilled professional may be possessed of better qualities, but that cannot be made the basis or the yardstick for judging the performance of the professional proceeded against on indictment of negligence.

(4) The test for determining medical negligence as laid down in Bolam case (1957) 2 All ER 118 (QBD)holds good in its applicability in India.

Further in the same case as above,

32. We are also cognizant of the fact that in a case involving medical negligence, once the initial burden has been discharged by the complainant by making out a case of negligence on the part of the hospital or the doctor concerned, the onus then shifts on to the hospital or to the attending doctors and it is for the hospital to satisfy the Court that there was no lack of care or diligence. In Savita Garg (Smt.)vs. Director, National Heart Institute (2004) 8 SCC 56 it has been observed as under:

"Once an allegation is made that the patient was admitted in a particular hospital and evidence is produced to satisfy that he died because of lack of proper care and negligence, then the burden lies on the hospital to justify that there was no negligence on the part of the treating doctor or hospital. Therefore, in any case, the hospital is in a better position to disclose what care was taken or what medicine was administered to the patient. It is the duty of the hospital to satisfy that there was no lack of care or diligence. The hospitals are institutions, people expect better and efficient service, if the hospital fails to discharge their duties through their doctors, being employed on job basis or employed on contract basis, it is the hospital which has to justify and not impleading a particular doctor will not absolve the hospital of its responsibilities."

In conclusion, my answer to your question would be, you can approach the Consumer Forum, where you don’t have to pay any Court Fee on your claim, and you may win the case with substantial evidence on your side. For the degree of evidence that is required to win a claim of Medical Negligence see the explanation above. Whether you have winning stuff in your case or not, can be best diagnosed by a independent, equally qualified Doctor, and not a lawyer. Approach a doctor first, and then with his opinion, approach a lawyer or directly the Consumer Forum of your district.

Disclaimer: The opinion expressed above, based on assumptions, is not tantamount to Legal Advice.

Burberry faces U.S. lawsuit accusing it of deceptive price tags

British luxury fashion brand Burberry is to face a class action lawsuit in the United States, claiming it used misleading price tags at its outlets stores to fool shoppers into believing they were getting big bargains.

The company, which specifically manufactures some of the products for its outlet stores, is accused of intentionally presenting false price information on products that have never been sold in its retail stores to mislead customers.

Outlet stores typically sell excess or old stock at a discount, although some retailers also manufacture goods specifically for them.

The lawsuit in the latest in a long line of cases accusing luxury retailers of marking up goods sold in outlet stores with made-up manufacturer prices.

Last year, U.S. retailer Michael Kors had agreed to pay $4.88 million and change its sales practices to settle a similar class action lawsuit after it was accused of creating an "illusion" of deep discounts.

(Reporting by Li-mei Hoang)

Source - http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0VL0NT

How government agencies fast-tracked Lavasa | Features | Environment

 
Lavasa, the picturesque planned hill station being developed by Hindustan Construction Company (HCC) near Pune, is facing charges of illegal land acquisition and environmental violations and construction has been stayed pending an inquiry. 



This article says that the focus should be not on the misdemeanours of the corporation but on the collusions and oversights of government

The bureaucracy moves at snail’s pace in India. But look at the speed with which the Lavasa project, currently under scrutiny from the Environment Ministry and construction stayed pending scrutiny of irregularities in sanctions granted to the project, was sanctioned. Clearance was granted within months of its application of purpose, indeed even before the application was submitted to the concerned departments and ministries!

Thousands of scheduled caste and scheduled tribe families in this Mulshi-Maval region have languished for decades without caste certificates to support their legal entitlements to the land, or access to basic services. The ignorance of these poor families -- nomadic tribes (Dhangar) and tribal communities (Koli, Katkar, Thakar and Marathas) residing in small community hamlets -- worked in favour of Hindustan Construction Company (HCC) and the state of Maharashtra.

Had it not been for the voices of a few concerned citizens of Pune city, who recognised the long-term implications of such a massive infrastructure project, the socio-environmental consequences of the project would never have come to light.

Brand ‘Lavasa’

Lavasa Corporation was originally registered as Pearly Blue Lake Resort Private Limited Company, in 2000. The project was a business hotel to be developed on the banks of Warasgaon lake in Mose valley, Mulshi block, Pune district. The company changed its name to Lake City Corporation Pvt Ltd on December 12, 2000. Later, in June 2004, it changed it again to Lavasa Corporation Limited (International Securities Identification Number INE172G01016).

The hill station project is being driven by a consortium of companies led by Hindustan Construction Company (HCC), which holds 65% of the stake in Lavasa through its real estate subsidiary HCC Realty. Other investors include the L M Thapar Group and Venkateshwara Hatcheries, besides several minority shareholders with 35% equity.

The project in a nutshell

Lavasa is a sprawling private real estate project, 65 km from the city of Pune in Maharashtra, nestled amidst 18 hills and 975 metres above sea level.

The project was approved under Section 20 (3) of the MRTP on July 15, 2000. Accordingly, the Maharashtra Urban Development Department declared 18 villages in Mulshi and Velhe block -- a total of 25,000 acres of land -- part of the project. Since then, the inhabitants of around 20 villages have faced eviction, land alienation, harassment by project officials, cheating by the land mafia and company agents, denial of community access to freshwater bodies, river, temples and common roads. And the destruction of their natural habitat and forests.

The people of these villages comprise poor marginal farmers who depend heavily on traditional farming techniques, livestock rearing, collection of non-timber forest produce, fishing, daily wage labour, and collection of natural resources. Though they have been living in the area for generations, it was only in 1964 that poor landless and socio-economically backward families were allotted excess ceiling lands under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961. They made these lands cultivable and survived on them without any support from the government.

In 1974, construction of Warasgaon dam began, and of the scores of families displaced only a few were given compensatory land in Daund taluka (125 km from Pune). Many were left in the affected area to fend for themselves, without adequate compensation or rehabilitation.

Thirty years on, the Lavasa township project has brought back painful memories.

The completion target for the Lavasa project is 2022. It is being planned in four phases. The overall size of the project is said to be almost one-fourth the size of Mumbai city.

Role of the state government

The Maharashtra state government has supported the project wholeheartedly, be it in granting permission for land acquisition by denotifying ceiling lands, transferring lands belonging to the Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation reserved for public purposes, granting of environmental clearance, no-objection certificates and forest clearance. Above all, obtaining a no-objection from the zilla parishad for changes in local infrastructure, etc.

Facilitating corporate land grab

The Maharashtra government notification dated November 26, 1996 relating to the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act 1966 that proposed the development of hilly areas throughout the state as hill-stations and resorts is at the root of issues related to land acquisition for hill station development. The notification was introduced to circumvent regional plans so as to make it easy for land sharks to claim the valleys. It has been contentious on the grounds that the regulations have been framed for the benefit of moneyed companies and the commercial exploitation of scenic places.

1. Clause 17 of the notification deprives the collector of discretionary powers to be exercised for the benefit of tribals.

2. The notification also impinges on the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Land Acts 1961, The Maharashtra Land Revenue 1968, which relates to the transfer of land from tribals to non-tribals.

3. The other acts contravened are the Maharashtra Land Revenue (disposal of government land) Rules 1971, the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and the Forest Conservation Acts, 1980.

4. The notification also allows disposal of up to 2,000 hectares (20 sq km) of agricultural land against 21 hectares earlier imposed under the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Land Acts, 1961.

Land notified for Lavasa

In 2000, the Maharashtra government declared around 12,500 hectares of land for development of a hill station. Initially, the proposal was for a small lake city project; this later spread to revenue villages in Mulshi and Velhe blocks, including Daswe, Mugaon, Lavharde, Vegre, Bhode, Pathershet, Bombatmal, Palase, Admal, Padalghar, Wadavali, Sakhari, Bhoini, Koloshi, Ugavali, Dhamanhol and Gadale, in Mulshi block, and Mose Budruk, Shiv Budruk and Varasgaon in Velhe block. The land acquisition was carried out by three different departments -- the irrigation department (Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation [MKVDC]), forest department, and revenue department. It involved the acquisition of 2,500 acres of plantation land in two blocks, for which permission was granted by the forest department. It is worth mentioning here that on November 13, 1999, the Director, Town Planning, Pune, gave a report clearly stating that the land was forest land. The irrigation department allocated 141.15 hectares of land on lease to the company at a royalty of as little as Rs 275,250 per annum.

Though Lavasa claims it has not constructed on forest land, it cannot deny that roads have been built or pass through forest land for which hundreds of trees have been cut. One wonders how the local forest department allowed this without forest clearance from the central Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF). The forest officer of Khanapur, Haveli block, gave permission under the Maharashtra State Tree Felling Rules (Amendment) 1964 to cut trees and shrubs in the project area.

The MKVDC land allotted to the Lavasa project was reserved for public purposes. Interestingly, the same land had been claimed a number of times by people affected by the Warasgaon dam project; their claims were denied on grounds that the land was supposed to be used for public purposes. The company acquired the land on the basis of a 99 to 999-year lease.

Private land transactions

Over the past one-and-a-half decade, every land sale and purchase in Pune district has revealed the involvement of the land mafia. There are rumours about Lavasa too. From Daswe, where the company has built its first-phase dream town, to Mugaon village, which is being developed in the second phase, there is talk of forcible acquisition and purchase of land, forged signatures, misuse of power-of-attorney, community land disputes, devasthan land disputes, and joint ownership disputes.

Since 1996-97, when the land deals were initiated, companies like Pearly Blue Lake Resort and Aqua Land Pvt Ltd were also involved in the purchase of land. The company is supposed to have looped in several real estate agents to buy land for as little as Rs 500-Rs 5,000 per acre. Land agents from the villages and from Pune city, made small initial payments to the landholders, with promises of huge sums later. Most of the lands acquired from the Dhangar, Koli and Maratha communities are ceiling and inami (gifted) land distributed by the state government to the landless in the 1970s.

Locals recall that the district revenue officer and agents used to come together and discuss ceiling and inami lands in various villages. This caused a lot of apprehension, with people hurriedly collecting their land records. Some paid close to Rs 10,000 to the local talathi for copies of their land entitlements (7/12).

Agents and brokers are said to have played an important role in the land grab. In many instances, they bought 2 acres of land and registered about 10-17 acres. There are cases where the 2007 land records show ownership in the name of a local family, but records dated around the same time show a change in title name. In Mugaon village alone, 67 tribal families claim they lost 330 acres of land and did not receive any compensation. After being forcibly evicted, they realised that they no longer owned the land because the new land records did not show their names!

According to a letter written by the district collector, Pune, dated 4/7/2001, it is suggested that adivasi land cannot be acquired or transferred without consent from the competent authority. Likewise, forest land that has been affected by development projects like dams cannot be acquired without permission from the competent authority. Type-2 land or government land such as adivasi land, watani land, tenancy land, devasthan land, sites reserved for rehabilitation etc also cannot be acquired without permission from the competent authority. Most of these types of land would have been acquired for the Lavasa project with permission from the district collector, who is the competent authority under the MRTP Act, 1966. Lavasa Corporation has also been given approximately 1,042 acres of government land at a nominal price.

According to local residents, the agent who did most of the land deals, especially tribal lands in the villages of Dhamanhol and Mugaon, promised people jobs in the company and construction of a temple and other facilities in the village if people parted with their lands. In the few cases where villagers filed complaints against Lavasa Corporation, the government conducted an inquiry. Some cases were resolved, but others in Dhaman Ohal, Gadle, Sakhari and Mugaon carry on.

The role of the talathi and tehsildar is extremely important in all these cases of land transfer. Most people whose lands have been transferred to the company’s name have been struggling to access current land records. Filing appeals with the authorities has so far been unsatisfactory.

Ceiling land transfer to the company

According to the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, Article 27, ceiling land should be distributed among the landless, poor and socially deprived. However, the revenue department (letter dated 5/3/2005), Pune, believes otherwise. The district collector argued in favour of the company, allotting it excess ceiling lands amounting to 373 hectares. In 1976, in the villages of Mauje Gadale, Dhamanohol, Mugaon and Wadiwale, a total of 372 hectares was found in excess of the ceiling but was not taken under possession, under the Land Ceiling Act, Section 21 (4). In 2005, the then district collector suggested that if the land were given to the company instead, the government would benefit.

Moreover, land measuring 609 hectares that had been given to landless farmers for agriculture under the Maharashtra Land Ceiling Act (especially those belonging to katkari tribe families) was taken back and transferred to Lavasa.

Water resource privatisation

According to a letter written by the district collector, Pune, (dated 4/7/2001), the company is barred from claiming any rights over and disturbance to water resources such as streams, ponds, dams, freshwater sources, natural springs, etc. Nor can the company claim rights to civic amenities like traditional riparian rights, public roads, lanes, roadways, etc. However, Lavasa Corporation is allowed to build eight weirs (walls that control the flow of water) in the backwaters of Warasgaon dam for commercial use -- water sports, water villas, tanks, and water parks.

The company’s plans include the building of 10 captive mini dams which will definitely affect local riparian rights. After Lavasa built the Daswe check dam, villagers and their cattle have been denied access to water. Heavy security has been put in place by the company to safeguard its territory. In Mugaon village, the katkari hamlet has been suffering due to lack of fresh water. The company denies them access to the reservoir, the catchment of which will supply water to the project, saying that they should either relocate or face the consequences. The waterbody that is supposed to be a community resource has become the company’s private resource, strengthening its power to harass poor villagers and force them to live without basic resources.

In the few years since the Daswe check dam was constructed, there has been no water downstream during summer, whereas, because of the dam, Lavasa does not suffer. This means that the natural flow and storage of water in the valley has been greatly affected by massive construction and infrastructural changes.

Transfer of Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation land

In the lease agreement dated August 28, 2002, the Khadakvasla Irrigation Division allotted 141.15 hectares of land belonging to the Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation, on lease for 30 years from September 2, 2002, to the Lake City Corporation. A PIL against this move is ongoing in the Bombay High Court since November 15, 2006. According to the PIL, there are several irregularities in the way the government has dealt with Lavasa Corporation. According to the rules, excess land under the Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation can only be used and transferred for a ‘public purpose’, not for private use. The PIL challenges the transfer of MKVDC land to Lavasa Corporation, alleging political favouritism.

It is worth noting that the land that MKVDC transferred to Lake City Corporation belonged to villagers displaced during construction of Warasgaon dam in the 1970s. Since then, the villagers have made several appeals with the irrigation department to hand the remaining unutilised land back to the families. The department paid no heed to the requests; instead, the land was given to the company within three days of signing the MoU.

The company has also got permission from the Khadakvasla Irrigation Division to use water from Warasgaon and Temghar dams. The Khadakvasla reservoir, on the Mose river, was built to meet the water requirements of Pune city. It has a capacity of around 11.5 TMC, almost equalling Pune’s annual needs.

Pune is a fast-growing city, and the problem of water scarcity is a real one. Allowing huge amounts of water to be used by Lavasa Corporation, not only for drinking purposes but for water sports, hotels etc, will worsen the water crisis. No impact assessment has been carried out.

Environmental violations

According to Lavasa’s environment impact assessment (EIA) report, prepared by NEERI, 50% of the area is covered by vegetation, 23.39% by forests. Construction of the huge lake town, and a population of 200,000 during peak time, will undeniably impact the area’s flora and fauna. The report states that 43% of flora in the study area consists of medicinal plants. It does not feature any impact mitigation or preservation plan.

Mulshi and Velha valley, where the project is coming up, experiences some of the heaviest rainfall in the world. The area is lush with tropical vegetation and it is imperative that, considering the fragility of the Western Ghats, it be left undisturbed. Construction activity is drastically altering the natural landscape, opening the valley and entire ghats region up to environment degradation. This will have an impact on rainfall patterns in the long run.

A document by the Maharashtra government, dated April 12, 2004, permits Lavasa a ‘stone-crushing’ unit under the ‘orange’ category of small-scale industries, for which the hills have been cut. Another letter from the revenue collector, dated July 15, 2003, allows the company to quarry for Daswe. These permissions from the governing authorities, with no strict compliance norms and no studies on the impact of these activities on the fragile biodiversity of the hills, will cause enormous damage to the Sahyadri hills. The continuous crushing, quarrying and ferrying of raw materials in the project area has already had an impact on the local environment.

The recent show cause notice issued by the central Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) to the company clearly shows that the company has flouted the environmental laws. The project was supposed to take environment clearance from the MoEF, under the Environment Impact Assessment Notification of 1994. But it never approached the ministry. Rather, the project took environmental clearance from the environment department of the state government which is not competent to do so.

Parts of the project are at an altitude of over 1,000 metres; roads pass through forest areas; about 10 dams are to be constructed; the project is for more than 1,000 persons; and investments cross Rs 50 crore. All these factors call for environmental clearance under the 1994 notification. The company sought environmental clearance in 2004 when the aforesaid notification was binding on any project. Instead, environmental clearance was granted by the environment department of Maharashtra, and within record time of around two months, on 18-3-2004, vide letter No Env/Cle/765/CR.105/TC. In the letter, the environment department does not mention that clearance has been issued under EIA Notification 1994. It can also be construed from this letter that the department did not issue the specific environment clearance prescribed under EIA Notification 1994 but a general clearance letter identical to a routine NOC issued by the department.

On September 4, 2005, the central MoEF wrote to the government of Maharashtra saying that construction at Lavasa was being carried out without the mandatory environmental clearance required under the Environment Impact Assessment Notification of 1994. Notwithstanding these instructions, various authorities in the Government of Maharashtra shut their eyes and took no action on the matter. The company is in violation of the Environment Protection Act, 1986.

Incidentally, environment clearance was issued for development of a 2,000-hectare township hill station. However, the company is developing more than 25,000 hectares -- a clear violation of conditions imposed by the environmental clearance letter.

Lavasa, a fast-track project

During 2002-03, 31 no-objection certificates (NOCs) were granted to Lake City Corporation (later changed to Lavasa Corporation) by various departments such as the MKVDC, Konkan Irrigation Department, Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation and Maharashtra Pollution Control Board. These were for construction of mini-dams and impounding of water for commercial use, tree felling, quarrying, stone crushing and purchasing land for industrial use.

Some of the MoUs and clearances granted to Lake City/Lavasa Corporation in 2002-03 from various departments of the Maharashtra government are:

• May 30, 2002: NOC (No BO/TB/RO (HQ) Pune-163/444) for development, from the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board

• June 5, 2002: MoU between Lake City Corporation and Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation

• July 4, 2002: Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation’s (MKVDC) NOC (No TPD/ADM2/RBR/2543) to construct DTR

• July 16, 2002: MKVDC’s permission (No KID/ADM/4891/2002) to construct dams and store water

• August 9, 2002: Irrigation department, Konkan region, NOC (No 89.01/(18/2002)/U-5/3074) to construct dams and store water

• September 23, 2002: 30-year lease agreement between MKVDC and Lake City Corporation for construction of mini-dams in the submergence area of Warasgaon dam and impounding of water for commercial use

• December 11, 2002: Permission (No DI/Land Permission/255/2002 C-17386) from the industries department to buy land for industrial purposes

• December 13, 2002: NOC from the environment department (No ENV (NOC) 2000/765/CR.105/TC.1) for development

• January 2, 2003: Forest department’s tree-felling permission (No B/M/907/2002-03) for DTR/RFO, Khanapur

• January 10, 2003: Tree-felling permission from the forest department (No 576/2002-03) for DTR/RFO, Paud

• March 12, 2003: Land-use certificate (No DDTP-Pune/Final RP Pune/Zone Cert/822) from the town planning department

• April 10, 2003: MKVDC permission (No PB-4/KID/91/203) to carry out preliminary works

• July 15, 2003: Quarrying permission (No Mining/SR/391/2003) from the revenue collector for Daswe

• December 20, 2003: Irrigation department (Konkan region) agreement to construct dams and store water

• March 18, 2004: Environmental clearance (No ENV/cle/765/CR-105/TC.1) for project

So, who is responsible for the controversy that surrounds Lavasa? The state knowingly ignored all attempts to assess the project before clearing it. It is the responsibility of the state and its agencies to make corporations abide by the rules of the land. In this case, Lavasa flouted several regulations, thanks to state support given in the form of various clearances. Over the past five years, attempts by environmentalists, social activists and villagers to raise the issue at all levels of government have failed. It’s time the state government made its position clear. As Plato rightly said: “The community suffers nothing very terrible if its cobblers are bad and become degenerate and pretentious; but if the guardians of its laws and constitution, who alone have the opportunity to bring it good government and prosperity, become a mere sham, then clearly it is completely ruined.”

To read the stand of the Lavasa developers, read this interaction with Ajit Gulabchand, Chairman and Managing Director, Hindustan Construction Company, at http://www.indianexpress.com/news/the-environment-ministry-does-not-have-measurable-standards.-so-how-do-you-know-what-and-whom-to-deal-with/735248/


References
1 Interim Report of the People’s Commission of Inquiry on Displacement in Sahyadri Region, April 20, 2009
2 Technical Analysis Report of EIA of Lavasa Corporation-Lake Town at Moshe valley, Pune district, 2009
3 Committee on Land Reform, Ministry of Rural Development, GOI, Visit to Maharashtra Report, April 3, 2008
4 Letter written by the district collector, Pune, to the revenue department, Pune, dated 9/1/2005
5 Environment clearance letter No Env Cl/765/CR105/TC.1, environment department, government of Maharashtra, March 18, 2004
6 Forest department’s tree-felling permission (No B/M/907/2002-03) for DTR/RFO, Khanapur, January 2, 2003
7 30-year lease agreement between MKVDC and Lake City Corporation for construction of mini-dams in the submergence area of Warasgaon dam, and impounding of water for commercial use, September 23, 2002
8 Urban development department under notification No TPS-1800/1004/ CR-106/2000/UD-13, dated 1/6/2001
9 Letter written by the district collector, Pune, dated 4/7/2001

(Rifat Mumtaz works on developmental issues with a focus on land rights and the environment. She is with NCAS, Pune)

Source - Infochange News & Features, January 2011 -How government agencies fast-tracked Lavasa | Features | Environment

Monsanto and DuPont - Public Perception

Public perception is a curious thing. 

Two companies can do many of the same things, and yet one will take a much larger amount of flack and criticism for it. Or, as the Seattle Organic Restaurants website says, “the difference between a rainforest and a jungle is that a rainforest has a PR agent”. 

To that end, I find it very interesting that Monsanto is one of the most-hated companies on the planet, with the internet and social media full of stories and passed-around memes that declare it to be one of the worst companies in the world. And yet, DuPont is just as big in genetically-modified seeds and agricultural chemicals, and pursues largely the same policies as Monsanto with respect to pricing, IP enforcement, and so on.


So it merits the question – Why is Monsanto evil, but DuPont isn't?



Similar Unpleasant Histories

One of the most commonly-circulated bits on Monsanto in the social media space appears to be a piece that takes Monsanto to task for a long corporate history of developing dangerous products. In prior corporate incarnations, Monsanto did indeed produce Agent Orange, polychlorinated biphenyl (PCBs), DDT, and artificial sweeteners like saccharin and aspartame. While there is still vigorous debate about the safety of artificial sweeteners, nobody disputes that Agent Orange, PCBs, and DDT are bad news.


But let us have a look at DuPont's history.


DuPont started as a virtual monopoly manufacturer of gunpowder, making money hand over fist during the U.S. Civil War and then expanding into various other military explosives. Unlike Alfred Nobel, who felt so guilt-ridden about his invention of dynamite and its subsequent use in warfare that he established the Nobel Prizes, the DuPont family was apparently more interested in arranging marriages between cousins to maintain the family fortune. 


DuPont was also involved in the development of nuclear weapons. Later, DuPont developed synthetic materials like nylon and polyester that will, in many cases, still be on this earth for a long, long time. Likewise, DuPont has had its share of dangerous pesticides, herbicides, and other chemicals include coatings like C8. By the way, DuPont also manufactured Agent Orange, DDT, and PCBs … just like Monsanto did.

The point is, it's difficult to be a large player in the chemicals industry and not eventually produce a dangerous product and/or experience a significant industrial accident. Many of the chemical companies large enough and old enough to be around at the time (including Monsanto, DuPont, and Dow made products like Agent Orange, DDT, PCBs. Likewise, investors and those worried about the environment ought to be at least as worried about the neonicotinoid insecticides made by the likes of crop science companies Bayer and Syngenta  that have been implicated in colony collapse disorder affecting honeybees.

Source- Investopedia.com

Law-in-Perspective: Municipal bodies responsible for proper civic amenities: High Court

Law-in-Perspective: Municipal bodies responsible for proper civic amenities: High Court

Executive inaction is a common cause in the country. So much so that the citizens have lose all hope of redressal before the civic authorities and have to approach and plead before the judiciary to take up their cause. A similar contingency took the residents of Panchkula city to file a public interest litigation before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, being aghast with the inaction of the Municipal Council, Panchkula in providing civic amenities, ensuring public hygiene, and upkeep and maintenance of Panchkula city. The plight of these residents was evident from the contents of their petition which the High Court duly noted as under;

Petitioners have made a grievance that worst ever civic conditions are prevailing in Panchkula. Roads are full of potholes, broken to the extent that metalled portion is not visible. The petitioners also lament Municipal Council for poor drainage system and non-maintenance of parks. The writ petitioners have gone to the extent of praying that this Court should direct the State Government to dissolve the house of Municipal Council, Panchkula as they have miserably failed to perform their statutory duties and obligations. The writ petitioners have made further averments that Municipal Council though having necessary adequate funds have been incurring wasteful expenditure for lack of vision and funds are pilfered due to corruption prevailing in the system to which many Municipal Councillors are party. To illustrate this averment, petitioners have pleaded that one year old foot paths are being replaced by new foot paths, cement chequered tiles used on a foot path and laid year ago after dismantling are being taken away by Contractor or other persons. Petitioners have urged that neither there was any necessity nor it was prudent to replace the old tiles and the funds spent in this manner could have been utilized in a better way.

The High Court, to examine the merits of the allegation, appointed an amicus curie who "submitted a report depicting pathetic conditions prevailing in the city of Panchkula in regard to roads, sanitation, water stagnation and non-operation of sewage treatment plant". These allegations were retorted to by the Municipal Council which "pleaded that Municipal Council, Panchkula came into existence on 25th December, 2001 and since then the Municipal Council, Panchkula, with limited staff and limited funds, is trying its best to provide basic amenities to the residents of the city." The High Court was, however, not impressed with the defense. It noted the aspirations of the citizens for better living conditions and the mandate was upon the Municipal authorities to provide such. The High Court observed,

We have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings made in the present writ petition. The present writ petition brings into focus aspirations and hopes of the citizens of this country, who, after 62 years of independence, seek and demand that the Municipal Councils, a form of local self government, should ensure good living conditions, civic amenities and public hygiene. Government functionaries, officials of local self government, its elected representatives, have not been able to answer the growing needs and expectations of the citizens of the country. Lack of vision and perspective, compulsion of a tight rope walk to balance the need of those, who live in slums and in highly urbanized area, inadequacy of funds, difficulty in generating revenue from the stakeholders, fiscal mismanagement, populist approach to satisfy the demands of all strata of life, are some of the reasons, which can be spelled to notice various difficulties faced by the Municipal Councils/ Corporations managing the affairs of cities of India. This requires a peep into functioning and management of cities and towns of India through local self government.

Traditionally, urban local bodies have been looking after the basic amenities of civic life, which included water supply and sanitation, roads and drains, maintenance of public places, burial grounds and crematoria, cattle pounds, provision of street lights, fire brigades and maintenance of markets. For performing these duties, certain administrative and regulatory functions have also been undertaken by urban local bodies, which included maintenance of register of births and deaths, grant of license for sale of various food items, control and planning of urban development, sanctioning of building plans, inspection of buildings constructed, maintenance of record of rights and also public health areas, such as eating places, slaughter houses and tanneries etc.

By passage of time, role of urban local bodies has been substantially broadened. Regulation of land use, planning of economic and social development, safeguarding the interests of weaker sections of society including the handicapped and mentally retarded, slum improvement and upgradation, urban poverty alleviation, promotion of cultural, educational and aesthetic aspects and protection of environment and safeguarding of health have become part of functions and duties falling within Municipal domain.

New Delhi Declaration, which was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in December 1990, though recognizes that provision of basic amenities will remain one of the core activities of the urban local bodies, enlarging the scope further announce that following objects are required to be achieved by the Municipal local bodies:

1. Protection of the environment and safeguarding of health through the integrated management of water resources and liquid and solid waste;
2. Organisational reforms, promoting an integrated approach and including changes in procedures, attitudes, and behaviour, and the full participation of women at all levels;
3. Community management of services, backed by measures to strengthen the capacity of local institutions in implementing and sustaining water and sanitation programmes;
4. Sound financial practices, achieved through better management of existing assets and extensive use of appropriate technologies.

Government of India has further resolved that water needs to be managed as an economic asset rather than a free commodity. So the provision and management of water is also one of the essential duties of Municipal bodies. To achieve the above objectives and answer needs of the growing times, Union of India has formulated a scheme, called Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission.

However, in view of the fact that the Municipal authorities had woken up to the cause and begun drawing action plans for the upheaval of the living conditions in the city of Panchula, the High Court refrained from passing any directions as it felt that "that the authorities are alive to the remedial measures and are geared to take recourse to mechanism, which shall provide better urban living."

Download Decision here.

Source - www.legalperspectives.blogspot.com

Jethmalani wants SIT to probe money of Indians in banks abroad - ET

Former Union law minister Ram Jethmalani today demanded setting up of a special investigation team to probe unaccounted money of Indians, estimated to the tune of 1500 billion dollars, lying in Swiss and other foreign banks.

"When an SIT can be formed to probe Gujarat riots, then why not have another one for probing unaccounted wealth?" Jethmalani asked at a press conference here.

If this money is brought from foreign banks to India, every family in this country would get nearly Rs two-and-a- half lakhs, national debt will be liquidated and for 30 years continuously the people would get a tax free budget, he claimed.

"There is no attempt to recover this money and this is becoming more and more irrecoverable. Even if the money have been shifted from one bank to another, past records of these banks would show that the money was lying with them," he said.

Jethmalani said he and some others had filed a petition in the Supreme Court to seek recovery of this money, which is likely to come up for hearing in July but the Union Government had filed an affidavit saying that though it had received information about these accounts, it could not disclose them as it was given under the condition of confidentiality.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/Jethmalani-wants-SIT-to-probe-money-of-Indians-in-banks-abroad/articleshow/5811501.cms
"This story of confidentiality is a fraud and lie," Jethmalani alleged.

Urgent lawsuit filed against FDA to halt swine flu vaccines; claims FDA violated federal law by Mike Adams the Health Ranger

Urgent lawsuit filed against FDA to halt swine flu vaccines; claims FDA violated federal law by Mike Adams the Health Ranger

Health freedom attorney Jim Turner is filing a lawsuit in Washington D.C. mid-day Friday in an urgent effort to halt the distribution of the swine flu vaccine in America. On behalf of plaintiffs Dr. Gary Null and other licensed health care workers of New York State, the lawsuit charges that the FDA violated the law in its hasty approval of four swine flu vaccines by failing to scientifically determine neither the safety nor efficacy of the vaccines.

"The suit will seek an injunction against the FDA from approving the vaccine," attorney Jim Turner told NaturalNews on Thursday evening's Natural News Talk Hour show. "And the core of the argument is that they have not done the proper safety and efficacy tests on the vaccine to allow it to be release at this time."

The suit seeks to not only nullify the FDA's unlawful "approval" of the four H1N1 influenza vaccines, but to also ask the court to issue an injunction that would halt any mandatory vaccination requirements.

"The FDA is required by law to establish that a vaccine is safe and effective before it can be given to the public," said Turner. "We are arguing that they did not establish that the vaccine was effective, and did not establish that it was safe. They are trying to get it on the market by a waiver."

Vaccine / adjuvant combination has never been properly tested

The vaccine / adjuvant combination being referred to as the "swine flu vaccine" has apparently never been safety tested or approved by the FDA. In fact, in many cases the vaccine is being sent to clinics, pharmacies and other health establishments separately from the adjuvant chemical, leaving it up to each local vaccine retailer to properly mix the vaccine with the adjuvant, according to information provided by Turner. With hundreds of millions of Americans potentially being targeted with this vaccine, the potential for improper mixing, improper dosages, and human error is alarming.

If the charges described in the lawsuit are true, it means the FDA has blatantly abandoned medical science and violated its own regulations in approving not only these four vaccines, but the potentially deadly adjuvant chemicals as well. To date, the FDA has produced absolutely no scientific evidence documenting safety tests for any of these swine flu vaccines. There are no published studies, no records of any clinical trials, and no publicly-available paper trail demonstrating that any safety testing was done whatsoever. There is no researcher who has publicly put their name on the record declaring the vaccines to be safe, and no FDA official has ever stated that scientifically-valid safety testing has ever been conducted on the vaccine / adjuvant combinations now being distributed across America.

Normally, when a pharmaceutical achieves "FDA approved" status, there is a considerable paper trail of scientific scrutiny, peer review, clinical trials and other supporting evidence. To our knowledge, no such documents exist for the swine flu vaccines. The FDA's approval of these vaccines appears to be based entirely on a whim.

"What has been tested?" asked attorney Jim turner. "Where has it been tested? Who reviewed the test? Who looked at the test and said yes they proved safety and efficacy? There is no record that we can find that shows these things have been done."

By approving the four vaccines in the absence of such safety testing, the FDA itself stands in direct violation of federal law. "There is a law that they're supposed to follow and they are not following it," Turner added.

Billions of dollars are at stake

Why, then, did the FDA apparently violate the law and push these vaccines into full public distribution without securing the safety testing required by law? Turner suspects a profit motive may be involved: "They're charging $24.95 to get a vaccine. Multiplied by 100 million people, that's a lot of money. If you do the whole society, you're talking about several billion dollars."

Natural News