Dravida Peravai

MUSIC OF MELODY QUEEN Miss. MOSQUITO DISTURBING

2011-11-12T13:34:00.001+05:30

Donating blood everyday to mosquito’s causes stress and listening to the music of mosquitoes in ears creates tension. In living rooms of Puducherry people in day time too cover their bodies with mosquito nets and time has come for people to come out in streets wearing mosquito nets like rain coats.

There is a monument of public money wastage of Union Government in Puducherry known as Vector Control Research Institute, which for decades had swallowed public money without any invention to redeem people of Puducherry from the bites of mosquitoes.

But Center for Research in Entomology, Madurai had found a solution to arrest mosquito breeding. Floating tiny thermacol like beads of polystyrene, a compound used in making cups and packaging material suffocate mosquito larvae and pupae prevents mosquito breeding. Strewing 3 mm in beads of polystyrene in breeding havens like pit latrines or unused wells reduces mosquito breeding research now with Indian Council of Medical Research established beyond doubt by field experiments in villages of Villupuram. Dr.B.K.Thyagi the researcher waits for Governments to awaken from slumber.

A hotel near my home lets its drainage water in open canal in the street which remains stagnated for weeks awaiting monsoon to flush it out, and living near a breeding ground of mosquitoes I am forced by Puducherry Municipality and Health Department and Vector Control Research Institute of Gorimedu Indiranagar to listen to the music of miss mosquitoes that make a beeline to this bachelor’s room. Let Indira Nagar M.L.A, Thamizh Selvan woo these mosquitoes to his constituency and save me from mosquito bites. Sound bytes in TV are welcome to me but not mosquito bites.

N.Nandhivarman General Secretary Dravida Peravai

12.11.2011

PONDY CM’s VOTE BANKS IN TEMPLE LANDS AND PRIVATE PROPERTIES

2011-08-31T13:04:00.001+05:30

The scene begins in the II nd Additional District Magistrate’s court on 6th August 1998, where in Case No.O.S 38/97 then M.L.A of Thattanchavady N.Rangasamy stood in the witness box to tell untruth to the Court. He was the witness to support the property grabber, who is Defense witness 1 and N.Rangasamy Defense witness 2.

The learned judge in his order states: “The deposition of the DW 1 is as vague as vagueness could be. The contention of the defendant is that he has been occupying the suit property i.e. “B” schedule property for about 13 years. There is no iota or shred of evidence in support of the case of the defendant. DW 2. Rangasamy, then M.L.A of Thattanchavady would depose as though the defendant was occupying the suit property ever since 1984 and that it was he who got water connection for the defendants hut. If that be so at least there should be documentary evidence in that connection. During cross examination, DW 1 could not state how many huts are in that R.S.number, and that he did not know the specific land number of the property in which the defendant is residing. He could also detail and describe whether the defendant was exercising his right of ownership over the suit property openly, continuously and exclusively. The mere oral evidence of DW 2 without any reference to authentic records cannot be taken as sufficient evidence to prove the possession of the defendant for over 13 years as owner. During the year 1982-83 as revealed by Ex x5 the land acquisition proceedings took place and in those proceedings nothing is shown that in R.S. No.77/1B any hut dwellers were occupying.”

The learned judge in his judgment proved Rangasamy is a liar, and that was when he was mere M.L.A. The learned judge was transferred within one week as act of vendetta by Rangasamy, one could presume and it cannot be by coincidence. The irony of the story is that Rangasamy started planting voters in his constituency by encouraging grabbing of private property over night, to ensure a safe sail in elections and build vote banks. This disease went into his head making him a man with short vision confined to nourishing his constituency alone.

Government of Pondicherry on 22.2.1983 under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act acquired 50 acres out of 61 acres and 5 cents for free distribution of housing plots. The remaining land not acquired to the extent of 11 acres 50 cents in Survey No 77 / 1B was handed over to Sivashankaran, Pugazh Chozhan and Raji, the owners. The revenue officials in their submission to Court along with acquisition order 4/82 dated 22.02.1983 and court order 53/ 83 dated 22.11.1993, patta, chitta, sketch etc proved that this piece of land is not puramboke, but a private property.

The learned judge cited this and said that at the time of acquisition no hutments were there. Then in a case LA OP No 53/83 in the First Additional District Judges court on 22nd November 1983, the question of deciding the rightful owner for apportionment of award amount came up. Thiru.A.Gandhiraj, who was Education Minister and senior aspirant to recently chosen PCC President Post, appeared in his capacity as Government Pleader, and on behalf of the Petitioners current AICC General Secretary V.Narayanasamy M.P appeared. The three petitioners Pugazhchozhan, Sivasankaran, Raju got award amount. The fact they proved their rightful ownership and got award, must be taken note of, because the game Rangasamy is going to play in this issue.

Mr.M.J.S.Sundar, a Christian who runs St.Peter’s Middle English School bought the land in R.S.No 77/IB where Rangasamy instigated trespass, grabbing had taken place, and in support of that Rangasamy deposed before Court and told untruth, for which the learned judge took honesty in his stride and unmasked Rangasamy in judgment.

In the Court of I Additional District Munsif , Mr.M.J.Sundar in I.A No 3752/ 96 in O.S.No 1454 /96 obtains interim injunction against 22 all of them happen to be women, as shield to grabbers, restraining them from interfering with the property till disposal of suit. In the long legal battle on 30 th November 2002 the learned judge passed the order in which the paragraph at beginning of this letter which mentions about Rangasamy is delivered.

In this episode we have to cut short attempts to file cases where in mid stream parties passed away but their signatures forged, to delay delivery of justice, and we can pass on many such evidences to CBI, if you direct CBI to probe this land grab too. Let us come to the scene : The II ADM Court ordered to physically deliver the property to Mr.M.J.Sundar based upon the order of II Additional District Judge and the Amin of the Court along with Dhanvantrinagar Police, Village Administrative Officer of Thattanchavady entered the property to evict the encroachers and to hand over the property to Mr.M.J.Sundar, a local gangster R.Velayudam, whose name is in rowdy list and who is implicated in many cases C.P Nos 23 /96, 195/93, 31/95, 6/96, 86/96, 25/97, 29/99, Crime No 113/2000, O.C 595/2001 enters the scene, threatens Mr.M.J.Sundar, stating that it was his property and Sundar had got a wrong judgment in Court.

Meanwhile a stay was obtained in High Court in all the 22 cases. In local courts the same 22 cases is pending. The irony here is in II ADM court Puducherry 22 counters and petitions are filed on 16.6.2003 stating stay in High Court had been obtained. By telling lie the Court order to evict encroachments and hand over property to M.J.Sundar is stalled. Actually High Court grants stay in 22 cases beginning from 23.1.2004 up to March 2004. To delay 6 months to get stay a simple lie that High Court stay is obtained is used, all is possible under Rangasamy regime.

One Mrs.Vijayalakshmi committed suicide on 24.8.2003, her death not informed to local court nor High Court, but a stay in her name was obtained, a mysterious way of ghost signing vakalats, affidavits and getting stay, thereby proving in death also an encroacher gets relief, because some intelligent crook manipulated misleading courts.

Another party Mr.Anbazhagan whom the Court Amin went to arrest reported in II ADM Court on 17.03.2003 that Anbazhagan was not in station for past 5 years.After that a vakalat, counter and petition etc filed in local and High Court, another surprise in judicial jungle, where signatures vary thereby indicating foul play.

Another party on 23.4.2003 Angalan shifts family to France but all vakalats, petitions; counters were filed in his name here. Using forged signatures to hoodwink Courts, the original land owner to whom the property should have been handed over is made to run from pillar to posts, in order to justify encroachments made with the blessings of Rangasamy, whose untruth was unmasked in a Court judgment cited in beginning.

“In my constituency private property will be encroached, and in Court I will appear in witness box to defend encroachments”, Rangasamy can boast and even after Court orders to hand over property, will use anti socials to thwart that use influence to get stays in the name of living and dead, or even using ghosts to delay justice to a citizen, is the style of Rangasamy’s Raj in Puducherry, historians can write.

EVICTION ORDERS in 18 of 22 CASES, after HIGH COURT and SUPREME COURT went in favour of MJ Sundar, had been ordered in Puducherry Court. Remaining 4 encroacher’s matter posted for judgement in Setember 2011

Will FREE PRESS of ALL OVER INDIA break the story ? Tamilnadu Chief Minister J.Jayalalithaa had been apprised by way of 600 page documented file. Hope atleast she evinces interest to save MJ Sundar’s life. I do not want his body to be found in gunny bag near Ousutteri, Ousudu lake as it happened in a mysterious death in past.

VOTE BANKS IN TEMPLE LANDS :

The retired Vice Principal of Soucilabai Girls High School, who practices law after his retirement, Mr.P.Kathikeyan sought information on temples, mutts and their properties under Right to Information Act. The reply by the Commissioner of Hindu Religious Institutions stated there are 232 temples and 11 mutts in all the 4 enclaves of the Union Territory. To the question on the properties in possession of these institutions when they were taken over under Puducherry Hindu Religious Institutions Act 1972 and current status of properties a reply was given that after collecting data by July 2007 it will be provided, but not yet provided. Apart from this interesting story, details about planting vote banks in temple lands on eve of elections trickled through the replies.

Just few months before last elections, The Chief Minister N.Rangasamy had ordered transfer of temple lands to lowest price much below the prevailing market rate or the GLR value fixed by the revenue department. The requisite permission of the Lt.Governor had not been obtained, since UT Act places Lt.Governor higher in hierarchy of the administration over the Chief Minister, unlike Chief Minister’s of full fledged states.

The reply by Hindu Religious Institution Commissioner S.Thulasiraman reveals that due to transfer of lands belonging Sri Kamatchiamman Devasthanam Rs 3, 66, 11,752 is loss to Government. Sri Kamatchi amman devasthanam owned 1.7250 hectares in survey number of 237 of Thattanchavady revenue village, a constituency represented by Chief Minister. The file noting states the land of the temple had been” “ unauthorisedly occupied by local people of 120 members, who were not paying rent to the devasthanam for many decades. The file says in order to regularize the encroachments, in spite of the GLR value of 2000-2001 fixed by Revenue Department was Rs 210 per square feet, and it was decided to part it for Rs 12.75 per square feet. List of beneficiaries shows mostly women as beneficiaries, leaving their husbands in background to avail benefits under registration laws.

The second instance of Sri Muthumariamman Devasthanam, Meenatchipet where Guide Line Register value of the temple land in R.S.No 185 stood at Rs 150 per square feet. Forty two people got the 27,943 square feet at Rs 10 per square feet. The replies under Right to Information Act admits Rs 3,66,11,572 is loss due to alienation of lands belonging to Sri Kamatchi Amman devasthanam, Rs 37,22,150 is loss to Sri Muthumari Amman devasthanam, and to Sri Ellaimuthumari Amman devasthanam, Pangur loss is Rs 18,576, the last does not come under Chief Ministers home constituency.

P.Karthikeyan, quoting from replies he got states “ Sri Ayyanar Temple in Revenue village Mangalam of Villianur Assembly constituency the GLR value was Rs 10,000 per acre but the Government chose to collect Rs 25,000 per acre for the 0.2892 hectares. This was on 20th January of 2005, while on 10th February of 2005 instead of GLR rate of Rs 150 per square feet, Rs 10 is collected, because it is in the constituency represented by Chief Minister. Recently after obtaining replies under RTI, Karthikeyan filed a case against former Chief Secretary C.S.Khairwal for causing losses to Government in the court of the Special Judge who ordered for an enquiry by Vigilance and Anti Corruption wing which had submitted its report on April 24th confirming the charges. Political circles here are anxiously waiting for the next step in the temple land scam.

N.Nandhivarman, General Secretary of Dravida Peravai stated “Planting vote banks in temple lands apart; having planted vote banks in private properties, where owners of private properties could not evict encroachments even after local courts orders in clear cut terms, Chief Minister ensures safe sail for himself in elections. Both these incidents where officials went out of their way to regularize vote bank politics of Chief Minister, is a matter which we will take to the Election Commission of India soon”

http://www.scribd.com/doc/63553417/Page-13

CHAMELEONS AND TURN COATS OCCUPY BOTH DRAVIDIAN PARTIES

2011-07-08T09:24:00.003+05:30

WEED WEEDS OUT: HEED TO ANNA’s LIFE’s MISSION

Dravida Munnetra Kazhgam [DMK] launched in 1949 by Aringnar Anna is now at cross roads. A lady who remained in wilderness when DMK was in power had suddenly pretends to be a lady with a vision who had come as savior of Tamilnadu. Yesterday i.e. 7th July 2011 speaking to media she says the people have already brought DMK down and its end has arrived. Electoral setbacks never bury a party in its catacomb. Many a party in Indian politics that faced defeats has bounced back. DMK is a party with difference. It was embarked upon the ideological plank of cultural nationalism. Its seeds lay hidden in the grammatical principle enunciated by Tholkappiar, 3000 years ago to eschew Sanskrit alphabets from Tamil script. The movement which spearheaded the Tamil language struggle of 1965 failed to translate the dreams of those martyrs who self immolated for the cause of their mother tongue. It was content with neon light boards over government buildings proclaiming long life for Tamil but failed to make Tamil medium of instruction, and for all practical purposes adulterated Tamil, admixture of Tamil and English known as Tamilish was thrust into the minds of Tamils through television channels patronized by DMK.

In every hamlet in thatched sheds a library would come up where uneducated and semi-literate would meet in evenings to read numerous publications of DMK and would debate for hours on every issue of the world. Teashops, cycle hiring shops, hair dressing shops and in the mini-reading rooms named after Anna, Navalar, Perasiriyar etc would become debating platforms on serious subjects like atheism. During emergency though there was not anarchy in Puducherry as in Tamilnadu, for precaution I was hiding in a launderers shop in Bussy Street of Puducherry, and Mathivanan, Chairman of the 15 th ward of DMK branch unit, who is not a teetotaler would explain Vietnam War to the stunned listeners. In fact for many articles I wrote during emergency in official organs of DMK, his witty and informative inputs were stimulants. Gone are the days when every DMK men was strong in debating field with wide knowledge gained through writings of Periyar EVR, Aringnar Anna and many a DMK leader of those days. Aringnar Anna while speaking on behalf of Malaysian DMK declared that DMK’s public meetings are evening colleges of Tamilnadu. Read everyday debate everyday was the unwritten rule of DMK cadres of those days. Educate the people; serve the people, Anna gave the call and students of the day thronged to him to learn on Gresham’s law of Economics while studying in elementary and high schools. Gone are those golden days.

Now DMK and ADMK are led by and fed by business magnates of self financing colleges. Liquor mafia and Land mafia are the office bearers in both these parties. Men may come and men may go but I go on forever, Mathew Arnold wrote as if a river spoke. Parties may come and go but plunderers and profiteers are same tribe. Just change the dress to match the current party’s flag and be well versed in praising those in power, seems to be the principle enunciated by current breed of politicians.

Before 1967 general elections DMK raised funds by selling DMK flag badge for 4 ana, 25 paise was known as 4 ana, and in Cuddalore led by veteran DMK leader Mrs.Sathyavanimuthu I remember having sold such badges to public to raise funds for meeting party’s election expenses. Auditorium meetings where people will buy tickets to hear speakers generated funds. Drama too brought in funds. Through such simple means from public DMK collected election funds and the target was 10 lakhs but Treasurer M.Karunanithi collected more than target and Aringnar Anna in wittingly said Rs 11 lakhs will be the candidate in Saidapet constituency instead of mention Kalaignar by name. Such a party headed by Aringnar Anna now had been brought to shame by Spectrum Raja. Actor S.S.Rajendran’s reminiscences on Anna published as a chapter by International Institute of Tamil Studies recalls how MGR and SSR, then DMK’s leading film stars decided to repay all the debts of Aringnar Anna Founder of DMK when Anna passed away. But Anna’s family was not willing so all the DMK legislators and members of parliament contributed their one month salary which though insufficient to wipe out all debts was accepted by Anna’s family. Later when SSR was producing a film a taxi was hired by his unit which was not in good running condition. SSR thought of dropping that taxi but found it was owned by Anna’s wife to earn for family expenses. On knowing this both MGR and SSR regularly contributed Rs 5000 each to meet the family expenditure of Anna. Later one day Anna’s adopted son[ Anna did not have an issue, his sisters son was adopted son] Dr.Anna Parimalam came to MGR and SSR and told that he had got job and hereafter both actors need not pay regular monthly assistance. What a nobility and honesty, Anna had inculcated in his adopted son. It is well known to all in Tamilnadu, that Anna.Parimalam a medical doctor by profession unable to give himself to money fleecing ultra-modern hospitals of the day committed suicide. This is the history of DMK founder’s family and those who garland his statues as ritual do not know this past. MGR when he floated his own party after Anna’s name, the DMK cadre thought he will emulate Anna’s honest path since in his film songs he had created such a myth about his honesty.

Joining hands with one liquor baron MGR is alleged to have gained in every bottle of India made foreign liquor sales in Tamilnadu and on the day MGR breathed his last, as we have now seen in Sathya Sai Ashram, from MGR’s Sathya Gardens lorry loads of gunny bags full of money was smuggled out by men closer to him who overnight became multi-millionaires of self financing medical and engineering colleges in Tamilnadu. These men even kicked J.Jayalalithaa out of the military vehicle which carried MGR’s body for burial in Marina beach. When I went to meet MGR in his Arcot Mudaliar Street house in Thiagaraya Nagar named after Sir P.T.Thiyagarayar founder of Justice Party, in Chennai a young friend of mine who gave me coffee and informed MGR over intercom about my arrival and who worked as his errand boy is one of the top richest men in Tamilnadu, of course education is his business .Overnight millionaires created by MGR infiltrated into DMK after emergency and thereafter in both the DMK and ADMK men of principles or ideologically firm cadres were shown the exit door.

Same sand mafia, land mafia, liquor mafia, education mafia and chameleons of perfection well versed in the art of gaining confidence of rulers of the day within few hours of poll results are ruling both parties. Both parties’ boast of their strength while in power because they get intoxicated by the pretence of loyalty paraded by these political chameleons and that leads to their downfall. Now it is the turn of the DMK to be at the receiving end and a day which ADMK experienced in past will again re-visit them in future.

So boasts like end of DMK are mere wishful thinking. DMK is not built by those who now enjoy power in DMK. The political businessmen are not the strength of DMK. The cadre which self immolated for DMK is DMK’s strength. They may not sacrifice for Spectrum Raja but they will rebuild DMK from scratch, and like mythological phoenix DMK will raise again if it fights all mythologies and espouses the simplicity and honesty of Anna; of course weeds have to be weeded out. DMK will never meet its end, for whom victory had brought illusions about a party built by Aringnar Anna.

N.Nandhivarman

General Secretary Dravida Peravai

8.7.2011

DRAVIDA PERAVAI WELCOMES THE BIRTH OF TELENGANA STATE

2011-07-05T14:14:00.001+05:30

Nandhi Speaks: ON TELENGANA

Tell me the roots of Telengana movement?

In present day Aurangabad there existed a Yadhava kingdom of Devagiri at the closing times of 13th century. Allaudin Khilji’s General Malick Kafoor launched his war of plunder and looted gold laden horses. The famous Kohinoor diamond fell into his hands. His invasion invited many more invasions. Invader after invader left their imprint and administered shock therapy on the minds of Telengana people. Muhammad bin Tuglak set up his capital there which could be said as foundation stone for Telengana. Though he retreated “a new culture with synthesis of Urdu and Telugu” evolved there.

Actor Kamalhasan spoke Telengana Telugu- Andhra Telugu and Rayalasemma Telugu in one Telugu film. Nizam ruled Telengana Telugu will be mixture of Telugu and Urdu. The British ruled Andhra used Sanskritized Telugu. In Warangal villages for frog they used a word mandooga which in classical Tamil poetry was mandoogam denoting frog. They called dog as kooka and in classical Tamil it was kukkal. The military intervention during the times of Sardar Patel ended Nizam rule and for 7 centuries Telengana which remained backward and built a culture of its own reached the cross roads. Later within a decade parts of Telengana were merged into Karnataka, Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh. These historical accidents like Yadhava rule plundered by Malick Kaffor and truncated Telengana plundered by Andhra Pradesh had lead to present state where Union Ministers, Members of Parliament and Members of Legislature have to resign and show their solidarity with the people demanding separate Telengana State.

Water-Sharing, Power Sharing and Economic prosperity seems to be ticklish issues that has to be handled with care, what do you opine?

Godavari passes through Telengana but most of the farmer’s suicide had occurred in this region. In the Andhra-Telengana border Srisailam and Nagarjunasagar irrigation projects exist but most of the water and power went to Andhra. Under Bachawat award on Krishna waters, Andhra Pradesh got 811 TMC out of which Telengana’s share was just 100 TMC. Telengana has catchment area of 69 percent and cultivable area in Krishna river basin 71 percent and geographical area plus population is around 42 percent. The proportional sharing of river water was absent that led to current demand for separate state. In Godavari 70 percent of catchment area belongs to Telengana but it was getting only 20 percent share in Godavari waters that AP got.

Leaders climbed the ladder of power but Telengana’s woes remained without redressed. Do you think similar appeasement of agitating leaders will work this time?

To appease people of Telengana, Indian National Congress even gave Prime Minister ship to P.V.Narasimha Rao of Telengana region. M.Channa Reddy, T.Vengala Rao and T.Anjiah were made Chief Minister of AP and even Union Ministers. P.Sivshankar was made Union Minister and later Governor. Currently S.Jaipal Reddy is in Union cabinet. Once even a Deputy Prime Minister K.V.Ranga Reddy was from Telengana. These political offices to leaders temporarily halted the march towards separate state but movement did not die. No to movement had reached a stage where people’s aspirations have to be fulfilled.

Trace the stages of Telengana struggle from pre-colonial times?

The ancestors of Nizam were Vice-roys of Moghul Emperors. After Mughal Empire disintegrated Hyderabad became independent princely state. The action of Sardar Patel brought an end to the Nizam’s rule and Hyderabad was integrated into Indian Union in 1948. After Potti Sriramulu fasted to death in 1952 demanding State for Telugus on linguistic basis, out of Madras Presidency State of Andhra Pradesh was bi-furcated. The first State Re-organization Commission recommended that “we have come to the conclusion it will be in the interests of Andhra as well as Telengana to constitute a separate state, which may be known as State of Hyderabad.” In 1956 States Re-organization Act was passed. Hyderabad and Andhra Pradesh were merged to form single state. After merger there was a gentlemen’s agreement in 1956 that Telengana would not be discriminated.

In 1969 Telengana movement reared its head again. M.Chenna Reddy, key figure of the Telengana Praja Samiti was induced to join Congress and made Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh to take the wind out of sails of the movement. It should be written with great sadness that 350 students were killed in police firing.

In 1978 was in Warangal operating a granite quarry in Lingawarigudam village of Wardhannapet Taluk for my concern Seven Seas Enterprises. I was threatened it is a naxal infected area, but when I shared my food and ate their food and showed equality inculcated in me by Periyar EVR, no naxalite misbehaved with me. They were only against rich land lords who oppressed them for centuries. Nizams who ruled Telengana under their military-feudal system were concerned only with revenue hence landlords were to plunder the poor and pay the Nizam. Caste system at its worst existed there. The washer-men or women had to every day collect cloths from the landlord’s house wash it in the river close to Nandanam, iron it and return to the landlord by evening. No pay for their service. At year end some bags of corn or chilies would be given. Pitying their plight I used to secretly pay them in cash without the land lords knowledge, because I was their tenant. Slavery or bonded labourship it can’t be distinguished in seventies. It is the pent up anger and lack of education of these poorest that triggered a movement to spear head separate state.

Again in 2001 resigning from Telugu Desam party K.Chandrasekar Rao formed the Telengana Rastra Samithi to spear head the demand for separate state. In 2006 he went on a fast to expose the betrayal of the Congress, and in 2011 all legislators and members of parliament from Telengana region have tendered their resignations because after promising in the floor of Loksabha again Congress wanted to enact betrayal with Manmohan Singh’s blessings.

Dravida Peravai expresses solidarity with the people of Telengana and wishes the emergence of new state of Telengana will render them economic justice denied for so many years, and if Mr.Kesava Rao’s television speech where he said more than 600 students sacrificed their lives sent me shock waves within my mind, I do hope all martyrs for the cause of Telengana and their families will be suitably rewarded with victory of their dreams.

N.Nandhivarman

General Secretary Dravida Peravai

5.07.2011

APPAPAITHYAM SWAMI CREATES CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS IN PUDUCHERRY

2011-06-30T08:55:00.001+05:30

APPAPAITHYAM SWAMY, the ghost saint who guides all the actions of Chief Minister N.Rangasamy and Chief Minister's personal astrologer Kurinjipaadi Swamigal have created a constitutional crisis in Puducherry. West Bengal, Kerala, Tamil nadu and Assam which went to polls along with Puducherry had proven their majority in the floor of the assembly and had fulfledged cabinets functioning. But the Tainted Lt.Governor of Puducherry Iqbal Singh had invited N.Rangasamy of All India NR Congress which exists only in Puducherry on the basis of 15 plus one independent's letter saying in the 30 member legislative assembly N.Rangasamy has majority. Rangasamy who won two seats resigned one seat creating a vacancy and thus current strength of the assembly is 29 only. Since May 13 till July 1 he had not proven his strength in the floor of the assembly. Till June 8 th he was LONE cabinet, and how come a Lone Man be construed as cabinet is for Supreme Court to decide. How long without proving majority a Chief Minister can function it is for Supreme Court to decide. After inducting 4 in cabinet and none were allocated portfolios, and media reports say these 4 Ministers without cabinet do not have the right even to choose their private secretaries.

Without proving majority N.Rangasamy went to choose his Speaker and opposition was not consulted at all over his choice as is customary in Indian democracy. He thought though he enjoys only 14 member support, opposition with 14 members will not join together because of DMK-AIADMK divide. But on common issue whole opposition with 14 members boycotted yesterday's Speaker's election. The opposition benches were empty as all televisions screened it nation knows, that Chief Minister has only 14 member support. In case of assembly functioning each and every time Speaker had to cast his casting vote and how many times Speaker can bail out a minority government is for Supreme Court to decide.

The Tainted Lt.Governor Iqbal Singh should have sought legal opinion from Law Ministry before conducting the Election of Speaker to the Puducherry Legislative Assembly and giving sufficient time limit for legislators to decide.Unprecedented happenings in the Puducherry Legislative Assembly had necessitated for seeking legal opinion from Union Law Ministry on holding Election to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly but Lt.Governor created a constitutional crisis.

Election results were out on 13 th May 2011. All India N.R.Congress won 15 seats and All India Anna DMK bagged 5 seats. This pre-election alliance if had staked to form Government the strength would have been 20 in the 30 member assembly reflecting majority in the floor of the assembly. But All India N.R.Congress broke its pre-election alliance and indulged in horse trading securing the support of lone independent and the leader of All India N.R.Congress was invited to form the Government thinking All India N.R.Congress had 15 seats plus 1 independent gives them majority in the 30 member legislative assembly. But Chief Minister who won from 2 constituencies resigned from one thereby reducing his party to 15 member support only. As constitutional authority Lt.Governor should have given shortest time to prove the majority in the floor of the assembly. Even the number 16 got reduced to 15 with Chief Minister without a cabinet, at that point of time , resigning one out of two seats he had won. Thus the effective strength of the group Lt.Governor invited to form Government was just 15 with independent .This created a constitutional crisis. The Government does not have a MAJORITY. Under such circumstances it had to elect a Speaker. Chief Minister in suspense announced on 29 th June Speaker’s election will be held. Let me quote the procedure in Parliament/ States/ and Union Territories with regard to election of a Speaker.

ELECTION OF SPEAKER AND DEPUTY SPEAKER AND NOMINATION OF PANEL OF PRESIDING MEMBERS.

8. Election of Speaker – (1) The election of Speaker shall be held on such date as the Governor may fix, and the Secretary shall send to every member a notice thereof: [Art. 178.]

Provided that the date so fixed shall, in the case of a vacancy occurring during the term of the Assembly be within fifteen days from:

a. The date of the occurrence of the vacancy, if the Assembly is at that time sitting and

b. The date on which the Assembly first meets thereafter, if it is not so sitting.

ELECTION OF SPEAKER, DEPUTY SPEAKER AND NOMINATION OF PANEL OF PRESIDING MEMBERS Chapter III of Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of the Pondicherry Legislative Assembly

9. Election of Speaker: [1] The Election of Speaker shall be held on such date as the Administrator may fix and the Secretary shall send every member notice thereof:

Provided that the date so fixed shall in case of a vacancy occurring during the term of the Assembly be not beyond 15 days from…….

So identical provisions for States and Union Territories exist. But with regard to State , Governor had to decide, but in Union Territory Administer had to decide but after taking clearance from the President of India acting on the advice of the Home Ministry..

The constitutional crisis in this Union Territory had never been envisaged when these laws were drafted and passed. These Acts and Rules are silent on HOW MUCH TIME should be given to CONVENE THE ASSEMBLY AND ELECT A SPEAKER. It is also silent on HOW LONG A GOVERNMENT WITH NO MAJORITY DELAY THE CONDUCT OF THE ELECTION OF THE SPEAKER. Speaker’s election is held and ruling combine with 15 member strength elected its Speaker and got reduced to 14 numbers. Combined opposition strength is 14. And all times Speaker cannot cast casting vote to save the Government of the day.

Having broken the pre-election alliance the Chief Minister designate with a Cabinet with no portfolio is wooing the Main Opposition through media and NO NEW ALLAINCE RE-STRUCTURING HAD TAKEN PLACE. Everything is in fluid state. Everything is ambiguous. Horse trading is on.

The Lt.Governor of Puducherry turned blind eye to the horse trading that took place to ensure NR Congress nominee win Speaker’s post. In hurried state Administrator i.e Lt.Governor fixed the date for Speaker’s election leaving room for following questions arise. We are not sure on how without proving strength in floor of the assembly one man can rule without Cabinet for some days and with cabinet without allocation of portfolios for some days and how long can a Chief Minister re-negotiate alliance or resort to horse trading infringing the rights of the Elected Members of this Legislative Assembly.

Since these issues which are silent in Acts and which has no precedence in India had landed our Union Territory in a constitutional crisis and we hope Lt.Governor will seek the advice of the Union Law Ministry and Attorney General through the President of India or Supreme Court had to be approached and we will do it.

THE CONSTITUTION (THIRTY-NINTH AMENDMENT) ACT, 1975

Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Constitution (Fortieth Amendment) Bill, 1975 which was enacted as the Constitution (Thirty-ninth Amendment) Act, 1975

STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS

Article 71 of the Constitution provides that disputes arising out of the election of the President or Vice-President shall be decided by the Supreme Court. The same article provides that matters relating to their election shall be regulated by a parliamentary law. So far as the Prime Minister and the Speaker are concerned, matters relating to their election are regulated by the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Under this Act the High Court has jurisdiction to try an election petition presented against either of them.

So the constitution provides scope for judicial intervention, but it would be unnecessary if Administrator acts on the advice of Union Law Ministry and every step taken in this situation must be measured one with wider consultation with Union Government.

“The life of the Assembly is 5 years from the date appointed for its first meeting beginning with the address of the Governor under Article 176 (1), unless sooner dissolved. The expiry of the said period of 5 years operates as dissolution of the Assembly”. Life of the assembly itself had to begin with Governor’s address, unfortunately precedents practiced since independence is taken for a ride here ever since recent election results were out. A Government in Coma keeps Assembly in Suspense depriving people’s representatives to function as legislators for which public have given their mandate.

In Canada when the House convenes on the first day of a new Parliament or on any day when the House is to elect a Speaker, the election of a Speaker must be the first order of business and has precedence over all other matters. Only after a Speaker has been elected is the House properly constituted to conduct its business

SUPREME COURT OF ZIMBABWE CHIDYAUSIKU CJ, MALABA DCJ, SANDURA JA, ZIYAMBI JA & GARWE JA HARARE, SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 & MARCH 10, 2011

T Hussein, for the appellants Ms C Damiso, for the first respondent M Chaskalson SC, for the second respondent

CHIDYAUSIKU CJ: This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court wherein PATEL J dismissed the appellants' application to have set aside the election of the second respondent as the Speaker of Parliament (hereinafter referred to as "the Speaker"). The appellants, as the applicants in the court a quo, sought the following relief set out in the draft order:

"WHEREUPON after perusing the documents filed of record and hearing counsel, it is hereby declared that: - 1. The election of (the) second respondent as the Speaker of the Parliament of Zimbabwe on 25 August 2008 is null and void and set aside.

These examples of other countries prove the importance of the Office of the Speaker and even the Highest Courts of other countries intervening to protect the sanctity of the Speaker’s post. Under such global scenario, the Administrator failed to seek the advice, guidance and instructions of the Union Law Ministry on how to proceed to fix a date for Speaker’s post and such a Speaker will be a prisoner of circumstances with bailing his government with casting vote at all occasions, since without casting vote the government will not sail. In this constitutional crisis now only Supreme Court had to lay down conditions.

If the opposition with 14 members had fielded a candidate for Speaker's post then division would have been the best way to ascertain the wishes of legislators over the choice of Speaker. But that failed since 10 crores were demanded for contesting and opposition dropped pursuing such proposal.

The Speaker’s election took place . The present Chief Minister with 14 members in his party including one independent supporting put up a candidate for Speaker’s post. The combined opposition has 14 votes and the ruling combine had 14 votes as proven by combined opposition boycotting the declaration of Speaker's election.. The ruling combine banks upon cross voting in routine to run the government and Lt.Governor should not be a party to endorse horse trading subverting democracy, a process which began with one man without majority occupying the Chief Minister’s chair. Speaker got elected with 14 in ruling side and 14 in opposition side. Though opposition is divided suppose on fuel hike or any common issue of people then on each occasion the Speaker had to exercise his casting vote. Never in India in any legislature such precedent exists. MORE THAN THAT CHIEF MINISTER HAS NO MAJORITY AND CANNOT CONTINUE IN OFFICE. SUPREME COURT MUST SUO MOTO TAKE NOTE OF THIS AND ORDER THE DISMISSAL OF THIS ILLEGAL GOVERNMENT AND THE LT.GOVERNOR WHO VIOLATED CONSTITUTION.

In parliamentary procedure, a division of the assembly (also division of the house or simply division) is a voting method in which the members of the assembly take a rising vote (stand up) or go to different parts of the chamber, literally dividing into groups indicating a vote in favour of or in opposition to a motion on the floor. A division of the assembly is often undertaken upon a motion, It can be contrasted with voice voting and electronic voting.

This was the method used to decide motions in the Roman Senate (and was occasionally used in democratic Athens).

In the Australian House of Representatives divisions follow a form similar to that of the United Kingdom, but the requirements are generally more stringent. For instance, a Member in the Chamber when the tellers are appointed must vote, while a Member not then present may not. Furthermore, members must vote in accordance to their voice votes. The voice vote is held as in the British House of Commons. If a Member objects, then the division bells are rung throughout Parliament House. When not less than four minutes have elapsed since the question was first put, the Speaker orders that the doors to the Chamber be locked, and directs that the Ayes proceed to the right side of the Chamber, and that the Noes proceed to the left. Members then take seats on the appropriate side of the Chamber, rather than entering a lobby, and then the Speaker appoints tellers for each side, unless fewer than five Members are seated on one side, in which case the Speaker calls off the division and declares the result for the side with the greater number of Members. If the division is still on, the tellers count and record the names of the Members. The Speaker announces the result, but does not himself vote unless there is an equality of votes.

In the Australian Senate, a procedure similar to that of the House of Representatives is followed. The voice vote is taken, and, if two Senators object, a division is held. Senators take seats in the right or left of the Chamber as in the House, and the President of the Senate appoints one teller for each side to record the votes. The President may vote by stating to the Senate the side on which he intends to vote. If the result of the division is an equality of votes, then the motion is in all cases disagreed to.

The procedure used in the House of Commons of Canada is similar to that in the British House of Commons, with a few differences. The Speaker reads the question aloud, and then asks, "Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?" If anyone dissents, the Speaker then states "all those in favour of the motion will please say yea." After the cries of 'yea', the Speaker says "all those opposed will please say nay," and all members opposed to the question cry out 'nay' all at once. The Speaker then announces his opinion of the outcome of the vote. If five or more MPs challenge the Speaker's opinion, a formal division follows.

A formal division is invoked by the Speaker asking to "call in the members." Bells are rung throughout the Parliament Buildings for either 15 or 30 minutes to allow all present MPs time to enter the chamber and take their seats. The division begins with the whips from both the government and the official opposition bowing to the Speaker and each other before returning to their seats. There are no division lobbies in the House of Commons, so each member votes by simply standing up from his or her seat. "Yea" votes are recorded first, followed by the "Nay" votes, on the Speaker's order. Finally, the clerk of the house reads the result of the vote aloud to the Speaker.

In the German Bundestag, when it is unclear what the majority wants, the president can call for the so-called Hammelsprung (literally, sheep herd). In this voting procedure, the MPs leave the plenary hall and re-enter through one of three doors designated for "yes", "no", or "abstention".

According to the Duden dictionary, the expression refers to the MPs grouping themselves like sheep behind their respective bellwether(s) before re-entering the chamber.[1] The procedure was introduced in 1874 by a Reichstag vice president. In 1894 the architect of the new Reichstag building made a reference to the Hammelsprung: above the door for "yes", he depicted Ulysses and his friends escaping from Polyphemus.

Republic of Ireland In Dáil Éireann, the lower house of the Oireachtas, the procedure for divisions is specified by standing orders 68–75.[2] The Ceann Comhairle (chair) puts the question and TDs (deputies) present say the Irish word Tá or Níl respectively if they agree or disagree.[3] The Ceann Comhairle then gives an opinion on the voice vote; a TD may demand a division by calling Vótáil ("vote").[4] If fewer than ten TDs call for a division, the Ceann Comhairle asks them to rise in their places; their names are recorded in the journal but the original decision stands. Otherwise the Ceann Comhairle calls Vótáil, which starts the voting process. The division bell sounds around Leinster House and the adjoining Oireachtas buildings, calling TDs to the chamber to vote. The bells ring for six minutes[citation needed] and the doors to the chamber are locked after a further four minutes.The Ceann Comhairle then appoints two tellers for each side and deputies present are given one minute to vote. Voting is usually electronic, with deputies pressing either the Tá or Níl button on their desks. After the voting time has concluded a Division Paper recording the result and each TD's vote is signed by the four tellers and given to the Ceann Comhairle, who declares the result. Electronic voting was introduced in 2002.[5] The traditional practice of voting by physically entering division lobbies is retained for some symbolically important votes: motion of no confidence, election of the Ceann Comhairle, and nomination of Taoiseach and cabinet ministers. A group of at least 20 TDs may demand a non-electronic repeat of an electronic vote, a tactic which Opposition parties sometimes use to increase media coverage of major votes. Notably, in 1969 when Jack Lynch sought the nomination of the Dáil to be appointed Taoiseach by the President, after the division had been called and the doors locked, the bells continued to ring and several deputies Fianna Fáil deputies subsequently entered the chamber through an unlocked door. After other deputies objected, The Ceann Comhairle called the division again. Lynch won the nomination 74 votes to 66.[6] In Seanad Éireann, the upper house, a similar procedure is laid out by standing orders 56–63.[7] The relayed sound of the bell for Seanad divisions differs from that of the Dáil bell.

United Kingdom In the House of Commons, the Speaker says "The Question is that…", then states the question. Next, he says, "As many as are of that opinion say Aye." Then, following shouts of "Aye", he says, "of the contrary, No," and similar shouts of "No" may follow. If one side clearly has more support, the Speaker then announces his opinion as to the winner, stating, for example, "I think the Ayes have it". Otherwise, the Speaker declares a division.Any member may object to the Speaker's determination. If the Speaker feels that the division is unnecessary, he may first ask those who support his determination of the voice vote to rise, and then ask those who oppose the opinion to rise. Then, the Speaker may either declare that his ruling on the voice vote stands, or proceed to a division.If a division is to be taken, the Speaker first states, "Division! Clear the Lobbies!" The Division Bell then sounds across the Parliamentary Estate as well as several buildings in the vicinity, such as restaurants and pubs, and Members' Lobby in front of the Commons' Chamber is cleared of strangers, primarily journalists who have access to the Lobby. Division bells notify any members not currently in the chamber that a vote is about to start. A recent development has been the use of pagers and mobile phones by party whips, to summon members from further afield.One minute into the division the Speaker puts the question to the House again. It is often the Whips who answer the question this time after which the Speaker announces the Tellers, two (one Government MP, one Opposition MP) for the Ayes and two for the Noes. Tellers are usually whips, but on occasions can be rebel MPs, or even frontbench spokesmen (in the case of the Liberal Democrats).MPs have to walk through the two Division Lobbies on either side of the House and give their name to the Division Clerks at the end of the respective Lobbies to vote. They are then counted by the Tellers as they leave the Lobby. The Whips keep check on which MPs enter which Lobby and try and persuade them to enter the Lobby that the Party would like them to enter.

Whips have historically been brutal to Backbenchers to secure their vote. There have been cases where Members of Parliament were wheeled from far afield to vote for the government of crucial vote. Former MP Joe Ashton remembered a case from the dying days of James Callaghan's government: I remember the famous case of Leslie Spriggs, the then Member for St. Helens. We had a tied vote and he was brought to the House in an ambulance having suffered a severe heart attack. The two Whips went out to look in the ambulance and there was Leslie Spriggs laid there as though he was dead. I believe that John Stradling Thomas said to Joe Harper, "How do we know that he is alive?" So he leaned forward, turned the knob on the heart machine, the green light went around, and he said, "There, you've lost - it's 311." That is an absolutely true story. It is the sort of nonsense that used to happen. No one believes it, but it is true.[8]

Originally, there was but one lobby. In A Manual of Parliamentary Practice, Thomas Jefferson writes: The one party goes forth, and the other remains in the House. This has made it important which go forth, and which remain; because the latter gain all the indolent, the indifferent and inattentive. Their general rule therefore is, that those who give their votes for the preservation of the orders of the House, shall stay in, and those who are for introducing any new matter or alteration, or proceeding contrary to the established course, are to go out.After the fire of 1834, the House of Commons Chamber was rebuilt. At that time, a second lobby was added.Eight minutes after the question has been put for the first time, the Speaker declares, "Lock the Doors." The lobby entrances are locked, and only those within the Lobbies may continue to vote.After all members have voted in the lobbies, the vote totals are written on a card and the numbers are read out to the House by the Tellers. The Speaker then announces these numbers a second time, announcing the final result by saying 'The Ayes/Noes have it, the Ayes/Noes have it'. The Speaker himself does not vote, except in the case of a tie and then only strictly in accordance to precedent. This means that the Speaker will let vote in accordance with these principles:

Legislation remains unchanged unless there is a majority in favour of amendment,

Legislation is allowed to proceed to the next stage unless there is a majority in favour of rejection, and

All other motions are rejected unless there is a majority in favour of passage.

Members may signify, but not record, an abstention by remaining in their seats during the division.

It is stipulated that all Members of Parliament are required to stay in or around the premises of the House of Commons until the main business of the day has ended, however long that may be. In the unlikely event that fewer than forty members voted in the division, the division is ignored, the question at hand is postponed until the next sitting, and the House proceeds to the next business.

The nature of divisions in the House of Commons is one which traditionally could go on well into the night, sometimes past midnight. However, in 2000 the House introduced, on an experimental basis, the procedure of "Deferred Divisions." Essentially, some divisions are delayed until the next Wednesday. The procedure is used for very few matters; most divisions still occur normally.

There have been suggestions that electronic voting may be easier and quicker to do than physically going through a division lobby. However, MPs have often found that a division is the best way to interact for senior members of the government. And it can be considered a way to sort out problems for the Member's constituents.

In the United States Congress, divisions are used, but not in the same manner as in the British Parliament. In Congress, lobbies are not used, and the division is not a final determination of the question. The vote is first taken by voice vote, as is the case in Parliament. Then, any member may demand a division. If a division is demanded, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives or the President of the Senate (or President pro tempore) asks those voting Yea to rise and remain standing until counted, and then asks those voting Nay to do the same. Thereafter, a recorded vote may, under the provisions of the US Constitution, be forced upon the demand of one-fifth of the members present. In the Senate, the recorded vote is accomplished by the Clerk's call of the Roll. In the House, a Roll Call may be used, as may electronic voting devices.

India : Election of Speaker

In the Lok Sabha, the lower House of the Indian Parliament, both Presiding Officers—the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker- are elected from among its members by a simple majority of members present and voting in the House. As such, no specific qualifications are prescribed for being elected the Speaker. The Constitution only requires that Speaker should be a member of the House. But an understanding of the Constitution and the laws of the country and the rules of procedure and conventions of Parliament is considered a major asset for the holder of the office of the Speaker. The election of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha is an important event in the life of the House. One of the first acts of a newly constituted House is to elect the Speaker. Usually, a member belonging to the ruling party is elected the Speaker. A healthy convention, however, has evolved over the years whereby the ruling party nominates its candidate after informal consultations with the Leaders of other Parties and Groups in the House. This convention ensures that once elected, the Speaker enjoys the respect of all sections of the House. IN PUDUCHERRY THIS CONVENTION HAD NOT BEEN OBSERVED.

There are also instances when members not belonging to the ruling party or coalition were elected to the office of the Speaker. Once a decision on the candidate is taken, her name is normally proposed by the Prime Minister or the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs. If more than one notice is received, these are entered in the order of receipt. The Speaker pro term presides over the sitting in which the Speaker is elected, if it is a newly constituted House. If the election falls later in the life of a Lok Sabha the Deputy Speaker presides. The motions which are moved and duly seconded are put one by one in the order in which they are moved, and decided, if necessary, by division. If any motion is carried, the person presiding shall, without putting the latter motions, declare that the member proposed in the motion which has been carried has been chosen as the Speaker of the House. After the results are announced, the Speaker-elect is conducted to the Chair by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. She is then felicitated by Leaders of all Political Parties and Groups in the House to which she replies in a thanks-giving speech. And from then the new Speaker takes over.

In 2011 in Andhra Pradesh Assembly Speaker chose from secret ballot to division of votes as best way and transparent way to find our the majority with public knowing where stood where and for whom.

IN VIEW OF GLOBAL PRACTICE IN ALL DEMOCRACIES AND IN VIEW OF PRECEDENTS IN INDIA BOTH IN PARLIAMENT AND ASSEMBLY, LT.GOVERNOR HAD FAILED IN ALLOWING SPEAKERS ELECTION WITHOUT PROVING MAJORITY. THEREBY EVEN BY DIVISION THE STRENGTH COULD NOT BE ASCERTAINED.

Hence Supreme Court must set right the discrepencies in implementation of UT Act and as immediate measure sack the proxy rule by dead saints and astrologers, whose rule is not permissible under Indian constitution.

N.Nandhivarman General Secretary Dravida Peravai

Date :1.07.2011

HORSE TRADING :CROSS VOTING : BIDDING STARTS IN PUDUCHERRY

2011-06-27T11:56:00.000+05:30

Legal opinion should be sought from Law Ministry to conduct the Election of Speaker to the Puducherry Legislative Assembly and giving sufficient time limit for legislators to decide.

Unprecedented happenings in the Puducherry Legislative Assembly had necessitated for seeking legal opinion from Union Law Ministry on holding Election to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly...

Election results were out on 13 th May 2011. All India N.R.Congress won 14 seats and All India Anna DMK bagged 5 seats. This pre-election alliance if had staked to form Government the strength would have been 19 in the 30 member assembly reflecting majority in the floor of the assembly. But All India N.R.Congress broke its pre-election alliance and indulged in horse trading securing the support of lone independent and the leader of All India N.R.Congress was invited to form the Government thinking All India N.R.Congress had 15 seats plus 1 independent gives them majority in the 30 member legislative assembly. But as constitutional authority you should have given shortest time to prove the majority in the floor of the assembly. Even the number 16 got reduced to 15 with Chief Minister without a cabinet, at that point of time , resigning one out of two seats he had won. Thus the effective strength of the group you invited to form Government is just 15 with independent .This created a constitutional crisis. The Government does not have a MAJORITY. Under such circumstances it had to elect a Speaker. Chief Ministry in suspense had announced on 29 th June Speaker’s election will be held. Let me quote the procedure in Parliament/ States/ and Union Territories with regard to election of a Speaker.