Skip to content

Aarey Milk Colony, spread over 1,259 hectares of land, is an extension of Sanjay Gandhi National Park. In 1949, the land we know as Aarey was given to the Dairy Development Board of Maharashtra to shift the cattle sheds from the city to Aarey. Since then this area has been known as Aarey Milk Colony. Aarey has 27 tribal hamlets; in terms of flora and fauna, it has leopards and numerous species of birds, animals, insects, butterflies, snakes, herbs, shrubs and trees (which number more than 4 Lakh 80 thousand).

In November 2014 , morning walkers, cyclists and other regular visitors to Aarey Milk Colony found notices put up, announcing that 2298 trees in Aarey would be felled for construction of the carshed for Metro3. Citizens came together to protest against this mass felling of trees. Thus was born the Save Aarey Movement.

In December 2014 angry citizens for the first time gathered in Aarey Picnic Point area to protest against this unnecessary destruction of the city's ecology. 1200 + citizens came together again in February 2015, creating a human chain along Marine Drive. Post this event, the Chief Minister of Maharashtra announced appointment of an Expert Committee to explore other options for location of the Metro3 carshed .

The Expert Committee had 6 members; four Bureaucrats and two environmental experts from IIT and NEERI. Both the environmentalists put a dissenting note in the Committee's report, holding that Aarey is an ecologically sensitive area and rich in biodiversity. The proposed carshed location is the floodplain of the Mithi River, and construction in this area can lead to flooding in Andheri. Hence the carshed location should be shifted out of Aarey, they said .The other options for the carshed location suggested by the expert members were Kanjurmarg and Backbay in Colaba.

The Detailed Project Report prepared in 2011 for the Metro 3 Line also mentions three other options (along with the option of 33 ha land in Aarey) for the Metro 3 Carshed location: the ground in Bandra Kurla Complex, 26 Ha of land in Kalina, the Mahalaxmi Race Course. Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation ( MMRCL) always claims that the 33 ha land area in Aarey is the only suitable location for the Metro 3 Carshed.

In 2015 the NGO, Vanashakti, along with citizens, filed a petition in National Green Tribunal (NGT) praying that Aarey be declared a forest and an Eco-Sensitive Zone. NGT on 19th August 2015, ordered status quo in Aarey pending final decision on the case. MMRCL, in August 2017 started dumping debris in the Metro 3 Carshed area in Aarey, along with excavation and mud filling activities in the area. This was in contempt of Court orders and was highlighted at the NGT. On 14th May 2018, NGT again ordered against any dumping of debris, land reclamation and Tree Felling in Aarey pending final decision in the case. But MMRCL continues to violate court orders. They have cordoned off more area in Aarey on the opposite side of the carshed area and have started land reclamation. What initially started as destruction of 33 ha of forest land is now leading to destruction of a much bigger area. Citizens lodged complaints in Aarey Police Station against these violations of court orders. MMRCL has also evicted Adivasis from Prajapur Pada in Aarey to SRA Buildings. This is in violation with Tribal Rights. Adivasis have filed a petition in Mumbai High Court.

On 20th September 2018 Judges from NGT's Principal Bench decided that this matter of declaring Aarey a Forests does not come under NGT's jurisdiction and NGT directed the petitioners to withdraw application and approach the right Authorities. This has happened after 3 and 1/2 years long proceedings in National Green Tribunal.

Through an RTI in 2017, Vanashakti found a letter written by the Divisional Manager of Sanjay Gandhi National Park( SGNP). This letter indicates that Aarey Milk Colony was of a much larger area earlier, and that 2076 ha of land from Aarey Milk Colony was Transferred to SGNP in 1969. But the forest department claims that they do not have any land records related to Aarey Milk Colony.

The forest department, in 2015, had submitted a draft proposal to the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MOEF) to declare Aarey Milk Colony as an Eco Sensitive Zone. MMRCL moved an application with the MOEF and got 165 ha of land (1.65 sq km) from Aarey denotified from the Eco Sensitive Zone. The MOEF denotified an area of 1.65 sq km from the ESZ in December 2016. This decision has been challenged by Vanashakti in NGT through a different petition.

Already, a large part of Aarey Forest has been lost to different projects and construction activities. Citizens fear that with the entry of the Metro 3 carshed, better described as a railway service centre, the rest of this forest, spreading over 1259 ha, will be lost to construction activities for ever.

Mumbai City is already sinking because of the destruction of its water bodies, wetlands and mangroves. Loss of Forest area and destruction of the floodplain of the Mithi River in Aarey will lead to further destruction of the city and flooding in more new areas in Mumbai. Lakes , supplying drinking water to Mumbai are also located in Forest Areas. Vihar lake on the border of SGNP and Aarey.

The air quality of Mumbai will be seriously hit if 4000 full grown trees are removed from its last remaining green space,the Aarey forests. .

A Movement that started with the news of felling of 2298 trees has brought out more shocking details. MMRCL floated a tender document for felling of 3384 trees in Aarey Milk Colony in 2017. And number of trees that are in line for sacrifice is still increasing. Tribals have lost their homes and livelihood. Floodplain of Mithi River has been damaged and this city will finally lose 1.65 sq km of forest areas to construction activities if this Carshed is not shifted out of Aarey. Facts finding team of Citizens have also found letters that speak about Government granting 3 FSI on 33 ha (82.5 acres) of Aarey land. A design layout prepared by MMRCL for the Carshed area also has marked an area on 33 ha land for realestate prooject.

Citizens of Mumbai needs to decide what is more important for them. A peaceful and happy life in a place requires, Fresh Air, Good supply of Drinking water , accessible open spaces and flood free roads .

In a Costal city like Mumbai, when the entire world is suffering from the consequences of Global Warming a place like Aarey becomes extremely crucial for survival of the city.

1

1 October, 2016, Cuttack: Before doing business with a judge's brother, think twice. In the year 2000, Ravenshaw, a 150-year-old college, signed an MOU to start professional courses in "public private partnership" with Star Computer Institute Pvt. Ltd., belonging to BJP politician Biswajit Mohanty, son of Barrister Ranjit Mohanty, and brother of Orissa High Court's second-seniormost judge Indrajit Mahanty. In 2011, this MOU was renewed for a further three years. Upon the MOU's expiry in 2014, Ravenshaw (which was now no longer just a college but a full-fledged university) decided not to renew their MOU with Star. In the process, Ravenshaw incurred the enmity of Biswajit Mohanty's elder brother, who proceeded to give them a taste of pure hell!
Ravenshaw is a grand old institution with 8000 students and 90 faculty members, and a sanctioned strength of 153 faculty. It became a University through an enactment in 2005, and was bound by UGC's guidelines, which said, "No university whether central/state/private can offer its programme through franchise agreement even for the purpose of conducting course through distant mode." But, given the money and prestige involved, businessman Biswajit Mohanty was in no mood to leave the campus peacefully. So the matter went into arbitration, and also, in November 2014, an FIR was registered against Biswajit Mohanty because he allegedly "entered the University campus with five other persons and misbehaved with staff and students of the ITM department using the most filthy language". The police complaint said that Biswajit Mohanty threatened them, saying, "If you don't refrain yourself coming to the ITM department, I would assault you by entering into your home".
And then, in March 2015, came the judgment of the district judge to the arbitration petition filed by Star Computer Institute while the arbitrator's final order was still awaited. The judgment upheld Ravenshaw's right to terminate the MOU. The FIR and this adverse judgment against Biswajit Mohanty provoked his big brother Indrajit Mahanty, who took all the high court cases concerning Ravenshaw into his hand.
Until then, Ravenshaw's cases were heard by single benches such as Justice S.C. ParijaJustice Biswanath Rath, and Justice Sanju Panda, and many orders and judgments were favourable to Ravenshaw. Multiple writ petitions filed in 2015 against a recruitment advertisement issued by Ravenshaw, were initially posted in the single judge benches of Justice B.N Rath, Justice Dr. B.R Sarangi and Justice Dr. A K Rath, and later, all recruitment matters were brought to the court of Justice B.R Sarangi, where they remained stayed for 7 months. Then, on 9th December 2015, a division bench of Justice D P Choudhury and Indrajit Mahanty overturned the earlier judgmentsfrom 2014, quashed the recruitment, and slammed Ravenshaw on almost every count. This bench -- dominated by Justice I Mahanty who is almost a decade senior to Justice Choudhury (currently the junior most judge in Orissa High Court) – went on to initiate two suomotu civil contempt proceedings. Between March and May 2016, Justice Indrajit Mahanty passed eight orders on various cases that showed Ravenshaw who was boss!
On 9th December 2015, a division bench headed by Justice Indrajit Mahanty overturned the earlier judgments from 2014, quashed the recruitment, and slammed Ravenshaw University.
The orders and judgments mentioned in this article (including FIR and District Judge's arbitration order) can be downloaded fromhttp://tinyurl.com/Ravenshaw-cases
Questions arise about our judiciary's integrity:
  1. Was Orissa's Chief Justice Vineet Saran ignorant about Justice Indrajit Mahanty's special interest in Ravenshaw University? Or did he consciously allow Justice I Mahanty to use the court system to settle scores?
  2. Unknown to India's common man, is our judiciary generally functioning in this way? Do many of our judges have an axe to grind? Is it normal for some judges to say to each other, "I want to teach that party a lesson, so transfer that case to me"? Do they quietly manipulate and attract some cases to their own court?
The main issue is not whether Justice Indrajit Mahanty is a good guy or a bad guy. It's also not whether his judgments and orders in Ravenshaw matters are judicially correct or otherwise. The key issue is, why did Orissa High Court allow Justice Indrajit Mahanty to give judgments on Ravenshaw, where he had a vested interest?
What happened afterwards: After activist Chittaranjan Mohanty, on behalf of the 8000 students of Ravenshaw, petitioned the Chief Justice of India and Chief Justice of Orissa High Court in July 2016, all Ravenshaw-related matters were taken away from Justice Mahanty.The division bench matters were assigned to a bench headed by Justice S.C. Parija and the single bench matters were assigned to Justice Debabrata Dash who hears all service matters. A PIL is about to be filed for review of the judgment and orders of the Division Bench headed by Justice I.Mahanty in Ravenshaw recruitment matter.
ISSUED IN PUBLIC INTEREST BY
Krishnaraj Rao
98215 88114
krish.kkphoto@gmail.com
POSTED IN PUBLIC INTEREST BY
Sulaiman Bhimani
9323642081
Related Articles

Judge Indrajit Mahanty's incestuous ties with Trade Unionist Biswajit Mohanty

 

"Victims of RNA Corp." OR Victims of Any Unscrupulous Builder, What are the options available for Home Buyer and Aggrieved Flat Owners in Redevelopment Project

How to File a  against a Builder, What are the options available 

Any citizen can file a case against a developer. There are several options and situations under which a property buyer can file a complaint. Types of complaints are:

  1. EOW
  2. Consumer case
  3. Suit for Specific Performance of Contract

On the following grounds in which a property buyer can drag an incompetent property developer on violations/ breach of ground

  • Non-execution of relevant sale agreement despite having received a substantial advance amount
  • Non-issuance of copies of all relevant documents viz.; development agreement, power of attorney, sanctioned plan (by concerned Regional Authorities), specification of construction materials/design as per sanctioned plan and any other relevant documents
  • Charged higher than the agreed amount
  • No issuance of proper receipt(s) against the paid amount
  • Poor quality construction
  • Delivering of a house not complying to agreed specifications
  • No free parking space within the premises
  • Did not form a co-operative housing society and handed over to members
  • Non-provision of water storage tank
  • Non-provision of proper ventilation and light
  • Delayed possession beyond the stipulated time limit
  • Not obtaining completion certificate from the concerned registered (by the authorities) architect
  • Non-issuance of Occupancy Certificate at the time of delivery of respective flats/house to its occupants
  • Non-declaration of expenses against which the developer collected money

And many more…

Any project falling short of above listed causes home buyers to approach for remedy from options available 1 to 5 

1) Cheating Case (EOW) - Jointly or Individually Legal Complaint

2) Cheating Case (EOW) with Private Complaint to the Metropolitan Magistrate (MM)

3) Specific Performance in High Court

4) National Commission if agreement value is more than 1 Crore (New Delhi)

5) State Consumer if agreement value is less than 1 Crore (Mumbai)

How to file a complaint against a builder in the Consumer Court? 

With builders coming under the clause of being a service provider, the process of filing a consumer court complaint against them is the same as with other service providers. To file a complaint, you need to adhere to the following steps:

  • Send a well drafted Legal Notice to the builder stating your reasons of discontent
  • Await for a response for the stipulated time from the other party
  • On no-response, prepare a petition stating facts and evidences with the help of expert legal advice
  • Approach the Consumer Court and file your petition against the builder

As per a judgement passed by the National Commission in the case of Jayantabhai Ranka and Arunaben Kapadia vs Ravi Developers, the Commission pointed out that the cause of action on the builder continues till the allotment of the site or full refund of money on refusal to allot.

This means, no matter how much the delay, the builder is liable to properly honour his service agreement. The other important point that this particular case also highlighted is that ‘each property developer is liable to execute an  agreement for sale’. And failure to do so can be a cause of action against the builder in the Consumer Court.

You may simultaneously approach EOW with legal advice along with Consumer Court Case

1) Cheating Case (EOW) - Jointly or Individually Legal Complaint

2) Cheating Case (EOW) with Private Complaint to the Metropolitan Magistrate (MM)

This option of specific performance in High Court is little expensive but result oriented all you need a good Advocate and result can be expected in 4 to 8 months where as in consumer court it may take 12 to 24 months

This option is expensive as you have to pay court fees the upper cap of the court fee is Rs 3 Lakh the court fee structure calculation table is given for your reference

COURT FEE SLABS

SLAB-A = FIRST RS. 15,00,000 --------------------------------------- RS 31,230.

SLAB-B = RS. 15,00,001 TO RS. 26,00,000-------@RS 2,000/RS 1,00,000.

SLAB-C =ABOVE RS. 26,00,000------------------------@RS1,200/RS 1,00,000.

SLAB-D = FIXED -------------------------------------------------------------RS 200

e.g. COURT FEES FOR RS. 30,00,000, 40,00,000, 50,00,000, 75,00,000 AND 1,00,00,000 ETC. CAN BE CALCULATED AS UNDER:- 

VALUESLAB-ASLAB-BSLAB-CSLAB-DTOTAL

(A+B+C+D)

30,00,00031,23022,000 4,80020058,230
40,00,00031,23022,00016,80020070,230
50,00,00031,23022,00028,80020082,230
75,00,00031,23022,00058,8002001,12,230
1,00,00,00031,23022,00088,8002001,42,230

For Court Orders in Favor of Home Buyers and Aggrieved Flat Owners in Redevelopment Project  click the link below
http://wakeupindia-designer.blogspot.in/2016/09/consumer-court-case-order-in-favor-of.html 

http://wakeupindia-designer.blogspot.in/2016/03/hc-pulls-up-aa-estate-pvt-ltd-arm-of.html

Issued in Public Interest by
Sulaiman Bhimani
9323642081
sulaimanbhimani11@gmail.com 

RNA Cartoon

2

10th September, 2016, Cuttack: One is puzzled by the accounting treatment for Justice Indrajit Mahanty's Rs 2.5 crore working-capital loan for his hotel, The Triple C. Lakhs of rupees are withdrawn and repaid every month in two SBI loan accounts in the name of "Justice Indrajit Mahanty" and strangely, not in the name of Latest Generation Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., the company that has leased the hotel from him. As a High Court judge, Justice I. Mahanty gets a monthly salary of Rs. 1.35 lakhs, and therefore is liable to pay Income Tax. But repayment of principal plus interest could reduce or eliminate his taxable income. Suppose his tax returns are dodgy, can Income Tax authorities summon his lordship personally for questioning u/s 131 of Income Tax Act, and compel production of his lordship's books of account?

We asked Mr Binoy Gupta, a retired Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCA), who holds a Ph.D. in Law. His reply was: "There are no exemptions in any law for any Supreme Court or High Court Judges from any judicial or quasi judicial proceedings. Our department has taken action under the Income Tax Act against them."

We requested Mr Gupta for case studies (with or without the names of the judges) to substantiate his claim of having taken action against judges. His response was: "I can not give any instances today. But I stand by my statement that Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts have no special status so far the applicability of Income Tax Laws are concerned."

And then Mr Gupta added that bringing a judge to justice is a tough job. He wrote: "If any govt. servant engages himself in business, his department can and does take action. But the procedure for taking action against Judges is far too complex... impeachment which is extremely difficult."

Given the absence of case studies and other details of judges being held accountable by Income Tax authorities, our gut feeling is: IT authorities will never dare to summon his lordship, because (a) they would be in awe of a high court judge, and (b) because the high court has superior jurisdiction over the Income Tax department, and not vice versa. Even if judges do not enjoy de jure immunity from quasi-judicial and administrative authorities, they enjoy de facto immunity. No government official will risk rubbing a high court judge the wrong way by questioning him, even if the law permits him to do so!

Justice Indrajit Mahanty may or may not have broken any laws, but he is definitely in breach of the code of ethics on multiple counts. Must we all act like Gandhi's three monkeys and remain silent?

In return for such unquestioned authority and immunity, judges are expected to keep their affairs transparent and straightforward, by abstaining from business activities. Their income should ideally consist of their salaries, and interest on fixed deposits etc. -- nothing more complicated than that. To quote YK Sabharwal, former Chief Justice of India, who spoke on the Judicial Canon of Ethics, "Almost every public servant is governed by certain basic Code of Conduct which includes expectation that he shall maintain absolute integrity... manage his financial affairs in such a manner that he is always free from indebtedness, and not involve himself in transactions relating to property with persons having official dealings with him." Please note that seeking building permissions, bank loans, hotel licenses, etc. etc. are all transactions with the government, administration and public sector, who all have "official dealings" with a high court judge in his judge-like capacity. Such transactions adulterate the purity of Justice Indrajit Mahanty's judgment.

According to the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life (adopted by Full Bench of Supreme Court on7th May, 1997), "A Judge should not engage directly or indirectly in trade or business, either by himself or in association with any other person. 

And according to the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, 2002, "A judge shall not only be free from inappropriate connections with, and influence by, the executive and legislative branches of government, but must also appear to a reasonable observer to be free therefrom."

Read all these documents on judicial ethics and in that context, understand the significance of Justice I Mahanty's actions. Justice Indrajit Mahanty may or may not have broken any laws, but he is definitely in breach of ethics on multiple counts.

So, must we all remain silent like Gandhiji's three monkeys? Must we all adopt a policy of See-no-evil, hear-no-evil, speak-no-evil when it comes to judges? Must the adulteration of our judicial services be allowed to continue under cover of a conspiracy of silence?

ISSUED IN PUBLIC INTEREST BY
Krishnaraj Rao
9821588114
krish.kkphoto@gmail.com

Posted By 
Sulaiman Bhimani 
9323642081 
sulaimanbhimani11@gmail.com 

7th September, 2016, Cuttack: Earlier this week, Justice Indrajit Mahanty of Orissa High Court admitted that he "carries a loan burden for his long-time business outfit", through an opinion piece that was written on his behalf titled "Media sensation at times hits great guys, hurts society" in The Pioneer. (The "loan burden" is a Rs 2.5 crore working-capital loan for his hotel, The Triple C, which was borrowed in 2009 from SBI. Till this day, amounts ranging between one and two lakh rupees are drawn and repaid every month in the name of "Justice Indrajit Mahanty".) The author, clearly adores Justice Mahanty, writes, "As a lawyer, he became too eminent too soon only because of his keen commonsense, command over the English language and the superb manner of making complex Acts simple for judges and clients alike. He drives points home the same way as smart kids do tricycles." The point of the article is that it is acceptable that Justice Indrajit Mahanty has a big business loan to his name, and runs a hotel, because of his love for humanity, and therefore, our article questioning the ethics of his actions is a "terribly misplaced allegation". The author argues, "Yes, there is a loan burden, not a robbery charge. Yes, he ran it to add value by generating employment for many. The only thing people would like to know is whether or not his ‘judicial conduct is appropriate and above board’; whether or not he is selling judgment, and if he has the knowledge and skills to help the suffering humanity."

Is this a reasonable argument?

The implications of a high judge taking a business loan from a bank, and using it to run a hotel, are far-reaching. Although Justice I. Mahanty is only 55 years old, he is already number two in seniority at Orissa High Court. Being the son of well-known Barrister Ranjit Mohanty, he is influential and well-connected in the legal fraternity. In the next 5-10 years, his career track can make him Chief Justice of Orissa HC, a Supreme Court judge and even Chief Justice Of India.

The Triple-C Hotel can be need not necessarily be a success story. Experienced businessmen like Vijay Mallya often fail to repay the banks; so, is it totally improbable that a part-time businessman like Indrajit Mahanty may fail to pay back what he owes to State Bank Of India?

However, The Triple-C Hotel can be need not necessarily be a success story. Experienced businessmen like Vijay Mallya often fail to repay the banks; so, is it totally improbable that a part-time businessman like Indrajit Mahanty may fail to pay back what he owes to State Bank Of India?

What happens if Justice Indrajit Mahanty defaults and the matter goes to Debt Recovery Tribunal?

  1. Does Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) or Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) get jurisdiction over Justice Indrajit Mahanty?How will Justice Mahanty (who may by then be Chief Justice of Orissa High Court, a Supreme Court judge even Chief Justice of India) be an appellant or defendant before DRT or DRAT?

  2. Does Justice Indrajit Mahanty appear before Orissa High Court?Suppose the order of DRAT is further appealed, can Justice Indrajit Mahanty be an appellant or defendant before Orissa High Court? If not, then what is the proper forum to hear the matter?

  3. Can any tribunal or lower court entertain a matter against any judge of the higher judiciary in respect of his private affairs, such as bank loans or hotel business? Will such proceedings strengthen his public image as a judge, or will it damage it? And what will such cases do to the image of the judiciary?

  4. If a high court or supreme court judge is before a lower court or tribunal, what happens to his superior jurisdiction over such lower court or tribunal? Won't this create a constitutional anomaly?

Apologists and admirers of Justice Indrajit Mahanty, please remember that this is not about one man's goodness or integrity, it is about the integrity of our judiciary as a whole.

ISSUED IN PUBLIC INTEREST BY
Krishnaraj Rao
9821588114
krish.kkphoto@gmail.com

Posted By

Sulaiman Bhimani

94323642081

sulaimanbhimani11@gmail.com