Dispute delays opening of Taj Mahal

AGRA, Dec 23 (UNI) — The ongoing dispute over night-viewing of the Taj Mahal led to a four-hour delay in its opening to the visitors today.

The legal tussle between Supreme Court advocate Krishna Mahajan and the district administration left several tourists waiting to enter the monument of love, before its gates were opened shortly after 1.30 p.m.

Mr Mahajan, who has been appointed by the Supreme Court to oversee the security department in the wake of granting permission for night-viewing of the Taj, arrived here around midnight last night, more than 90 minutes after the monument had been opened to the visitors. When he expressed displeasure over this, Mr Mahajan was told by the district administration that the entry into the Taj premises was cleared by District Judge P.C. Srivastava on the Supreme Court’s instructions. The District Judge also told Mr Mahajan that he was ignorant of any such instructions that the Taj would be opened only in his presence.

An irritated Mahajan sealed the eastern gate ticket counter, which could be opened only in the afternoon. As many as 200 tourists were allowed in batches of 50 last night.

Panchayat poll: verdict on Dec 27
Tribune News Service

CHANDIGARH, Dec 23 — “We shall pronounce the judgement (on the conduct of panchayat elections) on December 27 at 10 a.m.”, when the Punjab and Haryana High Court will be closed for the winter recess.

This is what Mr Justice H.S. Bedi and Mr Justice A.S. Garg told a packed court room this afternoon after hearing detailed arguments on a review petition preferred by Mr Randeep Singh Surjewala, a whip and spokesman of the Haryana Congress Legislature Party.

In his petition Mr Surjewala had urged the high court to recall its order of September 30, permitting the state government to defer panchayat, municipal committees and zila parishad elections till June, 2000, and direct the State Election Commission to conduct the elections before the expiry of the tenures of existing bodies.

When the case was taken up at 2 p.m., Mrs Asha Sharma, Financial Commissioner and Secretary to the Haryana Government, Development and Panchayat department, filed an affidavit before the Bench, suggesting that the government should hold panchayat and other local bodies’ elections between March 25 and April 10, 2000. In her affidavit Mrs Sharma explained that the state poll panel was getting the voters’ list of 92 gram panchayats prepared with January 1, 2000, as the qualifying date. Earlier the state poll panel had got the remaining voters’ list of “panchayati raj institutions prepared with January 1, 1999, as the qualifying date”. This, on the face of it, had created on anomalous situation.

Initiating arguments, Mr Surjewala told the Bench that it was the duty of the government to get elections to panchayats, municipal committees and zila parishads conducted prior to the expiry of the term of the existing bodies. Their term would expire on January 15, 2000.

During the course of arguments, Mr Surjewala referred to Article 243-E and 243-U of the Constitution. While the former Article lays down that “every panchayat, unless sooner dissolved under any law for the time being in force, shall continue for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer”. The second Article postulate: “The superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls for and conduct of, all elections to the panchayats shall be vested in a state election commission consisting of a state Election Commissioner to be appointed by the Governor.”

Mr Surjewala asserted that the State Election Commissioner, or for that matter the state government, had no option but to conduct the elections of these panchayati raj institutions before the expiry of their tenures. He contended that the state government was obliged to provide wherewithal to the Election Commission for the conduct of the election. The state government had no right to find fault with the schedule determined by the State Election Commission for holding elections.