The Tribune, Chandigarh, India - Chandigarh Stories

Poster-making, painting contests at YPS
Our Correspondent

SAS Nagar, May 2
A total of 1300 students from 18 schools of SAS Nagar and Chandigarh took part in an inter-school painting-cum-poster-making competition organised by the Generation Saviour Association at Yadavindra Pubic School here today.

The participants were asked to draw or paint on one of the three topics given by the association. The topics were “Passive smoking”, Smoking — a gateway to death” and “Tabacco — the killer”. The students came out with creative ideas on the themes in their posters.

Ms Amteshwar Kaur, president of the association and local municipal councillor, said the aim of the competition, sixth in the series, was to make the children aware of the ill-effects of tobacco.

The participants had been divided into five groups-classes I to III, IV and V, VI to VIII, IX and X and XI and XII, and each group was to be given 14 prizes. The prize distribution function would be held at Panjab University on May 31, World No — Tobacco Day, where the posters of the winners would be exhibited.

Ms Amteshwar Kaur said the fifth inter-school essay writing competition would be also organised here tomorrow, in which about 500 students from various schools were likely to take part.

COURTS

Haryana ministers restrained
Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, May 2
Issuing notice of motion for May 31, Mr Justice Jawahar Lal Gupta and Mr Justice N.K. Sud of the Punjab and Haryana High Court today restrained Haryana ministers Jaswinder Singh Sandhu and Ashok Kumar Gaba, along with 22 other respondents, from raising any construction on a disputed land.

In his petition seeking Rs 5 lakh as compensation for “unnecessary harassment, humiliation and mental torture”, Balbir Singh of Kurukshetra had earlier alleged the ministers were illegally constructing 22 shops on his land without valid documents. He had added that an attempt to dig the foundation was also made on his land by the respondents after demolishing the boundary walls.

Claiming to have been threatened with elimination, he had stated that a complaint about the incident had been made to the Station House Officer of police station city, but no action was taken.

The reason behind the move to raise construction, he had alleged, was that the two ministers were interested in grabbing the land as its price had increased considerably due to its location.

He had added that three civil suits were initially filed by the respondents against him but after they “failed to succeed in their evil designs, they got a false first information report registered against him and his brother with a police station at Thanesar”.

Counsel for the petitioner had further added that Balbir Singh was also called over by the ministers and was asked to sell the land. After his refusal, the petitioner was harassed, he had alleged.

Progress report

The High Court on Wednesday directed the Additional Chief Engineer of the Haryana Urban Development Authority to be present in the court on May 18 to explain why the bi-monthly progress report on the construction of jail building at Gurgaon was not submitted.

Pronouncing the directions, Mr Justice Jawahar Lal Gupta and Mr Justice N.K. Sud observed: “On February 14, it was directed that the jail building at Gurgaon be completed on or before July 31, 2002. A direction for submission of a bi-monthly report was given. The report has not been filed”.

The Judges added: “Ms Palika Monga, appearing for the respondent, states that she has received a copy of an affidavit of R.C. Taneja, Additional Chief Engineer. We direct that the officer shall appear in the court and explain as to why the report has not been filed”.

Taking suo motto notice of the condition of the jail during an inspection tour, Mr Justice V.K. Jhanji of the High Court had earlier observed that the building as per his information was more than 100 year old. The Judge had added that the condition of the building was such that carrying out repairs on it was not possible.

Dismissed

Mr Justice Amar Dutt of the High Court on Wednesday dismissed an application filed by the brother and two other relatives of Haryana MLA Karan Singh Dalal seeking time to surrender before the trial court in a murder case.

Confirming the anticipatory bail granted to the MLA, Mr Justice Dutt had earlier directed the trial court to dispose of as expeditiously as possible the bail applications that may be filed by the three relatives if they surrendered before the court.

Mr Justice Dutt had observed that it was improper for the court to stand in the way of the custodial interrogation of Mehar Chand Dalal, his son and daughter-in-law as the same may be necessary to find out the circumstances in which a relative of the accused, Sumitra Chaudhry, had died.

Bhatnagar seeks setting aside of warning
Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, May 2
Major Maneesh Bhatnagar, who is being tried by a general court martial for alleged dereliction of duty, today wrote to the court’s convening authority seeking the setting aside of the warning issued to him and his counsel yesterday.

Major Bhatnagar’s counsel, Capt Rajneesh Bansal, had withdrawn from the trial yesterday after the court issued him a warning and intimated him that it would move the Bar Council against him. Captain Bansal had termed the warning as unwarranted and uncalled-for. The court had also warned the accused on his conduct in court.

The accused officer also sought adjournment for 12 days in order to engage another counsel. After the court asked him if he was planning to re-engage Captain Bansal or hiring a new counsel, Major Bhatnagar said he was not sure whether Captain Bansal would be willing. The court adjourned till tomorrow.

Meanwhile, in the other ongoing GCM of Maj V. K. Madhan, little progress could be made as the day’s proceedings remained focused on records being made by the prosecution and the defence as well as reports pertaining to the trial appearing in a section of the media.

During the cross-examination of Col A. Kayastha, a medical specialist, the prosecution objected to a question put by the defence on the grounds that it was being repeated.

When the prosecution counsel examined his records to find the particular question, the Judge Advocate (JA) intervened. He maintained that as per the Army Act, court proceedings could not be recorded by any party except the JA, and asked the prosecution counsel to hand over the records to him. He added that both parties could inspect the records in his custody, if required.

At this, the prosecution counsel said that if his records were to be inspected, the records maintained by the defence should also be put before the court. The defence counsel declined, saying that his notes were for the purpose of cross-examination and these could not be shown to the court.

Following a submission by the prosecution counsel, the JA, in his advice, said that as per of the Army Act, the defence and the prosecution could not record the transactions of the court verbatim, but could instead make “small” notes for the purpose of reference.

The JA also noted that a report published in a local daily mentioned transactions which took place in closed court, to which only the JA and members of the court were privy. He drew the attention of the court to provisions of the Army Act under which the court could warn the reporter concerned or debar him from attending the proceedings.

The court directed both counsel to refrain from recording the transactions of the court verbatim and instead make “small’ notes for reference. It also directed the prosecution counsel to destroy his records which were put before the court.