" World India News " E Paper

Thane: Criminal Case under CRPC 190 filed against Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation Medical Health officer Ms Smita A Rode for awarding PCPNDT licence without checking fire NOC. As per section 3 of  Maharashtra Fire  Prevention & Life Safety Measure Act, 2006   every occupier using commercial premises has to get fire NOC from Fire Department. Mr Dilip Gund conducted search on complaint and found no fire safety measures at Matrix Scan Private Limited Dombivli East since 2013. Petitioner used IPC sections 166 a ( Not Discharging duty as per Law),409 (Breach Of trust), 120(Criminal conspiracy ) 34( Organised crime ) , Fire act against DMC Nitin Narvekar, Directors of Matrix scan ( Dr Utkarsh Mahadev Bhingare, Sachin Shashikant Patil,Subhash Shivram Gadgil   ,Nitin Ashok Mahajan , Deepak Ghanasham Mahajan  ), Dilip Gund etc. Matter was heard by Magistrate and adjourned for  argument 10 days. Till now no comment received from accused . JMFC Court 3, Kalyan Case Det

Mumbai: Recently 2 years back Mumbai Rail Vikas Corporation developed new station 1A at Kanjurmarg Mumbai suburban at central railway. In RTI reply  they have no record of minor mineral royalty details on record. As per them  M/s A B Infrabuild Private Limited of Goregaon Mumbai have quoted all cost including minor mineral royalty. They do not have receipt of royalty paid to collector office.Mr Anand Kulkarni , Deputy Chief Project Manager -2 said we don't check royalty and its builder responsibilities to have receipt. In reply to use of huge soil to make stations he said" we used railway soil to upraise the level. We also used concrte which was build outside railway premises. " A million dollor question is that 600 meter long 15meter wide and 1.5 meter height station got huge soil from railway land? Its big theft of minor minerals by railway officials and contractors. Officials can not escape the use of thefted mineral use in railway work under IPC 411,120b and 34. Mr

Mumbai: Bombay High Court (BHC)providing advocate code to law firms which are not registered at Bar councils. They did not ask bar council code while registering firm and provide them BHC code very easily. Due to this any advocate can appear in hearing and this violates vakalatnama (VP) norms of Advocate act. Only one advocate can represent a client and after his resignation another advocate can file VP on behalf of client. Once firms or LLP Companies file VP then any advocate come and represent him in court. As companies registration is not started in bar council so RTI activist asked BHC that under which rule or order they are registering firm and providing code to file case. They have no such order and replying that BHC has power to make rules under section 34 of advocate act. But they did not have copy of such rules created by BHC. BHC can not violate advocate act so they did not created such rule to benefit firms and LLP. But from back door they are providing code to law fir