मुख्य समाचार
पार्वा कार्यकारिणी के चुनाव - कार्यक्रम घोषित

Saturday, October 22, 2011

दीवाली पर भी कूड़ा साफ़ नहीं होगा क्या?




प्रगति अपार्टमेन्ट्स के मुख्य द्वार के दाईं तरफ बहुत सारा कूड़ा पड़ा हुआ है. इस से अपार्टमेन्ट्स की छवि खराब हो रही है. मैंने कुछ दिन पहले पार्वा की आधिकारिक वेबसाईट पर एक पोस्ट लिखी थी पर उसका भी कोई असर नहीं हुआ. आप साथ की तस्वीरों पर क्लिक कीजिए और देखिये. तस्वीरें खुद बोलती हैं.

कौन हटाएगा यह कूड़ा? कल एक चोकीदार ने मुझे बताया कि यह कूड़ा पार्वा का है. मुझे बहुत आश्चर्य हुआ. मैंने जब यह पूछा कि बाथटब और सिंक का पार्वा क्या कर रही है तब उसने कहा कि यह सब एक पार्वा कर्मचारी का है. किसी का भी हो इस कूड़े को तुरंत हटाया जाना चाहिए. पार्वा के सिक्योरिटी इंचार्ज क्या कर रहे हैं? क्या अपार्टमेन्ट्स के अंदर और आस-पास की सफाई की जिम्मेदारी उनकी नहीं है?  अगर उनकी नहीं है तब किस की है?

दीवाली आ रही है. अब तो यह कूड़ा हटा देना चाहिए. 

Monday, October 17, 2011

Jail for power theft

Time and again I have posted on this blog expressing my concern about power theft. As per a news item in Times of India of 17.10.2011 (click on the image) a woman has been jailed and fined for stealing power.

Many functions are being organized in Central Park and it is its duty to of PARWA EC to ensure that organizers make proper arrangements for power supply.  It should be ensured that power is not tapped from BSES Feeder box installed in Central Park.

See what the court has said:
"No leniency must be shown to those who steal power, as it directly contributes to power shortage."
"Electricity theft is on the increase. It also causes loss to the state exchequer. The theft of electricity forces the honest consumer to bear with power cuts. Electricity is a national asset."
"deterrent sentence should imposed in case of repeated offenders. No sympathy should be shown to such offenders  otherwise it will be an encouragement to like-minded persons. Such offenders should bear in mind that they will have to face serious consequences, including conviction and imprisonment."

The court has sentence the offender in this case to six months and slapped a steep fine of Rs. 2.76 lakhs.

I have taken some photos showing tapping directly from the BSES feeder box. 

Friday, October 14, 2011

Complaint against illegal PARWA EC Election

To,                                                                                                         04 July 2011
O/o Commissioner of Industries
Government of NCT of Delhi
Udyog Sadan, 419, FIE
Patparganj Indl Area
Subject – Complaint against irregularities in Election of Executive Committee of Pragati Apartments Residents Welfare Association (PARWA), Registration No. 28337
I am a resident of Pragati Apartments and a member of its Residents Welfare Association (PARWA), registration number 28337. Recently RWA conducted elections of its Executive Committee (EC). There have been many irregularities in this election and many provisions of RWA bye-laws were violated. Election Officer (EO) has conspired with outgoing President and General Secretary to ensure their unopposed re-election.
I had filed nomination for the post of President. To ensure that outgoing President, Mr R K Chadha is elected unopposed, the Election Officer (EO) illegally rejected my nomination.   
I have raised various objections before and after my nomination was rejected, but the EO in connivance with outgoing President, Mr R K Chadha and General Secretary, Mr A N Malik, had ignored my objections and went ahead with announcement of election results thereby installing an illegal executive Committee.
Some of the irregularities are:
a)      Elections have been conducted under Modified Bye-Laws, whereas the modifications to bye-laws have not yet been approved by the competent authority under Societies Registration Act, 1960.
b)      Outgoing EC appointed Dr V P Aggarwal as Chief Election Officer, who issued a circular on 10.04.2011 (copy enclosed) informing the election programme. The EO himself did not follow/ensure compliance to many provisions of this circular.
c)      RWA bye-laws provides for a single member body (one Election Officer) to conduct election, and for this purpose outgoing EC or General Body (GB) appoints an Election Officer, but EC in connivance with EO,  converted it into a multi-member body consisting of a Chief Election Officer and two Election Officers.  I registered my objection with EO orally. When he ignored my objection, I sent him a letter dated on 26.04.2011 (copy enclosed).
d)     In my letter to EO dated 26.04.2011, I also objected to his having meeting, in the time slot reserved for filing nominations, with two contestants, Mr R K Chadha and Mr A N Malik, outgoing President and General Secretary, along with some of their supporters. At least one member had to file his nomination in their presence.
      Both Mr Chadha and MR Malik kept commenting about nominations being filed. Another resident
     went to file his nomination but when he saw these people sitting there he returned without filing the 
     nomination. EO had kept nominations confidential from other contestants but made all this 
     information available to Mr Chadha and Mr Malik. By doing so, EO has violated the principle of   
     natural justice and compromised his credibility and fairness of election process.
e)      After the date of filing nominations was over, list of residents who have filed their nominations was not displayed by EO. This information was also available to Mr Chadha and Mr Malik but not to other contestants. Mr Malik was seen forcing one contestant for the post of General Secretary to withdraw his nomination. This candidate finally withdrew his nomination and Mr Malik was elected unopposed. By making the information available to Mr Chadha and Mr Malik, EO has violated the principle of natural justice and compromised his credibility and fairness of election process.
f)       In his circular dated 10.04.2011, Election Officer has stated that the list of eligible residents who can vote and contest shall be displayed by the Executive Committee of PARWA at its office by 20.04.2011 (Para A-3 of the circular). This was again repeated by him by marking a copy of the circular to President, General Secretary and all EC members requesting them to display the list by 20.04.2011. This list was never displayed. When I brought it to the notice of EO, he said that it was not his job and he can not force EC to display the list. Non-display of this list vitiated the election process as it remained no more just, fair and impartial election. Two contestants, Mr Chadha and Mr Malik  had this information but other contestants were denied this information willfully under a conspiracy hatched by these two contestants with EO for rejecting nomination2s of some contestants and thereby ensuring their election unopposed.
g)      EO had told me and some other residents that he had not read the Bye-laws. As he was totally ignorant about the bye-laws, he took advice from Mr Chadha and Mr Malik on issues to be decided by him as EO. He had taken all the decisions without applying his mind. This makes all his decisions illegal. He has failed to conduct the election in a just, fair and impartial manner.
h)      EO had only displayed the list of candidates whose nominations have been accepted by him in late evening of 24.04.2011. He did not mention the names of those candidates whose nominations were not accepted by him and the reasons thereof. The residents till date do not know who filed their nominations, whose nominations were rejected and what were the reasons of rejection. Even those who filed nominations do not know why their nominations were rejected.
i)        On my representation EO gave reference to some provision of bye-laws which was totally irrelevant for rejecting my nomination for the post of President. He had wrongly rejected my nomination. He did not elaborate as to how that bye-law was applicable in my case. Also as he had confessed that he was not aware of bye-laws how could he take a decision to reject my nomination in view of some irrelevant provision of bye-laws? It is natural that he has rejected my nomination under the advice of Mr Chadha who was an interested person.
      j)       Outgoing President and General Secretary were again the contestants for these posts. There was a
            clear conflict of interest. They had important information with them which other contestant did not
            have. They were interacting with EO and advising him. EO was working under their advice . EO
           also kept everything confidential from other contestants. All this has made this election a farce.
k)      It is also not known whether EO or PARWA EC had informed the competent authority under the Act about this election.
l)        No member was elected as representative of three blocks. The new illegal EC had nominated three residents of their liking as Block Representatives (BR) for these blocks. As to my knowledge, there is no provision of nominating BR in bye-laws.
m)    After displaying the list of nominations accepted by him, EO had gone out of station. Residents who had filed their nominations but did not find their names in this list could not ask or discuss it with EO as he was not available. EO should have been present in station for conducting election, and if had some programme for going out then he should not have accepted the job of EO. Also he did not inform any resident except Mr Chadha and Mr Malik that he will not be available during certain period. Mr Chadha and Mr Malik had by proxy become EO.
n)      In absence of EO, I had submitted a representation to outgoing EC for re-consideration of appointing Dr V P Aggarwal as EO, as he had failed to ensure a just, fair and free election (Copy enclosed). I had requested that an emergency meeting of EC should be called to discuss this issue. I also requested that I should be invited to this meeting so that I can present my case in person. But Mr Chadha and Mr Malik ignored my representation as the EO had already ensured that they will be elected unopposed. All this has made this election a farce.
I request that in view of the above and many other issues, the competent authority should order an investigation into the above irregularities in recently concluded election of PARWA EC. If the competent authority feels that irregularities have been done then this election of PARWA EC should be declared null & void. After that, the the competent authority may order fresh election under the supervision of an officer from his office.  It is necessary to ensure that PARWA EC elections are done in just, fair and impartial manner.
Thanking you and with regards,
(S C Gupta)
Flat No. 315, Pragati Apartments
(SFS Pocket III Madipur), Paschim Puri
New Delhi – 110063
Phone - 9810073862


blogger templates | Make Money Online