Corporation’s tactics to retaliate against activist?

The interesting part of news is that the official of Jindal Steel and Power claim that they had given a shop to Agrawal’s son to dissuade him from raising environmental issues.  So they are willing to engage in bribery if it serves their corporate interests?

The threat to kill company official makes it even more incredible?  An activist threatening to kill an official of a large, powerful company?  Makes sense to anyone?

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Activist-faces-brunt-of-steel-magnates-fury/articleshow/6096632.cms

…

…

The police complaint has shocked environmentalists. "This is exactly the tactic American Corporations have used to browbeat environmental activists," said Sunita Narain, Director, Centre for Science and Environment. She said this reminded her of SLAPP or Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation used by companies in America "to shut up individuals who were raising issues of social and environmental concern".

"Ramesh Agrawal of Jan Chetana is well known to the environmental and human rights fraternity. He has been raising issues related to not just a single corporation but several agencies on a very systematic basis," said Kanchi Kohli of Kalpavriksha Environmental Action Group.

Agrawal has a long series of achievements to his credit. In 2009, a PIL filed by him in Delhi High Court resulted in a major amendment to the rules governing environmental clearance. The court made it mandatory for companies to publish their full environmental clearance order in two local newspapers to enable the affected people to access the order and challenge the clearance if need be.

Ritwick Dutta, well known environmental lawyer, who has represented Agrawal in several public interest cases, asked,
"Why has the company filed an FIR against Agrawal after MoEF acted against them? Why did it not go after him earlier?"

When asked why, Sanjeev Chauhan said, "We discussed the matter within the management. We were waiting for the right time". He added that the company "will definitely prove the allegations in court".
Environmentalists say proving allegations against Agrawal will not disprove allegations against the company.

"The Ministry did not rely on Agrawal's word. Its team did due diligence and found Jindal Power had clearly broken the rules," says Narain.

Demand service from police under Consumer Protection Act

Now it may be possible to get better service from police by invoking 'service' as per Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Consumer law can put cops in order

Excerpt from the news below:
Though the forum could have dismissed the complaint against the cops terming it ‘in limine’ (through which evidence or one of the parties can be excluded from legal proceedings), it issued a notice to the police seeking their reply. Also, in his reply, SHO of Sector-34 police station did not plead that the complaint was not maintainable and admitted that the vehicle had been stolen. The reply went, ‘Despite best efforts of police, the motorcycle could not be traced. In these circumstances, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves dismissal.’

On Monday, the forum, headed by its president Lakshman Sharma, said, ‘The complainants have failed to make any case of deficiency in service against UT police and complaint against (them) stands dismissed.’

Though the complaint was dismissed, it is clear that consumer forum has not disallowed Police being a party to a complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Also read following comments by consumer forum members:

Member of the forum, Siddheshwar Sharma said, ‘Services provided by department of posts, passport offices, universities, municipal corporations and even administration fall under the ambit of CP Act.’

Sources said there were other similar complaints in the pipeline as well. Jagroop Singh Mahal, president of another consumer forum, said, ‘Whenever there is non-performance of duty by a public authority, including police, people complain under CP Act.’

So it is time that citizens widen their horizons and think out-of-the-box to demand and get service. The tax paid by citizens can be used as the argument to demand service from police.