Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Santosh khoware   13 April 2012 at 13:16

Fcra section 9 of contribution (regulation)act 2010

Respected senior / expert members of the forum
My client is a church base NGO ( Nan governmental organization) they have 3 FCRA account , Deputy Secretary Govt. of India Ministry of Home affairs hereby prohibits, is one FCRA account by order, thought the Section 9 of Contribution (Regulation)act 2010, Could they use other two FCRA account for receiving the grant amount from donor agency, if yes under which section or rule/act or any notification by government . please guide me how can the receive grant . Alternatively, you may give your feedback to me on or my cell 09422816019

Thank you very much

With Regards



Member (Account Deleted)   09 December 2011 at 10:33

Csd , urcs , private ventures

URCs are Private Ventures.CSD is a solely owned govt enterprise but govt of India though bleeds to provide this extraordinary facilities to the private ventures a meagre 50 % only passed onto CFI. Look at the post below:-

:Turnover of Defence Canteens

Turnover, Profit and Profit distributed to beneficiaries after depositing 50% in Consolidated Fund of India (CFI) of Canteen Stores Department (CSD) during the last three years, year-wise, is as under:-

(Rupees in Crore)

Profit distributed to beneficiaries

2007-08 84.44

2008-09 6955.11, 203.69 101.84

2009-10 8689.80, 226.53,113.26

2010-11 9534.29

Annual accounts for this period are under finalization.

"As per laid down policy, 50% of the total profits earned by CSD is being deposited into Consolidated Fund of India (CFI). The remaining 50% is distributed to various beneficiaries as determined by the Competent Authority. As per policy in vogue, after deduction of regular and adhoc allocations of 4.91 % of this amount, the balance is allocated to Army, Air Force and Navy in the ratio of 85:10:5.

This information was given by Defence Minister Shri AK Antony in written reply to Shri Ram Krjpal Yadav and Shri Shadi Lal Batra in Rajya Sabha today."
Would somebody except those who thinks they are for the poor and needy people only please help me to get a copy of the " As per laid down policy 50 % of the total profits-----" as quoted by the Def Min of India. I have tried through RTI route but denied invoking JAG Army letter which has inferred that URCs are private ventures , not instrumentality of States and hence not covered by RTI Act 2005. That huge sums of money ( ours and yours money) for the past fifty years is going into pockets of some private individuals who are not accountable to either OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE/CAG , Defence Audit . It is a serious matter. And I need help.

Member (Account Deleted)   28 November 2011 at 18:49

Defence a1 land

In broad day light a huge new construction on a Defence A1 land in one of the Army Unit at Secunderabad is going on without any approval , sanction of Plan . On my query under RTI Act on the issue I am now intimated that the great new construction on the Defence A1 land of that Military Unit is mere a modification to the already existing UNIT REGIMENTAL RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION and hence required no approval of its building Plan by anybody. It is also intimated that expenditure is being incurred from the donations received from the devotees and hence no approval was necessary to undertake such a huge new construction . On my query with respect to the construction company undertaking the huge construction on the Defence A1 land , the answer was - No construction company has been engaged , it is being done on votultary work , may be KAR sEVA , they are referring too. Is that in order?

Anonymous   20 November 2011 at 07:21

Wildlife protection act 1972

Dear Experts,

This query is to get your independent opinions regarding Sections 34(1),(2)and (3) of Wildlife Protection Act 1972 visa vis Arms Act 1959 and fundamental rights. Wildlife Protection Act 1972 can be read at

My position will be that arms are fundamental right under Articles 19 and 21 supported by reasoning put forth in following links and High Court judgements as well as but not limited to doctrine of precedence, natural justice, strict scrutiny etc.:

1) Judgements of High Courts and


I want to establish Sections 34(1),(2)and (3) of Wildlife Protection Act 1972 to be unreasonable, superfluous and ultra vires.

Following is the zist of my reasoning:

Section 34(1) and (2) of Wildlife Protection Act 1972 are putting unreasonable, unnecessary and needless burden on arms license holders when arms are already well regulated under Arms Act 1959 and information about all arms license holders in the area is already present with the District Magistrate.

Liberty is guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution. Liberty includes not be be put under unnecessary, unreasonable burden, harassment or insult. Arms licenses or exemptions from licenses are issued to law abiding citizens by following the due process of law and putting all of them under unreasonable burden and suspicion amounts to treating them like criminals is affront to them and their Liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. Chief Wildlife Warden without any reasonable suspicion asking all arms license holders to line up at his office under Section 34(1) and (2) of of Wildlife Protection Act 1972, amounts to insult and harassment of arms license holders.

If he ever has credible evidence about violation of Wildlife Protection Act 1972 with help of arms against any person, he is anyways free to request information related to arms license from the District Magistrate or file a case in appropriate court of law.

Moreover since arms are a fundamental right, the Chief Wildlife Warden can safely assume that since arms are fundamental right, every citizen who is not barred by law from possessing arms, is in possession of arms. Section 34(3) is ultra vires and superfluous since arms are fundamental right under Articles 19 and 21 of Constitution and hence every citizen unless disqualified under Section 14 of Arms Act 1959 is entitled to keep and bear arms as per law. Where is the need to require concurrence of Chief Wildlife Warden when there is already a provision for police report about the arms license applicant?

Anonymous   21 October 2011 at 19:09

Charitable hospitals and profit motive


Member (Account Deleted)   09 October 2011 at 15:06

Definition of troops- who can bend like becham??

Dear Sir
This is direct from The noble objectives of the Canteen Stores Department of India a holy Cow for being milched for welfare of armed forces personnel is as follows:-


To Provide consumer goods of high quality to the troops wherever they are, at a price cheaper than the prevailing market rates, as far as possible.
To Ensure that the level of consumer demand satisfaction is maintained at the maximum.
To Generate reasonable profitability to sustain the organisation, permit growth and provide additional facilities for troops and their families.
To Formulate and execute development programmes to improve and maintain organizational effectiveness.
To Periodically analyse and assess the diverse long term needs and aspirations of defence service forces and undertake timely measures to meet them.
Aren't NOBLE?
But somewhere down the line the meaning of troops has been given a TWIST to expand its clientele. Take a look who are our troops in respect to Canteen Stores Departments to boost sales and earn profits and transfer most of the profits earned by a solely owned central govt enterprise to wholly disowned NON-PUBLIC funds held hostaged by again wholly mortgaged armed forces personnel, Defence ministry personnel and almost any body who is otherwise nobody. I paste the page 8 para 12 of recently public Army order, an order which is considered a non-entity by the audit officials in the govt of India.
Page 8 Para 12 Army Order 02/2006--
Para12-Following categories of civilian employees paid out of Defence Services Estimates and also those employed in the under mentioned Ministries/ Departments are permitted to make purchases from service Canteens subject to payment of sales tax and other taxes as per directions of the state where they are entitled to such facilities:
Ministry of Defence incl those working in their respective attached offices and those working in lower military formations.
Defence Audit Department.
Executive officer Cantonment Board.
Hindustan Aero nautics Ltd.
Indian Defence Accounts Services.
Secretariat Border Roads Development Board and HQ Director General Border Roads.
Civilian employees of Unit/Formation Run Canteens.
Serving AND RETIRED EMPLOYEES of Canteen Stores Department those are getting pension from CSD Funds .

And then another Army order is published to take this LOOT AND PLUNDER to another high level. Look at the content of Army Order 19/2006 which says :-
Para 1 - As per policy URC is given an independent registration number which facilitate it to draw the stores from the dependent depot directly. An extension counter can not be given a registration number and therefore can not draw stores from the depot but has to draw from dependent URCs.
Para 2.- As Direction COAS( Pl note this very carefully), it is proposed to est a chain of URCs and extention counters all over India ( could not extend it to other foreign countries , bad luck) to provide CSD facilities to ex-servicemen( pl note these words very carefully).There are certain remote areas where ex-servicemen concentration is large but no defence establishment exist to run a URC/EXTENTION counter.Extention counters for ex=servicemen opened in such areas were not found economically viable. Mobile canteens do not solve the problem as only grocery stores can be sold through them ( what a lie????). Par-force a need has been established to open a URC for exservicemen in such remote areas to make them economically viable.
Para 3-- In view of the avove it is felt( It was proposed in the earlier para)that a new Army Order may be issued to permit the opening of URCs where no active unit is located but have a large concentration of ex-service men present within close proximity.
1. THE AIM of this Army Order is to lay down procedure for obtaining sanction ( by allotting new registration number) to operate a UNIT run Canteen .
1. Sanction to operate a unit canteen is accorded by the BDE/SUB AREA OR HIGHER FORMATION COMMANDER.XXXXX
2. sANCTION to run canteen will be subject to the following conditions:-
Unit( pl note the word UNIT) has on its posted strength the number of personnel not below hundred ( including attached personnel)9 These attached personel are floating mass and can be added elsewhere as well to justify the number 100) or where dependency of exservicemen( including their families) How is that)))are not below 5000.
xxxxxxx etc etc

3. After according necessary sanction the sub area/ Bde etc etc will forward the application to CSD with a copy to the unit certifying that the strength indicated comprises those eligible for CSD facilities .xxxxxxxxxxx( The govt of India is now on the loop giving the URCs a legality).
4. xxxxxxx
5. Units requiring financial assistance to run their own canteen or for expansion of their existing canteens can apply for grant of a loan to CSD( Look at this who is deciding that govt money be given on loan to NON-PUBLIC entities)as procedure laid down in AO 161/73( There is also an Army Order for that at the cost of govt exchequers for the privately funded URCs and hence not under RTI Act 2005.
6. (This is the para I WISH YOU TO GIVE A VERY SERIOUS LOOK) Other than from regular units of Army, Navy and Air Force the following are ( not units any more)eligible for running of their own canteens under the existing policy:-( Look at those words under the present policy????!!!!) By Army order 02/2006 it enabled the civilians from almost all categories to avail CSD facility from the SERVICES CANTEENS after paying sales tax etc etc. And then in the same year with the help of another Army order in the garb of establishing URCs for the ex-servicemen where there are large concentration of ex-servicemen in remote areas as per desires of COAS ( CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF- Must note this for future references)para 6 was clandestinely inserted as if authorising non-military units ( beyond the domain and control of COAS)to run their own URCs. Look at the names of the establishments as given below:
Para -Military force under operational / administrative control( If that be so where is the question of allowing them run their own canteens witha separate registration number?)
GREF Units.
NCC Units at Group Hq level
Army Staff and entiltled personnel
TA Units .
CDA's Staff/ Est ( Look who are being appeased and why)
Sainik Schools.
Ordnance Factories.
Embarkation Hq.
Est under the control of DGI , Min of Defeence .
Rastriya Indian Military College.

sIGNED by Lt Gen A Natarajan
Adjutant General.
And what was the auth to extend CSD facilities to defence civilians ?
Take a look at the reply recd by me against my RTI query on 04 Nov 2008 from QMG Br IHQ of Min of Defence( Dy Dir GEN cANTEEN sERVICE )-
3. The canteen facility( less liquor and AFD items ) were extended to to serving Defence civilians employees paid out of Defence Estimates as a good will gesture for their support to the Defence Services consequest to a decision during 53rd Metting of the BOCCS( BOARD OF CONTROL CANTEEN SERVICES wherein the Defence Minister is the Chairman). Relevant extracts of the same is enclosed.
There are approximately 38 URCs being run by the CGDA /CDA ( List encl).
What the extract of the 53rd ( later changed to 56th Meeting held on 18 Mar 1986 states :
""" Para 22. xxxxxxxx. After a discusion it was brought out that all civilians employees paid from Defence Service Estimates and those employed in the undermentioned Ministries/Departments are permitted to make purchases from service Canteens-
Min of Defebce Min of Finance.
Defence Audit Deaprtments.
Indian Defence Acounts services.
Civilian employees of unit / formation canteens .
Civilian Gazetted officers etc etc
No there is mentioned of the reason(s) for their inclusion as had been highlighted by Dy Dir gEN of Canteen Services at the service HQ.
And no there was no sanction by any competent auth for COAS to desire est of URCs at remote locations for the ex-servicemen and authorising non-military govt deprtments to run their own canteens.

My question is where do I get the original govt notification the union of India mandating Canteen Stores Department to provide canteen facility to the troops.
And what was the order when Armed forces took over the CSD Retail outlets from the Private Contractors , who gave that order/ issued such notification. How do I get that notification?
Who should be the auth to include or exclude any central govt( CDA Staff/Est, CSD Staff/Est, Home Ministry officals ( Para-Military personnel / Est, Sainik Schools, Even Army Schools are availing the facilities)? Is it the cabinet decision , the parliament mandate or both?)
Pl advice .

Anonymous   04 October 2011 at 20:53

Moot problem- please help?




Union of India and Others

Five people were hit by a blue Volkswagen car in the state of Samata Pradesh, Union of India on February 12, 2009. The initial testimonies and a 20-minute film recorded next morning led the police to conclude that the hit-and-run was caused by three young drunk men. These three people were Siddhanth, Manik and the alleged driver Sanjeev, who is the grandson of a former General of the Indian Army, and son of a well known arms dealer.

This case came into lime light and caused public uproar on the evening of 25th July, 2009, when two senior advocates – Mr. Khanna, who was the Special Public Prosecutor in the case and Mr. Arun the advocate defending the main accused Sanjeev, son of the former Navy Chief, were shown by PKTV channel allegedly influencing the eyewitness Sunil. The video recording showed the defence lawyer and Sunil getting into a car where they talk of money and of changing testimony. The videos also show a common meeting between the prosecution and the defence lawyer and Sunil where they were trying to persuade him to change his statement and were offering him Rs. 5 crores for the same.

‘SADHANA’, an NGO filed a PIL in the Supreme Court questioning the sting operation and the ‘trail by media’, contending that responsibility of the media is to maintain professional standards by evolving a self-regulatory mechanism, and the sting operation is inconsistent with the freedom of the press.

In the PIL the petitioner complained of the impropriety of intruding into the privacy of the people, especially in the absence of stringent laws protecting the privacy in the country.

Main contentions of the Petitioner are:

1. Sting operations amount to contempt of court as they deal with matters sub judice and attempt to influence the minds of judges.
2. Sting operations intrude upon the privacy of a person and hence they are not covered by the freedom of speech which covers freedom of press under the Constitution of the country. They are also violative of Art. 12 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.
3. Sting operations temp, if not force, someone to commit a crime and encourage law breaking which is unacceptable.

It is suggested by the Petitioner that in the event of such sting operations being found constitutional, still they should be allowed only against public servants that too when they are on duty, and further that the media should take prior permission for conducting such operations on the grounds that it would amount to pre-censorship.

The matter is posted for final hearing.

Counsels are expected to prepare memorandums for Petitioner and Respondent.

Anonymous   23 August 2011 at 21:58

Recall application rejection in state act while the reference made in central act

The employer had filed recall application against the ex- parte award of the labour court without mentioning the act under which the recall application had been filed not by the party but by the authorized representative of the company simple plain paper without affidavit and without delay condone application after 30 days of publication.
However it is pertinent to mention here that the award is not ex-parte as the company has filed w/s, rejoinder affidavit, refused to file documents ad absented itself deliberately in management witness and arguments. It has also filed various interlocutory applications/ objections rejected before passing award under the direction of high court to decide the issue at earliest.
Now challenging before the writ court the award, the recall application which was rejected under the state act while the reference order is in the central act.
Is this issue will have any serious implication in the writ court?
How this issue should be argued before the writ court?
Is there any ruling in support of submission.
Let me know.

Anonymous   01 August 2011 at 16:02

Application for file and argue


On what grounds an application for filing and arguing in person before the SC will be denied.

how will the IA in a SLP be disposed. There is also another IA for filing additinal documents will it be dealt separately.


Anonymous   23 July 2011 at 16:02

centre state dispute

does state has the right to ask for the rights of regulation of transmission, supply and distribution natural resources like natural gas produced exclusively in their areas or legislatively regulate under list 2, entry 25 of 7th schedule.
Can state challenge central arbitarary and Mala fide intentions for regulating this control indirectly.
whether the state are sovereign entities entitled to use natural resources within their territorial limits.

Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query