Massive Legal Win for Kebaowek First Nation And Allies Against Proposed
Nuclear Waste Dump in Canada
-
Federal Court of Appeal Upholds Victory for Kebaowek First Nation
and Allies in “Species at Risk” Case Against Chalk River Nuclear Waste
Project Kebaow...
Latest Post
Showing posts with label Military Mining Industrial Complex. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Military Mining Industrial Complex. Show all posts
Nature & climate don't respect western notion of national borders
Written By mediavigil on Saturday, June 24, 2017 | 7:21 AM
All rivers are natural persons and legal persons, said Dr Gopal Krishna of ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA) while praising the Uttarkhand High Court’s decision recognizing river Ganga as a natural person and legal person. It paves the way for correcting the wrongs done to the rivers. He said that every legal wrong must have a legal remedy the court had remedied the wrong done by the Britishers of never seeing nature as a legal entity. He was addressing the audience at a conclave on “Connecting people to nature: Challenges and Options”.
He referred to the Paris Agreement which refers to “Mother Earth” drawing on lessons from Bolivia which recognized the legal right of nature. He said, nature and climate don't respect western notion of national borders, This notion is contrary to the Upanishadic lessons about nature.
He said, Himalaya is in danger. But can it be saved by ignoring the Chinese Himalayan region and saving only the Indian Himalayan region. Can Ganga be saved only be looking at 79 % of Ganga basin which in India? Can we afford to ignore 21 % of Ganga which is in Nepal and Bangaldesh. He urged all the nations involved to rise above the border disputes and save the nature. He opined that ancient beliefs and traditions should be inculcated in the present system where every river is seen as a natural person.
He said that nature should be viewed as the principle amount which is fast receding while people are busy reaping profits from it. He pointed to the fact that the export share of India in the world trade was 25 per cent when the nature was not exploited whereas at present it is only 1-1.5 per cent.
Chaudhary Birender Singh, Union Minister of Steel opined that environmental problems that the world is faced with at present are a result of the Industrial Revolution that took place 300 years ago. Elaborating further, he said the adverse effects of climate change in India were felt only after Industrial Revolution came to the country about 70 years ago. Globally also, in the last 30 years, production has been shifting towards Asia which has negatively impacted the environment.In his speech, he criticised the idea of carbon credits propagated by the western nations as it has only helped in the shifting of responsibility to developing countries. “India used to be the biggest exporter before the advent of Industrial Revolution. Today we produce 100 million tonne crude steel, out of which only 1.5 per cent is exported as after Industrial Revolution, we can only export high-end steel. This is the way Western ideas have had an impact on thinking,” he said.
Pointing to the fact that West is still a well-off society even after they have reduced production, he said this is because research and innovation have become the main sources of their economy. Since India is lacking in these aspects, the West is able to dictate terms to the country. To reverse this situation, he was of the opinion that what is required is a “mind change for the environmentalists.”
He urged for a change in perspective. Quoting an example, he said banned chemicals are still in use in many of the industries. Because of this, it is having an adverse impact on air and water resources. So, what is of utmost importance here is to correct the industry’s mindset. He also spoke about how the Swach Bharat Abhiyan could achieve so much success after it became a “mass movement”.
He warned that no mission will be successful if there is an effort made to compartmentalise it. Giving an example, he said as long as the use of solar energy and thermal energy are alternated, India’s energy crisis can never be solved. In his concluding remarks, he urged the scientists and environmentalists to take advantage of India’s vast coastline and bring innovative mechanisms where sea water can be used for drinking and irrigation purposes as it will solve the world’s biggest problem.
P P Chaudhary, Union Minister for Law and Justice, Electronics and Information Technology said, “Indian environment is in a very sad state.” Drawing on the ancient texts and also from the Directive Principles, he brought to light the fact that India has always given importance to environment and the current government is firmly focused on implementing the Prime Minister’s vision for clean energy. As a result of this, the government has been extensively promoting the use of solar and wind energy.
“In any developing country, energy is very important. India has been reducing its fossil fuel consumption through policy decisions like National Smart Grid. The focus on smart cities will give an impetus to clean energy. The government also comes out with policies on solid waste management from time to time. The difference of all these initiatives will be seen in the coming years,” he said.
Talking on Swach Bharat Mission, he said, “The vision has been converted into mission due to the involvement of the common man.” He also spoke about the focus of the government on hybrid electric vehicles to promote green energy.
On forestation, he said, the Prime Minister’s vision is to increase the forest cover to 33 per cent from the current 24 per cent. He strongly spoke against the use of pesticides in agriculture and said the multinational companies are primarily responsible for introducing all the chemicals that were banned in America in 1972 to India. He also said water conservation is the biggest challenge and the aim should be revive the existing water bodies. Offering an interesting suggestion, he said, “The World Environment Day should be celebrated as a festival every year” so its message is not forgotten. He further opined that the role of technology is very important for the conservation of environment. He lauded the Supreme Court’s decision of paperless courts and said it will go a long way in preventing deforestation. This conclave was organised by Kuldeep Ratnoo of Bharat Niti, a voluntary initiative and his colleagues. It was co-sponsored by Smart Solid Waste Management. The conclave began after paying Tributes to Union Environment Minister, late Anil Madhav Dave.
Case against Gujarat Govt & Adani company disposed
Written By mediavigil on Saturday, April 02, 2016 | 3:18 AM
A Special Leave
Petition (Civil) 20520 of 2015 was filed in the Supreme Court in November 2015
in the matter of a judgment and order dated 17th April, 2015 of the
Gujarat High Court in WP (PIL) No. 12 of 2011 wherein High Court had dismissed
the petition filed by the Kheti Vikas Seva Trust. The 73 page long High Court’s
order was passed by Justice Vijay Manohar Sahai and Justice R.P.Dholaria.
The High Court’s order
records, “the Committee has recommended following measures for project
clearance conditions and post clearance monitoring:
1. The current
regulatory system is not able to handle the complexity and size of projects of
this nature. There is an urgent need to strengthen the monitoring abilities and
to bring in public oversight.
2. The monitoring and
auditing of such a large project is only possible, if the clearance conditions
are specific and detailed, geo-referenced and there is a lands at imagery
analysis to benchmark
the project area,
pre-construction. Without these benchmarks, it is not possible, to ascertain
the extent and scale of the violations committed during construction and
operation phase.
3. More, importantly,
a system should be developed so that all monitoring data is widely accessible
by local communities to use and comprehend in terms of impacts.” This committee
was set up by Union Ministry of Environment and Forests “to look into the
complaints regarding severe impact upon environment safety and integrity
committed by M/s.Adani Port and SEZ Ltd.”
It appears strange
that although the High Court recorded these recommendations of the independent
committee that expressed distress at the cumulative damage caused by Adani’s
projects, still the petition was dismissed.
The High Court's order
conclusively states "the respondent-company has been granted phase-wise
Environmental Clearance beginning the year-1995 by the Ministry of Environment
and Forests (MOEF), Government of India, New Delhi for their project and the
State Government has allotted various parcels of lands to the
respondent-company and they have developed the area pursuant to such
Environmental Clearance and allotment of lands. The committee constituted by
the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), New Delhi to look into the
complaints regarding severe impact upon environment safety and integrity
committed by M/s.Adani Port and SEZ Ltd has submitted its detailed report with
recommendation to the Government of India and the same is under consideration
of the competent authorities. In view of the aforesaid observations made by the
committee, we are convinced that no directions is required to be issued in the
matter and the complaint and grievance raised by the petitioner appears to be
misplaced."
This matter came up
for hearing before Supreme Court’s bench of the Chief Justice T. S Thakur
and Justice Amitava Roy on 27th November, 2015. It
was mentioned before the bench of Chief Justice and Justice
Uday Umesh Lalit on 3rd March, 2016. The matter was listed for hearing on 18th
March, 2016. The Court’s website shows that the case was disposed on 18th
March.
The petition was filed
against State of Gujarat, District Collector, Kutch,
Mundra Port and SEZ, Adani Power Limited and others because of the continuous
and wilful activities of the Respondent Companies in the Mundra coastal region
which includes Coastal Regulation Zone area and “Reserved Forests” of mangrove
trees are leading to large scale ecological imbalance in the area including
destruction of mangrove forests, blocking and drying of creeks, salinity
ingress into ground water, fly ash mismanagement and consequent hazards, loss
of agricultural yield and significant health risks in the surrounding
population.
It
was filed because the SEZ and the 4 ports and the thermal power station of
Adani company were granted conditional environmental clearances whereas these
conditions were never met thereby leading to gross ecological imbalance in the
reserved forests of mangroves and in the
Coastal Regulation Zone.
It
was filed because these conditional environmental clearances were revocable on
the conditions not being met by the companies in question. The activities of
the Respondent Companies include operating from the thermal power plant built
on one arm of the Siracha river, hence, blocking the flow of the river, dredging
and reclamation of coastal and forest land by use of various heavy machinery
and manpower, use of Kachcha Channel and Kachcha Pond for drawing sea water,
thereby, causing excessive salinity ingress into the ground water, disposal of
fly ash (a residue produced from thermal power plant) in the open area and on
village roads, thus, leading to fly ash mismanagement and related hazards, and bunding
and filling of creeks for land reclamation.
The
petition prayed for grant of the Special Leave to Appeal against the final
order and judgment dated 17th April, 2015 in Writ Petition (PIL) No.
12 of 2011 passed by the High Court of Gujarat. The petition sought relief in
terms of ror revocation of conditional environmental clearance issued vide
letter No. J-13011/7/2007-IA-II(T) dated 13.08.2007, letter No.
10-94/2007-IA-III dated 29.05.2008, letter No.10-47/2008-IA-III dated
12.01.2009, Addendum dated 19.01.2009,
letter No.J 13012/126/2008-IA-II(T) dated 20.05.2010 and all other conditional
clearances granted to Mundra
Port and SEZ and Adani Power Limited for project activities in
Mundra coastal region.
Naran Bharu Seda
Gadhvi, the petitioner informed ToxicsWatch Alliance that the Court said that the matter requires to
be looked into by the High Court or National Green Tribunal. Given the fact
that Court’s order is still awaited there is lack of clarity as to what is the
next course of action for the petitioner. The record of proceedings mentions Shodika
and Satya Mitra as the advocates for the petitioner. The petitioner
informed that Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves argued his case on 18th
March in the apex court.
Environmental Defenders are Human Rights Defenders:UN Human Rights Council
Written By mediavigil on Thursday, March 31, 2016 | 11:10 PM
General Assembly
21 March 2016
The Human Rights Council,
Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,Guided also by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenants on Human Rights and other relevant instruments,
Recalling General Assembly resolution 53/144 of 9 December 1998, by which the Assembly adopted by consensus the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,
Recalling also all other previous resolutions on this subject, in particular Human Rights Council resolutions 22/6 of 21 March 2013 and 25/18 of 28 March 2014, and General Assembly resolutions 68/181 of 18 December 2013 and 70/161 of 17 December 2015,
Reaffirming the importance of the Declaration and its full and effective implementation, and that promoting respect, support and protection for the activities of human rights defenders, including women human rights defenders, is essential to the overall enjoyment of human rights,
Recalling that the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, the 2005 World Summit Outcome and General Assembly resolution 60/251 of 15 March 2006, in which the Assembly established the Human Rights Council, all affirm that all human rights are universal, indivisible, interrelated, interdependent and mutually reinforcing and must be treated in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing and with the same emphasis, and recalling also that the promotion and protection of one category of rights should never exempt States from the promotion and protection of other rights,
Recalling also the annual high-level panel discussions held at the thirty-first session of the Human Rights Council on human rights mainstreaming, with its theme “The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and human rights”, with an emphasis on the right to development, and on the fiftieth anniversary of the Human Rights Covenants,
Noting the statement given by the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders during the interactive dialogue with the Human Rights Council at its thirty-first session, and deeply regretting the assassination, following death threats, of persons addressing human rights in the context of land and environmental issues, including indigenous leaders,
Noting also that previous resolutions on the present subject pertain to the promotion and protection of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights,
Reaffirming that States have the primary responsibility and are under the obligation to protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms of all persons,
Reaffirming also that everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, to promote and strive for the realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including all civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights,
Welcoming the steps taken at the national level to implement economic, social and cultural rights, including the enactment of appropriate legislation and adjudication by national courts,
Recognizing the positive, important and legitimate role of human rights defenders in promoting and advocating the realization of all economic, social and cultural rights, including by engaging with Governments and contributing to the efforts in the implementation of the obligations of States in this regard, and welcoming the steps taken by some States to create a safe and enabling environment for the defence of human rights,
Stressing that everyone, individually and in association with others, shall be free to determine themselves which rights to address, at the local, national, regional and international levels, through the exercise of their rights, including through advocacy, reporting and seeking information on human rights violations and abuses by States and non-State actors,
Welcoming the fact that indigenous peoples are organizing themselves for political, economic, social and cultural enhancement, and in order to bring to an end all forms of discrimination and oppression wherever they occur, and welcoming also the work of human rights defenders in that regard,
Mindful that domestic law and administrative provisions and their application should not hinder but enable the work of human rights defenders, including by avoiding any criminalization or stigmatization of the important activities and legitimate role of human rights defenders and the communities of which they are a part or on whose behalf they work, as well as by avoiding impediments, obstructions, restrictions or selective enforcement thereof contrary to relevant provisions of international human rights law,
Underscoring that the legal framework within which human rights defenders work peacefully to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms is that of national legislation consistent with the Charter and international human rights law,
Deploring the use of policies and legislation that restrict, hinder or limit the activities of human rights defenders in contravention of international human rights law, as well as judicial harassment or threat thereof against human rights defenders, including those addressing economic, social and cultural rights, and underlining the obligation of States to prevent and stop such practices,
Underlining the fundamental importance of access to justice through an independent and impartial judiciary,
Underscoring the importance of access to information, including on alleged violations and abuses of human rights, and of the full and effective participation of individuals, groups and organs of society, including human rights defenders, in consultations, decision-making processes and, where relevant, implementation efforts related to legislation, policies, programmes and projects, with a view to mainstreaming, promoting and protecting human rights,
Expressing grave concern at the serious nature of risks faced by human rights defenders, their family members, associates and legal representatives, including threats, attacks and acts of intimidation and reprisal against them in different parts of the world, and gravely concerned about the resulting negative impact on the realization of economic, social and cultural rights, including violations and abuses in this regard,
Expressing grave concern also at the observations and findings of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders that human rights defenders addressing environmental and land issues and corporate responsibility, as well as those working on governance issues, promoting transparency and accountability, and those exposing discrimination, corruption and violence at the hands of States, business enterprises and other non-State actors, are among those human rights defenders who are most exposed and at risk, and noting with grave concern also the findings of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearance that the practice of enforced disappearance is often used to repress and intimidate human rights defenders and prevent others from claiming and exercising their economic, social and cultural rights,
1. Stresses that the right of everyone, individually and in association with others, to promote and strive for the protection and realization of all human rights and fundamental freedoms without retaliation or fear thereof is an essential element in building and maintaining sustainable, open and democratic societies, and reaffirms the urgent need to respect, protect, promote and facilitate the work of those defending economic, social and cultural rights as a vital factor contributing towards the realization of those rights, including as they relate to environmental and land issues as well as development;
2. Calls upon all States to take all measures necessary to ensure the rights and safety of human rights defenders, including those working towards the realization of economic, social and cultural rights and who, in so doing, exercise other human rights, such as the rights to freedom of opinion, expression, peaceful assembly and association, to participate in public affairs, and to seek an effective remedy;
3. Welcomes the work of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, and notes with appreciation the attention given to the promotion and protection of economic, social and cultural rights, including in relevant reports of the mandate holder over time;1
4. Urges all States to acknowledge in public statements at the national and local levels, and through laws, policies or programmes, the important and legitimate role of human rights defenders, including women human rights defenders, in the promotion of human rights, democracy and the rule of law in all areas of society, in urban and rural areas, as essential components of ensuring their recognition and protection, including those promoting and defending economic, social and cultural rights;
5. Strongly condemns the reprisals and violence against and the targeting, criminalization, intimidation, arbitrary detention, torture, disappearance and killing of any individual, including human rights defenders, for their advocacy of human rights, for reporting and seeking information on human rights violations and abuses or for cooperating with national, regional and international mechanisms, including in relation to economic, social and cultural rights;
6. Calls upon all States to combat impunity by investigating and pursuing accountability for all attacks and threats by State and non-State actors against any individual, group or organ of society that is defending human rights, including against family members, associates and legal representatives, and by condemning publically all cases of violence, discrimination, intimidation and reprisals against them;
7. Recognizing the importance of the independent voice of human rights defenders and other civil society actors, as well as of partnerships between States and civil society in promoting, protecting and realizing all human rights, including economic, social and cultural rights, and the right to development, as well as in the context of the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development;
8. Emphasizes the importance of national protection programmes for human rights defenders, and encourages States to consider, as a matter of priority, enacting relevant legislative and policy frameworks to this end, in consultation with human rights defenders, civil society and relevant stakeholders, taking into account, inter alia, the principles presented by the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders;2
9. Continues to express particular concern about systemic and structural discrimination and violence faced by women human rights defenders of all ages, and calls upon all States to give effect to the principles and objectives established by the General Assembly in its resolution 68/181 by protecting the rights of women human rights defenders and by integrating a gender perspective into the efforts to create a safe and enabling environment for the defence of human rights, including economic, social and cultural rights;
10. Underlines the legitimate role of human rights defenders in mediation efforts, where relevant, and in supporting victims in accessing effective remedies for violations and abuses of their economic, social and cultural rights, including for members of impoverished communities, groups and communities vulnerable to discrimination, and those belonging to minorities and indigenous peoples;
11. Stresses that legislation affecting the activities of human rights defenders and its application must be consistent with international human rights law, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and guided by the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and in this regard recognizes the urgent need to review and amend policies or legislation that have the effect of limiting the work and activities of human rights defenders in contravention of international human rights law;
12. Calls upon all States to ensure that information held by public authorities, including with respect to economic, social and cultural rights, and as related to environmental, land, natural resources and development issues, is proactively disclosed and not unnecessarily classified or otherwise withheld from the public, and also calls upon all States to adopt transparent, clear and expedient laws and policies that provide for the effective disclosure of information held by public authorities and a general right to request and receive information, for which public access should be granted, except within narrow, proportionate, necessary and clearly defined limitations;
13. Also calls upon all States to promote and enable public participation, and to promote transparency, accountability and effective governance, in the prevention of and the fight against corruption involving State officials, business representatives as well as other non-State actors, and in raising public awareness regarding the existence, causes and gravity of and the threat posed by corruption, including all possible impact on the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights, and further calls upon all States to respect, promote and protect the freedom of everyone to seek, receive, publish and disseminate information concerning corruption, including by protecting the actors doing so, including human rights defenders;
14. Recognizes the important and legitimate role of individuals, groups and organs of society that are defending human rights in identifying and raising awareness of human rights impacts, the benefits and risks of development projects and business operations, including in relation to workplace health, safety and rights, and natural resource exploitation, environmental, land and development issues, by expressing their views, concerns, support, criticism or dissent regarding government policy or action or business activities, and underlines the need for Governments to take the measures necessary to safeguard space for such public dialogue and its participants;
15. Encourages non-State actors to respect and promote the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all persons, including their economic, social and cultural rights, and to refrain from actions that undermine the capacity of human rights defenders to operate free from hindrance and insecurity, and encourages leaders in all sectors of society to express public support for the important and legitimate role of human rights defenders, including women human rights defenders;
16. Underscores in this regard the responsibility of all business enterprises, both transnational and others, to respect human rights, including the rights to life, liberty and security of person of human rights defenders, and their exercise of the rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association, and participation in public affairs, which are essential for the promotion and protection of all human rights, including economic, social and cultural rights, and the right to development;
17. Encourages business enterprises of all categories to avoid, identify, assess and address any adverse human rights impacts related to their activities through meaningful consultation with potentially affected groups and other relevant stakeholders in a manner consistent with the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework,3 and underlines the importance of accountability, including of all business enterprises, both transnational and others, including their provision of or cooperation in remedial action, and also encourages all business enterprises to communicate externally in an accessible form on how they address their adverse human rights impacts, including with information that is sufficient to evaluate the adequacy of the response to the particular human rights impact involved, particularly
when concerns are raised by or on behalf of affected stakeholders, including by human rights defenders;
18. Encourages all States to engage in initiatives to promote effective prevention, accountability, remedy and reparations with a view to protecting the human rights of everyone, including human rights defenders, including from human rights abuses by business enterprises;
19. Encourages States to avail themselves of technical assistance in follow-up to the present and previous resolutions of the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council on the protection of human rights defenders, such as through collaboration, based on mutual consent, with national human rights institutions, regional organizations, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and relevant special procedures, and other relevant international agencies and organizations, as well as with other States;
20. Invites the Secretary-General to draw attention to the present resolution in the United Nations system and to continue to include alleged cases of reprisal and intimidation against human rights defenders addressing economic, social and cultural rights, as well as their family members, associates and legal representatives, in the annual report on cooperation with the United Nations, its representatives and mechanisms in the field of human rights;
21. Invites the Special Rapporteur to continue to address the situation of human rights defenders in the field of economic, social and cultural rights, including good practices and challenges, in his work and reporting, including through collaboration and coordination with relevant United Nations agencies, organizations and mechanisms, treaty bodies and other relevant special procedures, in accordance with the mandate;
22. Decides to remain seized of the matter.
Agent Orange trial launched by French-Vietnamesewoman opens
Written By mediavigil on Saturday, April 18, 2015 | 5:13 AM
Note:Agent Orange is one of the herbicides and defoliants used by the U.S. government as part of its herbicidal warfare program, Operation Ranch Hand. Agent Orange was one of a class of color-coded herbicides that U.S. govt sprayed over the rural landscape in Vietnam from 1961 to 1971. It used to take away jungle cover for the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam (NLF) on the ground. Agent Orange released most dioxins. Its manufacturers claim that they told the government that dioxin was a by-product of Agent Orange when the US government first purchased it to be used in Vietnam. Between 1962 and 1977, 77 million litres of chemical defoliants were sprayed over South Vietnam, the most widely used being Agent Orange. The spraying of Agent Orange was indiscriminate in that there could be no control over where it specifically landed. It was used in the mountainous region along the Vietnam/Cambodia border. Vietnam veterans received a settlement of $180 million from the companies that manufactured Agent Orange in 1984. As US troops had gone into areas where Agent Orange had been dropped, they too were exposed to its dangers. The ex-troops from Australia, New Zealand and Canada were also given compensation. Vietnam Ministry of Foreign Affairs claim that about 5 million people became the victims of Agent Orange. High exposure to its dioxins caused cancer and a variety of genetic problems – many of which manifested themselves in children born to mothers who were affected by these dioxins. It is not known whether there has been any research in Vietnam into the long-term effects of low-level exposure to the dioxins of Agent Orange.
Gopal Krishna
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)
Agent Orange trial launched by French-Vietnamesewoman opens
A class action suit seeking justice for millions of Vietnamese Agent Orange/dioxin victims opened in the outlying French city of Evry. The case was lodged by French-Vietnamese Tran To Nga who spent five years collecting legal and scientific evidence to support the charges.`
Nga, 73, became a war correspondent for the Liberation News Agency after graduating from university in Ha Noi in 1966. Her work took her to some of the most heavily AO/dioxin-contaminated areas in southern Viet Nam such as Cu Chi, Ben Cat and along the Ho Chi Minh Trail, ultimately experiencing the effects of contamination. Her first child died of heart defects and her second suffered from a blood disease, likely results from her earlier exposure to the toxin. In 2009, Nga, who contracted a number of acute diseases, appeared as a witness at the Court of Public Opinion in Paris, France against US chemical companies.
Last May, she and the Paris-based William Bourdon & Forestier law firm filed a lawsuit against 26 US chemical firms for producing chemical toxins sprayed by the US army during the war in Viet Nam. Nga and the legal team hold that the toxins, and therefore the companies that made them, are responsible for the serious health issues that plague Vietnamese communities, her and her children.
The complaint and related documents were handed over to the Crown Court of Evry city and to the 26 named US companies, 12 of which have hired lawyers. During the first day of trial, judges of the Crown Court of Evry questioned the 24 defence lawyers. In France, a number of talks and film screenings about the harmful effects of AO on Vietnamese people and environment are ongoing.
What is going on in West Asia
Written By Unknown on Thursday, December 11, 2014 | 11:26 PM
At a Round Table on "What is going on in West Asia" on December 11, Rakesh Bhatt, a noted West Asia affairs analayst who has studied in West Asia and has lived in Iran and other countries in the region for over a decade. gave a presentation on non-google and beyond Islamic symbolism perspective. He made a distinction between work for to fill one's stomach and work of wisdom and underlined that West Asian leaders in general seem to be obsessed with the former. Those powers which are engineering West Asian landscape too are pre-occupied with the former.
He made a seemingly distant West Asia, North Africa and Afghanistan alive wit his off the record gems. The unfolding but untold story of Iran-US nuclear deal away from headlines was aptly captured. Interestingly, it was discussed without reference to Israel and Palestine (perhaps it was deliberate to underline the significance of the waning influence of Israel n Palestine). The significance of West Asia before the discovery of oil and after its discovery was dwelt on. (Non-Arab) Arab states like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan, Bahrain and Turkey. And how Azerbaijan is a linked to Georgia and in turn to Russia. Come what may the world powers that be want big war in Asia and nit in Europe. The role of companies like Aquafina and BP was underlined.
Sharing the fact of extinction of Homa like bird in Syria, he pointed out how nothing human remains left in Syria. Homa is a legendary bird within the Persian mythology and Sufi stories. He was quite critical of the people who beg information from google on the affairs of the world in general and on West Asia in particular.
The question as to why is West Asia important for Washington, Paris and London also came up for discussion. He dwelt on the poltics of images in general and images from Islamic history and how what was deemed sacred is being turned into profane.
The issue of uprsings in Tunisia and Egypt, western countries indulgence towards Shia regions in general and guiding forces behind the Islamic State (IS) outfits came up for discusison. India's relationship with Shia regions have been deeper and it is becoming stronger with each passing day.
Recollecting the ancient civilizations that flourised in West Asia, Qamar Agha, a noted commentator on Islamic countries for over a decade dwelt on how Islam came to bring Daur-e-jahiliya into an era of peace and unity. The attempt seemed to continue till the collapse of Ottoman empire. But it seems the region is a back to Daur-e-jahiliya.
Agha who chaired the discussion and concluded saying we need to engage deeply and directly with the specific aspects of West Asia and not via other media. The discussion was organised by Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties (CFCL).
Text of the Legal Notice to MHA by S P Udaykumar
Written By Unknown on Thursday, June 19, 2014 | 12:39 AM
M. Radhakrishnan
Advocate
Advocate
281 (Old No . 134) Thambu Chetty
Street
Chennai 600 001
mobile 9791096510; email lawtomorrow@yahoo.com
Chennai 600 001
mobile 9791096510; email lawtomorrow@yahoo.com
18 June 2014
The SecretaryMinistry of Home Affairs
North Block
Central Secretariat
New Delhi 110 001
Sir:
Under instructions from my client,
Dr.S.P.Udayakumar, 27, Isanganvilai, Mani Veedhi, Parakkai Road Junction,
Nagerkovil 629002, I address you as under:
1. My client states that the
Intelligence Bureau under the control of the Ministry of Home Affairs has, with
a view to maligning his reputation as an anti-nuclear activist and with a view
to lowering his credit, sent a report to the Home Minister, the Finance
Minister, the Prime Minister’s Office, the Cabinet Secretary (MHA) etc.
captioned “Concerted efforts by select foreign funded NGOs to take down Indian
development projects.” In paragraph 3 of the communication signed by Mr. S. A.
Rizvi, Joint Director, Intelligence Bureau(MHA) dated June 3, 2014, it has been
stated as under:
“3. In 2011, anti-nuclear activism
stalled the nearly commissioned Russian- assisted, Koodankulam Nuclear Power
Project in Tamil Nadu. The protests were spear-headed by Ohio State University
funded, SP Udayakumar, and host of Western-funded NGOs. The larger conspiracy
was unravelled when a German national provided Udayakumar a scanned map of all
nuclear plant and uranium mining locations in India. The map included contact
details of 50 Indian anti- nuclear actvists revealing an intricate Network
aimed to ‘take-down’ India’s nuclear programme through NGO activism.”
2. My client states that the above
communication dated June 3, 2014 along with the enlosure (a detailed review) is
classified as a “SECRET” document. Despite the fact that the detailed review
annexed to the above communication dated June 3, 2014 signed by the said Joint
Director, Intelligence Bureau (MHA) is a secret document, the Intelligence
Bureau has, with the sole purpose of defaming my client, released the said
document to the press. The contents of the above communication and the
“detailed review” appeared almost in all leading newspapers on June 12, 2014.
The Times of India (Chennai Edition : 12 June 2014) reported as follows:
“IB POINTS TO FOREIGN FUNDING FOR
N-ACTIVIST
Chennai: An Intelligence Bureau report on NGOs that organize protests against India’s development projects while receiveing foreign funding has named anti- nuclear activist S P Udayakumar as having connections with US and German authorities.
Chennai: An Intelligence Bureau report on NGOs that organize protests against India’s development projects while receiveing foreign funding has named anti- nuclear activist S P Udayakumar as having connections with US and German authorities.
The report said NGO-inspired
protests had pulled down India’s GDP growth by 2-3%, and named Greenpeace as “a
threat to natinal economic security”.
It is said that in July 2010,
Udayakumar received a contract from the Kirwan Institute for Study of Race and
Ethnicity at Ohio State University, US, as a consultant on ‘group, race, class
and democracy issues’.
The report said Udayakumar was paid
$21,120 up to June 2011 in a US bank account and was contracted to earn another
$17,600 up to April 2012 for fortnightly reports.”
4. My client states that Mr. S. A.
Rizvi, Joint Director, Intelligence Bureau (MHA), has, by stating that my
client was involved in a conspiracy of an intricate network aimed to take down
India’s nuclear program through NGO activism by means of foreign funds,
committed an offence punishable under Section 500 IPC since the said imputation
made against my client directly, in the estimation of the members of the
public, lowers the moral character of my client and also lowers the credit of
my client. The said imputation about my client is an utter falsehood. By making
such imputation, the said Joint Director, IB (MHA) has harmed my client’s
reputation beyond words.
5. My client states that since Mr. S.A. Rizvi, Joint Director, Intelligence Bureau (MHA) has deliberately released a secret document to the press with a view to harming the reputation of my client and since he has made defamatory allegations against my client in the disguise of interpreting a report relating to the actvities of Indian NGOs, appropriate departmental disciplinary action deserves to be initiated against the said Mr. S. A. Rizvi immediately.
KINDLY TAKE NOTICE that if you do
not, within seven days from the date of receipt of this notice, initiate
appropriate departmental disciplinary proceedings against Mr. S. A. Rizvi,
Joint Director, Intelligence Bureau (MHA) for his grave misconduct of releasing
a secret document relating to internal security of the country to the press, my
client would be constrained to approach the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at
Madras for issuance of an appropriate WRIT against you.
Sincerely
M.
Radhakrishnan
Globalisation of capital causes climate change
Written By Unknown on Wednesday, November 27, 2013 | 10:14 AM
Delivering his lecture on the causes and impact of climate change at the seminar of International Transport Workers' Federation (ITF) with focus on South & South East Asia Climate Change of in the aftermath of the adoption of International Mechanism for Loss and Damage 2013 at the 19th conference of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Gopal Krishna of ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA) recalled how the shift from the study of local ecosystem to the study of global ecosystem happened after artificial satellites were sent in 1957 by USSR. US Department of Energy did study on global warming in 1970s. The first World Climate Conference took place in 1979. International Geosphere Biosphere Program of Royal Academy of Sciences, Sweden did study in 1987. UN set up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to analyse and report on scientific findings.
He dwelt on the launch of negotiations on dangerous interference in the atmosphere causing global warming due to emissions for an international treaty by the UN General Assembly, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 1992, Kyoto Protocol 1995, Bali Road Map 2007, Copenhagen Accord 2009, Cancun Agreement 2010, Durban Platform for Enhanced Action 2011, Doha Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol 2012 and the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage 2013. He underlined the historical responsibility for dangerous interference in the atmosphere since 1750s that is causing adverse climate change and averments at the 68th UN Assembly General Debate in September 2013.
He dwelt on the launch of negotiations on dangerous interference in the atmosphere causing global warming due to emissions for an international treaty by the UN General Assembly, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 1992, Kyoto Protocol 1995, Bali Road Map 2007, Copenhagen Accord 2009, Cancun Agreement 2010, Durban Platform for Enhanced Action 2011, Doha Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol 2012 and the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage 2013. He underlined the historical responsibility for dangerous interference in the atmosphere since 1750s that is causing adverse climate change and averments at the 68th UN Assembly General Debate in September 2013.
He expressed concern over the global surface temperature change for the end of the 21st century is likely to exceed 1.5°C relative to 1850 to 1900 or likely to exceed 2°C as a result of past, present and expected future emissions of CO2. He urged transport companies to make specific and tangible commitments to combat climate change.
He underscored the fact that there is no time left for vulnerable countries to wait for an international climate deal to be reached in Paris in 2015. Drawing the findings of science that clearly shows that a significant degree of climate change is unavoidable which has been confirmed by the latest findings of the IPCC released in September, 2013, he reiterated to the delegates of Asia Pacific that some of them like Tuvalu, Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea, Lao, Singapore in particular are threatened with extinction from rising sea levels. This creates a compelling logic for adoption of universal approach to mitigate climate changes.
He appealed to all the member countries of UN and the transnational companies including those from the shipping, aviation, road and railways to factor in the crying need of measures for mitigation, adaptation and implementation against the maximum load of Green House Gas (GHG) emissions that could be discharged globally to the ambient air in the future without causing irreversible changes in ecosystems.
He urged the trade unions to get deeply involved in the UN negotiations for target and commitment to combat climate change globally. He urged the trade unions to support the advocacy for creating infrastructure for cyclists and pedestrians. He argued that in times of prosperity there can be boundaries of different sorts but in times of crisis all boundaries melt as is bound to happen to due to climate change induced crisis which is part of larger environmental and economic crisis due to globalisation of capital. He hoped for globalisation of resistance to challenge climate change deniers and the 90 companies like Chevron, Shell, BP and others that cause 63% of emissions. He called for policy reversals in a radical way because it is a matter of life and death. He denounced promotion of carbon trade as part of solution and expressed the hope that the climate agreement that will be finalized in Paris in 2015 will have no place for it.
The conference held during 26-27 November 2013 at Lonavala, Maharashtra was focused on young transport workers resolved to undertake urgent measures to ensure just transition to a sustainable transport system and promote public transport based on targeted commitment.
Security concerns from US ship in Gujarat & Violation of Supreme Court order
Written By Unknown on Saturday, September 21, 2013 | 3:34 AM
To
Secretary
Union Ministry of Home Affairs
Government of India
New Delhi
Secretary
Union Ministry of Home Affairs
Government of India
New Delhi
September 21, 2013
Subject- Security concerns from US ship in Gujarat & Violation of Supreme Court order
Sir,
This is with reference to the attached news report "Tug seized by DRI,
duty scam also exposed" (Mahebub Kureshi, DNA, Sep 18, 2013) and my
earlier letter dated August 2, 2013 regarding the news report Foreign
ship captain 'flouts ban' (August 1, 2013, DNA), Satphones ring in
security worries (August 2, 2013, The Times of India), 'Dawood Ibrahim
active in Alang ship-breaking business' (The Economic Times, 17 July,
2012, Ankur Jain & Arun Janardhanan), and ' Intelligence sharing on
Alang operations needed, say officials' (Ankur Jain, The Times of India
July 18, 2012).
I submit that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI)
and Intelligence Bureau (IB) have seized the supply tug of a
Jamnagar-based shipping agency while it was providing fuel to a ship
near Pakistani waters. They arrested tandel of the tug, Musa Ibrahim
Modi, who is also internationally wanted in a drugs scam. The ship was
sold to Pakistan by an USA's company, Exim Inc., which is a cash buyer.
It is reported that it was on its way to Gadani ship breaking yards in
Karachi when it ran out of fuel near the India-Pakistan water territory.
The cash buyer asked its Bhavnagar contacts to make arrangements for
fuel. The latter then passed on the information to K B Shipping agency,
Jamnagar. It has come to light that he DRI and IB raided the ship and
found that the company supplying the fuel did not have shipping bill nor
did it pay any customs duty. It may be noted that EXIM Inc. is a
privately owned U.S. corporation established in 1980 in the State of New
Jersey, USA. The company was founded by Shri Harshad Shah.
I
submit that it has been learnt that DRI and IB found that the tandel of
the tug was wanted in the international drugs scam. IB was in search of
Modi since the last one year. He was allegedly involved in drug dealing
between Mumbai and Dubai. The owner of Alang Last Voyage Shipping
Agency, Jitu Kamdar was also been detained by DRI in this connection.
I submit that the antecedents of the ship and its current and previous owners must be examined. The name of the ship in question, its IMO No. and port of registry etc has not come out in public. There is a need to examine whether some people in Gujarat are providing patronage to movement of such ships towards the beaches of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh to escape decontamination cost in the developed countries.
I submit that Gujarat based officials have misled the media into believing that "Union Ministry of Environment and Forests finally issued a clarification saying the 2007 SC guidelines and not Basel would be followed" which appears factually incorrect. Someone is manufacturing truth to suit the interest of ship owners and ship breakers unmindful of environmental and occupational costs. It is quite clear to all the law abiding citizens and officials that any so called "clarification" cannot over ride the Supreme Court order of July 30, 2012 which sought compliance with UN’s Basel Convention on
Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal because it is the last order of the Supreme Court that prevails as rule of law. The order banned entry of all end-of-life ships which do not undergo prior decontamination of ships in the country of export as per Supreme Court’s order of October 14, 2003.
I submit that international crime syndicates worldwide are earning an estimated US$22-31 billion annually from hazardous waste dumping, smuggling proscribed hazardous materials, and exploiting and trafficking protected natural resources as per INTERPOL documents. It is apprehended that ship breaking has some relationship with this syndicate. A report 'India's shipbreaking industry controlled by organised crime' refers to the involvement of one of Forbes' world's top 10 most dreaded criminals list of 2011. The shipbreaking yards at Alang beach has virtually devastated the sea and fishes with pollution.
Let me take the opportunity to reiterate that the Director General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI) had issued a notification seeking change in system of invoicing by ship breakers at Alang, Gujarat to ensure more transparency but its directions remain unimplemented. The Public Notice No. 01/2010 dated 26/7/2010 reveals non-transparency in the industrial activity at Alang beach. The White Paper on Black Money forgot to examine this unregulated industry that relies heavily on fake documents.
I submit that in an Office Memorandum No.29-3/2009-HSMD, Government of India, Ministry of Environment & Forests, (HSM Division) dated 9th May, 2011 relating to implementation of Supreme Court directions in respect of ship breaking activities, it has come to light that Ministry of Environment & Forests (MoEF)’s Standing Monitoring Committee (SMC) on Shipbreaking has suggested that since Gujarat Maritime Board (GMB) and Customs were not able to verify the authenticity/genuineness of ship’s registry/flag in the fast in respect of some ships referred to them, this task in respect of each ship may be referred to the Directorate General Shipping, Ministry of Shipping ought to undertake such verification henceforth. The GMB officials informed MoEF that “the suggestion of the committee is
acceptable to them subject to such verification by DG Shipping is done within a period of 2 working days. If no information is received from the DG Shipping within 2 working days, it will be presumed that the certificate submitted is authentic and genuine.” Such presumption cannot be accepted as it will amount to acceptance of a fake document.
I submit that it is quite significant that Directorate of Revenue Intelligence that functions under the Central Board of Excise and Customs in the Ministry of Finance took note of "problems such as import of hazardous substances that will occupy centre stage in the future as the emerging global threats."
I wish to draw your attention towards the news item 'Customs seize Greek vessel at Alang for under-invoicing' (The Times of India, September 15, 2011). Greek vessel 'Syros' was seized off Alang coast which was brought for salvaging. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
In such a context, the notification assumes huge significance as it will end up helping systematic quantification of material flow and help detect and segregate goods of hazardous nature.
I wish to draw your attention towards the 23rd December, 2010, Press Note issued by Mr Raju, Commissioner, Central Excise, Bhavnagar referring to “ a number of cases of Revenue leakage in Alang against Ship Breakers who fraudulently passed on Cenvat Credit worth crores of Rupees. They were also not showing production, clearance, transportation and Service Tax related information in their statutory records. The investigations are going on and some notices have been issued by ADG (CEI). In order to curb these malpractices, the Public Notice No. 02/2010 was issued on 13.12.2010 by the Central Excise Commissionerate, Bhavnagar. The public notice requires them to maintain certain records which would make it difficult for those who choose to evade duties by clandestine clearances.”
I submit that the Press Note says, “around 100-150 persons came to Central Excise, Head Quarters office, Bhavnagar and informed that they were from the Alang Ship Breaking Association”, “they continued shouting slogans and fearing damage to public property, and a as matter of abundant precaution, police force was called to ensure peace and security of the Government office”.
In such a backdrop, it appears that under pressure due to strike, DGCEI decided to put the notification seeking change in system of invoicing by the ship breakers for transparency, in abeyance for one month after the intervention of Chief Commissioner, Ahmedabad.
In view of the recent news reports based on credible security concerns, any amendment in the notification or delay in the enforcement of the notification of 13.12.2010 compromises national interest.
It is noteworthy that Office of the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Bhavnagar, Department of Revenue, Union Ministry of Finance issued on 26/7/2010, a Public Notice No. 01/2010 saying, “It has been brought to the notice of this Commissionerate that the Ship Breaking Units situated in Alang, Sosiya and other areas falling within its jurisdiction are not issuing their Central Excise invoices by declaring correct value and description of the scrap, plates etc generated as a result of their manufacturing activities. Investigations initiated by Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Ahmedabad Zonal Unit revealed that the documentation and procedures followed by the ship breaking units are suffering from several infirmities resulting in substantial loss of Government Revenue.”
As per power conferred under Central Excise Rules, 2002, it said, “All ship breaking units are directed to discontinue their present system of mentioning general description of ship breaking materials in their invoices. They should declare the correct and full description of the
goods...”
It was indeed quite a matter of satisfaction that for the first time since 14th October, 2003, in compliance of the Supreme Court order, this Public Notice sought proper inventory saying, “Ship breaking units are also directed that as soon as they complete dismantling and clearance of materials obtained from each imported ship, vessel or any other floating structure, they should submit a statement to the jurisdictional Range Superintendent indicating the LDT of the imported ship, nature of the imported ship [cargo, passenger, tanker etc], total quantity of scrap of each metal obtained and cleared, total quantity of plates of each metal and different sizes [thickness] obtained and cleared, total quantity of each item of non-excisable goods obtained and cleared [wood, furniture, old engine, machinery,
stores etc.], and the percentage difference of total weight of goods and materials obtained and cleared vis-a-vis the LDT of the imported ship etc.”
I submit that the four-day-long strike by ship breakers at Alang happened to protest this notification asking for a ship-wise break-up of material obtained from dismantled vessels. The notification was issued in July 2010 and ship-breakers were asked to periodically submit details of excisable and non-excisable items obtained from the ships they bring for scraping. Ship-breakers were told to maintain ship-to-ship stock register. At present, ship-breakers submit details goods-wise, and not ship-wise. The notification was issued after a multi-crore excise duty evasion ''racket'' at Alang came to light. The ship breakers were allegedly hiding value addition to scrap and were inflating the quantity of items exempted from excise duty. The strike ended on 31st December, 2010 evening after the representatives of ship-breakers met officials of central excise and other departments. The work at Alang yard was resumed on 1st January, 2011.
I submit that the Inter-ministerial Committee (IMC) on Ship breaking, Union Ministry of Steel noted in the minutes of its meeting dated 17th September, 2010 that “The Coast Guard representative brought out some security concerns and incidents of communication sets from ships reportedly finding their way to the local fisherman. It was advised to the Ship recyclers to ensure that such equipment are immediately
destroyed by the Customs as per the prescribed procedures. The Chairman also advised the Naval, Coast Guard and GMB to regularly interact as per the decisions taken in the earlier IMC meetings and to resolve the major security issues in the Coastal Security Committee meetings conducted at the State Level.” In its minute dated 4th February 2009, the IMC noted the security concerns, saying, “Both the
representative of the Coast Guard and the representative from Naval HQ raised concerns over the entry of ships carrying hazardous cargo to Alang for ship breaking and how no information is made available to them regarding the movement of ships to Alang. Besides there was no information regarding whether the Alang Port is compliant with the International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code. In the
context of the present security concerns in the country, the Chairman advised the representative of the Ministry of Shipping, the GMB officials, the Coast Guard representative and the Naval HQs to address the issue expeditiously so that the security gaps are taken care of and also to verify whether the port at Alang has implemented the ISPS codes. The Coast Guard representative and the Naval HQ representative also expressed apprehensions that the vessels coming in for beaching sometimes ply very close to the oil rigs, which could be a potential for accidents.” It also mentions that the Chairman of the IMC “directed that the Ministry of Shipping may organize a meeting on the matter with GMB, Naval HQ and Coast Guard HQ, Custom etc. immediately and ensure that gaps in the security frame-work issues are addressed immediately.”
I submit that if the notification is enforced it will address some of the concerns of the IMC. On the issue of radioactive materials, IMC observes, “Regarding report of a huge quantity of Smoke Detectors containing radioactive material lying in the Plots at Alang, the AERB informed that due to large volume of non-radioactive materials contained in the smoke detectors, it is difficult for them to accept
the material in the present shape for disposal at the BARC facility.” The issue remains unresolved so far.
I submit that Alang coast is a litmus test for government’s sensitivity towards country’s environmental borders in which it has failed miserably so far.
I submit that foreign entities like Japanese Ship-owners' Association and US Maritime Administration are encouraged by lax regulatory regime at Alang beach. They are in the process of turning Alang's 170 ship breaking plots on the beach, spread over a 10 km stretch into a disposal ground for their hazardous wastes and end-of-life vessels.
I submit that while such state of affairs prevails, more than 6000 end-of-life ships have been dismantled without complying with financial, environmental and occupational health regulations since 1983. The theft of excise duty has also been going on since then. The quantum of black money generated in this industry ought to be ascertained besides enforcing the notification.
In view of the above, to begin with I urge you to get the authenticity of the papers submitted by all the end-of-life ships currently at Alang beach and the ones which are entering Indian waters examined by a high powered security team to get to the bottom of the goings on.
Thanking You
Yours faithfully
Gopal Krishna
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA)
E-mail: gopalkrishna1715@gmail.com
Mb: 09818089660
Web: www.toxicswatch.org
Cc
Shri P Chidambram, Union Minister of Finance
Shri Sushil Kumar Shinde, Union Minister of Home Affairs
Shri Beni Prasad Verma, Union Minister of Steel
Shri Anand Sharma, Union Minister of Commerce & Industry
Shri G K Vasan, Union Minister of Shipping
Shri A K Antony, Union Defence Minister
Smt Jayanthi Natrajan, Union Minister of Environment & Forests
Chairman & Members, Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science,
Technology, Environment & Forests
Shri A K Seth, Cabinet Secretary, Government of India
Secretary, Union Ministry of Commerce & Industry
Secretary, Union Ministry of Shipping
Secretary, Union Ministry of Environment & Forests
Secretary, Union Ministry of Defence
Secretary, Union Ministry of Steel
Secretary, Union Ministry of Labour
Secretary, Union Ministry of Finance
Additional Secretary, Union Ministry of Environment & Forests
Director General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI)
Chairman, Inter Ministerial Committee (IMC) on Ship breaking
Chairman, CBDT
DGCEI, Chennai
Additional Director General, HQ, DRI
Additional Director General, DRI, Ahmedabad
Director General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI), Union
Ministry of Finance
Chairman, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, Mumbai
Director, Union Ministry of Commerce & Industry
Director, HSMD, Union Minister of Environment & Forests
Member Secretary, Gujarat Pollution Control Board (GPCB)
Chairman, GPCB
Chairman, Gujarat Maritime Board
ACB, Gandhinagar, CBI
Office of Commissioner, Customs, Ahmedabad
Shri C A Joseph, Under Secretary, MF Desk, Union Ministry of Steel
Collector, Bhavnagar District
Superintendent of Police, Bhavnagar District