Tuesday, 30 December 2008
On 19.12.2008 Justice K. Venkataraman suo motto appointed an Advocate Commissioner and directed the trustees and we five sisters to choose three places of alternate accommodation each. He directed the Advocate Commissioner to visit all these premises and file his report regarding safety, security and suitability of the accommodations.
Advocate Commissioner, as directed, visited Pondicherry. Our lawyer was present along with us. But from trustees’ side a lawyer, not even on record with regard to our case, was present. Matriprasad and Purushottam Kothari tried to represent the trustees but the Advocate Commissioner refused to allow them to be present since they did not have any authorization letter of representation.
Once again the trustees had acted in their highhanded manner and named five choices of alternate accommodation. We had come prepared only with three. Advocate Commissioner showed leniency towards them and thus the enquiry began.
At every guest house/boarding house Advocate Commissioner was accompanied by the two advocates and we five sisters. Each Warden/Manager let us inspect the premises except Jenny Working Women’s Hostel. The warden categorically stated that there was no vacancy and allowed none of us to inspect the premises. Another Manager, on seeing us, told the Advocate Commissioner that it would not be prudent on his part to accommodate us since we were not used to this lifestyle of working women’s hostel. A third Warden expressed her unwillingness but said that the girls were good but not the trustees, who misrepresented and mislead other people and who were harassing the girls.
The fifth accommodation which the trustees had chosen was an unfinished structure and no one in-charge was present to show us around. The Advocate Commissioner did not mention this place in his investigation report because there was nothing to report. Later we came to know that it was a wing of Jenny Working Women’s hostel.
The accommodations cited by the trustees were for working women who were out of hostel during the whole day and only needed a roof overhead to spend the night. Most of the women accommodated there left for the weekend to visit their nearby situated homes. But none of the five sisters were working women and the thought of shifting to these alternate accommodations seemed like our worst nightmare.
Since the trustees had only cited pigeon holes as alternate accommodations for us, we requested the Advocate Commissioner to visit the Ashram accommodation provided to us so that he could better appreciate and compare the unbelievable differences between what was chosen and what had been provided. But because the trustees vehemently opposed our proposal through their present lawyer, Advocate Commissioner could not grant our wish. (Also see posting dated 20.12.2008).
Typed-Copy of the Report is produced below
Saturday, 20 December 2008
A most interesting event happened when the Advocate Commissioner visited ‘Peace Society’, a women’s hostel cited by the trustees for inspection. The Warden of ‘Peace Society’ took the Commissioner aside and reported to him that even previously the girls had been ordered to stay here. She told him that one Purushottam Kothari and his wife Maya had visited her with an elderly person called Batti. These people claimed to be our brother, sister-in-law and father. They represented that their sisters were coming from northern India in a few days and would be here for a few months. Since women hostel was a safe place and they had heard highly about this particular one, they desired that their sisters should be accommodated under her care. They had even paid some advance.
The Warden continued her story and said later she came to know from her friend working at ‘Department for Women and Child Development’, Pondicherry, (DWCD) that these sisters were inmates of Ashram who were facing sexual harassment at the hands of the trustees and that Govt. of Pondicherry was investigating the matter. Her friend also told her that these people had come from the trustees side to misrepresent, mislead and her soft-soap her since they wanted to put up a good image before the pending investigation.
The Warden told the Commissioner that the trustees were harassing the sisters and that we were good girls. But in view of the pending litigation it would not be fair to the other already resident-women if she gave us accommodation in her hostel.
Advocate Commissioner mentioned this comment in his report dated 22.12.2008.
Wednesday, 15 October 2008
The trustees did not like our choice of alternate accommodation as ‘Golconde Guest House’ and they definitely did not pay for our expenses of daily needs and necessities as asked for. So they rushed back to Justice K. Venkataraman and filed a petition for clarification in M.P. No.1/2008 in C.R.P. No. 3314/2007 for clarification of the order dated 29.01.2008.
When the so-called clarification petition was heard, Justice K. Venkataraman, had been completely won over by the trustees charismatic façade consisting of wealth, piety and false spirituality. He was hostile towards us and reprimanded us for delaying the smooth compliance of his order. Thereafter on 04.08.2008, under the guise of clarification, Justice K. Venkataraman modified his own Order dated 29.01.2008. We were directed to reside outside all Ashram-owned premises.
Once again we complied with his unjust malafide order. We requested to be accommodated at ‘International Guest House’, which belongs to Sri Aurobindo Society and not to the Ashram. We also requested to be given Rs.275/- (for food) and Rs.125/- (for basic expenses) per day for each one of us. The trustees manipulated the management of ‘International Guest House’ and asked us to find another place where food was included along with lodging.
So, we asked for rooms at ‘Sea Side Guest House’. This guest house also belongs to Sri Aurobindo Society and not to Ashram. The trustees were enraged by our reasonable request because even at the first instance they never wished to provide us with any alternate accommodation, their wish was simply to throw us out on the streets because we protested against sexual harassment and because we abstained from entertaining their henchmen.
The trustees are cunningly moving towards their goal using legal means with the active help of Justice K. Venkataraman. Let us watch their next malicious move.
Tuesday, 23 September 2008
As the starting point of all our cases is the assault on Jayashree, we felt that it would be better if our cases O.S. No.668/2002 (pending before I Additional Musif, Pondicherry) and O.S. No.409/2005 (pending before Principal District Munsif, Pondicherry) could be jointly tried to meet the ends of justice. We had suffered enough and realized the chaos the trustees created through their misrepresentations and irrelevant documentation in order to clog the proceedings and confuse the issues. Therefore we decided to file a transfer petition for conducting joint trial.
T.O.P. No.85/2007 was filed before the Principal District Judge, Pondicherry for transferring O.S. No.668/2002 from I ADM to be tried together with O.S. No.409/2005 at PDM. The trustees at first refused to appear and were set exparte. When directions were issued in C.R.P. No.3314/2007 for the orders to be passed in the pending T.O.P. trustees filed a petition to permit them to present their objections. Their petition was allowed but the trustees were fined. Ashram Trust and four trustees, (Veda Prakash Johar excluded) was fined Rs.75/- each for failing to respect the court and from abstaining to appear. Trustees paid Rs.375/-. Veda Prakash Johar remained exparte since the trustees had illegally taken away his trusteeship.
On 23.09.2008 order was passed in T.O.P. for joint trial.
Wednesday, 6 August 2008
To our utter consternation Mr. Vasanthkumar is transferred and our case has gone to sleep. Then on 10.12.2007 a fresh G.O. was issued appointing Mr. Vijaykumar Bidhuri, I.A.S. Sub-Divisional Magistrate cum Deputy Collector at Pondicherry, as the new enquiry officer for the magisterial enquiry being conducted.
Mr. Vijay Bidhuri pasted a notice dated 21.01.2008 on the pillar inside Ambabhikshu House, wherein we are residing, informing all the residents about the enquiry being conducted. On 22.01.2008 Mr. Vijay Bidhuri came with his team to Ambabhikshu House for inspection, investigation and spot-enquiry. They visited each of our rooms and recorded our statements. During this visit Subhashini Mohanty, who had assaulted Arunashri arrogantly came to interfere with the investigation, whereas Minoty Mohanty condescendingly questioned his authority on behalf of the trustees and claiming to be in-charge of Ambabhikshu House.
We made further representations to Mr. Vijay Bidhuri. Mr. Ashokan, being his assistant, updated him about our case since it had been carried forwarded from Mr. Vasanthakumar. Mr. Vijay Bidhuri conducted an enquiry but before it could be completed he too was transferred from Pondicherry.
This enquiry is still pending with the Pondicherry Government.
Government Order dated 10.12.2007 and Notice dated 21.08.2008 are produced below.
Tuesday, 15 July 2008
The Pondicherry police were caught red-handed in their collusion with trustees so IGP Meena and Mrs. Chhaya Sharma initiated enquiry proceedings by appointing Mr. N.T. Sivadasan as an enquiry officer. The details pertaining to N.T.Sivadasan’s enquiry is as follows:
- On 17.05.2005 women police were sent to our aged parents’ house informing them that their daughters should appear at the All Women Police Station immediately. We didn’t go.
- On 18.05.2005 Jayashree and Arunashri went to meet Mrs. Chhaya Sharma to enquire why such an enquiry is taking place, especially after she had informed them that report was already sent and had categorically desisted to help. On her table they saw the impugned report dated 10.01.2005 of Mr. Nagarajan which she tried to hide.
- On 18.05.2005 N.T. Sivadasan sent women police with SP Thamizharasi to Ambabhikshu House after 10.30 at night to serve notice of enquiry on us through intimidation. At 10.30 pm the door of the resident-complex closes and the watchman had to be roused for the police women to be able to meet us and forced us to receive enquiry summons.
- On 19.05.2005 five sisters went to the All Women Police Station, protested against the unjust service of notice and the constitution of an incorrect enquiry. N.T. Sivadasan simply refused to listen to us and threatened us to comply. We contacted NHRC and they asked us to participate so that the police may not harass us further.
- On 20.05.2005 backdated summons were issued by N.T. Sivadasan. SP Thamizharasi came again to serve this notice. We refused to accept since the date was wrongly mentioned. She rectified the date and we took notice.
- On 24.05.2005 all five sisters went to the All Women Police Station. N.T. Sivadasan was present along with SP Thamizharasi. We submitted our written complaints and present the long history of harassment faced by us. They heard us and told us that we shall be called again for further enquiry, especially when they will examine the accused men mentioned by us. As a precaution we also sent our statements to NHRC through RPAD to keep NHRC updated about us.
- On 29.05.2005 N.T. Sivadasan visited Abmabhikshu House for spot enquiry in our absence. He was seen with one Dilip Sharma, an Ambabhikshu resident. Dilip Sharma was taken as an inmate under dubious circumstances when Achyut Patel (Managing Trustee’s, late Harikant Patel, nephew) was caught for misappropriation of funds. Dilip Sharma is a known supporter of the trustees who approaches the Pondicherry police on their behalf for all their mischief.
- On 14.01.2008 (after more than three years) Chandramani Patel, who attempted to molest Arunashri, filed an application through RTI before Pondicherry Police to obtain a copy of N.T. Sivadasan’s report. Procedurally RTI application should have been made to NHRC because report is claimed to have been submitted to NHRC.
- Pondicherry police furnishes a report to Chandramani with the most glaring errors which challenge the veracity of the report. Covering letter of SSP, Pondicherry, mentioned the date of submission of report by N.T.Sivasadan as 15.06.2005 whereas the report is dated 16.05.2005, one day before. This is not a typographical error because both the dates appear repeatedly in other places. How can a report made tomorrow be furnished today? Well all is possible in the kingdom of corruption and collusion.
- Chandramani handed over this report to the trustees who filed it in M.P. No.1/2008 in CRP No.3314/2007 and who have been parading this report of N.T. Sivadasan ever since as NHRC’s report.
- Why no mention has been made of N.T. Sivadasan’s report in NHRC’s orders dated 07.11.2005 and 24.03.2006 if such a report had indeed been submitted before the NHRC?
- Why did Chandramani give report to the trustees?
- When exactly did the Pondicherry police fabricate this report for the use and misrepresentation of the trustees?
Saturday, 16 February 2008
Meanwhile the trustees preferred an appeal in C.M.A. No. 35/2005 against the interim order dated 10.06.2005 at Appellate Authority Pondicherry. Trustees’ Appeal was dismissed on 30.01.2007 and the Trial Court Order dated 10.06.2005 was upheld since the balance of convenience was in our favor.
The trustees then preferred a revision at the Madras High Court in C.R.P. No.3314/2007 challenging the dismissal of their appeal on 30.01.2007. Justice K. Venkataraman was the presiding judge who openly sided with the trustees. In fact he repeatedly told our lawyer that the girls should be taught a lesson of how life is lived outside the Ashram!
Trial Court order dated 10.06.2005 and Appellate Court order dated 30.01.2007 did not suffer from any legal infirmity and were based on principles of natural justice as well as balance of convenience.In spite of no question of law being raised by the trustees, much less a legal infirmity, Justice K. Venkataraman, under the guise of showing concern for us by stating that when trial commences the girls will be further harassed and in order to safeguard the girls’ interests it would be better if they changed residence, passed order on 29.01.2008 directing us to reside in some other accommodation other than in Ambabhikshu House.
This was not the relief sought for by the trustees in their C.R.P. No.3314/2007 and definitely not by us. But since we were helpless we complied with Justice K. Venkataraman’s malafide order dated 29.01.2008.
‘Golconde Guest House’ is a guest house maintained by the Ashram for visitors and some inmates.We requested to be accommodated at ‘Golconde Guest House’ till the trial was over. As far as food was concerned the question did not arise and Ashram Dining Room could continue as before. We also asked for a reasonable sum of Rs.100/- per day to be paid to each one of us to meet the expenses of our daily needs and necessities since our ‘Prosperity’ had been stopped.