Maharashtra Govt.Proposal to ban comon salt

Dear Karmayog colleagues and Leo,

THERE IS URGENT NEED TO MAKE REPRESENTATIONS IN HUNDREDS (ALL INDIVUDUAL OR ORGANISATIONS SEPARATELY) TO THE OFFICER DESIGNATED AND NAMED IN THE NOTIFICATION. WE LOSE OUR CASE IF WE DO NOT ACT BEFORE DUE DATE.  EVERY REPN MUST CARRY A DEMAND FOR PERSONAL HEARING.

CITIZENS CAN ASK FOR EXTENSION ON THE GROUNDS OF DELUGE ON 26 AND 27 JULY, THE LAST DAY FOR RECEIVING OBJECTIONS. GET AT LEAST 15 DAY EXTENSION.  THEY HAVE TO GIVE. YOUR PIL  HAS STRONGER POSSIBILTY FOR HEARING AND STAY IF THEY DO NOT ACCEOT YIUR REQUEST.   MAKE FORMAK REQUEST IMMEDIATELY.

I have not seen and read the notification hence cannot reply to your points precisely. But am trying to reply against each within (….):

Mr. Kisan Mehta,
Your message below is NOT very clear.

 PLEASE CLARIFY
 (a) Whether Govt. Notification No. GSR 340 (E) is that of Maharashtra Govt. or Union Govt.?

(Possibly the Maharashtra Govt as the objections/suggestions are to be sent to a officer in Mumbai. Otherwise it would be Delhi.  I gather this from Pervin’s messages. I do not know and cannot check as I have a serious vision impairment making it impossible to read newspapers etc .)

(b) If the Maharashtra Govt. notification was stayed, which later lapsed, then what other notification is this?
(The stay was on the Mah Govt. Do not know whether it has lapsed.  Stay cannot lapse till the matter is finally dismissed off. I am not informed by Shri Ramlrihnan’s colleagues) It is likely that the govt is proceeding despite stay.  One can take Contempt of Court proceedings in such a situation.)

 (c) Rules can be made after the law is made.
(Rules can also be made under other act not necessarily after the specific bill for salt is enacted.  I doubt whether the govt will pass a specific act. Instead use an existing act. Rules are placed on the legislature table. No legislator is worried or knows the dangers in framed rules)

(d) Has the Maharashtra Legislature passed the law?
Not to my knowledge.
(I am not informed on the specific act and do not think. So that is why there are using another existing act.)

(e) Which other states have passed the laws on
 compulsory use of Iodised salt?
(Practically all states because the Health Ministry, Delhi, was pressurized by the WHO. Our medical professionals were after this passing. They argued and showed that Indians are dud because of iodine deficiency. You should see leaflets and articles of that period. The Central Health Min should gladly give this info as long as you do not disclose your opposition to ban.)

(f) You say that those who have raised the objections will be heard.
By whom – the corrupt babus who manipulate everything from backdoor?
(Naturally by the officer designated in the notification, whether you term him as `babu’or not.  Meeting him and settling our score with him is absolutely necessary and unavoidable. If you do not do, you lose.)

(g) What is the SBC’s next line of action on this?
(The SBC cannot pursue the matter any more without some person taking full responsibility of pursing the matter in the court and has the funds for the same.  Legal costs have increased heavily and we cannot afford. We can advise the Counsel but cannot pursue even though we are convinced that the govt move is anti people, anti poor.)

(h) Is Dr. SL Kothari of Nagpur with you in this?
 In the nineties he was in the forefront in making representations on this issue.
(Dr Kothari and we were together on ban on lakhodi dal. Maharashtra is the only state that has banned lakhodi, a high protein pulse. Not on salt. I am not in touch with him now hence do not know his views on salt. He can be good fighter but stays in Nagpur so cannot help in attending to the court hearings)

(i) One prominent film maker has shown interest in making a
documentary on this important subject.  Would you be interested in being interviewed?
(Welcome. I have to continue my opposition to ban as that affects the poorest the most. I am ready. Would share all that I know.)

(j) Can you please send me a copy of SBC’s petition and the order passed?

(We do not have any papers with us.)

Best Wishes

Dr. Leo Rebello

——-Original Message —–

From: Karmayog.com <info@karmayog.com>
To: karmayog group <karmayog@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 2:58 PM
Subject: reg. Ban on salts other than iodised salt

Ban on salts other than iodised salt Letter of Leo Rebello requesting the President to not to sign on the Maharashtra Government request for confirming the law, if enacted in the Maharashtra Legislature may not work and surely will not stop the Maharashtra Government for banning all salts except the iodised salt immediately.

 The reason is that the govt is planning to change the rules and not enact the law. Rules do not go to the President for confirmaiton. The Notification has to be objected to and all those who have formally represented before the last day may get an opportunity for present objectioons personally.

Representations from the public will be taken into consideration. This is the situation for issues that do notcome before the Legislature.

Shri S. Rashakrishnan had, as Senior Advocate of the Save Bombay Committee, taken up and argued in the PIL objecting to banning common salt then and obtained a stay for us against the govt.  Now he is a Senior Judge of the High Court. Best wishes.

Kisan Mehta
Save Bombay Committee
620 Jame Jamshed Road, Dadar East,
Mumbai 400014
       Tel: 022 2414 9688
E.mail: kisansbc@vsnl.com