Developed By: iNFOTYKE
Controversies regarding Lawsohtun crematorium
Apropos the news item about the eco-friendly crematorium at Lawsohtun, appearing in The Shillong Times (ST May 13 2018), the Executive Committee of Seng Khasi Lawsohtun would like to clarify as follows :
It is true that there have been irregularities in the construction of the crematorium financed by the office of the Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division, Shillong. First of all, Devistone Swer, Secretary of Seng Khihlang, but who holds no official position in the Executive Committee of Seng Khasi Lawsohtun, had constructed the work without the knowledge of the then Chairman of Seng Khasi Lawsohtun or its Executive Committee and made a mess of things, thereby prompting the Seiñ Raij Jowai, which is the patentee for the crematorium, to object, thus bringing the work to a halt in 2016. After a fresh understanding was arrived at with Seiñ Raij Jowai, the work was handed over to expert builders suggested by Seiñ Raij, until it was stopped again following the discovery of another major irregularity.
This irregularity relates to the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Forest Department a copy of which was provided to our organisation by the Divisional Forest Officer, Ms L. J. Syiemïong, on December 6, 2017 since Devistone had refused to hand over the MOA to the Executive Committee. In the MOA, the Seng Khasi Ri Raid Laban Dong Lawsohtun, now Seng Khasi Lawsohtun, was shown to be represented by one Rajest L. Pompyrthat as the Chairman and one Metilda Rynjah as the Secretary. However, there are no such persons in our organisation. The name of our then Chairman is Raijesh K. Lyngdoh and not Rajest L. Pompyrthat, while the name of the Secretary is Ms Hethilda Rynjah and not Metilda Rynjah.
Therefore, this is a clear case of impersonation punishable by law under the Indian Penal Code 1860, Section 416. In the first instance, someone who called himself Rajest L. Pompyrthat had gone to the Forest Department on the 29th of January, 2015, to pose as our organisation’s Chairman/President with a view to signing the MOA. But the question here is how the Forest Department had allotted the work to Devistone Swer and sanctioned Rs 15 lakh to him when the MOA was signed by Rajest L. Pompyrthat, the impersonator? What is the connection between the non-existent Rajest L. Pompyrthat and Devistone Swer?
In the second instance, someone who called herself Metilda Rynjah had gone to the Forest Department on the same date to pose as our organisation’s Secretary with a view to signing the same MOA. But though there is no such person called Metilda Rynjah in our organisation, yet her signature has been verified as belonging to the real Secretary, Ms Hethilda Rynjah, who held office during 2015-16. In this connection, we would like to know why Hethilda Rynjah’s signature had appeared before the name of the non-existent Metilda Rynjah? What is the connection between them?
Since both the signatories of the MOA are imaginary persons, therefore, the MOA is nothing but a forged/fake document punishable by law under the Indian Penal Code 1860, Section 468. In view of this, Seng Khasi Lawsohtun had lodged a complaint with the office of the DFO Social Forestry Division, Shillong, and had made a fervent plea for the execution of a fresh supplementary agreement with Seng Khasi Lawsohtun since the above IPC forbids anyone from using a forged/ fake document as a genuine document.
Pending the execution of a supplementary agreement between the Forest Department and Seng Khasi Lawsohtun, the construction of the eco-friendly crematorium at Lawsohtun can never continue.
Seng Khasi Lawsohtun
Need to regulate school fees!
While the current dispensation led by the NPP and its coalition partners continue to dwell on the Education Policy, it is an important aspect that parents who are the actual stakeholders ought to ask the Government whether has it devised any mechanism to regulate both private and deficit institutions in terms of their fee structure. The fact is in this ever competitive society it has been observed that schools both missionary run-institutions and private ones choose and pick students according to the income and family background of the parents. The compulsion to get their children educated in these ” best ” schools force parents to ignore this glaring truth. The right to equality also reaffirms the need that every child irrespective of the background he or she comes from should get an equal opportunity to perform and excel in both academics and non-academics. The KSU has rightly gone ahead to address this growing concern in most schools. Those in authority need to look at the bigger picture rather than having a myopic view. If we want the next generation to progress then change should come from society.
Dominic S. Wankhar