The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has raided the Chennai Indian Maritime University (IMU) campus at Uthandi and the residence of the Vice Chancellor P. Vijayan in Kottivakkam following complaints of corruption against him, media reports say. It is believed that the CBI’s anti-corruption wing has registered a case of disproportionate assets against the VC. Officials say incriminating documents have been seized during the daylong raids.
CBI sources quoted in the Times of India say that they are investigating allegations of financial misappropriation and corruption against Mr Vijayan. The newspaper quotes a senior CBI official as saying that the VC “had taken financial consideration for giving approvals and clearances” to maritime educational and training institutes who did not have the required infrastructure. CBI officials have claimed that the VC has bought several properties around Chennai. "His monthly salary is Rs 80,000 but he has been on a property buying spree in Chennai and its suburbs. We have seized several property documents from his house during raids," a CBI official is quoted as having said.
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Showing posts with label IMU. Show all posts
Showing posts with label IMU. Show all posts
Monday, 17 January 2011
Thursday, 22 July 2010
PIL asks for CBI probe of IMU
Media reports, including in the Chennai based ‘The Hindu’ say that “the Madras High Court has ordered notice on a writ petition seeking a direction to the Centre and the CBI to investigate and take action against the Vice-Chancellor of Indian Maritime University (IMU) at Uthandi and disaffiliate maritime institutions which had collected excess fee”.
The Hindu report further states that this is to “ensure that all IMU-affiliated institutes collect only the university-prescribed fee”. The Court has taken notice based on a petition filed by the Chennai based Maritime Institutes Association (MIA), represented by Secretary C.V. Jothikumar. The matter came up before the First Bench, comprising of Chief Justice M.Y. Eqbal and Justice T.S. Sivagnanam. Additional Solicitor-General of India, M. Ravindran, took notice.
It is alleged that the IMU listed, on its website, only 18 of the 26 approved institutes that were earlier conducting a one year diploma course after due approvals from the Indira Gandhi National Open University; IGNOU was responsible for the conduct of the course at that time. This year, the common entrance tests for admission were held on June 21 this year under IMU control.
Zeenews quotes a PTI report saying that the MIA sought the CBI probe for allegedly collecting exorbitant fee from ‘at least 10 private nautical science institutes’. The MIA has reportedly asked for appropriate action to be taken against the Vice Chancellor and the institutes involved. The petition alleges that the excess fee amounted to “several lakhs per head.” Justices Eqbal and Sivagnanam have clarified that admissions into the institutes named would be subject to the outcome of the case.
It is learnt that the MIA has another petition before the Madras Court, unresolved so far, alleging that the other eight institutes were allowed to admit students without sitting at the entrance test. The MIA has named nine institutes in Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and New Delhi that “are collecting tuition fees ranging from Rs 2.25 lakh to Rs 4.71 lakh for the B.Sc (Nautical Science) course, in violation of all norms”, says Zeenews from the PTI report. The petition also reportedly accuses the VC of granting affiliation to a new maritime academy not earlier approved by the Director General of Shipping.
The PIL asks that the “IMU be restrained from allotting any seats to the nautical science courses for the coming academic year”.
.
.
Tuesday, 1 December 2009
Madras High Court rules on Maritime Course jurisdiction.
Chennai, November 24 The Madras High Court has set aside two notices of the Director General of Shipping (DGS) that sought to limit the power of the Uthandi based Indian Maritime University. Justice S Manikumar was making a ruling on petitions filed by Mr. C. Jothikumar of the Maritime Institutes' Association and the International Maritime Academy. The Court's ruling appears to indicate clearly that the IMU should be, in its opinion, the sole authority for approval, affiliation and regulation of marine courses.
Media reports carried in the Hindu and the Times of India quote Justice Manikumar of the High Court saying that the impugned notices, which were in the form of executive instructions purported to be issued in exercise of statutory provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, could not override statutory provisions of the IMU Act. While passing judgement on the writ petitions, Justice Manikumar said that institutions such as the AICTE, MCI and DCI were statutory bodies created and empowered to grant recognition, approve courses, permit intake, etc, but the DGS was not specifically created to do so.
The DGS notices were issued in April and May of this year, after which petitions had been filed in Chennai asking that these notices be quashed. The petitioners had pleaded to the court that IMU's 'power of affiliation, approval of courses and regulations, supervision of member institutes of the petitioner’s association and of the petitioner institute' be not interfered with, as these powers arose from the IMU Act. This, according to the Maritime Institutes' Association and the International Maritime Academy, included regulating the intake of students to Maritime Education and Training institutions, Pre Sea and Post Sea training and fixing eligibility criteria for students, all of which they said should be in the IMU's domain.
The petitioners claimed that the DGS had issued notices that restricted the powers of the IMU; the formation of a 'Monitoring and Implementation Committee' (MIC) was also mooted, with representation from the DGS and IMU. The MIC was proposed to, amongst other things, look at new approvals and additional capacities for MET courses. The petition claimed that the DGS was a subordinate officer under the Union Shipping Secretary whereas the Vice Chancellor of IMU was an independent authority. Justice Manikumar agreed with the petitioners, saying that executive instructions issued under the statutory provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act could not override statutory provisions of the IMU Act, and that the DGS was not specifically empowered to grant recognition of institutes or approve courses or additional intake. Doing so would infringe upon the rights of the University as set out in the IMU act, in the court's opinion. The DGS could not usurp the powers of the IMU, Justice Manikumar said. "The contentions that the DGS is a regulatory body for the entire maritime education cannot be countenanced."
.
.
Media reports carried in the Hindu and the Times of India quote Justice Manikumar of the High Court saying that the impugned notices, which were in the form of executive instructions purported to be issued in exercise of statutory provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, could not override statutory provisions of the IMU Act. While passing judgement on the writ petitions, Justice Manikumar said that institutions such as the AICTE, MCI and DCI were statutory bodies created and empowered to grant recognition, approve courses, permit intake, etc, but the DGS was not specifically created to do so.
The DGS notices were issued in April and May of this year, after which petitions had been filed in Chennai asking that these notices be quashed. The petitioners had pleaded to the court that IMU's 'power of affiliation, approval of courses and regulations, supervision of member institutes of the petitioner’s association and of the petitioner institute' be not interfered with, as these powers arose from the IMU Act. This, according to the Maritime Institutes' Association and the International Maritime Academy, included regulating the intake of students to Maritime Education and Training institutions, Pre Sea and Post Sea training and fixing eligibility criteria for students, all of which they said should be in the IMU's domain.
The petitioners claimed that the DGS had issued notices that restricted the powers of the IMU; the formation of a 'Monitoring and Implementation Committee' (MIC) was also mooted, with representation from the DGS and IMU. The MIC was proposed to, amongst other things, look at new approvals and additional capacities for MET courses. The petition claimed that the DGS was a subordinate officer under the Union Shipping Secretary whereas the Vice Chancellor of IMU was an independent authority. Justice Manikumar agreed with the petitioners, saying that executive instructions issued under the statutory provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act could not override statutory provisions of the IMU Act, and that the DGS was not specifically empowered to grant recognition of institutes or approve courses or additional intake. Doing so would infringe upon the rights of the University as set out in the IMU act, in the court's opinion. The DGS could not usurp the powers of the IMU, Justice Manikumar said. "The contentions that the DGS is a regulatory body for the entire maritime education cannot be countenanced."
.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)