Legal notice served to Union Government: Advocate Sarat
Source: The Sangai Express
Imphal, July 22 2018:
Legal Aid and Awareness Council (LAAC), Imphal and Universal Friendship Organization (UFO) have informed that legal notice has been served to four authorities concerned, including the Union Of India represented by Secretary, Boundary Survey of India, New Delhi, regarding the Border Pillar controversy by International Bar Association, London, member Advocate Sanasam Sarat Singh.
Addressing a press meet held at Yaima Commercial Complex, Keishampat near Churachandpur Winger Parking today.
Advocate Sarat, who is also the president of LAAC, informed that legal notice was served to the authorities concerned on June 25 .
He went on to explain that the legal notice has been served to the Union of India represented by Secretary, Boundary Survey of India, New Delhi, Officer in Charge of Boundary Survey of India, Shillong, State of Manipur, represented by Commissioner, Revenue, Government of Manipur and Principal Chief Conservator of forest, State of Manipur.
The legal notice explained about the traditional boundary of the Manipur, citing the history, contentions of Kwatha village authorities and village map issued by the ADC, Moreh etc.
Observing that the traditional boundary of Manipur in the eastern border should be the Ningthi Turel while arguing that the controversial pillars erected at Kwatha Khunou cannot be considered as Border Pillars, but should be the security fencing, he conveyed that the previous Government, represented by the Secretariat of Member of Legislative Assembly has sent a letter to the Union of India asking to protect the Border area along Kwatha Khunou.
Agreement made between Myanmar official and he Central Government in 1967 is not constitutional and arbitrary as the Indian Constitution does not provide power to the Parliament to change the International boundary.
The matter of international boundaries should be dealt with the legislation of an Act.
Hence, the Agreement made between the officials of India and Myanmar in 1967 is against the provision of Indian Constitution, he said.
Saying that border controversy occurred at the boundaries between neighbouring countries of India and many States of India, and citing examples like Urubari Case and Teen Bigha Case among others, the Advocate stated that such controversies should be dealt with according to relevant laws.
He also suggested that a relevant Act be legislated or adopted while contending that the Kabow Valley should be made a place under the system "One Country.
Two Governments" as done in Hong Kong as both Manipur and Myanmar have interest in it.
Pointing out that there were reports of finding alleged errors along the border pillars of Indo-Myanmar border with formation of enclaves when some people went and check the area using GPS device, Sarat went on to inform that there cannot be formation of enclaves in the international border as per the international rule.
Comment
