Avinash Azad
Early Times Report
Jammu, Apr 3: Establishment of Police Post at satellite township Jagti Nagrota, has been struck in the unwarranted jugglery of terms, as Sub Divisional Police Officer (SDPO) Nagrota made contradictory statements with regards to the status of the area in terms of prevailing law and order situation in the area.
Different remarks made by the SDPO on establishment of permanent police post came into light through an RTI query recently.
According to RTI information furnished by office of the sub divisional police officer Nagrota, number 4308/SDN/2014 dated August 5, 2014, the police post Jagti falls under sensitive area. However, same office, after five months contradicting its earlier statement termed the township as non-hyper sensitive area. "SDPO Nagrota on January 1, 2015 under communication number 68/SDN/ 2015 stated that the police post Jagti does not fall under hyper sensitive area".
The inmates of the Jagti town ship have been demanding establishment permanent police post at satellite-township, since it came into existence.
"For establishment of permanent police post, following repeated representation made by the inmates, District Magistrate Jammu, Relief Commissioner (Migrant) made frequent requests to Senior Superintendent of Police Jammu regarding the issue", documents in the possession of Early Times revealed.
Interestingly, orders of Minister for same purpose were also overlooked by the police authorities.
"On January 24, 2013, under communication number PS/MoS/Rev/37/13 the then minister for Revenue, Reliefs Rehabilitation, Ajaz Ahmad Khan wrote, Home Minister Sajjad Ahmad Kitchloo demanding permanent police post with considerable strength be established there so that government property is properly protected and preserved", the letter read.
Moreover, police department also overlooked Home department recommendation to establish the police post.
"On February 7, 2013, undersecretary to the Government Home Department, wrote to Director General of Police under letter number Home/PB-III/17/2013/811, but same was not complied by the concerned authorities so far", the document revealed. |
