Is Dainik Bhaskar into liaisioning business, hunting green pasture for its clients?

According to its news story published on June 12, one NGO fielded by it approached Bank of Baroda, seeking sponsorship for a human chain it proposed. The Bank purportedly declined . Founded on such refusal, question has been contrived why Peepal got Bank's backing for the marathon it organised for the revival of Champa. The imbecility thereof could have been exposed by the bank itself if appropriate questions were shot at which aspect being expedient to be brought to bank's notice, the following legal notice has been issued to the media as also to the bank , which will speak for itself.


M: +917982609575, +919430023560
Rajesh Sahai, Peepal – The Resilience Lab,
Advocate. Shiva Bhawan, Police Line Rd.
Bhagalpur
10.06.18
Kedar Prasad Singhal
Printer and Publisher for M/S D B Corp Ltd. Dainik Bhaskar 
Hindi Daily
Shed No. 8,
Shri Bhagwati Hosiery Mills Pvt. Ltd.
Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Marg,
Tilkamanjhi,
Bhagalpur,
812001
Om Gaud,
Editor, Dainik Bhaskar Hindi Daily,
Printer and Publisher for M/S D B Corp Ltd. Dainik Bhaskar
 Hindi Daily
Shed No. 8,
Shri Bhagwati Hosiery Mills Pvt. Ltd.
Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Marg,
Tilkamanjhi,
Bhagalpur
812001
Rajesh Ranjan,
Karyakari Editor,
Printer and Publisher for M/S D B Corp Ltd. Dainik Bhaskar 
Hindi Daily
Shed No. 8,
Shri Bhagwati Hosiery Mills Pvt. Ltd.
Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Marg,
Tilkamanjhi, 
Bhagalpur,
812001
A. K. Mishra
Branch Head,
Bank of Baroda (Main Branch),
Bhagalpur-812001
Ref: Your News story which appeared in your edition dated 12.6.18 at Page 3 captioned, ‘Peepal ke prastaav par de diye…‘ 
Sirs,
The news story under reference quoting or citing noticee no.4, tends to draw Peepal into its dragnet, which obligates all the noticees to kindly address the following.
In the first place, the story draws a queer allusion, equating an intended organizer of a human chain with that of the Marathon for the revival of  Champa.
In the wake of the allusion mentioned above, you are called upon to clarify the stage  of the purported program of the NGO for which it had contacted Noticee no.4 . To exemplify, a program is floated. That is stage one. That's preceded by preparatory data collection, conceptualisation, background documentation, brainstorming sessions with the stakeholders and officials, preparation of technical sponsorship solicitation note, seeking verbal permissions from concerned government authority such as DM, SDO and Municipal Commissioner. The question is addressed to Noticed No.4, and not to the other three who seem to be liaisioning with or without lucrative interests for an anonyomous set of agencies . We may turn to them after exhausting our address to you. 
Noticee no.4 is further called upon to clarify whether the delinquent questioners on prowl with obvious hidden agenda to liaison for agencies in search of green pasture, were asked to furnish their agenda or not, as reflecting comprehensive conceptualisation etc. In our case revival of Champa is a main goal, solid waste mismanagement is the cause of the degraded state of Champa, to save Champa from dumps, segregation of garbage and composting is the requisite primary activity ,the run was an awareness generating mission in which you didn't join as a promoter for promoting a program but only availed the fruits of the momentum already generated . Inasmuch as, if you had not joined, others were there to join ,implying that you didn't kick-start anything , like what the news story seeks for its client from you. If you find such a momentum generated elsewhere, you or any other commercial institution may find interest, which fact you grossly omitted to address to the news institution liaisining for its clients, which kindly notice. To pre empt the same , kindly attend to the above which conduct is expedient because the newsmen having hidden liaisioning agenda , has drawn Peepal into a ludicrous allusion which is actionable, but not without firstly seeking the clarifications mentioned above. 
Before we turn to the rest of the Noticees, your clarification is expedient. 
                                              Thanking you,
Yours Faithfully,

Bhaskar Newsman, TRIAL WITH

How depraved could a  newsman be, read, vide the communication hereinbelow addressed.




M: +917982609575, +919430023560
Rajesh Sahai,                                      Peepal –  The Resilience Lab,
Advocate                   Shiva Bhawan, Police Line Rd.
       Bhagalpur
       10.06.18
1.Kedar Prasad Singhal
Printer and Publisher for M/S D B Corp Ltd. Dainik Bhaskar Hindi Daily
Shed No. 8,
Shri Bhagwati Hosiery Mills Pvt. Ltd.
Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Marg,
Tilkamanjhi
812001
2. Om Gaud,
Editor, Dainik Bhaskar Hindi Daily,
Printer and Publisher for M/S D B Corp Ltd. Dainik Bhaskar Hindi Daily
Shed No. 8,
Shri Bhagwati Hosiery Mills Pvt. Ltd.
Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Marg,
Tilkamanjhi
812001

3. Rajesh Ranjan,
Karyakari Editor,
Printer and Publisher for M/S D B Corp Ltd. Dainik Bhaskar Hindi Daily
Shed No. 8,
Shri Bhagwati Hosiery Mills Pvt. Ltd.
Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Marg,
Tilkamanjhi-812001.
Dear Sir(s),
Ref: News story which appeared in Dainik Bhasker edition dated 9.6.18 at Page 2 captioned, ‘Peepal ke Regstration par…‘ besides other inboxed stories concerning Peepal, inter alia.
1. This is with reference to the questions your newsman posed, a day  before the above said impugned publication.
2. It is expedient to bring the same to your kind notice for needful.
3. The main query that was posed was whether Peepal was a registered NGO. 
4. Registered? Where? He was asked. 
5. As registered Society under the Societies......., He answered. 
6. Why, asking this? He was countered. Because an RTI activist had cmplained , Peepal was unregistered. 
7. O.K, before you seek an answer, you have to tell whether the registration you are talking about ,is mandatory and whether there  are alternatives too of which your promoter is unaware and so are you?
8. The newsman got hiccups for an answer whereto he was advised to get back to his prompter , on mobile of course, to seek further promptings in the matter, inasmuch as devoid of wisdom to question why, a questioner was not entitled for an answer, much less when holding brief for one hiding, seeking vicarious pleasure in hitting  arrows from the dark. Nevertheless, the depraved newsman was given to note that Peepal was registered where it required to be compliant, about which information could be shared only to a bona fide questioner who was not bereft of the basics of news collection discipline requiring a newsman to be skilled in the field he was delving.
9. The delinquent newsman went back to publish the impugned story about which communications have been separately addressed but here the issue is related singularly to the wisdom of the intellectual resources on which you bank. 
10. It may please be observed that the above  said story inboxes statements got outpoured from different NGOs, as to their skewed perception about Peepal . That was reminiscent of a story we have been given to take lesson from , in which blind men defined an elephant in as many ways as were they in number. Point here is that which the scribe completely missed out as would a novice in the field of writing would. It ought to have been elicited what those NGOs had on their agenda vis a vis solid waste management. It is not expected that all would have one and the same focus or field but if focus is not there nor field , your scribe  committed a gross act of depravity by quoting them about what they don't know, in that we may cite here a hundred things , like mis feasance, mal feasance or non feasance , about which if you ask them they might gawk more precariously that your scribe too might, but that wouldn't be found by you worth mentioning in your column because it would only reveal imbecility of the scribe. But if they or any one of them have/has any thing common, instead of arraying them as hostile entities, a responsible news man would bind them together and join them all to a common cause in public interest. 
11. However, if the covert interest lies  else where, the out come has to be what turned out in the shape of the above publication .
12. It is too early to infer something conclusively until it's rejoinder is heard, if any , apropos what hinges on the hunch whether toll collectors are on the prowl , fielded by extortionists putting on the garb of nobility. It's test is sure and simple. The term 'public interest' is intact, but those claiming to be in its pursuit must first of all check own premise and reveal their respective credentials before seeking other's. Secondly, raising questions without intents aiding a public interest activity must raise doubt in the mind of one whose own outlook isn't doubtful. 
13. We don't suppose you too to  be part of the same gameplan and hence expecting your action in the matter at your level apart from signifying  to us your outlook in the above regard. 
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully, 

Discussion with Bhaskar Editor 

Apropos  Bhaskar's impugned news story published on 9.6.18, a discussion ensued at length with the Editor, which the communication addressed to him and others, as depicted below, seeks to cover.

M: +917982609575, +919430023560
Rani Sahai,                                      Peepal –  The Resilience Lab,
                             Shiva Bhawan, Police Line Rd.
Bhagalpur
10.06.18
1.Kedar Prasad Singhal
Printer and Publisher for M/S D B Corp Ltd. Dainik Bhaskar Hindi Daily
Shed No. 8,
Shri Bhagwati Hosiery Mills Pvt. Ltd.
Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Marg,
Tilkamanjhi
812001
2. Om Gaud,
Editor, Dainik Bhaskar Hindi Daily,
Printer and Publisher for M/S D B Corp Ltd. Dainik Bhaskar Hindi Daily
Shed No. 8,
Shri Bhagwati Hosiery Mills Pvt. Ltd.
Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Marg,
Tilkamanjhi
812001

3. Rajesh Ranjan,
Karyakari Editor,
Printer and Publisher for M/S D B Corp Ltd. Dainik Bhaskar Hindi Daily
Shed No. 8,
Shri Bhagwati Hosiery Mills Pvt. Ltd.
Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Marg,
Tilkamanjhi
812001.
Dear Sir(s),
Ref: News story which appeared in Dainik Bhasker edition dated 9.6.18 at Page 2 captioned, ‘Peepal ke Regstration par…‘ besides other inboxed stories concerning Peepal, inter alia.
Sir,
1. This is with reference to discussion we had at length on Saturday with reference to the news story published by you which we have already impugned. Leave that aside for a moment, in that the present communication seeks to dwell only on the discussion abovesaid.
2. It is nice that you made it clear in so many words that your focus is not on any laches on Peepal's part anywhere. 
3. Your entire focus is on your perception about irregularities purported to be there in the conduct of the municipal corporation towards Peepal. All you have to seek for an answer is from Municipal Corporation ,not Peepal.
4. Be that as it may, we stand nowhere between you and municipal corporation nor have anything to say whether your premise about questioning them is forbidden. Nevertheless, even though not within your target anywhere, it emerged from the discussion that you have vicariously put us in the crossfire with assumptions that are misconceived, which is obviously contrived one.
5. Your main thrust is on a 'why'.
6.The said why is illogically that why is it Peepal which is taking initiative within the system of municipal corporation in the matter of solid waste management.
7.The above 'why' has corollary which is even more poignant from your standpoint. The same is as to why other NGOs whom you think are sitting around are not given to take such initiatives.
8.Your above question tells more than sounds at the eardrums. It tells about your interest which might be covert. In case you are batting for some NGO whose entry into the system might be of some interest personally, you may not be wrong, technically of course but not morally which fact I beg to break up blow by blow herein below.
9.Assuming your covert interest to be bona fide kindly take initiative in the matter from your end, in case you may. You have a very broad reach which please utilise, seeking presentation from NGOs who have held back or who are waiting around the corner to jump into the frame by the use of your good offices. You may expect even us to take part therein. This maybe done within a time frame that would justify and reason out readiness and willingness. And of course competence too.
10.If you are pleased to adopt this course you may have a direct answer to the hypothetical question contrived by you in this matter which tends to presuppose presence of something which is absent in reality but is brewing in the devil's workshop.
11.We write this in the hope that either you realise the folly or contribute to the city a band of NGOs which might be contributing effectively and efficaciously rather than sounding aloud like drums that sound louder once beaten.
Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,

Dainik Bhaskar placed before media fraternity

If not the rest of the world, at least the media in general needs to be cognizant of the black sheeps hiding around and to which end, the communications addressed to Dainik Bhaskar are forwarded to the media fraternity. The following communication will speak for itself which forwards the communications addressed to Dainik Bhaskar.

M: +917982609575, +919430023560
Rajesh Sahai, Peepal –  The Resilience Lab,
Advocate. Shiva Bhawan, Police Line Rd.
Bhagalpur
10.06.18



Ref: News story which appeared in Dainik Bhasker edition dated 9.6.18 at Page 2 captioned, ‘Peepal ke Regstration par…‘ besides other inboxed stories concerning Peepal, inter alia.
Sir,
Enclosed please find communication addressed to your esteemed contemporary Dainik Bhaskar with reference to an unwholesome news story contrived with obvious intent to vitiate public perception.
We beg to stress here our great respect for the media but beg to detest the acts or omissions of black sheeps hiding therein.
The communication will speak for itself and may present our standpoint relevant in that regard for your future use or reference ,if any, if ever or if at all.
Any queries with respect to the organisation, save and except those couched in imbecility ,as promoted by your above said contemporary ,shall be most welcome.
Thanking you

Yours faithfully,

Further notice to Dainik Bhaskar
This has reference to the notice dated 9.6.18 addressed to Dainik Bhaskar. The same is being supplemented, as below, highlighting the misconduct ignobly pursued in the matter of refusing to give acknowledgement of communications that are hand delivered. The following communication seeks to enlighten the so called esteemed printers and publishers about the said misconduct, apart from drawing their kind  attention to the misconduct of the man whom they consider to be responsible , but is he? Sorry, one who isn't on a trivial score may be a blunder where a small lapse may cost the institution heavily. It is for this reason, the communication appended below seeks to stand out, to forewarn, in that forewarned is forearmed , rather than threatened. The communication is as below, especially seeking -
whether you are not obliged to receive and sign an acknowledgement of communication delivered by hand? And whether you may justify your action, whereby you refused endorsing an acknowledgement after the said cited communication was delivered in person to noticed no.3? 

M: +917982609575, +919430023560
Rajesh Sahai,                                      Peepal –  The Resilience Lab,
Advocate. Shiva Bhawan, Police Line Rd.
Bhagalpur
10.06.18
Kedar Prasad Singhal
Printer and Publisher for M/S D B Corp Ltd. Dainik Bhaskar Hindi Daily
Shed No. 8,
Shri Bhagwati Hosiery Mills Pvt. Ltd.
Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Marg,
Tilkamanjhi
812001
Om Gaud,
Editor, Dainik Bhaskar Hindi Daily,
Printer and Publisher for M/S D B Corp Ltd. Dainik Bhaskar Hindi Daily
Shed No. 8,
Shri Bhagwati Hosiery Mills Pvt. Ltd.
Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Marg,
Tilkamanjhi
812001

Rajesh Ranjan,
Karyakari Editor,
Printer and Publisher for M/S D B Corp Ltd. Dainik Bhaskar Hindi Daily
Shed No. 8,
Shri Bhagwati Hosiery Mills Pvt. Ltd.
Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Marg,
Tilkamanjhi
812001.
Dear Sir(s),
Ref: News story which appeared in Dainik Bhasker edition dated 9.6.18 at Page 2 captioned, ‘Peepal ke Regstration par…‘ besides other inboxed stories concerning Peepal, inter alia.
Sir,
Ignorance of law is no excuse . Nevertheless, those who are shrewd , do arouse sympathy by feigning ignorance. In order to pre- empt such a fake alibi, it is apt to bring the related laws to the conscious cognizance of those who might feign inadvertence for acts which are materially and substantially contrived ones. 
Be that as it may, in continuation of the communication aforementioned, delivered in person to noticed no.3, notwithstanding his refusal to endorse it's acknowledgement, the following citations are offered from the Indian Penal Code, just for ready reckoning and absolutely without malice.
-----------------
Section 499 – 502 of Indian Penal Code deals with the offence called,  defamation. 
Offence of defamation can be dealt both under the law of crimes as well as under Law of Torts. 
Criminal nature of defamation is defined under Section 499 of Indian Penal Code and Section500 provides the punishment for such offence.
Sections which follow are aides thereto .
499. Defamation
Whoever, by words
 either spoken or
 intended to be read, or
 by signs or by visible representations, makes or
 publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or 
knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm,
 the reputation of such person, 
is said, 
except in the cases hereinafter excepted, 
to defame that person.
Explanation 1- It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives.
Explanation 2- It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such.
Explanation 3- An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation.
Explanation 4- No imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loath some state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful.
Illustrations
(a) A says-"Z is an honest man; he never stole B's watch"; intending to cause it to be believed that Z did steal B's watch. This is defamation, unless it fall within one of the exceptions.
(b) A is asked who stole B's watch. A points to Z, intending to cause it to be believed that Z stole B's watch. This is defamation unless it fall within one of the exceptions.
(c) A draws a picture of Z running away with B's watch, intending it to be believed that Z stole B's watch. This is defamation, unless it fall within one of the exceptions.
First Exception- imputation of truth which public good, requires to be made or published-   It is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it be for the public good that the imputation should be made or published. Whether or not it is for the public good is a question of fact.
Second Exception- Public conduct of public servants- It is not defamation to express in a good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of a public servant in the discharge of his public functions, or respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.
Third Exception- Conduct of any person touching any public question- It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of any person touching any public question, and respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.
Illustration
it is not defamation in A to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting Z's conduct in petitioning Government on a public question, in signing a requisition for a meeting on a public question, in presiding or attending a such meeting, in forming or joining any society which invites the public support, in voting or canvassing for a particular candidate for any situation in the efficient discharges of the duties of which the public is interested.
Fourth Exception- Publication of reports of proceedings of Courts- It is not defamation to publish substantially true report of the proceedings of a Court of Justice, or of the result of any such proceedings.
Explanation- A Justice of the Peace or other officer holding an inquiry in open Court preliminary to a trial in a Court of Justice, is a Court within the meaning of the above section.
Fifth Exception- Merits of case decided in Court or conduct of witnesses and others concerned- It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the merits of any case, civil or criminal, which has been decided by a Court of Justice, or respecting the conduct of any person as a party, witness or agent, in any such case, or respecting the character of such person, as far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.
Illustrations
(a) A says-"I think Z's evidence on that trial is so contradictory that he must be stupid or dishonest". A is within this exception if he says this is in good faith, in as much as the opinion which he expresses respects Z's character as it appears in Z's conduct as a witness, and no further.
(b) But if A says-"I do not believe what Z asserted at that trial because 1 know him to be a man without veracity"; A is not within this exception, in as much as the opinion which he express of Z's character, is an opinion not founded on Z's conduct as a witness.
Sixth Exception- Merits of public performance- It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion respecting the merits of any performance which its author has submitted to the judgment of the public, or respecting the character of the author so far as his character appears in such performance, and no further.
Explanation- A performance may be substituted to the judgment of the public expressly or by acts on the part of the author which imply such submission to the judgment of the public.
Illustrations
(a) A person who publishes a book, submits that book to the judgment of the public.
(b) A person who makes a speech in public, submits that speech to the judgment of the public.

(c) An actor or singer who appears on a public stage, submits his acting or signing in the judgment of the public.
(d) A says of a book published by Z- "Z's book is foolish; Z must be a weak man. Z's book is indecent; Z must be a man of impure mind". A is within the exception, if he says this in good faith, in as much as the opinion which he expresses of Z respects Z's character only so far as it appears in Z's book, and no further.
(e) But if A says-"I am not surprised that Z's book is foolish and indecent, for he is a weak man and a libertines. A is not within this exception, in as much as the opinion which he expresses of Z's character is an opinion not founded on Z's book.
Seventh Exception- Censure passed in good faith by person having lawful authority over another- It is not defamation in a person having over another any authority, either conferred by law or arising out of a lawful contract made with that other, to pass in good faith any censure on the conduct of that other in matters to which such lawful authority relates.
Illustration
A Judge censuring in good faith the conduct of a witness, or of an officer of the Court; a head of a department censuring in good faith those who are under his orders; a parent censuring in good faith a child in the presence of other children; a schoolmaster, whose authority is derived from a parent, censuring in good faith a pupil in the presence of other pupils; a master censuring a servant in good faith for remissness in service; a banker censuring in good faith the cashier of his bank for the conduct of such cashier as such cashier-are within the exception.
Eight Exception- Accusation preferred in good faith to authorized person-  It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject-matter of accusation.
Illustration
If A in good faith accuse Z before a Magistrate; if A in good faith complains of the conduct of Z, a servant, to Z's master; if A in good faith complains of the conduct of Z, and child, to Z's father-A is within this exception.
Ninth Exception- Imputation made in good faith by person for protection of his or other's interests- It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another provided that the imputation be made in good faith for the protection of the interests of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good.
Illustrations
(a) A, a shopkeeper, says to B, who manages his business-"Sell nothing to Z unless he pays you ready money, for 1 have no opinion of his honesty". A is with in the exception, if he has made this imputation on Z in good faith for the protection of his own interests.
(b) A, a Magistrate, in making a report of his own superior officer, casts an imputation on the character of Z. Here, if the imputation is made in good faith, and for the public good, A is within the exception.
Tenth Exception- Caution intended for good of person to whom conveyed or for public good- it is not defamation to convey a caution, in good faith, to one person against another, provided that such caution be intended for the good of the person to whom it is conveyed, or of some person in whom that person is interested, or for the public good.
500. Punishment for defamation
Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
501. Printing or engraving matter known to be defamatory
Whoever prints or engraves any matter, knowing or having good reason to believe that such matter is defamatory of any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
502. Sale of printed or engraved substance containing defamatory matter
Whoever. sells or offers for sale any printed or engraved substance containing defamatory matter, knowing that it contains such matter, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
The above informations aren't supposed to be not within your cognizance, yet it's worthwhile to have it around for kind ready reference while addressing the subject cited communication awaiting your categorical reply before determination at this end what legal action might be expedient in the matter.
Besides answering the principal communication, kindly inform whether you are not obliged to receive and sign an acknowledgement of communication delivered by hand? And whether you may justify your action, whereby you refused endorsing an acknowledgement after the su next cited communication was delivered in person to noticed no.3? 
                                               Thanking you ,

                                                Yours faithfully,

Dainik Bhaskar, Noticed!

Dainik Bhaskar has delved into what seems to be an unwholesome kind of reporting. How much is it actionable, whether criminally or civilly, would depend on the reply I get apropos the notice delivered to its editor yesterday, who took delivery but refused to endorse it's acknowledgement. That speaks a volume about the bona fide of the publication he happens to head. The communication appended below is, therefore , being posted in regular course . The same may please be read below which may speak for itself:-

M:+917982609575, +919430023560
Rajesh Sahai,                                          Peepal The Resilience Lab,
Advocate.                                                 Shiva Bhawan, Police Line Rd.
                                                                    Bhagalpur.
                                                                    9.6.18.


Kedar Prasad Singhal
Printer and Publisher for M/S D B Corp Ltd. Dainik Bhaskar Hindi Daily
Shed No. 8,
Shri Bhagwati Hosiery Mills Pvt. Ltd.
Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Marg,
Tilkamanjhi
812001
Om Gaud,
Editor, Dainik Bhaskar Hindi Daily,
Printer and Publisher for M/S D B Corp Ltd. Dainik Bhaskar Hindi Daily
Shed No. 8,
Shri Bhagwati Hosiery Mills Pvt. Ltd.
Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Marg,
Tilkamanjhi
812001

Rajesh Ranjan,
Karyakari Editor,
Printer and Publisher for M/S D B Corp Ltd. Dainik Bhaskar Hindi Daily
Shed No. 8,
Shri Bhagwati Hosiery Mills Pvt. Ltd.
Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Marg,
Tilkamanjhi
812001.
Dear Sir(s),

Ref: Your News story which appeared in your edition dated 9.6.18 at Page 2 captioned, ‘Peepal ke Regstration par…‘ besides other inboxed stories concerning Peepal, inter alia.

With due respect for your esteemed journal, and in obvious belief that you are cognizant of your responsibility and liability under the special enactment namely PRD Act vide registration no. RNI No. EIHHIN/2015/66667, besides general law of the land, we are constrained to respectfully address you the following ,with intent to eliciting your stand with respect to the above mentioned news publication, so as to enable us to determine the course of action that may be expedient. 
That, in the first place your kind attention is invited to para 2 of the above mentioned news story stating therein, ‘April maah mein achanak Peepal – The Resilience Lab naamak sanstha ne shahar mein dastak di’
Kindly focus your kind attention on the term achanak. Without at all intending to mete out any slight, your further attention is drawn to a very trivial allusion, with intent to putting your concept in place. The question is when did Bhaskar commence its publication in Bhagalpur. Whatever be the date ,can it be termed as achanak and liable to be alluded to your above seeming insinuation? Please be candid, rather than laconic. Your answer may set the tone for the rest under discovery.
Further, without again intending any slight, your attention is drawn to the fact that the above story has been authored by a scribe who must have been born on a specific day month and year. Kindly elicit, whether the same was also likewise achanak as if it was a bolt from the blue. And also whether your interest in the above publication is also likewise achanak ,without introduction of any clue what made the perception 'achanak' ,so poignant.
You may kindly also inform if the commencement of the work which is not defined in law as not offensive ,can be condemned sweepingly with such insinuations as 'achanak', because there has to be a Day 'one', for everything that happens , one does, be that social work or an act of commerce which you are doing in the news publication business which is presumed to be with objectives other than marketing insinuations, much less,  with malice.
The statement that, Municipal Corporation has included Peepal – The Resilience lab in its 34 crore Solid Waste Management Training, has been placed as a tangent,  bereft of substantial details, in the manner of kite flying which is the exclusive province of yellow journalism wherein a respectable journal like yours can not be conceived of belonging with the possible exception of pen pushers inadvertently gone unnoticed. If that be so, kindly address the issue along side due redress . After all, how come it has been said that we have been given 1. Work order 2. Finance. As an expert with 20 years experience, and as a citizen , the programme Dierector Rani Sahay, offered support to Municipal Corporation. There is no business transaction. The organisation is providing technical and knowledge support without charging any fee. Where is Peepal flouting the law of the land and what favour do you perceive whom having got from whom and how?. This is voluntary support as a citizen of Bhagalpur to correct situations that has gone wrong, despite gigantic presence of entities such as you and those for whom you purport to hold the brief.
That Peepal is unregistered, you said without justifying your own ignorance as regards segments of registration and it's requirement qua eligibility for voluntary services. You ought to have placed your own understanding in this regard before outpouring and exhibiting absence of wisdom in that respect. What registration is required to carry out work which is voluntary in nature and directed towards city’s welfare? State, citing corresponding law or rule, before kindly realising that it does not behove of a respectable journal to countenance imbecility of such kind on the part of its incompetent scribes.
‘kaam de diya, zimmedari de di’ what makes you think the work order has been given or will be given in future? Your categorical reply is warranted .
Training dene ki koshish bhi ki… training was imparted. There was no koshish involved, mind you. Training was imparted in good will for city’s well being, without charging a fee. And why should it fetch condemnation , even if devil's workshop refuse to generate commendations for which a humble NGO is unwilling to foot the bill? 
Bina adhikrit nigam ki ore se bayaan? What have you said? Shouldn't you yourself rubbish your own imbecility in this regard as well inasmuch  no bayaan was given by the NGO, beyond what was mentioned by Municipal Commissioner himself in the same meeting that dustbins will be given. It was just a repetition. Peepal has and would have no role in distribution of dustbins. If you or any one for whom you seem to be fielding , whether selflessly or selfishly, have any inclination to participate likewise, whether independently or in co-operation, you need not be advised that you are welcome. But if you just believe in being a paper tiger , do keep roaring, but not unmindful of the limitations that law casts upon. 
Kachre se khaad banayenge was told because Peepal is deeply involved in voluntararily promoting waste to compost, to save Champa from dumps. In this Peepal would voluntarily play a role in demonstrating and propagating segregation of biodegradable and non biodegradable waste and utilising the former to convert into compost. You may like to invite from the deadwoods playing around, if even they have any program which may be aided or supplemented . But do they or you have? An answer may signify your bona fide or its feigned absence, as may be the case.
What do you mean by Smart City CEO ne Peepal par kripa barsai? Shouldn’t it be the other way round that Peepal ne kripa barsai and supported Nigam for the work it is supposed to do. Peepal did everything voluntarily, without charging a dime from Municipal Corporation,towards bringing a positive change in the city.
Why cant other organisations and for that matter you, do the same or at least let us all know what is being done, if at all, save and except loitering about as something which term we beg to reserve until receipt of your response within seven days, failing which the law of non-traverse would be applied and we would be free to move on to the next course as may be advised.
                                             Thanking you,
                                             Yours faithfully,