RE: [rti_india] Re: Habibullah bungles again in a High Court matter

Wednesday, December 9, 2009

RE: [rti_india] Re: Habibullah bungles again in a High Court matter

Dear Sarbajit and fellow members,

Some group members are posting obnoxious and distasteful comments about individuals who are not even members of this group. Sometimes messages calumniating non-members in the most despicable way especially regards parentage is posted without any moderation or editing in this group. In view of this practice going on unhindered, I would like to ask all members including the moderator whether the present and past references to the parents of non-members are not in violation of the following guidelines of Yahoogroups?

1) You may not harass, abuse, threaten, or advocate violence against other members or individuals or groups.

2) You may not post content that is obscene, otherwise objectionable, or in violation of federal or state law.

Some of the postings and language used in this group clearly are objectionable - especially when comments on non-members' intellectual capacity, moral character or parentage is made. I have great regard for the right to freedom of speech and expression of every person, but deference to the reputation and dignity of an individual is a reasonable restriction on that right. Freedom of speech and expression cannot be used for abusing people especially when they are not in a position to respond and defend themselves. Given the need for maintaining civility in our exchanges I have pasted the Yahoogroup guidelines to remind ourselves to temper the tone and language we use while being critical of others. Let us criticise, but let us do so in a civilised and inoffensive manner. We owe ourselves that much as literate and supposedly 'educated' human beings.

Thanks

Venkat

From: rti_india@yahoogroups.com [mailto:rti_india@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of S.D. Sharma
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 11:05 AM
To: rti_india@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [rti_india] Re: Habibullah bungles again in a High Court matter

Dear Sarbjit

As always your facility with words is right on target. This man
Habibullah is a deliberate bungler of the
first order. All he is concerned about is ensuring his own comfort and
saving the skin of his political
masters (Gandhi parivar) and all their cronies who are similarly
sponging off the nation.

Habibullah is a professional boot licker and a disgrace to his father
Major General Enayat Habibullah
who was the compleat gentleman. Wajahat was always a mamma's boy and
is following in the footsteps
of his notorious mother who got him into the IAS. The people of Jammu
are delighted that he has been
exposed on all fronts at RTI-India group, now we are trying our best
to keep him out of J&K.

S D Sharma

--- In rti_india@yahoogroups.com, "sarbajitr" <sroy1947@...> wrote:
>
> http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/WB-07122009-03.pdf
>
> Dear Mr Habibullah,
>
> In the above order you seem to have overlooked the fact that only a PIO can seek assistance of another officer u/s 5(4)/5(5).
>
> In http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/WB-06032009-02.pdf you clearly recorded that the applicant Aftab Ahmed "applied to the PIO, SHO, Thana Paschim Vihar, Delhi"
>
> You also recorded
>
> "However, he (FAA Rajesh Kumar) took serious note of the failure to respond by the SHO as follows:
>
> "The appellant had sent his RTI request sent by the appellant to
> SHO PS Paschim Vihar because the information sought by him
> relates to PS Paschim Vihar. In this case, the SHO/ PS
> Paschim Vihar was required to transfer/forward the said RTI
> Application to the competent authority i.e. PIO (DCP)/WD
> immediately along with his reply/ comments on the RTI request,
> in question and concerned record so that the appellant could be
> informed in time under the provisions of the Right to Information
> Act, 2005. But, instead of doing so the SHO/ PS Paschim Vihar
> on 1.9.2007 marked the said RTI request to ASI Ram Phal for
> necessary action. ASI Ram Phal had also not taken any action
> on the said RTI request till 1.11.2007 and kept the paper (S)
> with him unnecessarily for about two months.""
>
> After the High Court ticked you off and remanded the case back to you for reconsideration you found
>
> "In this case, however, the reference to the then SHO and then ASI can be made by the CPIO, u/s 5 (4) which reads as follows:"
>
> Unfortunately your recent decision was drafted by Mr Pankaj Shreyaskar and completely ignores the fact that the SHO Paschim Vihar was not a PIO at any point of time. The Delhi Police PIOs have always been DCPs or Addl CPs (see http://www.delhipolice.nic.in/home/rti/rtipio.pdf)
>
> It is clear from your own orders that the PIO DCP/SW never received the RTI application to utilise 5(4).
>
> This GROSS INCOMPETENCE is going to lead to another round of litigation in the High Court which shall be paid for by us poor suffering taxpayers as usual.
>
> I also hope that you will resolve the long pending penalty matter of SI S.Narinder Singh in http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/WB-29092008-03.pdf and all the connected matters. I need hardly remind you that it is simply not fair that you sit on SI Narinder Singh's penalty matter (in which he is completely innocent and not liable to penalty) where I assisted him simply to shield a Jt. Commissioner of Police Dipender Pathak from penalty especially after Pathak and his brother officer gheraoed your office and threatened to bash up / arrest your staff.
>
> I must voice that you may be a very high person but it is unworthy of a gentleman to squeeze the small people like SI Narinder Singh, Sanjiv Tomar, Ram Phal etc to allow their bosses to get away scot free.
>
> I must also voice that your pernicious habit of allowing outside interference in your "reserved" decisions behind the backs of the parties is completely corrupt and opposed to the letter and spirit of RTI Act.
>
> Yours faithfully
>
> Sarbajit Roy
>