Sorry! I never knew of any such notice nor was I served any, but I did withdraw my resignation on governement's advice.
Wajahat
----- Original Message -----
From: sroy1947 <sroy1947@gmail.com>
Date: Saturday, October 30, 2010 9:02 am
Subject: [HumJanenge] Re: Former CIC challenges notice by CIC
To: HumJanenge RTI India Right to Information Act 2005 <HumJanenge@googlegroups.com>
> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/RTI-Act-being-used-to-
> dislodge-CIC-himself/articleshow/5410903.cms
>
> "MUMBAI: Ironically, the Right to Information (RTI) Act is being used
> to unseat Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) Wajahat Habibullah
> himself.
> Habibullah's woes
> After serving as CIC for four years, Habibullah tendered his
> resignation on October 20, 2009 in order to become chief State
> Information Commissioner of J & K. He would have been the first to
> hold this post.
>
> However, on December 4, 2009, the Supreme Court served him a contempt
> notice for publishing on the CIC website a detailed reasoned order
> concerning the need for transparency in the elevation of high court
> judges to the SC. The SC said the order lowered the dignity of the
> court. "
>
> Also
>
> "THE SUPREME Court on Friday (December 4), issued notice to India's
> Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah on a criminal
> contempt petition filed by the Union of India and mentioned by
> attorney general GE Vahanavati.
>
> The petition alleges that publication of two controversial decisions
> on the website of the Central Information Commission lowers the
> dignity of the court and interferes in the administration of justice.
> The petition also alleges that the two CIC decisions were in fact
> written by Prashanth Bhushan advocate for the appellant one Subhash
> Chandra Agrawal.
>
> The contempt petition goes on to state that the appellant Subhash
> Chandra Agrawal is a professional information seeker fronting
> for a
> coterie of Supreme Court advocates styled as 'Committee for Judicial
> Accountability' seeking to promote a few candidates for
> judgeship and
> the CIC is collaborating with busybodies bent on tarnishing the
> court's image.
>
> Habibullah has now decided to stay on as chief information
> commissioner to answer these charges levied against him in his
> personal capacity.
>
> The Supreme Court had decided to take the unusual step of
> staying the
> CIC's orders directed against it for the reason that Agrawal's right
> to information (RTI) appeal had raised queries concerning the passing
> over of Chief Justice AP Shah of the Delhi High Court who is himself
> hearing a previous matter of Agrawal's in the Delhi High Court versus
> the apex court."
>
> and
>
> "New Delhi: The Chief Information Commissioner of India Wajahat
> Habibullah has consented to withdraw his resignation from the office
> to the President of India. Wajahat Habibullah, who had resigned
> as the
> ChiefInformation Commissioner of India, on 20th Oct 2009 was supposed
> to take up his new assignment as the watchdog to the Right To
> Information in Jammu and Kashmir on Oct 26.
>
> According to informed sources the development was consequent to the
> criminal notice issued today by the Supreme Court of India in a
> contempt of court motion filed against Shri Habibullah by the
> Solicitor General of India citing 2 recent decisions of the
> CentralInformation Commission ordering the court's Public Information
> Officer to disclose cerrtain information pertaining to the recent
> appointment of some judges of the court. If Habibullah had taken up
> his new assignment in J&K he would have had to defend the case
> in his
> personal capacity.
>
> The Union of India has alleged that the publication on the CIC's
> website of these controversial decisions containing scandalous
> pleadings of the appellant has tended to lower the dignity of the
> Court and interfere in the administration of justice by
> busybodies in
> collaboration with the CentralInformation Commission."
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On Oct 30, 4:04 am, wajahat <whabibul...@nic.in> wrote:
> > I don't recall having seen any such mention in the press. Can
> you let me have a copy?
> > Wajahat
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Raminder Singh <ramisingh....@gmail.com>
> > Date: Friday, October 29, 2010 9:47 pm
> > Subject: [HumJanenge] Former CIC challenges notice by CIC
> > To: humjanenge <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
> >
> > > Reliable sources, who decline to be quoted, inform that
> > > former Chief
> > > Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah has refused to part
> > > with a
> > > copy of the contempt notice served on him by the Supreme
> Court of
> > > India in December 2009. The information had been requested
> under RTI
> > > by a citizen from Bengaluru S Umapathi on 7th September 2010
> > > when Mr
> > > Habibullah was the Chief Commissioner. When Mr Habibullah
> > > refused to
> > > divulge the contempt notice to the PIO of the Commission, he was
> > > served a third party notice immediately after he demitted
> > > office. It
> > > is now reported that Mr Habibullah has denied that any such
> contempt> > notice, as widely reported in the media, was ever served
> > > formally on
> > > him.
----- Original Message -----
From: sroy1947 <sroy1947@gmail.com>
Date: Saturday, October 30, 2010 9:02 am
Subject: [HumJanenge] Re: Former CIC challenges notice by CIC
To: HumJanenge RTI India Right to Information Act 2005 <HumJanenge@googlegroups.com>
> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/RTI-Act-being-used-to-
> dislodge-CIC-himself/articleshow/5410903.cms
>
> "MUMBAI: Ironically, the Right to Information (RTI) Act is being used
> to unseat Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) Wajahat Habibullah
> himself.
> Habibullah's woes
> After serving as CIC for four years, Habibullah tendered his
> resignation on October 20, 2009 in order to become chief State
> Information Commissioner of J & K. He would have been the first to
> hold this post.
>
> However, on December 4, 2009, the Supreme Court served him a contempt
> notice for publishing on the CIC website a detailed reasoned order
> concerning the need for transparency in the elevation of high court
> judges to the SC. The SC said the order lowered the dignity of the
> court. "
>
> Also
>
> "THE SUPREME Court on Friday (December 4), issued notice to India's
> Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah on a criminal
> contempt petition filed by the Union of India and mentioned by
> attorney general GE Vahanavati.
>
> The petition alleges that publication of two controversial decisions
> on the website of the Central Information Commission lowers the
> dignity of the court and interferes in the administration of justice.
> The petition also alleges that the two CIC decisions were in fact
> written by Prashanth Bhushan advocate for the appellant one Subhash
> Chandra Agrawal.
>
> The contempt petition goes on to state that the appellant Subhash
> Chandra Agrawal is a professional information seeker fronting
> for a
> coterie of Supreme Court advocates styled as 'Committee for Judicial
> Accountability' seeking to promote a few candidates for
> judgeship and
> the CIC is collaborating with busybodies bent on tarnishing the
> court's image.
>
> Habibullah has now decided to stay on as chief information
> commissioner to answer these charges levied against him in his
> personal capacity.
>
> The Supreme Court had decided to take the unusual step of
> staying the
> CIC's orders directed against it for the reason that Agrawal's right
> to information (RTI) appeal had raised queries concerning the passing
> over of Chief Justice AP Shah of the Delhi High Court who is himself
> hearing a previous matter of Agrawal's in the Delhi High Court versus
> the apex court."
>
> and
>
> "New Delhi: The Chief Information Commissioner of India Wajahat
> Habibullah has consented to withdraw his resignation from the office
> to the President of India. Wajahat Habibullah, who had resigned
> as the
> ChiefInformation Commissioner of India, on 20th Oct 2009 was supposed
> to take up his new assignment as the watchdog to the Right To
> Information in Jammu and Kashmir on Oct 26.
>
> According to informed sources the development was consequent to the
> criminal notice issued today by the Supreme Court of India in a
> contempt of court motion filed against Shri Habibullah by the
> Solicitor General of India citing 2 recent decisions of the
> CentralInformation Commission ordering the court's Public Information
> Officer to disclose cerrtain information pertaining to the recent
> appointment of some judges of the court. If Habibullah had taken up
> his new assignment in J&K he would have had to defend the case
> in his
> personal capacity.
>
> The Union of India has alleged that the publication on the CIC's
> website of these controversial decisions containing scandalous
> pleadings of the appellant has tended to lower the dignity of the
> Court and interfere in the administration of justice by
> busybodies in
> collaboration with the CentralInformation Commission."
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On Oct 30, 4:04 am, wajahat <whabibul...@nic.in> wrote:
> > I don't recall having seen any such mention in the press. Can
> you let me have a copy?
> > Wajahat
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Raminder Singh <ramisingh....@gmail.com>
> > Date: Friday, October 29, 2010 9:47 pm
> > Subject: [HumJanenge] Former CIC challenges notice by CIC
> > To: humjanenge <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
> >
> > > Reliable sources, who decline to be quoted, inform that
> > > former Chief
> > > Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah has refused to part
> > > with a
> > > copy of the contempt notice served on him by the Supreme
> Court of
> > > India in December 2009. The information had been requested
> under RTI
> > > by a citizen from Bengaluru S Umapathi on 7th September 2010
> > > when Mr
> > > Habibullah was the Chief Commissioner. When Mr Habibullah
> > > refused to
> > > divulge the contempt notice to the PIO of the Commission, he was
> > > served a third party notice immediately after he demitted
> > > office. It
> > > is now reported that Mr Habibullah has denied that any such
> contempt> > notice, as widely reported in the media, was ever served
> > > formally on
> > > him.
No comments:
Post a Comment