Re: [HumJanenge] Former CIC challenges notice by CIC

Dear all
If during the service, on a matter relating to the office if
Hon. apex court has issued contempt notice, that stand discharged,
after he retires, if the officer has replied to the satisfaction of
Court Notice or sent a written Mafinama, which normally every officer
does.
So many contempt notices are served by court every day,
which we can peruse from the cause list of the HC/SC and in most of
the contempt cases, the reply is submitted with mafinama ( if there
is some not a willful mistake).
In the courts number of contempt notices are issued even
against Advocates,
we should not make a hue and cry for such matters.
May be any one, LIKE uMAPATI who was prejudiced with the
action of Mr Wazahat, he want to take him to task. Any one will do
it, who is aggrieved and was hurt with some action of Mr Wazahat,
during the period he was CIC.
If he has sent reply to PIO that there is no contempt notice
against him, PIO should send the reply/information to the person who
sought the information under RTI.
I am sure, that the new CIC is competent enough to deal with
the matter himself, without further involving Mr Wazahat and let him
attend the complaint if any pending in the office of CIC, which might
have been filed by any person like Mr S. Umapati.
REGARDS
DR. JN SHARMA
ADVOCATE/HUMANRIGHTS/RTI ACTIVIST

On 10/29/10, Raminder Singh <ramisingh.bbc@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>