Re: [RTI INDIA] Re: Fwd: [HumJanenge] Former CIC challenges notice by CIC

My letter was addressed and sent to the President

Wajahat

----- Original Message -----
From: sroy 1947 <sroy1947@gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, November 2, 2010 2:04 pm
Subject: Re: [RTI INDIA] Re: Fwd: [HumJanenge] Former CIC challenges notice by CIC
To: rti_india@googlegroups.com

Sir

The DoPT has categorically informed citizens in RTI that

1) Your resignation was not effective immediately because it was conditional upon your expressed wish to be relieved of office by Madam President, thereby distinguishing your case from Ms Omita Paul's

2) There is no provision in the RTI Act for a resignation, once submitted, to be withdrawn.

3) There is a laid down procedure for resignations such as yours to be forwarded to Madam President via the DoPT after obtaining the approval of the Minister. This is usually done upto a month after the date of the resignations. In your case, the Minister declined to forward your resignation to Madam President. In other words, Madam President never even had a chance to read your letter of resignation and had to be content with press reports.

Sarbajit

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 8:05 AM, wajahat <whabibullah@nic.in> wrote:

Silly! A fictional media report does not a notice make. And i did withdraw the resignation. It can hardly be' unwise' to conceal the truth

Wajahat

----- Original Message -----
From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
Date: Monday, November 1, 2010 10:10 am
Subject: Re: [RTI INDIA] Re: Fwd: [HumJanenge] Former CIC challenges notice by CIC
To: rti_india@googlegroups.com

Sir

There are not 1 but at least 3 media reports about this contempt notice on you from the SC. You may also care to read this post to our group dated 30 Sep 2010.
http://old.nabble.com/SC-notice-disappears-from-CIC-records-ts29853983.html#a29853983
titled as "SC notice disappears from CIC records"

" "The office of CIC is proposing to reply to the applicant that "*the contempt notice is not part of the CIC records but is personal to Mr Wajahat  Habibullah*". The legal officer of the CIC has, however, suggested to the PIO to deny that
the information (contempt notice) exists.."

Apropos your message to the HumJanenge group. It may be unwise to publicly admit that you were advised to withdraw your resignation by the Govt. The correct legal position is that your resignation never came into effect because it was conditional unlike the resignation submitted by Ms. Omita Paul which came into effect immediately.

Sarbajit

On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 9:50 PM, wajahat <whabibullah@nic.in> wrote:

the report seems entirely fictional. I never noticed it, nor was any such notice served on me. My resignation and its withdrawal were totalluy unrelated to this supposed notice

Wajahat

----- Original Message -----
From: sroy1947 <sroy1947@gmail.com>

Date: Saturday, October 30, 2010 8:56 am
Subject: [RTI INDIA] Re: Fwd: [HumJanenge] Former CIC challenges notice by CIC
To: "RTI India : Right to Information, CIC" <rti_india@googlegroups.com>

> Dear Sir
>
> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/RTI-Act-being-used-to-
> dislodge-CIC-himself/articleshow/5410903.cms
>
> "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. "
>
> The RTI request has been filed by another member of this group Mr
> S.Umapathi of Bangaore, who if you recall, was himself served a
> contempt notice by the law officer of CIC for "misbehaving"
> during a
> Videoconference before Mr Tiwari, and which caused considerable
> discussion on thesegroups.
>
> Incidentally, I have also been sent a third party notice by CIC in
> this matter as Mr Umapathi has requested copies of my
> involvement in
> this matter.
>
> Other reports in the media have said
>
> "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."
>
> and another one
>
> "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."
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On Oct 30, 4:03 am, wajahat <whabibul...@nic.in> wrote:
> > But I never did receive such a notice.  Which case is
> thgis supposed to have been in?
> > Wajahat
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "S.D. Sharma" <anonsha...@yahoo.com>
> > Date: Friday, October 29, 2010 10:01 pm
> > Subject: [RTI INDIA] Fwd: [HumJanenge] Former CIC challenges
> notice by CIC
> > To: rti_in...@yahoogroups.com, rti_india@googlegroups.com
> >
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/HumJanenge/t/437ef2701387b393
> >
> > > 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.