There are some generic complaints our members have about Police.
If you could share your knowledge, for instance on
"Burking" ie. non-registration of FIRs, and how honest citizens
can overcome the SHO's usual bag of tricks.
Sarbajit
On Jan 3, 12:56 am, Sant Mathur <santmat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wishing dear friends a happy RTI Act Iimplementation year for all Activist
> ,I may pl be allowed to make a request that any and all aAxtivists could
> mail me any issue involvoing police in the country,giving ,besides the gist
> of the case the following pieces of info:
> 1. Details of aggrieved person,including mobile number
> 2.Name,designation and contact details of cops( at least two levels) who
> could possibly be useful in attending to the issue(s) at hand
> I can whole heartedly assure that as regards attemt to get succour is
> concerned,there will be no let up and no lethargy.
> Its possibly my good fortune that almost invariably whenever and wherever I
> had occasion to intervene results were rather favourably.
> I'm networked with 1500 strong body of IPS officers of the country,virtually
> as a principle contributor to the blog "indiatopcop" and my initials spm are
> well recognised countrywide.
> Help has been rendered by me to persons(RTI Activists or otherwise) in
> hundreds,yearly,in personal and general issues.
> While I would very much wish that no one comes in harm's way,yet should some
> need arise pl just don't hesitate to mail me or even call
> me(919841282324),as I'm available on 24*7 basis.
> spm
> IPS DGP retd
> Chennai
>
> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 5:47 PM, R. Dua <r.dua1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Regards to all.
> > We all actually avidly follow the discussions here, irrespective of the
> > exact language used.
> > We understand the content, and gain knowledge abt judicial system, or the
> > law enforcement agencies, thru these sites.
> > We also understand that these agencies culpability would not be possible,
> > without being hand in glove with each other.
>
> > Please include, all participants in this as we can see that the corruption
> > disturbs all of us.
> > Pl keep up the good wrk.
> > Thank you.
>
> > On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 9:02 AM, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta...@yahoo.co.in>wrote:
>
> >> If that is the case, it must be condemned and corrective measures are to
> >> be taken but at d same time, security concerns cannot be overlooked. In case
> >> I were in yor place, I must have managed the slip frm my advocate for the
> >> getting the pass to be issued without any hussle.
>
> >> However, Justice Gita Mittal has taken a right step and hope that the DHC
> >> staff will not dare to stop u from entering in the Court on the day of
> >> listing your matters. If this is the treatment meted out 2 u, a highly
> >> knowledgeable, literate and computer savvy, what can b said about the poor,
> >> illiterate and persons wsith rural backgrouod.
>
> >> Dear Sarab, if u can suggest some better system without comproming the
> >> security concerns in comparision to the present, the litigants would always
> >> be grateful 2 u. Such suggestions can b sent to the Court and Security top
> >> brasses for consideration.
>
> >> ------------------------------
> >> *From:* sroy 1947 <sroy1...@gmail.com>
> >> *To:* humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> >> *Sent:* Thu, 2 December, 2010 5:13:16 PM
>
> >> *Subject:* Re: [HumJanenge] Re: "Judge Uncle Syndrome" in the High Courts
>
> >> Dear Guptaji
>
> >> You had no problem in getting a pass because you have an advocate.
>
> >> I refuse to comment on the matter of how/why I was stopped from
> >> reaching the Court in time. This is not the first time it has happened
> >> in this case WPC(542)/2007 and in 2007 Justice Gita Mittal had
> >> recorded my complaint (in daily order) and directed the registry to
> >> ensure that a) my name appeared as respondent-in-person in the
> >> cause list b) that I was to be allowed entry into the court on listed days
> >> for this matter.
>
> >> In April 2010, my name did not appear in the cause list. I was repeatedly
> >> prevented from being issued a gate pass since 9:15 AM. Finally at 10:30
> >> I was issued a gate pass. I reached the court-room at 10:38 to find that
> >> this case (items 16,17,18 and 21) had been "disposed: off. (The court
> >> rises at 10:30). There were 32 supplementaries listed that day (which
> >> as per court's official practice at DHC are taken up before regular
> >> matters)
> >> none of which were heard before me, Regular item nos 1 through 15 were
> >> disposed off in the normal course.
>
> >> The very same day, and before noon I filed an RTI to the PIO on thsi
> >> question. I filed an appeal also which has not been answered. I am not
> >> inclined to file a 2nd appeal since a beneficiary of the corruption is
> >> the CIC which was dropped from the case (at the next hearing date).
> >> The DHC Registry has no explanation to provide to me why these 4 cases
> >> were taken up out of turn and why gate pass was not issued to me till
> >> matter was over. If you doubt me, you are free to file an RTI to DHC
> >> asking to inspect my RTI and associated records. I shall pay for it.
>
> >> Sarbajit
>
> >> On 12/2/10, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> >> > Dear Sir,
>
> >> > I attended the High Court hearing on my petition in Sept. 2010 last and
> >> the
> >> > my
> >> > advocate endorsed the specific performa for the issue of pass and there
> >> was
> >> > absolutely no problem in the issue of pass. However there was a quest
> >> of
> >> > about
> >> > 10 persons. I think DISCOM case was pending in the Delhi HC and the
> >> period
> >> > u
> >> > referred that the registry stopped to appear before the Court is prior
> >> to
> >> > Sept.
> >> > 2010.
>
> >> > The information on this will be in your own interest and will boost your
> >> > credibility too. Shall be grateful if u inform
> >> > The Court (High or Supreme) before which you could not plead as u were
> >> > stopped
> >> > by the Registry.
> >> > Date of event.
>
> >> > Regards,
> >> > M K Gupta
>
> >> > ________________________________
> >> > From: Urvi Sukul Singh <usukulsi...@hotmail.com>
> >> > To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> >> > Sent: Thu, 2 December, 2010 1:56:34 PM
> >> > Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: "Judge Uncle Syndrome" in the High Courts
>
> >> > Dear Mathur Sahab,
> >> > I have the greatest respect for honest people but please don't mind when
> >> I
> >> > say
> >> > this,that,-please clean up your own police backyard,which,believe me,is
> >> rife
> >> > with corruption.And the politicians as well.In terms of both numbers-of
> >> > people
> >> > and rupees--I am sure the politicians here will give everyone a race for
> >> > their,er,money! Leaving the judiciary far far behind!
> >> > Warm regards
> >> > Urvi Sukul Singh
>
> >> > From: Sant Mathur
> >> > Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 12:00 PM
> >> > To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> >> > Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: "Judge Uncle Syndrome" in the High Courts
>
> >> > Corruption in Judiciary is mindboggling.
> >> > There has to be matching reponse from civil society to
> >> control/contain/curb
> >> > it.
> >> > If I were to do real serious research on this subject,how could help
> >> come
> >> > from
> >> > our members? 4 deacdes of distinguished public service(15 years in
> >> vigilance
> >> > and
> >> > anti-corruption area) has provided me quite a deal of experience in
> >> handling
> >> > the
> >> > sensitive issue under consideration
> >> > spm
> >> > IPS DGP retd
> >> > BE MBA PhD
> >> > PS I mean every word of what I've said
>
> >> > On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 9:33 AM, sroy1947 <sroy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Dear Guptaji
>
> >> >>I think that you are not aware of the recent security norms imposed in
> >> >>the
> >> >>High Court and Supreme Court nowadays. To issue gate passes to parties
> >> >>in person is now a lengthy process. Let me illustrate the procedure at
> >> >>the
> >> >>Supreme Court. This is as per an Office Order of the Registrar(Admn)
> >> >>dated May 2009.
>
> >> >>1) Parties in person (ie. parties who are not represented by counsel)
> >> >>shall not
> >> >> be allowed to enter high security zone. They may file any papers at
> >> >>the
> >> >>reception counter to the PRO (and for which no receipt is issued) at
> >> >>reception porta cabin. If any clarifications / information is required
> >> >>the PRO
> >> >>will try and inform them after speaking to concerned section.
>
> >> >>2) Parties in person whose case is listed on the day will have to
> >> >>convince the
> >> >>AGM-Security about his need to enter the high security zone. He will
> >> >>be
> >> >>escorted by security personnel to that court and will be escorted
> >> >>back.
>
> >> >>So dear guptaji, All this is matter of record, and I dont want to
> >> >>comment about
> >> >>it.
>
> >> >>Sarbajit
>
> >> >>On Dec 1, 10:29 pm, "M.K. Gupta" <mkgupta...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> >> >>> Dear Sarabjit ji,
>
> >> >>> In ur entire mail, u have not informed how the High Court registry
> >> >>> stopped u
> >> >>> from appearing in the case in time in which u werea party/petitioner.
> >> As
> >> >>> v
> >> >>>know,
> >> >>> there is no role of the Registry or no permission from the registry is
> >> > requied
> >> >>> for appearing in a case wherein v r party.
>
> >> >>> Anyway, contine with your 'sincere' efforts trying to bring the
> >> DISCOMS
> >> >>> under
> >> >>> the RTI ambit. For this, not only I but the entire Delhi based members
> >> or
> >> >>> residents of Delhi will be with u.
>
> >> >>> i repeat my aforesaid query and hope to get an answer for enhancing my
> >> >>> and
> >> >>> members knowledge.
>
> >> >>> ________________________________
> >> >>> From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy...@gmail.com>
>
> >> >>> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> >> >>> Sent: Wed, 1 December, 2010 6:06:46 PM
> >> >>> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] "Judge Uncle Syndrome" in the High Courts
>
> >> >>> Dear Gupta ji
>
> >> >>> Whatever you have written about why DISCOMS should be public authority
> >> >>> is not relevant.
> >> >>> It is precisely because of such emotional arguments that you and I
> >> >>> cannot talk to each other in public forums such as this. I believe in
> >> >>> going strictly by the letter of the law.
>
> >> >>> The fact of the matter is that when Habibullah heard the DISCOMS
> >> >>> matter the first time, he had already made up his mind to pass a bad
> >> >>> and unreasoned order declaring them to be public authority. He had
> >> >>> been influenced by
>
> ...
>
> read more »
No comments:
Post a Comment