on further proceedings in a superior judicial forum. This is grossly
contemptuous especially considering that the Delhi High Court.
has supervisory jurisdiction over him u/a 227.
If the decision of the Delhi High Court was final, then it would be
linked to from CIC's website under High Court decisions. The
problem in this case was that IC(SG) applied his own obsolete
knowledge (ie WP(C)720/2010 was decided in his favour) to the
case and IGNORED the statements of the "PIO" and "FAA" that
matter was already in LPA appeal.
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 7:45 AM, SHASHI KUMAR.A.R.
<rudreshtechnology@gmail.com> wrote:
> I read a letter written by Mr. Sarbajit roy to CIC
> what wrong with Mr. Shailesh Gandhis order , He has directed the PIO to
> provided the information and he mentioned the attitude of the PIO'S , How it
> will deteriorate the dignity of CIC ,
> Mr. Shailesh Gandhi used very tough words since repeatedly the PIO'S are
> forcing the RTI Applicants to approch the cic to get the information ,
> ARS KUMAR. BE.LLB. MA JOURNALISM
> SOCIAL ACTIVIST & JOURNALIST
>
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 11:25 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Further to my previous email, strictly speaking the order of a single
>> judge is only enforceable by the "decree holder". The Registry of the
>> Delhi High Court is quite conservative and it takes about 6 months to
>> obtain the decree. In any case now the decree will await the final
>> outcome of the case.
>>
>> Sarbajit
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 11:19 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Replying point wise
>> >
>> > Firstly the judgment of the Delhi High Court (single judge) is here
>> >
>> > http://lobis.nic.in/dhc/SMD/judgement/23-07-2010/SMD22072010CW7202010.pdf
>> > (Personally, I agree with the decision to declare DSGMC as PA on the
>> > facts as stated, but that is neither here nor there).
>> >
>> > This is a very complicated case. Initially a PIO / FAA was designated
>> > by DSGMC. Then they obtained legal opinion that they are not a public
>> > authority (based on errors in the printed version of the law and also
>> > some previous judgment of the Delhi High Court & PHC )
>> >
>> > 1) The former PIO now contends he is not a PIO till the matter is
>> > finally decided. The PIO is correct that till the matter is finally
>> > decided he is not bound to comply. This flows from the Constitutional
>> > scheme and Code of Civil Procedure and not the RTI Act. The
>> > information has not been denied by the PIO - it is actually a
>> > complaint case. I would go so far as to say that by expressing an
>> > opinion on a sub-judice matter and publishing it on CIC website, Mr
>> > Shailesh Gandhi has committed criminal contempt of court.
>> > Unfortunately Mr Gandhi is a well known contemnor who got away last
>> > time by the skin of his teeth after an unqualified apology to Justice
>> > Swatenter Kumar. When it was very well known to Mr Gandhi that both
>> > the "PIO" and "FAA" stated that matter was already in LPA appeal
>> > (matter having been heard and listed on several occasions till then)
>> > was it not a CORRUPT act of Mr Gandhi to record that DSGMC "intended"
>> > to file an LPA and then proceeded to award compensation on that basis.
>> > How much was he bribed to pass such an absurd order ?
>> >
>> > 2) On point #2 I am glad to see that you concur with my line of
>> > argument - especially that it is for the aggrieved party to agitate
>> > his matter before the concerned court and not at the CIC. Why didn't
>> > Mr Agrawal rush back to CIC saying that the CJI was not complying with
>> > CIC's order - could it be that Mr Prashant Bhushan (or whoever
>> > represents him free of cost these days) knows a little more law than
>> > Mr Shailesh Gandhi does ?
>> >
>> > 3) Since I am the party in the CIC Management Regulations case, the
>> > Court specifically struck down the Constitution of benches by the CIC
>> > by a reasoned order and held that section 12 conferred no such powers
>> > on the CCIC to constitute benches. If for 186 days after that order Mr
>> > Gandhi still continued to hear matters sitting singly it is still open
>> > to any aggrieved person to prosecute him. Certainly the CIC could have
>> > continued to function after the Court struck down their Regulations -
>> > AS A FULL BENCH OF ALL INFORMATION COMMISSIONERS - Like the
>> > "collegium" of the US Supreme Court. !!!
>> >
>> > In any case my griervance petition is addressed to the CCIC - who can
>> > better appreciate my legal points alongwith his legal team. As I have
>> > also previously said here, the vast majority of demonstratably
>> > "eminent" ICs refuse to sit near Mr Shailesh Gandhi and the corrupt
>> > little circus he conducts at Old JNU campus.
>> >
>> > Sarbajit
>> >
>> > On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 10:31 PM, umapathy subramanyam
>> > <umapathi.s.rti@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Dear Roy Sir, could please clarify the following ?
>> >>
>> >> 1) Whether the stand of PIO and FAA that the information Can't be
>> >> provided
>> >> since the matter had been appealed in Court is justified ? is there any
>> >> provision in RTI ACT for denial of information merely because the
>> >> matter is
>> >> pending before the Court ? so, I feel Mr. Gandhi is right in his stand
>> >> since unless there is an express prohibition from the Court , the CPIO
>> >> can't
>> >> refuse the information.Whether PIO Intend to file or actually filed the
>> >> case
>> >> in court, it doesn't matter for furnishing the information, so where is
>> >> the
>> >> case of corruptly recording the statements by Mr. Gandhi. ?
>> >>
>> >> 2) you can't compare the case of CJ Assets case with that of the
>> >> present
>> >> one. each and every case has its own facts and circumstances. it also
>> >> depends upon the nature of the prayers sought in the petitions. We
>> >> don't
>> >> know what were the prayers in these two petitions and hence you can't
>> >> assume that information should have been supplied as soon as the order
>> >> of
>> >> the Court is announced. it is left for the petitioner i.e. Aggrieved
>> >> party
>> >> to enforce his order.
>> >>
>> >> 3) Regarding your point no.3, the Court only struck down the CIC
>> >> Management
>> >> Regulation , not the constitution and functioning of the CIC.So why
>> >> should
>> >> the CIC should stop function , was there any specific order to the
>> >> effect
>> >> that the CIC functions be stopped ? Obviously no. The functioning of
>> >> the CIC
>> >> is regulated by the provisions of RTI Act i.e. section 12 of RTI Act .
>> >> so,
>> >> there is no question of stopping the functioning of CIC merely the
>> >> regulation formulated by CIC is struck by the Court. so, the logic and
>> >> reasoning you are putting forward has no relevance to the points you
>> >> raised
>> >> in your grievance petition .
>> >>
>> >> regards.
>> >>
>> >> umapathi.s
>> >
>
>
No comments:
Post a Comment