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