Dear Mr sanjeev
thanks for below. I have not asked for any specific IC. I have requested for hearing of case by larger bench considering the public interest involve.
regards
Mohit
From: Sanjeev Santoshi <sanjscot@yahoo.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, 25 March, 2011 2:42:31 PM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Reg delay in deciding the case
You should read first paragraph of CIC minutes of meeting date 06/12/2009.
"Agenda 1: Reference made by IC(SM).
Commission observed than an appellant/complainant is within his right
to request for change of a bench for hearing in the commission.
Commission does not encourage such endeavors. An appellant/complainant
however has no right to choose the Information Commissioner(s), for
hearing his/her case. That authority rests with the Chief Information
Commissioner."
Sanjeev
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Mohit Goel <mr_mohitg@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dated : 25/3/2011
> To:
> The Chief Information Commissioner of India
> August Kranti Bhawan,
> New Delhi
>
> BY EMAIL / By registered post
>
> URGENT
>
> Respected Sir,
>
> SUBJECT: Request for transfer of my long pending complaint before Mr
> Shailesh Gandhi to any other Information Commissioner
>
> Dear Sir
>
> I refer to my long pending Complanit under section 18 to office of IC
> Shri SG vide ref no: CIC/SG/C/2010/001036 concerning whether or not
> School X is a public authority in terms of the RTI Act 2005. I wish to
> mention here that I had maintained in previous matters that
> information. from this school should be provided to me under
> sub-section 2(f) of the RTI Act 2005 by the Directorate of Education
> GoNCTD but IC(SG) refused to give me the relief and advised me instead
> that the school was a public authority in its own right.
>
> The matter was last heard on 30 Sept 2010 and prior to hearing i had
> submitted
> my written arguments to the registry of IC( Shri SG) ( please refer attch)
> IC( Shri SG) adjourned the matter on a frivolous ground of asking me to
> bring
> the actual cost of land being used by school. In spite of my forceful oral
> submissions
> that the Commission has it's power under section 18 whereby
> such information can be called for,
> the concerned Commissioner preferred to adjourn the complaint indefinitely.
> It is noteworthy that till date the matter is pending for decision at IC
> end and there has been no
> written communication/adjournment intimation and reasons for adjournment has
> been given.
>
> In the meantime I have come to know that it is a regular practice in
> IC Shailesh Gandhi's registry to delay matters like this on the
> request of the Respondents. Considering the circumstances I apprehend
> that Mr Gandhi has been influenced by the Respondent School X to delay
> the matter and utlimately pass a weak and hollow order which shall not
> stand judicial scrutiny. I have every reason to suspect Mr Gandhi's
> probity because in one of my earlier cases #:
> No.CIC/SG/A/2010/000962/7940 Mr Gandhi overruled validity of section
> 2(f) to private schools, under DSEAR act whereas few months after his
> decision, he as part of a larger bench in decision no :Decision
> No.5607/IC(A)/201 Pinnacle school vs Bindu Khana validated the
> applicability of section 2(f) to private schools.
>
> In these circumstances, I PRAY that you may kindly URGENTLY assign my
> case to any Commissioner other than Shri Shailesh Gandhi or to a
> larger Bench
>
> The grounds for urgency is that parents are suffering alot in the hand
> of these schools and parents agony during admission procedures are
> well known to every quarter of society.
>
> regards
> Mohit Goel
> Encl : Direct complaint to commission
> Written Argument submitted prior to hearing date.
> Legal Judgement submitted in support of the case.
> PS : school name has been marked as X in the attachments to withheld
> identity on email. Proper name of school exist in the complaint/documents
> submitted to office of IC(SG).
>
>
From: Sanjeev Santoshi <sanjscot@yahoo.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, 25 March, 2011 2:42:31 PM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Reg delay in deciding the case
You should read first paragraph of CIC minutes of meeting date 06/12/2009.
"Agenda 1: Reference made by IC(SM).
Commission observed than an appellant/complainant is within his right
to request for change of a bench for hearing in the commission.
Commission does not encourage such endeavors. An appellant/complainant
however has no right to choose the Information Commissioner(s), for
hearing his/her case. That authority rests with the Chief Information
Commissioner."
Sanjeev
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Mohit Goel <mr_mohitg@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dated : 25/3/2011
> To:
> The Chief Information Commissioner of India
> August Kranti Bhawan,
> New Delhi
>
> BY EMAIL / By registered post
>
> URGENT
>
> Respected Sir,
>
> SUBJECT: Request for transfer of my long pending complaint before Mr
> Shailesh Gandhi to any other Information Commissioner
>
> Dear Sir
>
> I refer to my long pending Complanit under section 18 to office of IC
> Shri SG vide ref no: CIC/SG/C/2010/001036 concerning whether or not
> School X is a public authority in terms of the RTI Act 2005. I wish to
> mention here that I had maintained in previous matters that
> information. from this school should be provided to me under
> sub-section 2(f) of the RTI Act 2005 by the Directorate of Education
> GoNCTD but IC(SG) refused to give me the relief and advised me instead
> that the school was a public authority in its own right.
>
> The matter was last heard on 30 Sept 2010 and prior to hearing i had
> submitted
> my written arguments to the registry of IC( Shri SG) ( please refer attch)
> IC( Shri SG) adjourned the matter on a frivolous ground of asking me to
> bring
> the actual cost of land being used by school. In spite of my forceful oral
> submissions
> that the Commission has it's power under section 18 whereby
> such information can be called for,
> the concerned Commissioner preferred to adjourn the complaint indefinitely.
> It is noteworthy that till date the matter is pending for decision at IC
> end and there has been no
> written communication/adjournment intimation and reasons for adjournment has
> been given.
>
> In the meantime I have come to know that it is a regular practice in
> IC Shailesh Gandhi's registry to delay matters like this on the
> request of the Respondents. Considering the circumstances I apprehend
> that Mr Gandhi has been influenced by the Respondent School X to delay
> the matter and utlimately pass a weak and hollow order which shall not
> stand judicial scrutiny. I have every reason to suspect Mr Gandhi's
> probity because in one of my earlier cases #:
> No.CIC/SG/A/2010/000962/7940 Mr Gandhi overruled validity of section
> 2(f) to private schools, under DSEAR act whereas few months after his
> decision, he as part of a larger bench in decision no :Decision
> No.5607/IC(A)/201 Pinnacle school vs Bindu Khana validated the
> applicability of section 2(f) to private schools.
>
> In these circumstances, I PRAY that you may kindly URGENTLY assign my
> case to any Commissioner other than Shri Shailesh Gandhi or to a
> larger Bench
>
> The grounds for urgency is that parents are suffering alot in the hand
> of these schools and parents agony during admission procedures are
> well known to every quarter of society.
>
> regards
> Mohit Goel
> Encl : Direct complaint to commission
> Written Argument submitted prior to hearing date.
> Legal Judgement submitted in support of the case.
> PS : school name has been marked as X in the attachments to withheld
> identity on email. Proper name of school exist in the complaint/documents
> submitted to office of IC(SG).
>
>
No comments:
Post a Comment