Whereas I freely admit that there are some of your decisions in my cases which were not drafted by me at all, I stick to my stand that 2 of them (fairly lengthy ones) were substantially drafted by me, to the extent that in one of them I had even taken the trouble to provide it in electronic form (a Floppy disk since the CIC PCs didn't have a CD option in those days) so that it could reach your computer to polish up in your inimitable style.
PS: My comments which you incorporated were already placed by me in the public domain using this group and other "blogs"
Sarbajit
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 9:22 PM, wajahat <whabibullah@nic.in> wrote:
Yes, Singhi was indeed brought in by me, but only as legal advisor, not as a drfatsman for decision writing! And because I might have incoprportaed your comments in my decisions, it hardly means that the draft decision was yours. And ofcourse all my decisions are still on my computer.Good old Er Srabajit-ever the endearing court jester!Date: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 8:49 pm
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] SC cannot deny information under RTI Act: CIC
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> Sir,
>
> 1) It was a typo - it should be read as Mr L. C. Singhi who was also the Registrar of the CIC and is probably well known to you from LBSA days if not earlier.
>
> 2) The statement that all your decisions were drafted by yourself is not true, because at least 2 decisions issued under your signature in my RTI cases were actually substantially drafted by me.
>
> 3) I have never shirked from admitting that you are / were a vastly superior Commissioner than the likes of Mr Shailesh Gandhi.
>
> With best wishes
>
> Sarbajit
>
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 4:18 PM, wajahat <whabibullah@nic.in> wrote:
> Excuse me! All my decisions were drafted by myself, and there never was anybody by the name of Singhvi in the position of JS or anything else in the Commission. But thanks for the very rare compliment-which would never have come were I still CCIC!> Wajahat> Date: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 1:29 pm
> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] SC cannot deny information under RTI Act: CIC
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
>
> > Dear Mr Varma (and also Mr MK Gupta)
> >
> > It seems that you gentleman (like Mr Gandhi) are not aware of the facts concerning RTI process in the Supreme Court, and you would be well advised to read again Mr Habibullahs order in Adv Manish Khanna versus Supreme Court which is exceedingly well crafted considering the ground realities alluded to therein. It is another entirely that the decision in Adv Khanna's case was drafted by Mr LCSinghvi (the then JS-Law/CIC) and not by Mr Habibullah. The case number is CIC/WB/A/2006/00940
> >
> > Sarbajit
> >
> > On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Narayan Varma <narayanvarma2011@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It is no bunking. It is taking different view if one is convinced that view earlier taken by IC/CIC is incorrect. If One is to follow always what is decided earlier, there will be no development of law or progress of law or understanding different view in any matter. I believe view now expressed by IC SG is the correct view, In fact sometime before on this sight strong objection was taken in context of registrar of companies matter and decision was debunked by many members.
> > Narayan Varma> > --> >
> >
> > On 16 May 2011 23:51, Shailesh Kumar Shukla <shailesh183@yahoo.co.in> wrote:> >
> > Thanks for the updates..> > Please keep it up..> > Regards....
> >
> > From: Sidharth Misra <sidharthbbsr@gmail.com>
> > To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> > Sent: Mon, 16 May, 2011 4:55:19 PM
> > Subject: [HumJanenge] SC cannot deny information under RTI Act: CIC
> >
> > IF IC Gandhi debunks his old boss Wajahat this way, does it mean that
> > the prior decisions of CIC/SIC has no precedential value ?
> >
> >
> > http://goo.gl/umpW6
> >
> >
> > Narayan Varma
> > 56B Mittal Tower,
> > 210 Nariman Point
> > Mumbai 400 021
> > RTI PCGT helpline 09322882288
> > my cell 09821096052
> >
>
No comments:
Post a Comment