Re: [HumJanenge] Re: DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL ROHINI IS A PUBLIC AUTHORITY, CIC DECIDES

As stated, sharing as copy of my proposed letter to Hon'ble CCIC, Shri Satyananda Mishra, SPEED POST   Shri Satyananada Mishra, Chief Information Commission New Delhi. Date: 3.9.2011.   Sub:   Outright rejection of my application for taking action against the PIO, NSD, AIR for submitting false affidavits before Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner in the hearing of my complaint.   Ref:    Case No. CIC/AD/A/2010/000144.   Hon'ble Sir,             Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Hon'ble Information Commissioner has rejected my application for making a complaint to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction out rightly stating that the Commission does not have the jurisdiction to deal with criminal jurisprudence.  The application was submitted to make a complaint u.s. 340 of CrPC for the perjury committed by Shri D. K. Das, the CPIO by submitting false evidence in the form of three false affidavits. I am enclosing herewith a self-attested copies of my application dated 3.5.2011 and the IC's decision dated 25th August, 2011 rejecting my request for your ready reference.  2.       The application has been rejected stating, "Commission does not have the jurisdiction to deal with criminal jurisprudence". According to section 340 CrPC, a Civil Court has jurisdiction to make a complaint as regards an abetment of any offence referred to in s. 195(1)(b). [please see enclosed page 522 of The Code of Criminal Procedure (15th Edition, 1997) by Justice Y V Chandrachud, former CJ, SC]. Under section 18 (3) of RTI Act, CIC has the same powers as are vested in a civil court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure while receiving evidence on affidavit. Para 2 of the CrPC, (page 522) states, "Any Civil Court can proceed under this section and hold preliminary inquiry". It should than record a finding, should itself make a complaint in writing and forward it to the first class Magistrate having jurisdiction.  Last two lines of para 3 on page 523 state, "An affidavit which is false is also covered in this section."  I am enclosing copies of page 521 to 523 for your ready reference. 3.       That the reason recorded in the decision itself is an error of law and fact and the Commission itself was not required to deal with the criminal jurisprudence but to make a complaint in writing to the First Class Magistrate after recording finding and send it to the Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction in accordance with the Section 340 of CrPC. 4.       That non-action by the CIC against the production of false affidavits or other false evidences will open the floodgates of submitting the false evidences by the PIO's etc. as they will not have any fear of any action against them. 5.       Thus, the Hon'ble IC, Mrs. Annapurna Dixit has given erroneous decision by turning down my application to take action u.s. 340 of the CrPC. I, therefore, request you to revisit the decision and to make a complaint to the First Class Magistrate for the perjury committed by the CPIO so that the same is not repeated in future.    (Mahendra Kumar Gupta) --- On Sat, 3/9/11, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote: From: M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL ROHINI IS A PUBLIC AUTHORITY, CIC DECIDES To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com Date: Saturday, 3 September, 2011, 3:15 PM We are grateful to Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Hon'ble Information Commission for her well reasoned, speaking and logical order of far reaching consequences. Mohit Goyal also deserves Kudos for doing his home work well and citing around ten cases in support of his demand.  During the hearing, I noted that the IC has given the desired time and heard both the parties with ample patience and gave fair opportunity to plead. This does not mean that all the decisions of IC, Mrs. Dixit's are of the satisfaction of the appellants.   If the appellants are not challenging these decisions in the High Court that is due to long, cumbersome and expensive route.  For an ordinary man, it is difficult to take recourse of this.  I have list of some questionable decisions passed by the IC, Mrs. Dixit.  In the latest decision in the case No. CIC/AD/C/2010/000144, IC refused to make a complaint u.s. 340 of CrPC to the Ist class magistrate against the perjury committed by Shri D K Das, PIO, NSD, AIR by submitting three false affidavits before her during the hearings.  Non-action by the CIC against the production of false affidavits will open the floodgate of submitting the false evidences by the PIO's and other govt. officials as they will not have fear of any for the same.    I shall share copy of my proposed letter to Shri Satyanand Mishra, Chief IC in the case by tomorrow.   Thus, every IC has some good and some sulking decisions in his/her kitty.   I propose that we should have a penal of some public spirited lawyers ready to take up such cases on a reasonable fee. --- On Sat, 3/9/11, sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote: From: sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> Subject: [HumJanenge] Re: DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL ROHINI IS A PUBLIC AUTHORITY, CIC DECIDES To: "HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005" <HumJanenge@googlegroups.com> Date: Saturday, 3 September, 2011, 1:29 PM Dear Mohit Your post confirms that IC(SG) is completely arbitrary in his orders. He finds Queen Mary School (minority school) not to be a PA in a 1 page order but holds Guru Harkishan School (equally minority) to be PA in a 10 page order similar to yours. This shows what is an open secret - that CIC decisions are nor written by the concerned ICs. <wink>. Sarbajit On Sep 3, 10:12 am, Mohit Goel <mr_moh...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Dear Mr Sarbajit/Mr Gupta > > what i can read out from my interaction with IC (SG) regarding schools is that he adamant not to allow RTI in private schools... even to the extent that he can ignore vital facts of cases. As did in my case.. on seeing a strong fundamental arguments along with high court decisions he could not have any way out on the matter so case was adjourned indefinitely. Thankfully Chief IC allowed for transfer of case when i complained. In another case of mine reg section 2(f) applicability on school IC SG changed the definition of this clause to again ensure that parents cant access information from school using section 2(f)... !!!!!  > > There is another interesting case of Sh. U. S. Singhal vs Sachedeva Public CIC/SG/C/2009/001451/9027 , where Mr Singhal submitted that land to school was given on concessional rate , income tax benefit etc but all those arguments were set aside and case was heard in favor of school ... interesting judgement for everyone to see... .. i > > Ill suggest that some one should complaint to CIC for review of decisions on Sachedeva School/ Queens Mary schools etc under the light of various High court judgement on section 2(h).. all courts agree that " substantial " should not be confused with " major or minority" , even an iota of govt funding along with controls is sufficient grounds for challenging private nature of any organisation > > regards > Mohit  > > ________________________________ > From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy...@gmail.com> > To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com > Sent: Friday, 2 September 2011 10:09 PM > Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL ROHINI IS A PUBLIC AUTHORITY, CIC DECIDES > > Dear Mr Gupta > > I am sorry to say that your great hero Mr Shailesh Gandhi evidently "respectfully disagrees" with every other "commission". > > On the one hand you praise IC(SG) for his super fast decisions and high disposal rate, on the other hand he passes chop-suey decisions like this which are completely contraryhttp://rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SG_C_2011_000488_13840_M_64... > > Now please take your choice. Fast decisions without hearing appellants or (superficially) reasoned decisions like IC(AD) passed in Mohit's case ??? I look forward to your reply.. > > Sarbajit > > read more »