Dear Prasad
1) No harm is caused to you if matter is listed before a single judge
or a division bench. In fact your rights in law are better protected /
preserved if matter is before single judge initially.
2) You were not present in court the day case was transferred to
single judge. Very often when proxy counsel is sent/present the
Division Bench will use the opportunity to send it down AND THEY WILL
WRITE ANYTHING IN THEIR ORDER and put words in mouth of your counsel.
Had you been present in court that day (as you are allowed to be) it
is probable that your present views may be different.
3) When matter was transferred back to a DB in 2008, where was your counsel.?
4 Overall it appears to me that your matter is not a case to be heard
on its own merits, but is a routine one tied up with issues which are
being agitated by others also, hence the "tagging". Better to withdraw
gracefully or see if there is any advantage to you in prolonging it.
Sarbajit
On 3/7/12, prasad vaidya <
prasadbvaidya@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I am petitioner in W.P. 4518 of 1999 filled before Bombay High Court and
> admitted by the Division Bench on 07/09/1999. The matter was listed before
> Division Bench on April 16/04/2003 when my lawyer Mr. Mihir sent his junior
> and his junior without giving any intimation argued that subject matter of
> this petition pertains to the jurisdiction of single the court passed order
> "Advocate for petitioner argued that subject matter of this petition
> pertains to the jurisdiction of single Judge. Office to check and proceed
> accordingly" court has no where clearly written that subject matter of
> petition pertains to jurisdiction of single. However petition was listed
> before Single Bench in 2006.
> I have filled atleast 6 to 7 application under RTI Act to know authority by
> whose order my petition is transferred to single bench and copy of order . I
> have received a reply from Assistant Registrar in response to my application
> under Bombay High Court Appellate side Rules in which I was asked to
> provide exact date of order. The orders are passed by the office of high
> court and these orders are not passed open court and also passed without
> hearing and therefore how can I provide exact dates?
> The court has declied to provide information to me.
> My petition was listed before single Bench on February 07,2008 and court
> passed one line "Petition be clubbed with Writ Petition No. 6550 of 2006"
> The petition to which my petition clubbed was referred to larger and I came
> to know only when I got letter from Deputy Registrar of High court and he
> has not informed as why W.P. 6550 of 2006 was referred to larger Bench I was
> compelled to appear before Full Bench without the issues on I have to argue.
> The most important fact is that petition was listed before Full Bench on
> April 30, 2008 and only W.P. 6550 of 2006 was pronounced for hearing my
> petition was not called for hearing. I told shirastedar of court this fact
> he declined to pronounce my petition and even he has not accepted written
> notes of arguments . The court passed order which is follows
> "P.C. :-
> 1. Learned Advocate General appearing for the respondent places on record
> the copy of the L.C. Bill No. - of 2008 wherein both the Houses of Assembly
> have resolved to amend Section 2 of the Maharashtra High Court (Hearing of
> Writ Petitions by Division Bench and Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals)
> Act, 1986. It is proposed in that Bill to delete the words "and with the
> previous approval of the State Government" with effect from 1st July, 1987.
> This Bill awaits only the assent of the President of India.
> 2. In this view of the matter, nothing survives in the Reference. Reference
> is returned.
> 3. The matter may be placed before the appropriate Bench for disposal in
> accordance with law. CHIEF JUSTICE
> S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.
> V.M. KANADE, J."
> I was shocked when I found my name in the order when the court has not given
> opportunity of hearing to me but shown that I was present and argued this
> not less fabricated documents
> The other fact is that court cannot legislate the law and therefore the
> amendments were waiting for ascent of President of India and therefore they
> were not enforced on the date of decision of reference.
> The court must reply the term of reference set by the authority which has
> forwarded reference it appears that court has answered the reference.
> Out of 3 petitions W.P. 3115 of 1998 was transferred to Division Bench but
> my petition is transferred to single Bench without giving any reason.
> Please guide me and help me because in this matter since it is not possible
> for me to file slpc due to financial problems.
> Prasad B Vaidya mo:- 8857993253
>
> viadya
>
> --- On Wed, 7/3/12, sarbajit roy <
sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> From: sarbajit roy <
sroy.mb@gmail.com>
> Subject: [HumJanenge] Re: advice sought related to online filing of RTI
> application
> To: "HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005"
> <
HumJanenge@googlegroups.com>
> Date: Wednesday, 7 March, 2012, 8:06 AM
>
>
> Q: Which part of the term "accompanying" needs to be explained ?
> A: "Accompanying": to go along with.
>
> On Mar 7, 6:09 am, Sandeep gupta <
drsandgu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> i got a call from cpio in which he said that that he has got the
>> application, but fee cannot be accepted as online payment of rti fee
>> is not allowed.
>> i told him to read section 6(1).
>> he told that in section 691) e filing of application is mentioned
>> which he is accepting, but nowhere it is mentioned that fee also be
>> deposited electronically. i feel he will reject to process application
>> till fee is paid by ipo or by dd or in cash.
>>
>> On 3/6/12, sarbajit roy <
sroy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Which part of the term "accompanying" needs to be explained ?
>>
>> > Sarbajit
>>
>> > On Mar 6, 9:05 pm, Sandeep gupta <
drsandgu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Dear all,
>> >> I have obtained the details of bank account of a public authority in
>> >> which the RTI fee is paid by that authority. I have obtained the
>> >> workable email address of the CPIO concerned.
>> >> Can I send the duly signed, scanned copy of the RTI application to the
>> >> concerned CPIO along with deposit of application fee online with
>> >> intimation to the CPIO?
>> >> Can the CPIO take the ground that fee has to be paid by DD/IPO/cash
>> >> only and online payment is not accepted though he has acknowledged the
>> >> deposit of money?
>> >> please give your valuable feedback.
>> >> Please note that only the members who are actually knowing the law
>> >> position should give their suggesion so that I can arrive at proper
>> >> conclusion and take necessary action.
>> >> regards
>> >> sandeep
>> >> Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
>> >> 1778, Sector 14, Hisar-125001, INDIA
>> >> Phone: 91-99929-31181
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
>> 1778, Sector 14, Hisar-125001, INDIA
>> Phone: 91-99929-31181
>
No comments:
Post a Comment