Re: [HumJanenge] DELHI HIGH COURT ISSUES NOTICE FOR INITIATING CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS

I want to know whether a Review or any other appropriate alternate remedy can be entertained against an perverse order of Bombay High Court Judge Vazifdar in Contempt Petition No. 83/2011 against Maharashtra State Information Commissioner(SIC) Bhaskar Patil,(former Govt. Pleader) and thereafter that SIC seems to have bribed the PA to that Judge to delete unfavourable remarks passed by the Judge even while holding that there is no contempt and in that order the caste & religion of that Petitioner is changed to probably show the level of highhandedness of the SIC.

---

From: Justice Kamleshwar Nath <justicekn@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2012 6:17 PM
Subject: RE: [HumJanenge] DELHI HIGH COURT ISSUES NOTICE FOR INITIATING CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS

Congratulations. Keep it up. Govt. must comply by the mandatory provisions of Sections 12(5) and 15(5) of RTI Act, as the case may be. There is  a Madras High Court also on the provision, now in SLP before Supreme Court.

                        KN

 

 

 

 

 

From the Desk of :

Justice Kamleshwar Nath

Retd.	:	Up-Lokayukta ( Karnataka ), Vice Chairman – C.A.T ( Allahabad ), Judge – High Court ( Lucknow & Allahabad )
Address	:	`Gunjan', C - 105, Niralanagar, Lucknow : 226 020. Uttar Pradesh , India
Phone(s)	:	+91-522-2789033 & +91-522-4016459. Mobile : +91-9415010746

 

---

From: humjanenge@googlegroups.com [mailto: humjanenge@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of M.K. Gupta
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 9:11 PM
To: RTI Act 2005 Hum Janenge Forum People's Right to Information
Subject: [HumJanenge] DELHI HIGH COURT ISSUES NOTICE FOR INITIATING CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS

 

DELHI HIGH COURT ISSUES NOTICE FOR INITIATING CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS

 

APPOINTMENT OF A. N. TIWRI AS CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

 

 

Yesterday, the Delhi High Court has issued a show-cause notice to the Secy. DoPT, Govt. of India to inform why contempt proceedings should not be started against him for non-compliance of its ourder?  The Court has asked to reply be 30^th July on the pleadings made by Shri Prashant Bhushan.   The High Court had earlier ordered to fulfil the vacant posts of five Central Information Commissioner but the govt. has filled only 3 posts.

 

2.       Regarding the appointment of Chief Information Commissioner after the appointment of Shri A.N. Tiwari in second half of 2010, I, interalia, asked about the names of the short-listed candidates considered for the post and whether the short listing and selection criteria will be made public by uploading the same on the DoPT website or by other means. 

 

3.       On not getting any satisfactory reply, I filed appeal before the CIC which was to be heard on 25^th April, 2012 by Shri Satyananada Mishra, Chief Information Commissioner. One day before that, on 24^th April, I received a letter that the hearing has been postponed to 21^st May and no reason of postponing the same has been given.  It may be possible that the DoPT may have sought postponement.  Now, let us see the outcome of the appeal on 21^st.  This case is important.