Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Attn. Mr. Girish Mittal

All this is happening because top to bottom every one is basing his/her orders on Meri Marzi and not on laid down law/rules. knowing fully well that his/her is not last word so let the applicant run around , go to next higher up , to sort out the problem created by him/her. and no action can be taken against his/her illegal order. Excuse- system is like this. there is not one Chief IC but all there are Chief ICs. One DB of a HC/Supreme court says order is set aside because official did not follow the principles of natural justice, But another DB of the same court do not follow the principle of natural justice when neither it allow petitioner to speak about the law applicable to the case nor it give single reason for deciding the case, which shows any application of reasoning to base the judgement. simply because every where -there is no Rule of Law but Rule of  Meri Marzi. rgds. beniwal               --- On Mon, 16/7/12, Sandeep gupta <drsandgupta@gmail.com> wrote: From: Sandeep gupta <drsandgupta@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Attn. Mr. Girish Mittal To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com Date: Monday, 16 July, 2012, 4:03 PM an information commissioner's order is not final word. another information commissioner is within his rights to pass judgement as per his own understanding. IC (SS) says that application forms of candidates selected for a particular degree course are personal information and have no relation to any public activity. 2 years back IC ANT said that information is public information. On 7/16/12, sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Girish > > Thanks for reverting > > 1) It seems that you agree that individual Information Commissioners > sitting singly can pass orders disregarding the previously passed > decisions of other ICs (especially the Chief). > > 2) Mr. Shailesh Gandhi goes 1 step further by openly disregarding > decisions of "Full Benches" of the Commission even when they are > brought to his notice by the parties. He says that "this > Commission" (whatever that may mean) "respectfully disagrees" and then > passes his orders. What are the poor appellants expected to do with > all this confusion ?? > > 3) Well they go to High Court.and get scathing orders passed > concerning his "lack of judicial discipline". > > 4) My particular grievance was against Mr. Shekhar Singh, the Google > financed "spy", who was intent on getting the Govt instrumentalities > to digitise tens of thousands of documents for him, (at 60 paise per > page) to be provided to him at Rs. 50 only. Not only is this a > collossal waste of tax payers money, he was doing this at Google's > behest so that Google could publish it (like they publish so many > books still under copyright). It is another matter that Mr. Shekhar > Singh was assuming the garb of a transparency advocate till I got him > to admit during proceedings that he had received over Rs. 1 crore from > Google for all this. > > 5) I was therefore shocked to see the identical queries ostensibly > submitted by your father. The queries were submitted well after the > Shekhar Singh order (which was publicised from this group also). Since > it is well known that Google (which is closely associated with > America's intelligence agencies and is a CIA front)  is financing > many > so-called RTI Activists in India, I was curious if you / your father > are among them ? Or are you unwitting pawns of the NCPRI (what I call > "RTI taxis" like Subhash Chandra Agrawal who will file an RTI for > anyone .. or qv. your RTIs against Corporation Bank,  BoB etc). > > 6) We have different views on Shailesh Bhai.  Since you are from > Mumbai, you probably know him better than me. Mr. Habibullah, for all > his faults at least afforded me the opportunity to intervene as 3rd > party in Shekhar Singh's matter and get the information denied, why > could not Shailesh Gandhi not do the same in your case ? > > 7) Kindly note that I am not defending Aaakash Deep. Like him, I am > aggrieved at Shailesh Gandhi's completely, egoistic, incompetent, > legally illiterate style of functioning, and also the deep and > pervasive stench of corruption in his office when he was an IC. You > don't know all the facts in AkaashDeep's case, I am sure the truth > will come out eventually despite Shailesh engaging some big legal > names to see that it doesn't. > > 8) regarding 19(7). ALL citizens are aggrieved by ALL ICs sitting > singly and their orders. When I got the Delhi High Court to declare > that ICs sitting singly was illegal the entire NCPRI brigade was up in > arms and got CIC to approach the SC - despite ANT, Deepak Sandhu etc > publicly agreeing with my reading of the RTI Act - The CIC is a > "collegium" like the US Supreme Court, and must sit jointly to decide > all cases.. That is the only way to stop corrupt ICs sitting singly. > > Warmly > Sarbajit > > On Jul 16, 11:24 am, Girish Mittal <rtng.mit...@gmail.com> wrote: >>    Dear Sarbajit, >> >>            Why do you think that if then CIC has passed an illegal order >> in >> past, it should continue in perpetuity? If you read the order of Wajahat >> carefully, even that has not been implemented    in  CIC??? Did you write >> about it? >> >>             Shailesh Gandhi has passed a very reasoned order. We can >> agree >> to disagree on this. >> >>             I don't understand the motivation you have in defending >> Akashdeep, who is an accused in the in the instant case and who writes to >> CIC to constitute a full bench, who meekly agrees. Does the JS/Law not >> know >> the 19(7) of RTI Act? Besides, what business he has in not following the >> order of legally appointed IC, irrespective of whether that order is >> >>             There is an order of SC, which has cautioned against >> arbitrary >> granting of ex-parte stay...But our HCs are very much doing the same..If >> you want, I can send you copy of the said judgement. >> >>    Regards. >> >>    Girish Mittal >> > -- Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta 1722, Sector 14, Hisar-125001, INDIA Phone: 91-99929-31181