[HumJanenge] Re: Missing requests in the CIC

For your future reference.
The way I would have gone about it as follows:

1) Read the "Code for Responsibel RTI-ing" at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rti_india/message/379

2) Researched properly if there is any section 4 disclosure for
who the "concerned public authority" is for SGPC

3) Would have discovered that MHA is the "concerned public authority"
and that they even have a dedicated CPIO just for SGPC queries, one
Mr. Ashok Kumar Director.
www.mha.nic.in/pdfs/CPIOs-290311.pdf

4) Would have filed to MHA's CPIO, and then waited for him to either
a) seek assistance u/s 5(4) from somebody on SGPC or b) got a
statement out of him that SGPC is a P/A in its own right (perhaps with
a
section 6(3) transfer).

5) That would have enabled you to automatically implead MHA from the
outset. When the matter reached to High Court it would be MHA versus
SGPC instead of SGPC versus Sandeep Gupta.

Sarbajit

On Aug 3, 9:19 am, Sandeep gupta <drsandgu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Sir,
> Thanks for your well though after advice. I had anticipated all the
> above consequences.
> I have just talked to my lawyer about impleading MHA as party and
> other matters as suggested by you.
> I assure that I will not let the citizens of this country down as I
> have sufficient grounds in the matter.
>
> On 8/2/12, Sarbajit Roy <sroy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Dear Sandeep
>
> > Now that you are a respondent in the High Court, you must stand and
> > fight it out there.
>
> > If you do not fight it out properly, you will simply give a walk-over
> > to the SGPC who will marshal all their resources against you, in the
> > process you will be doing a great disservice to the citizens of India
> > (especially the Sikh community) if you lose this case in PHC.
>
> > I really must ask you if you had anticipated the consequences of your
> > seeking information about this Trust. Surely you would have
> > anticipated that the matter would end up in the High Court.
>
> > I would suggest that you immediately move an application in PHC asking
> > for impleadment of MHA as necessary party. Under Part III of SG Act
> > 1925 MHA is now the Central Govt for purposes of that part. You must
> > also stress that the Trust can have a maximum of 11 Trustees of which
> > 9 are nominated by the SGPC.
>
> > Lastly, I would strongly suggest that you explore the possibility of
> > challenging the SG Act 1925 as UnConstitutional and seeking that the
> > Trust (and SGPC) be dissolved if it is not functioning in a
> > transparent manner.
>
> > Sarbajit
>
> > On 8/3/12, Sandeep gupta <drsandgu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> 1. that sic decision in guru ramdas hospital trust was made in my case
> >> (order is enclosed). They have already moved HC (I am also the
> >> respondent in the matter).
> >> 2. I did not ask sgpc anything about any religious matter. I simply
> >> asked about this same trust from CPIO.
> >> 3. Now I will make some more research in the matter and also let an
> >> affected party take up the case.
> >> regards
>
> --
> Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
> 1722, Sector 14, Hisar-125001, INDIA
> Phone: 91-99929-31181