I am grateful to a member from mumbai who has forwarded to me the decisions of the Mumbai High Court dismissing all of Shailesh Gandhi's various Writs with adverse observations against the plaintiffs / petitioner.
"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.92 OF 2007
Sailesh Gandhi .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
and
Andheri Juhu Lane Navbharat
Coop.Hsg.Society Ltd. .. Applicant
WITH
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.93 OF 2007
Sailesh Gandhi .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
and
Riddhi siddhi Enterprises .. Applicant.
WITH
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.94 OF 2007
Sailesh Gandhi .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
and
Shree Sai Shraddha (SRA) CHSL .. Applicant
WITH
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.87 OF 2007
Sailesh Gandhi .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
and
M/s.S.P.Construction Co. & Anr. .. Applicants
IN
P.I.L.WRIT PETITION NO.156 OF 2006
Sailesh Gandhi .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.77 OF 2007
IN
P.I.L. WRIT PETITION NO.6 OF 2007
Forum for Improving Quality of
Life in Mumbai Suburbs .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra through
Chief Secretary to Govt. of
Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
and
Slum Redevelopers' Association .. Applicant
Mr.N.Y.Walawalkar with Mr.Uday Warunjikar
appointed as Amicus Curaie
Mr.R.M.Kadam, Advocate General i/b.
Mr.N.P.Pandit, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 and 3
Mr.R.M.Kadam, Advocate General with
Mr.G.D.Utangale i/b. Uttangale & Co. for
respondent No.2.
Mr.A.K.Singh for applicant in Ch/S.87 of 2007
Mr.S.G.Surana for applicant in Ch/S.77 of 2007
CORAM : J.N.PATEL, Actg.C.J &
S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J
DATE : 21st March 2007.
Mr.Walawalkar, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for petitioners in these petitions, has
made a request to this Court to appoint Advocate
Mr.Warunjikar to assist him in the matter.
Consent letter of Mr.Warunjikar is taken on
record. We, therefore, appoint Mr.Warunjikar as
amicus curaie to assist Mr.Walawalkar in these
petitions.
2. All these chamber summons have been taken
out in these two writ petitions claiming that the
applicants be permitted to intervene in the
petition as any orders which may be passed by
this Court in these two petitions may adversely
affect their interest and in most of the cases it
is contended that the scheme under S.R.A. has
been duly approved and even the Court has also
disposed of the petitions which were filed and,
therefore, nothing is required to be done further
by way of investigations into the allegations
made in various complaints lodged with the
Authorities.
3. In our view, no such intervention can be
permitted as the applicants who have acted in
accordance with law and have not indulged in any
illegality or irregularity while implementing the
schemes under SRA, they do not fear any adverse
action against them by the Authorities and, their
interest stands well protected. In case of
persons/builder's association or societies who
have found to have been involved or whose
complicity is made out in the course of
investigation, their cases will have to be dealt
with in accordance with law. Therefore, the
apprehension of the applicants that they may be
put to unnecessary harassment is unfounded.
4. We need not reiterate that the
authorities who are investigating into the
complaints have to follow a proper procedure so
that innocent do not suffer and the guilty should
not escape. Every person who will be facing the
investigation has a remedy under the law as this
court is only monitoring the investigations which
are required to be conducted into cases where
complaints are lodged and this does not adversely
affect the interest of innocent persons. We are
informed that all applicants - intervenors are in
no way concerned with any offence and complaint
and complaint, if any, filed against them is
false. It is for the investigating agency to
find out their complicity in the matter.
Further, any orders passed in these petitions, do
not in any manner adversely affect innocent
person, nor this Court has passed specific orders
to register offence against a particular
individual without there being any complaint
against them. Therefore, all these chamber
summonses taken out by the applicants to
intervene in these petition stand rejected.
( S.C.Dharmadhikari, J) ( J.N.Patel, Acting,C.J)"
--- In rti_india@yahoogroups.com, sarbajit roy <mail.sarbajitroy@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Bhaskar
>
> Unfortunately for you, and also Mr Gandhi, this groups' records do not
> agree with your statement.
>
> "Advocate General Ravi Kadam took objection to a letter circulated by
> Gandhi to the media stating that the court was dragging its feet on
> the case. Gandhi had, in the letter, said that the matter was
> adjourned nine times. He also said that `the court's behaviour in
> calling me several times and not hearing the matter though it is
> called out, without reasons, is humiliating'."
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rti_india/message/994
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rti_india/message/995
>
> Shaileshbhai's contempt had nothing to do with addressing the courts
> as "My Lord", but everything to do with interfering as an associate of
> a section of Mumbai's land mafia in the
> SRA scandal to further prejudice proceedings in the court and get a
> SIT constituted taking the case papers /investigation away from the
> ACB.
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On 6/23/10, Bhaskar Prabhu <mahitiadhikarmanch@...> wrote:
> > Dear All,
> >
> > I can understand some of the members are allergic to towards shailesh gandhi
> > and taste towards babus. I can only say about Shailesh Gandhi apology to
> > Swantantra Kumar. He was asked by the Court "Did he give statement saying
> > Judges have habit getting addressed My Lord My Lord so judges are
> > considering themselves to Lords" in responce to statement published in
> > Mumbai Mirror was used and same was put forwarded by Mr Ravi Kadam Adv for
> > Maharashtra State in SRA fraud case filed by Shailesh Gandhi in the court.
> > Shailesh was fighting his case self. There is nothing wrong in apology given
> > by shailesh gandhi when Swatantra Kumar asked to apolozise, shailesh could
> > have easily said he did not give this statement whole bystanders promted him
> > to say to give answer that he did not comment as said in press and not
> > apologise, but he stood by his truthfullness and apologised not like bubus
> > retired or working who have the habit of twisting the cases work like
> > chamelion.
> >
> > Any way Shailesh Gandhi has turned his office to fully digitized paperless
> > from last week and his office should also be eligible to carbon credit. I
> > belive Shailesh's office mey be only govt office in India to be paperless
> > Kudos to Him
> >
> > Yours in service for RTI
> > Bhaskar Prabhu
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 12:26 AM, sarbajitr <sroy1947@...> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Have just finished reading this "split" verdict. My off the cuff
> >> conclusions
> >>
> >> a) If a straw poll was to be conducted among the citizen users of RTI Act,
> >> 9 out of 10 would agree with Shailesh Gandhi.
> >>
> >> b) If the same straw poll was taken among competent legal professionals
> >> the
> >> results would go 9 out of 10 in favour of A.N Tiwari and Satyanand Mishra.
> >>
> >> Now as this decision is certain to be discussed, let me make a few points.
> >> I hope that Mr Habibullah is reading this. It is para-wise and numbered.
> >>
> >> 1) Publishing this "final document" as a decision of the Commission would
> >> immediately expose the CIC and other Commissioners to contempt of court
> >> charges in the Delhi High Court in WP(C)12714/2009. I would especially
> >> like
> >> to remind the Commission that I was a party in that proceeding. It is
> >> pertinent that I was also heard as a 3rd party in another "Full Bench" of
> >> the Commission (K.Kishore versus ICS) where ICs Shailesh Gandhi and
> >> Satyanand Mishra were sitting, and where the order records my challenging
> >> the legality of CIC constituting "benches". The Hon'ble Delhi High Court
> >> has
> >> also held that CIC must pronounce orders in "open proceedings" (which is
> >> not
> >> the same as open chamber - which also was not done).
> >>
> >> 2) Mr Shailesh Gandhi, not being an ex-babu, is unable to understand /
> >> appreciate the subtleties of the arguments IC ANT has crafted. ANT has
> >> found
> >> no force in CBI's (the 3rd parties) usage of 8(1)(e) and totally ignores
> >> it
> >> as an allowable exemption. Yet Shailesh Gandhi devotes (wastes) 2 pages
> >> explaining why 8(1)(e) is irrelevant - which it is.
> >> Similarly, ANT doesn't rely on section 22 at all. Yet Shailesh Gandhi
> >> wastes another page on explaining why section 22 is relevant. ANT has
> >> cited
> >> a 2 judge order of Delhi High Court specifically on 8(1)(h) in the context
> >> of RTI Act. This judgement (para 31 page 15) specifically deals with the
> >> situation of 8(1)((h) BEING THE OVER-RIDING NON-OBSTANTE CLAUSE. It goes
> >> on
> >> to hold that neither the First Appellate nor the CIC (under RTI Act) is
> >> capable of deciding the information disclosure in terms of validity of the
> >> sanction for prosecution. The best that Shailesh Gandhi can come up with
> >> is
> >> a single judge (Sanjiv Khanna 'topoed' from Bhagat Singh) order of Delhi
> >> High Court generally speaking about why RTI Act prevails in event of
> >> "inconsistency" because of section 22.
> >>
> >> 4) The case then boils down to 8(1)(h). Shailesh Gandhi says that the
> >> opposing parties must conclusively prove to the CIC that disclosure would
> >> impede the prosecution. The CIC would then take a "judicial" decision. Not
> >> only has he forgotten that a double Bench of DHC has said the CIC cannot
> >> examine such matters, he has also forgotten another double Bench of DHC
> >> which found that CIC was definitely not a court. In any case what
> >> "judicial"
> >> experience does Shailesh Gandhi have except as an contrite / apologetic
> >> contemnor before Justice Swatenter Kumar.
> >>
> >> 5) Finally let me publicly remind both Mr Habibullah and Mr Gandhi of what
> >> constitutes criminal contempt in India.
> >>
> >> "Criminal contempt' means the publication (whether by words, spoken or
> >> written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any
> >> matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which:
> >> :
> >> :
> >> tends to lower the authority of, any court, or
> >> (ii) Prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with the due course
> >> of
> >> any judicial proceeding, or
> >> (iii) Interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to
> >> obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner."
> >>
> >> For eg. the Copyright Act 1957 defines publication as "making a work
> >> available to the public by issue of copies or by communicating the work to
> >> the public."
> >>
> >> The "due course of any judicial proceeding" is laid down in the Codes of
> >> Civil / Criminal Procedure etc. If the CIC passed / published any order
> >> which tended to interfere with such due course, they are liable to
> >> prosecution for criminal contempt.
> >>
> >> Sarbajit Roy
> >>
> >> --- In rti_india@yahoogroups.com <rti_india%40yahoogroups.com>, sarbajit
> >> roy <sroy.mb@> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Here is the file thanks to someone in CIC. Its not up as yet on CIC
> >> website.
> >> > Haven't had time to read it fully. Am also uploading it to the FILES
> >> section
> >> > of the group for those of you who dont get attachments.
> >> >
> >> > Sarbajit
> >>
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 10:36 AM, sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@> wrote:
> >> > > Now even zeenews has a piece on this.
> >> > > http://www.zeenews.com/news635595.html
> >> > >
> >> > > The question is where is this "decision" available and when was it
> >> pronounced ?
> >> > > Why are citizens not allowed to peruse the reasoned arguments of IC AN
> >> > > Tiwari / SN Mishra?
> >> > >
> >> > > In any case there is no such thing as a "split verdict" and Shailesh
> >> > > Gandhi should know it.
> >> > >
> >> > > Sarbajit
> >> > >
> >> > > <snip>
> >> > > The CBI correspondence seeking sanction of prosecution cannot be
> >> > > termed as given in fiduciary capacity, Information Commissioner
> >> > > Shailesh Gandhi said in a dissenting note on the decision of a
> >> > > three-member bench of the CIC.
> >> > >
> >> > > It is for the first time where an Information Commissioner has
> >> > > expressed his dissent over a decision endorsed by the majority of
> >> > > commissioners on the bench.
> >> > >
> >> > > The case relates to the plea of C Seetharamaiah whose son, an
> >> > > inspector with Customs, is facing CBI probe in an alleged corruption
> >> > > case.
> >> > >
> >> > > Seetharamaiah had filed an RTI application seeking correspondence of
> >> > > CBI with the Additional Customs Commissioner requesting for sanction
> >> > > of prosecution and related documents.
> >> > >
> >> > > The CBI raised objections to disclosure of these, saying it would
> >> > > impede the process of prosecution. It also said that report and
> >> > > correspondence with the said department and ministry is given in
> >> > > fiduciary capacity to the department, and hence, exempt from
> >> > > disclosure under the RTI Act.
> >> > >
> >> > > The bench comprising Satyananda Mishra, A N Tiwari and Shailesh Gandhi
> >> > > gave a split verdict, with the majority (Mishra, Tiwari) supporting
> >> > > the CBI's view and rejecting the appeal for disclosure.
> >> > >
> >> > > They said the issue of disclosure should be left with the trial court
> >> > > which has powers under the CrPC to decide if the accused had access to
> >> > > the said documents.
> >> > >
> >> > > "It is an admitted fact the CBI as third-party, seeking prosecution of
> >> > > the accused... had handed over to the Chief Commissioner of Central
> >> > > Excise and Customs, Vadodara evidence collected by it against the
> >> > > accused.
> >> > >
> >> > > "Transmission of this evidence was done in confidence for the
> >> > > exclusive purpose of helping the public authority make up its mind
> >> > > regarding whether there was a case to order prosecution against the
> >> > > accused public servant, the son of the appellant," Mishra and Tiwari
> >> > > had said.
> >> > >
> >> > > However, the arguments put forth by the agency were outrightly
> >> > > rejected by Gandhi who said, "In the present case, the information the
> >> > > appellant is seeking is that which has been sent by the CBI to the
> >> > > Department for the grant of the sanction of prosecution.
> >> > >
> >> > > "This is a procedural requirement in the CBI's Crime Manual 2005 as
> >> > > mentioned in the submissions made by the CBI and therefore, the CBI
> >> > > does not have choice with regard to who they would submit this report
> >> > > to...Therefore exemption under Section 8(1)(e) claimed by the CBI is
> >> > > not tenable under the Right to Information Act," he said.
> >> > >
> >> > > He said CBI has advanced no reasons to show how the process of
> >> > > prosecution would be impeded by disclosing the information.
> >> > >
> >> > > "When denying a right to the citizen, it has to be established beyond
> >> > > doubt that prosecution or apprehension of an offender would be
> >> > > impeded," Gandhi said.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
No comments:
Post a Comment