Friends,
This man Habibbulah does not even know ABC of law or the office practice.
In judgements of Muzzafar Bhat, Habiublah has overlooked many mistakes
and contradictins in Appelnt case
http://www.rti.
a) Bhat supplys as evidence copy of Greater Kashmir newspaper dated 2.7.2007
to show he has filed RTI about Yattu. But later BSF says that Bhat's Rti is dated
26.7.2007 and IPO is dated 15.7.2007. So what is purpose of evidence of Greater
Kashmir newspapr ?
b) the RTI application filed before 2.7.2007 was filed by Yattu's family member.
Raja Bhat has not given any authority letter on behalf of Yattu family to represent.
c) The case is barrred in time. Why does Mr Habibullah only take cognisance of
a complaint filed 2 years late. Is it conencted with his appointment as CIC of Jammu ?
What are the reasons that Habiullah does not remand case back to First appeal
authority as his reglar paractice. How much BRIBE has he taken from Yattus or Bhat ?
d) When RTI act is not extended to Jammu Kashmir, how can Habibullah hear and
pass order in this case. Why is BSF sleeping and not filing in high court ? Is the
real plan of Habibullah to get stay order on all RTI in Jammu and Kashmir. Is
the Raja Muzzafar Bhat other mir jafar to stop RTI in J&K.
e) When will group members file official secret act petition against Habibullah and BSF
for dsiclosing secret to Raza Bhat.
S D Sharma
--- In rti_india@yahoogrou
>
> Sir,
> Â
> Amazing, you are bang on target. Incidentally, I could not access the decision cited by you on BSF.
> Â
> BINU PETER
>
> --- On Sat, 7/3/10, sarbajit roy <mail.sarbajitroy@
>
>
> From: sarbajit roy <mail.sarbajitroy@
> Subject: [rti_india] URGENT: File "CIC/WB/C/2010/
> To: "rti_india" <rti_india@yahoogrou
> Date: Saturday, July 3, 2010, 2:16 AM
>
> [What was finally sent to Mr Habibullah and the other ICs]
>
> Dear Mr Habibullah
> (cc: all Central Information Commissioners, for information as it
> involves contempt of court
> in WP(C) 7604/2009 in Delhi High Court)
>
> I am writing this letter to you in your private capacity, as I am
> given to understand that you have joined the World Bank w.e.f 01 July
> 2010.
> [source http://web.worldban
> ]
>
> I am shocked that you have passed an order in the case of one Dr. Raja
> Muzaffar Bhat versus Border Security Force
> [http://www.rti.
> directing that information is to be supplied by Armed Forces to
> persons from J&K. It is pertinent that your decision was delivered on
> 02-July-2010 and was on a direct email complaint to you sent from J&K
> and received on 04-April-2010.
>
> I draw your attention to section 1(2) of the RTI Act. The RTI Act
> "extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir."
>
> As such I submit that Dr. Bhat, despite the fact that he is a citizen
> of India, as a resident of J&K is barred from using the RTI Act 2005.
> Neither is the BSF required to supply information outside the
> jurisdiction to which the RTI Act applies. Conversely Indian citizens
> not resident in J&K are barred from using the J&K RTI Act or accessing
> information under it, as you well know.
>
> It is also true that since there is no extra-territorial scope
> explicitly mentioned in RTI Act, you cannot direct a Central Govt
> functionary to provide information to persons located in J&K. The
> consequence of such an interpretation would be that persons from the
> Pakistani or Chinese controlled portions of J&K would similarly apply
> in RTI against "human right violations" of Indian Army, and being
> within what India cannot deny as part of J&K must be similarly given
> information.
>
> It is also pertinent that the person concerning whom information was
> sought (Mohd Ashraf Yattoo) was an employee of the J&K State Govt to
> whom the RTI Act 2005 does not extend and was also presumably resident
> in J&K.
>
> The history of Dr Bhat's RTI travails in J&K are available on the CIC
> website [http://cic.gov.
> noteworthy from this that Dr Bhat is relying on a letter from you to
> him conveying that CIC has jurisdiction over Central government
> organisations in J&K. The reasoning for his, however, is not in public domain.
>
> If my information concerning the status of your present assignment
> with World Bank is incorrect, and you are still discharging your
> duties as Chief Information Commissioner of India (excluding J&K), I
> request you to kindly immediately set up a Full Bench, ie. each and
> every member of the body defined in 12(1) of RTI Act, to review this
> decision on such an important question of law. I am also circulating
> this email to all other Information Commissioners for information
> considering the question/s of law involved and previous decisions of
> this Commission
> [http://cic.gov.
> [http://cic.gov.
> [http://cic.gov.
> [http://www.cic.
>
> There is also a stay order concerning part of this from the Delhi High
> Court in WP(C) 7604/2009 which is still pending.
>
> On the last occasion on which I sent you such an email seeking review
> of your decision, you ignored it, and the Delhi High Court upheld my
> view with considerable force. I request you to reconsider this
> decision too considering the national interest and the CONTEMPT OF
> COURT involved in your order especially since the next date of the
> court is on 6.July.2010 when the court will consider this issue based
> on affidavit of DoPT. However, the court is not considering the aspect
> of whether persons in J&K can apply for information located in India.
>
> Yours sincerely
>
> Sarbajit Roy
> B-59 Defence Colony
> New Delhi-110024
>
No comments:
Post a Comment