Dear Umapathi,
http://news.in.msn.com/national/article.aspx?cp-documentid=4332778
In addition to what I had posted below, you should also inform the
Chief Information Commissioner of India, who is reduced to briefing the media himself after the DoPT refused to fund the controversial media advisor Mr Habibullah appointed at a phenomenal salary a-la Suresh Kalmadi, that you were merely protesting at being heard by a "single bench" of Mr Tiwari when the Delhi High Court judgement in WP(C)12714/2009 d/d 22.05.2010 quashing the CIC Management Regulations 2007 rules out constitution of benches. You may use recent news story in ToI as fresh cause of action to protest the illegal / contemptuous hearing of 12.Aug.2010, whence also your request for transfer of your matters to the Full Bench of CIC.
DO NOT DELAY !!!
Sarbajit
--- In rti_india@yahoogroups.com, sarbajit roy <mail.sarbajitroy@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Satishji
>
> Umi's reply is very poorly drafted from the legal point of view and
> also tactically speaking.
> No doubt it is very emotionally satisfying (at this point in time) for
> Umapathi - and
> RTI activists all over the country. However, the consequences to the
> RTI movement
> are grave should the CIC decide to pursue the matter.
>
> My brief comments.
>
> 1) Umi has fallen into CIC's trap by responding in detail to this notice. He
> ought to have occupied the high moral ground instead of coming down to
> CIC's level.
>
> 2) Umi is playing the game on CIC's terms, whereas he should have
> refused to reply to teh contempt issue considering that he had already
> moved a Constitutional authority (Prez) on the same issue for grievance
> redressal.
>
> 3) He ought to have pointed out that the CIC notice was clearly an
> intimidatory device devised to pressurise him to withdraw his complaints.
>
> 4) He ought not to have tried to reach "the Law" to CIC's Legal Officer.
>
> 5) He ought to have cited a few exemptions to IPC-499 (defamation).
>
> 6) He ought to have asked the CIC to go F*** themselves considering
> the CIC minutes of meeting of 17-Aug-2010, which clearly reveal that
> CIC's cause of action was during the hearing and Umi's subsequent
> complaint to Prez, and that the contempt on the subsequent yahoogroup
> posting was an afterthought and trumped up..
>
> Umi should seriously consider withdrawing his reply, and submitting a
> new one on the lines indicated.
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On 9/1/10, Satish Kumar Kapoor <kapoorsatish@...> wrote:
> > Dear Sh Umapathi,
> >
> > Very well drafted reply, wish you success.
> >
> > S.K.Kapoor
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: umapathi s <umi_sbs@...>
> > To: rti_india@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tue, August 31, 2010 1:09:23 PM
> > Subject: Re: [rti_india] Re: Another Major Threat to RTI Applicants- "Notice
> > of
> > CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS BY C
> >
> >
> > Dear Members , regarding the subject of contempt notice, I have submitted a
> > detailed reply to the Commission today by speed post and e-mail. I express
> > my
> > sincere thanks to many members of this Group who exchanged their views
> > (both
> > positive and negative)on the subject.Reading my detailed reply which is
> > reproduced below would clarify many of the issues on the subject. if membes
> > want
> > ,the thread can be closed.
>
No comments:
Post a Comment