But I have received not even a telephone call, let alone a letter, from anyone on the subject. What a fruitless discussion. Is there no work to be done?
Wajahat
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dr. Jagnarain Sharma" <dr.jagnarainsharma@gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, November 3, 2010 5:45 am
Subject: Re: [RTI INDIA] Re: Fwd: [HumJanenge] Former CIC challenges notice by CIC
To: rti_india@googlegroups.com
> Dear all
> Let the matter
> be decided by new CIC, Mr AN Tewari, who is
> competent enough to deal himself with such complaints, if any pending
> against Mr Wazahat or against any one else in the office
> of CIC.I
> feel that Mr. Wazahat can gracefully be requested to send reply
> to Mr
> A.N.Tewari, the CIC directly, instead of sending replies to any
> one in
> personal capacity, because grievance with CIC on the matter of RTI,
> must be attended by the office of CIC and not from any individual,
> like Mr Wazahat.
> Regards
> DR. JN SHARMA
>
> ADVOCATE/HUMANRIGHTS/RTI ACTIVIST
>
> On 11/3/10, wajahat <whabibullah@nic.in> wrote:
> > Parsimonios? You are raising new issues and seeking to have an
> answer before
> > raising them! I was simply replying to your remark that the
> President had
> > not seen my letter. Besides, there is no truth in your remarks
> re AN Tiwari
> > Wajahat
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: sroy1947 <sroy1947@gmail.com>
> > Date: Tuesday, November 2, 2010 10:50 pm
> > Subject: [RTI INDIA] Re: Fwd: [HumJanenge] Former CIC
> challenges notice by
> > CIC
> > To: "RTI India : Right to Information, CIC"
> <rti_india@googlegroups.com>>
> >> Sir
> >>
> >> I must respectfully say that you are being somewhat
> parsimonious with
> >> the truth (see below) which has been circulating on internet forums
> >> (and established by dox obtained in RTI) ..
> >>
> >> 1) You also endorsed a copy of that letter to Secretary/Personnel
> >> knowing very well that in terms of the Indian Constitution the
> >> President is bound to act on the.aid and advice of the
> Council of
> >> Ministers.
> >>
> >> 2) In your letter you requested that you be relieved from
> office by
> >> 30.Oct..2009
> >>
> >> 3) You had already arranged that in view of the short time
> available>> that the senior-most Information Commissioner be
> recommended for
> >> elevation as CIC. That it was your understanding that Mr M.M.Ansari
> >> was the senior-most IC based on his date of joining the
> >> Commission. It
> >> was also your understanding that Mr Ansari would serve a full term
> >> of 5 years as Chief Information Commissioner based on his
> date of
> >> birth and the peculiar wording of sections 12/13.
> >>
> >> 4) That the PM agreed that meeting of Selection Committee
> could be
> >> fixed on either 26 or 27 Sept 2009.
> >>
> >> 5) That in the meantime Mr Tiwari called your bluff and established
> >> that he was the senior-most Information Commissioner through
> certain>> legal precedents
> >>
> >> 6) That accordingly you deemed it prudent to withdraw your
> resignation>> on your own despite the fact that there is no
> express provision
> >> in law
> >> for you to do so. By doing so you disregarded the judgment of the
> >> Supreme Court relied upon in Ms Omita Paul's resignation
> >> pertaining to
> >> articles 124 and 217 of the Const which held that the
> >> resignation is
> >> effective immediately upon its being submitted.
> >>
> >> 7) And which is why I submitted that it would be much better
> to stick
> >> to the official line, ie. that your resignation was
> conditional,>> unlike Ms Omita Paul's.
> >>
> >> Sarbajit
> >>
> >> On Nov 2, 7:46 pm, wajahat <whabibul...@nic.in> wrote:
> >> > My letter was addressed and sent to the President
> >> > Wajahat
> >> >
> >> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> > From: sroy 1947 <sroy1...@gmail.com>
> >> > Date: Tuesday, November 2, 2010 2:04 pm
> >> > Subject: Re: [RTI INDIA] Re: Fwd: [HumJanenge] Former CIC
> >> challenges notice by CIC
> >> > To: rti_india@googlegroups.com
> >> >
> >> > Sir
> >> >
> >> > The DoPT has categorically informed citizens in RTI that
> >> >
> >> > 1) Your resignation was not effective immediately because it
> >> was conditional upon your expressed wish to be relieved of
> >> office by Madam President, thereby distinguishing your case from
> >> Ms Omita Paul's
> >> >
> >> > 2) There is no provision in the RTI Act for a resignation,
> >> once submitted, to be withdrawn.
> >> >
> >> > 3) There is a laid down procedure for resignations such as
> >> yours to be forwarded to Madam President via the DoPT after
> >> obtaining the approval of the Minister. This is usually done
> >> upto a month after the date of the resignations. In your case,
> >> the Minister declined to forward your resignation to Madam
> >> President. In other words, Madam President never even had a
> >> chance to read your letter of resignation and had to be content
> >> with press reports.
> >> >
> >> > Sarbajit
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 8:05 AM, wajahat
> >> <whabibul...@nic.in> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Silly! A fictional media report does not a notice make. And i
> >> did withdraw the resignation. It can hardly be' unwise' to
> >> conceal the truth
> >> > Wajahat
> >>
> >
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dr. Jagnarain Sharma" <dr.jagnarainsharma@gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, November 3, 2010 5:45 am
Subject: Re: [RTI INDIA] Re: Fwd: [HumJanenge] Former CIC challenges notice by CIC
To: rti_india@googlegroups.com
> Dear all
> Let the matter
> be decided by new CIC, Mr AN Tewari, who is
> competent enough to deal himself with such complaints, if any pending
> against Mr Wazahat or against any one else in the office
> of CIC.I
> feel that Mr. Wazahat can gracefully be requested to send reply
> to Mr
> A.N.Tewari, the CIC directly, instead of sending replies to any
> one in
> personal capacity, because grievance with CIC on the matter of RTI,
> must be attended by the office of CIC and not from any individual,
> like Mr Wazahat.
> Regards
> DR. JN SHARMA
>
> ADVOCATE/HUMANRIGHTS/RTI ACTIVIST
>
> On 11/3/10, wajahat <whabibullah@nic.in> wrote:
> > Parsimonios? You are raising new issues and seeking to have an
> answer before
> > raising them! I was simply replying to your remark that the
> President had
> > not seen my letter. Besides, there is no truth in your remarks
> re AN Tiwari
> > Wajahat
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: sroy1947 <sroy1947@gmail.com>
> > Date: Tuesday, November 2, 2010 10:50 pm
> > Subject: [RTI INDIA] Re: Fwd: [HumJanenge] Former CIC
> challenges notice by
> > CIC
> > To: "RTI India : Right to Information, CIC"
> <rti_india@googlegroups.com>>
> >> Sir
> >>
> >> I must respectfully say that you are being somewhat
> parsimonious with
> >> the truth (see below) which has been circulating on internet forums
> >> (and established by dox obtained in RTI) ..
> >>
> >> 1) You also endorsed a copy of that letter to Secretary/Personnel
> >> knowing very well that in terms of the Indian Constitution the
> >> President is bound to act on the.aid and advice of the
> Council of
> >> Ministers.
> >>
> >> 2) In your letter you requested that you be relieved from
> office by
> >> 30.Oct..2009
> >>
> >> 3) You had already arranged that in view of the short time
> available>> that the senior-most Information Commissioner be
> recommended for
> >> elevation as CIC. That it was your understanding that Mr M.M.Ansari
> >> was the senior-most IC based on his date of joining the
> >> Commission. It
> >> was also your understanding that Mr Ansari would serve a full term
> >> of 5 years as Chief Information Commissioner based on his
> date of
> >> birth and the peculiar wording of sections 12/13.
> >>
> >> 4) That the PM agreed that meeting of Selection Committee
> could be
> >> fixed on either 26 or 27 Sept 2009.
> >>
> >> 5) That in the meantime Mr Tiwari called your bluff and established
> >> that he was the senior-most Information Commissioner through
> certain>> legal precedents
> >>
> >> 6) That accordingly you deemed it prudent to withdraw your
> resignation>> on your own despite the fact that there is no
> express provision
> >> in law
> >> for you to do so. By doing so you disregarded the judgment of the
> >> Supreme Court relied upon in Ms Omita Paul's resignation
> >> pertaining to
> >> articles 124 and 217 of the Const which held that the
> >> resignation is
> >> effective immediately upon its being submitted.
> >>
> >> 7) And which is why I submitted that it would be much better
> to stick
> >> to the official line, ie. that your resignation was
> conditional,>> unlike Ms Omita Paul's.
> >>
> >> Sarbajit
> >>
> >> On Nov 2, 7:46 pm, wajahat <whabibul...@nic.in> wrote:
> >> > My letter was addressed and sent to the President
> >> > Wajahat
> >> >
> >> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> > From: sroy 1947 <sroy1...@gmail.com>
> >> > Date: Tuesday, November 2, 2010 2:04 pm
> >> > Subject: Re: [RTI INDIA] Re: Fwd: [HumJanenge] Former CIC
> >> challenges notice by CIC
> >> > To: rti_india@googlegroups.com
> >> >
> >> > Sir
> >> >
> >> > The DoPT has categorically informed citizens in RTI that
> >> >
> >> > 1) Your resignation was not effective immediately because it
> >> was conditional upon your expressed wish to be relieved of
> >> office by Madam President, thereby distinguishing your case from
> >> Ms Omita Paul's
> >> >
> >> > 2) There is no provision in the RTI Act for a resignation,
> >> once submitted, to be withdrawn.
> >> >
> >> > 3) There is a laid down procedure for resignations such as
> >> yours to be forwarded to Madam President via the DoPT after
> >> obtaining the approval of the Minister. This is usually done
> >> upto a month after the date of the resignations. In your case,
> >> the Minister declined to forward your resignation to Madam
> >> President. In other words, Madam President never even had a
> >> chance to read your letter of resignation and had to be content
> >> with press reports.
> >> >
> >> > Sarbajit
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 8:05 AM, wajahat
> >> <whabibul...@nic.in> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Silly! A fictional media report does not a notice make. And i
> >> did withdraw the resignation. It can hardly be' unwise' to
> >> conceal the truth
> >> > Wajahat
> >>
> >
No comments:
Post a Comment