[HumJanenge] Re: Attn. Mr. Girish Mittal

       Dear Sarabjit,

       I don't know your background, but I suspect you have long experience in government....I am sure you would make a popular(with govt) IC as you know very well how to       twist facts and blatantly claim written words as unwritten and unwritten as written....

      It seems you are feigning ignorance of how our courts functions..Inspite of well laid down rules and procedures, people can get away by doing anything and everything...especially our judicial and quasi judicial authorities...And people like you, who take every opportunity to attack soft targets like SG, have no courage to take on those mighty and powerful.

     I have understood your agenda and would not like to join issues with you on this or any other issue any more.

     Regards.

    Girish Mittal

       

arbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> Jul 20 12:52AM -0700  

Dear Girish
 
I think that you have not read your cited decision carefully.
 
Firstly, the Court has not gone into ex-party stays and delays as a
question of law. Hence there is no settled law on this point emanating
from this decision. In fact FINAL para 59 makes it abundantly clear
that this decision does NOT settle any law on this (or any other)
question of law.
 
Secondly, this decision DILUTES Article 226(3) of the Constitution. It
introduces ADDITIONAL requirements for vacation of ex-parte ad-interim
stays in para 47 like "as expeditiously as possible" and suggests
securing indemnities for mesne profits etc.. By this logic
"expeditiously" in RTI Act means that applicants should get
information within 1 or 2 weeks. Why dont you cite this decision to
every CPIO you apply to ?
 
As anyone knows the general practice in the High Courts is that after
an ex-parte stay is granted, and the other parties enter appearance,
after a token discussion the ex-parte stay is simply extended.
 
Vacation of ex-parte stays granted by High Courts is precisely defined
in Article 226. Till you have a substantial decision on this please
don't waste our time which such inapplicable judgments
 
In any case, Shailesh Gandhi has apparently gone into 226(3) in his
counter-affidavit in Aakashdeep's WP. Lets see how Justice Sanghi
deals with it (within 2 weeks). I am sure that Shailesh being so
legally knowledgeable would know that Aaakshdeep must get the matter
listed before the Court within 2 weeks or else he can move a IA for
contempt against Aakashdeep.
 
http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1242743/
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1385257/
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/648042/
http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/552281/
 
and so many more
 
Sarbajit
 
Girish Mittal wrote: