Re: [HumJanenge] Attn.: Mr. Girish Mittal

Deear Guptaji

In Naveen Kumat Peer's matter - Mr Shailesh Gandhi was adjudicating on
a 2ND APPEAL.

During 2nd Appeal (ie. section 19) proceedings he DOES NOT HAVE ANY
POWER TO CONDUCT ENQUIRY UNDER SECTION 18.

Section 18 is only for "COMPLAINT" received by the Commission and
taken cognisance of by the Commission.. Mr.Shailesh Gandhi was NOT the
Commission. He was only ASSISTING the "CIC".
Mr.Shailesh Gandhi is neither "The CIC" or even "a CIC". He is a mere
"IC". Kindly refer to the CIC's information disclosure u/s 4
concerningh power and duties of officers and employees of CIC. Mr.
Shailesh Gandhi HAS NO POWER TO INITIATE ENQUIRY. The said power has
NOT been delegated to any IC.

I have a pending public grievance pending against Mr./ Gandhi's
penchant to describe himself as "CIC" in the media. Even these latest
articles by jokers in Sucheta Dalal's Moneylife rag like make the same
mistake. Moneylife in fact routinely describes Shailesh Gandhi as
"Chief Information Commissioner". Despite my complaints to Ms. Dalal
on this point she has never published a retraction /. apology for the
poor quality journalism / reporting in her rag.

In sum : Only "The Commission" can initiate an inquiry u/s 18 after
the Comission is satisfied there are reasonable grounds. Mr. Shailesh
Gandhi is NOT the CIC and cannot initiate such inquiry - ESPECIALLY
WHEN THERE IS NO FORMAL COMPLAINT. Even if it is deemed as a
"suo-moto" power (by some convoluted logic these NGO-wallahs use), it
is to be exercised by the Commission and not by any Commissioner.

Sarbajit

On 7/17/12, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> Mittal duo, i congratulate u (father and son) for your outstanding work in
> the field of rti that even the Court ................... . CIC is clearly
> out to save its Jt. Secy (Law) who treated himself above the RTI Act without
> any justification
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 17 July 2012 12:41 PM
> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Attn.: Mr. Girish Mittal
>
> Dear Girish
>
> Thanks for clarifying that your queries in that RTI were your own (and
> that you / your dad are not RTI taxis). I hope that you will
> appreciate why I was so allergic to your queries in the background of
> my previous emails.
>
> Can you give /cite me the SC decision on 2 weeks ex-parte stay.
> Although I haven't read it, it may be based on a sub-clause of Art.226
> which sets a 2 week deadline IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
>
> Regarding Mr. Aakashdeep, I have replied to Suresh Nangia on almost
> the same issue (posted to this group).
>
> On "CIC as a collegium", I must publicly respond as follows for the
> record. Although I am convinced that the RTI Act intends for the CIC
> to act as a body, BUT considering the practical ground realities I am
> not advancing this proposition in the SC (where I am the 2nd
> Respondent). I am sitting quiet over there so that the CIC can salvage
> the situation from the mess of Mr. Habibullah's creation. As such I am
> a "responsible" person (looking at the larger public interest of RTI
> users) despite my own intense desire to prove a theoretical point
> which I am suppressing (for the moment).
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On 7/17/12, Girish Mittal <rtng.mittal@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dear Sarbjeet,
>>
>> (a) Judges/ almost judges have right to independent opinion. It has been
>> happening all these years and will continue to happen in various courts
>> including high courts and supreme court.
>>
>> (b) The full bench decision in RR Patel vs. RBI in an illegal decision and
>> it was constituted merely to overturn the decision of Ansari...Wajahat
>> merely wanted to appease RBI, hence he constituted a full bench...What is
>> the reason to follow such decision?
>>
>> (c) i don't really want to comment on decisions of DHC- Justice Vipin
>> Sanghi...He doesn't seem have much love for Shailesh Gandhi and I would
>> like to believe that it is mutual. SC has said that ex-parte stays should
>> not be granted for more than 2 weeks-Hon'ble Mr. Sanghi doesn't seems to
>> believe in the same..I wonder if you have the guts to write a critique to
>> Mr. Sanghi citing the judgement of SC? Would you do that Mr. Roy?
>>
>> (d) I don't know the background and work of Mr. Shekhar Singh...so I
>> would
>> refrain from commenting. As for identical queries, I don't see any reason
>> why the queries asked should not be answered by CIC...be it for Shekhar
>> Singh or my father or anyone else...Information under RTI can be denied
>> only under section 8 or 9..here CPIO has not claimed any such reason for
>> denial...
>>
>> (e) I and my father don't work for anyone..We file RTIs for the causes
>> which we believe in...We don't need to explain anything beyond that...
>>
>> (f) I can claim to know Shaileshbhai...Infact, I got to know him better
>> after he became IC and heard several cases...He did not agree to our
>> queries in many cases..but it doesn't mean he became my sworn enemy...I
>> also know Wajahat equally well...and know what all he is capable of
>> doing...
>>
>> (g) You havent answered my query on Akashdeep..what business does he have
>> in not following order of commission, however illogical it may be???
>>
>> (f) CIC being a collegium is pending before SC..But if it were to happen,
>> CIC would cease to function..already it is in ICU...it will die its
>> natural
>> death...
>>
>> Girish
>>
>>
>> Thanks for reverting
>>
>> 1) It seems that you agree that individual Information Commissioners
>> sitting singly can pass orders disregarding the previously passed
>> decisions of other ICs (especially the Chief).
>>
>> 2) Mr. Shailesh Gandhi goes 1 step further by openly disregarding
>> decisions of "Full Benches" of the Commission even when they are
>> brought to his notice by the parties. He says that "this
>> Commission" (whatever that may mean) "respectfully disagrees" and then
>> passes his orders. What are the poor appellants expected to do with
>> all this confusion ??
>>
>> 3) Well they go to High Court.and get scathing orders passed
>> concerning his "lack of judicial discipline".
>>
>> 4) My particular grievance was against Mr. Shekhar Singh, the Google
>> financed "spy", who was intent on getting the Govt instrumentalities
>> to digitise tens of thousands of documents for him, (at 60 paise per
>> page) to be provided to him at Rs. 50 only. Not only is this a
>> collossal waste of tax payers money, he was doing this at Google's
>> behest so that Google could publish it (like they publish so many
>> books still under copyright). It is another matter that Mr. Shekhar
>> Singh was assuming the garb of a transparency advocate till I got him
>> to admit during proceedings that he had received over Rs. 1 crore from
>> Google for all this.
>>
>> 5) I was therefore shocked to see the identical queries ostensibly
>> submitted by your father. The queries were submitted well after the
>> Shekhar Singh order (which was publicised from this group also). Since
>> it is well known that Google (which is closely associated with
>> America's intelligence agencies and is a CIA front) is financing
>> many
>> so-called RTI Activists in India, I was curious if you / your father
>> are among them ? Or are you unwitting pawns of the NCPRI (what I call
>> "RTI taxis" like Subhash Chandra Agrawal who will file an RTI for
>> anyone .. or qv. your RTIs against Corporation Bank, BoB etc).
>>
>> 6) We have different views on Shailesh Bhai. Since you are from
>> Mumbai, you probably know him better than me. Mr. Habibullah, for all
>> his faults at least afforded me the opportunity to intervene as 3rd
>> party in Shekhar Singh's matter and get the information denied, why
>> could not Shailesh Gandhi not do the same in your case ?
>>
>> 7) Kindly note that I am not defending Aaakash Deep. Like him, I am
>> aggrieved at Shailesh Gandhi's completely, egoistic, incompetent,
>> legally illiterate style of functioning, and also the deep and
>> pervasive stench of corruption in his office when he was an IC. You
>> don't know all the facts in AkaashDeep's case, I am sure the truth
>> will come out eventually despite Shailesh engaging some big legal
>> names to see that it doesn't.
>>
>> 8) regarding 19(7). ALL citizens are aggrieved by ALL ICs sitting
>> singly and their orders. When I got the Delhi High Court to declare
>> that ICs sitting singly was illegal the entire NCPRI brigade was up in
>> arms and got CIC to approach the SC - despite ANT, Deepak Sandhu etc
>> publicly agreeing with my reading of the RTI Act - The CIC is a
>> "collegium" like the US Supreme Court, and must sit jointly to decide
>> all cases.. That is the only way to stop corrupt ICs sitting singly.
>>
>> Warmly
>> Sarbajit
>>