Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Mr. Shailesh Gandhi

I think the point Mr. Varkey makes is that the documents
have "vanished" (so there is nothing left for citizens to
be provided under RTI) - as distinguished from insiders
(ie. non-citizens) who have retained their own private
copies to be filed in Courts should the need arise.

On 8/10/12, C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Mr Varkey,
>
> Do you have documentary proof of what you are saying ?
> If yes, please provide it.
> Or it will be assumed to be a figment of your imagination.
> I have the documents and there is nothing of the sort anywhere.
> (unless of course I cannot read some of the "intentional" illegible
> handwriting)
>
> RTIwanted
>
>
> On 8/9/12, Baby Varkey <babyjohn.varkey@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Sir,
>>
>> Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi sits to adjudicate on
>> relative rights of various persons arising from a Central legislation.
>>
>> *The Central Information Commission is a creation of statute, and every
>> action of Mr Gandhi must be only within the 4 corners of that statute.*
>>
>> When an individual Commissioner repeatedly disagrees over interpretation
>> of
>> the statute with each of his brother Commissioners (and officers of the
>> Commission) and incorporates his disagreement publicly in his orders, it
>> makes the functioining of the Commission impossible.
>>
>> Justice Sanghi on receiving several separate Writ Petitions against Mr
>> Gandhi controversial orders has come to the correct conclusion and
>> strictured Mr. Shailesh by name to highlight the seriousness of Mr.
>> Gandhi's impropriety. While that case was being heard Mr. Chakravarti
>> (JS-Law) was present in the court and had no answer to Courts' query why
>> Chief Commissioner was not intervening to withdraw cases from Mr. Gandhi.
>> *Mr
>> Chakravarti assured Court he would pass on Court's suggestion to withdraw
>> cases from Mr. Gandhi.*
>>
>> This is the incident resulting in CIC withdrawing cases from Mr. Gandhi.
>> Mr. Gandhi then approaches Chairperson UPA. The circular is made to
>> disappear. Mr. Gandhi then victimises Mr. Chakravarti and other CIC
>> officers making them approach High Court for stay.
>>
>> BJ Varkey, Advocate
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Gaur J K <gaurjk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dt.08/08/12
>>> It is no good talking in riddles and fill in the blanks.
>>> It is my observation that some are biased against Sailesh Gandhi. We all
>>> know he is not a legal lumanary nor he has claimed to be so. So If his
>>> judgements/orders are deficient from that angle, there is no need to
>>> atribute motives without proof and if one has proof there are remdies
>>> available.
>>> JKGaur
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>> Date: eTue, 7 Aug 2012 23:00:46 +0800
>>> From: djshah1944@yahoo.com
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Mr. Shailesh Gandhi
>>> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
>>>
>>>
>>> Mr Gandhi is encouraging bad practices adopted by one Company for more
>>> than 19 years in all Courts proceedings!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>> Once I talked with him when I was in India. Over the phone he replied
>>> that
>>> this case is complete!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>> *From:* indrani Mukherjee <juno.im@gmail.com>
>>> *To:* humjanenge@googlegroups.com
>>> *Sent:* Monday, 6 August 2012 5:13 AM
>>> *Subject:* Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Mr. Shailesh Gandhi
>>>
>>> Dear All
>>>
>>> I am sorry to intervene amidst your conversation. The term "Ld." is used
>>> in the Court orders or even while addressing arguments as a mark of
>>> respect
>>> towards even the opponent lawyer and in order to maintain the dignity and
>>> decorum of the judicial functions. Similarly, the term "Hon'ble Court" is
>>> used while addressing any Court of judicature. This is my observation
>>> and
>>> experience over the last decade of law practice as an advocate.
>>> Sorry if I have intervened in your discussion, but intent was only to
>>> share my experience.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Prasad
>>>
>>> I have no enmity with Mr Shailesh Gandhi.
>>>
>>> Insofar as the judgment is concerned, it s a public document.
>>> Everyone is entitled to form his own opinion while read it.
>>>
>>> It is my experience, however, that when a judge uses phrases
>>> like "Ld. counsel" or "Ld. Commissioner" in orders, more often
>>> than not it is a code phrase for the next stage implying that the
>>> Ld. gentleman knows too much for his own good.
>>>
>>> Sarbajit
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8/6/12, prasad vaidya <prasadbvaidya@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> > Mr Sarbjit sir
>>> > you might have enmity with Mr. Shailesh Gandhi but
>>> dont
>>> > use this discussion forum for passing remarks for individual enmity
>>> > with
>>> Mr.
>>> > Gandhi Yours views might be proper according to you but there is also
>>> other
>>> > side which may call you as wrong.
>>> > please dont take it as my advice but take it as my opinion which
>>> > personal
>>> > I have gone through Judgment of Justice Sanghi I feel that he wrote
>>> judgment
>>> > which is not proper and the way he wrote about Mr. Gandhi in fact he
>>> > has
>>> > lowered down the dignity of human by passing remarks which can be said
>>> > to
>>> > scandolous in nature and therefore Justice Sanghi is otherwise eligible
>>> for
>>> > contempt of his own court.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > viadya
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Indrani Mukherjee
>>> Advocate
>>> 9811394136
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>