quoted have been ignore arbitrarily."
How true. You are indeed ignorant of the RTI Act 2005. For your ignorance and habitual
propensity to mislead the members of this group with confused message posts,
you are hereby expelled from this group.
You may also like to brush up sections 5(4)/(5) which reads like this
"4) The Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may seek the assistance of any other officer as he or she considers it necessary for the proper discharge of his or her duties."
Are you a CPIO or SPIO to send RTI request to Law Minister by Speedpost. ?
PMK
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 6:30 PM, DSouza Wilberious Evanglist <wilevades@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Dear Cooper
I sought information under RTI invoking sections 5(4&5) of RTI Act 2005 from Veerappa Moily Law Minister by addressing application to his proper name & sending it by speedpost, on the course of action taken on former CJI KGB's letter to PM asking judges to be included in section 8 of RTI Act 2005, which was sent to him by PM.No reply has been received yet. I appealed to PM as per section 19(1) of RTI Act 2005 there is no reply. Complained to President. No reply.The Maintenance & Welfare of Parents & senior Citizens Act 2007 is directed to be implemented in every state within 6 months of enactment. In Karnataka except publication in State Gazette no rules have been framed , no procedure is drafted. Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment(MoSJ&E) which is the nodal ministry to ensure implementation of that Act states that States are free to do so any time they wish.CM of Karnataka transfers application to Women & Child Welfare Department under section 6(3) of that Act. Governor HR Bhardwaj reminded of his constitutional duties has not replied. PM has transferred it to MoSJ&E under section 6(3) of that Act & forwarded it.President was complained to about Governor of Karnataka failing in discharge of Constitutional duty seeking information on the Course of Action to be initiated, has replied that what I sought is not information.District & other Subordinate Courts of Udupi denied information about proceedings inn two cases stating that by RTI one cannot ask for it & as per High Court of Karnataka Rules copy application endorsed by lawyer for those cases has to be filed.Provisions of RTI Act 2005, Constitution of India, Supreme Court decisions etc quoted have been ignore arbitrarily.Regards,WEDS
From: Victor Cooper <victor99cooper@yahoo.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, 14 November, 2010 3:28:41
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Prefer jail to apology, ex-minister tells court
--- On Sat, 11/13/10, Dipak Shah <djshah1944@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Dipak Shah <djshah1944@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Prefer jail to apology, ex-minister tells court
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Cc: ng.puthoor@gmail.com
Date: Saturday, November 13, 2010, 10:07 AM
Dearest Dr Sharma Sahebji,Let me take to my own case of contempt . It was referred to D B of High Court. The advocate argued the matter before lower court for contempt on a fake document circulated internally in the organisation.!!! See the modus operand of Advocate.But when hearing of my case of contempt came up ( In my Absence ) Before Judge it was dismissed. Becaus they all know my modus operandi fighting for the truth. But in all my cases Advocates followed wrong path of subimkteing untruth , Porivisions of law not granting stay, wrong arguments, far a way from reality of the cases and many thin more. It is always taught during the Procedure code to negate first of all allegations . Whether right and . wrong. Repsondent does not accept allegation and like. Allege the Plaintiff with all types of allegation , malafide intention , abuse of law. and all. But I belive that before writing theis negation one should see the case fully.U have written rightly .Mr Bhushanji are very well known and before doing any thing one should think/ give thought twice , hundred times to do anything against nthem.God save us.
From: Dr. Jagnarain Sharma <dr.jagnarainsharma@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Cc: ng.puthoor@gmail.com
Sent: Sat, 13 November, 2010 3:16:37 AM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Prefer jail to apology, ex-minister tells court
Dear Leslie
You have rightly offered your gratitude to the steps taken by Mr
Prashant Bhushan and his father, who are fighting corruption in
Judiciary.
Be sure, the Judges will think not only twice but ten times
before sentencing the duo.
I have made complaint against 3 Judges and contempt proceeding
suo motto has been moved by the Hon High court and another judge of
High Court has fined Rs 10000/-, on the feed back of his brother
colleague.
Also My hats off to them
Jai HO
Dr JN Sharma
ADVOCATE/HUMANRIGHT ACTIVIST
On 11/10/10, leslie almeida <leslie_almeida@rediffmail.com> wrote:
> If someone opens a can or worms, and sticks to his convictions, he prefers
> to go to jail rather than bow down to corruptions my hats off to him, a true
> Mahatma Gandhi in the making.
>
> Jai HO
>
> Leslie Almeida
>
>
> 11 Nov 2010 07:19:10 +0530 wrote
>>Prefer jail to
> apology, ex-minister tells court
>
>
>
>
> SAMANWAYA RAUTRAY
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> New Delhi, Nov.
> 10: Former law minister Shanti Bhushan today told the Supreme Court
> he would rather "go to jail" for contempt of court than say sorry for
> his comment on corruption in the judiciary.
>
>
>
> The statement came
> at a hearing of a contempt case against his son, activist lawyer
> Prashant Bhushan, whose sweeping remarks about corruption among judges
> in a magazine interview had prompted the charge.
>
>
>
> "A lot of people
> believe there is lot of corruption in the judiciary," Bhushan senior,
> who had impleaded himself in the petition, said. "I would prefer to go
> to jail than say sorry. I will keep repeating it. There is no question
> of any apology," he told the bench headed by Justice Altamas Kabir.
>
>
>
> Asked to clarify
> if he was speaking for his son, he said: "I am speaking for both."
>
>
>
> In the interview,
> Prashant Bhushan had made adverse comments against Chief Justice S.H.
> Kapadia, then next in line to be the CJI, for ignoring potential
> conflict of interest and awarding mining leases to a company in which
> he held some shares.
>
>
>
> On November 6 last
> year, the court issued contempt notices against the lawyer, who has
> been spearheading a campaign for making the judiciary more transparent
> and accountable.
>
>
>
> The lawyer, who is
> represented by Ram Jethmalani, chose to stay away from the proceedings.
> The next hearing is on December 7.
>
>
>
> Earlier, Rajeev
> Dhavan, lawyer for Tehelka editor Tarun Tejpal whose magazine
> published the lawyer's remarks, angered the court saying there was "no
> doubt there is corruption in the judiciary".
>
>
>
> "Don't make
> sweeping statements," Justice Kabir snapped.
>
>
>
> "I will say it
> properly if I can," Dhavan retorted.
>
>
>
> "Propriety demands
> that you do," the judge said.
> --
> When someone shares something of value with you and you benefit
>
>
> from it, you have a moral obligation to share it with
> others.
>
> " Vande Matharam "
>
> ng.puthoor@gmail.com
> Gangadharan Nair N.
>
>
>
> When you realize you've made a mistake, please have the courage
>
>
> to admit it & also take immediate remedial steps to correct it.
>
>
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.