Re: [HumJanenge] Re: "Judge Uncle Syndrome" in the High Courts

Regards to all.

We all actually avidly follow the discussions here, irrespective of the exact language used.

We understand the content, and gain knowledge abt judicial system, or the law enforcement agencies, thru these sites.

We also understand that these agencies culpability would not be possible, without being hand in glove with each other.

 

Please include, all participants in this as we can see that the corruption disturbs all of us.

Pl keep up the good wrk.

Thank you.

On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 9:02 AM, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

If that is the case, it must be condemned and corrective measures are to be taken but at d same time, security concerns cannot be overlooked. In case I were in yor place, I must have managed the slip frm my advocate for the getting the pass to be issued without any hussle.  

 

However, Justice Gita Mittal has taken a right step and hope that the DHC staff will not dare to stop u from entering in the Court on the day of listing your matters.  If this is the treatment meted out 2 u, a highly knowledgeable, literate and computer savvy, what can b said about the poor, illiterate and persons wsith rural backgrouod.

 

Dear Sarab, if u can suggest some better system without comproming the security concerns in comparision to the present, the litigants would always be grateful 2 u.  Such suggestions can b sent to the Court and Security top brasses for consideration.

 

 

---

From: sroy 1947 <sroy1947@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, 2 December, 2010 5:13:16 PM

Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: "Judge Uncle Syndrome" in the High Courts

Dear Guptaji

You had no problem in getting a pass because you have an advocate.

I refuse to comment on the matter of how/why I was stopped from
reaching the Court in time. This is not the first time it has happened
in this case WPC(542)/2007 and in 2007 Justice Gita Mittal had
recorded my complaint (in daily order) and directed the registry to
ensure that a) my name appeared as respondent-in-person in the
cause list b) that I was to be allowed entry into the court on listed days
for this matter.

In April 2010, my name did not appear in the cause list. I was repeatedly
prevented from being issued a gate pass since 9:15 AM. Finally at 10:30
I was issued a gate pass. I reached the court-room at 10:38 to find that
this case (items 16,17,18 and 21) had been "disposed: off. (The court
rises at 10:30). There were 32 supplementaries listed that day (which
as per court's official practice at DHC are taken up before regular matters)
none of which were heard before me, Regular item nos 1 through 15 were
disposed off in the normal course.

The very same day, and before noon I filed an RTI to the PIO on thsi
question. I filed an appeal also which has not been answered. I am not
inclined to file a 2nd appeal since a beneficiary of the corruption is
the CIC which was dropped from the case (at the next hearing date).
The DHC Registry has no explanation to provide to me why these 4 cases
were taken up out of turn and why gate pass was not issued to me till
matter was over. If you doubt me, you are free to file an RTI to DHC
asking to inspect my RTI and associated records. I shall pay for it.

Sarbajit

On 12/2/10, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> Dear Sir,
>
> I attended the High Court hearing on my petition in Sept. 2010 last and the
> my
> advocate endorsed the specific performa for the issue of pass and there was
> absolutely no problem in the issue of pass.  However there was a quest of
> about
> 10 persons.  I think DISCOM case was pending in the Delhi HC and the period
> u
> referred that the registry stopped to appear before the Court is prior to
> Sept.
> 2010.
>
> The information on this will be in your own interest and will boost your
> credibility too.  Shall be grateful if u inform
> The Court (High or Supreme) before which you could not plead as u were
> stopped
> by the Registry.
> Date of event.
>
> Regards,
> M K Gupta
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Urvi Sukul Singh <usukulsingh@hotmail.com>
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Thu, 2 December, 2010 1:56:34 PM
> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: "Judge Uncle Syndrome" in the High Courts
>
>
> Dear Mathur Sahab,
> I have the greatest respect for honest people but please don't mind when I
> say
> this,that,-please clean up your own police backyard,which,believe me,is rife
> with corruption.And the politicians as well.In terms of both numbers-of
> people
> and rupees--I am sure the politicians here will give everyone a race for
> their,er,money! Leaving the judiciary far far behind!
> Warm regards
> Urvi Sukul Singh
>
>
> From: Sant Mathur
> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 12:00 PM
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: "Judge Uncle Syndrome" in the High Courts
>
> Corruption in Judiciary is mindboggling.
> There has to be matching reponse from civil society to control/contain/curb
> it.
> If I were to do real serious research on this subject,how could help come
> from
> our members? 4 deacdes of distinguished public service(15 years in vigilance
> and
> anti-corruption area) has provided me quite a deal of experience in handling
> the
> sensitive issue under consideration
> spm
> IPS DGP retd
> BE MBA PhD
> PS I mean every word of what I've said
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 9:33 AM, sroy1947 <sroy1947@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Guptaji
>>
>>I think that you are not aware of the recent security norms imposed in
>>the
>>High Court and Supreme Court nowadays. To issue gate passes to parties
>>in person is now a lengthy process. Let me illustrate the procedure at
>>the
>>Supreme Court. This is as per an Office Order of the Registrar(Admn)
>>dated May 2009.
>>
>>1) Parties in person (ie. parties who are not represented by counsel)
>>shall not
>> be allowed to enter high security zone. They may file any papers at
>>the
>>reception counter to the PRO (and for which no receipt is issued) at
>>reception porta cabin. If any clarifications / information is required
>>the PRO
>>will try and inform them after speaking to concerned section.
>>
>>2) Parties in person whose case is listed on the day will have to
>>convince the
>>AGM-Security about his need to enter the high security zone. He will
>>be
>>escorted by security personnel to that court and will be escorted
>>back.
>>
>>So dear guptaji, All this is matter of record,  and I dont want to
>>comment about
>>it.
>>
>>Sarbajit
>>
>>
>>
>>On Dec 1, 10:29 pm, "M.K. Gupta" <mkgupta...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
>>> Dear Sarabjit ji,
>>>
>>> In ur entire mail, u have not informed how the High Court registry
>>> stopped u
>>> from appearing in the case in time in which u werea party/petitioner. As
>>> v
>>>know,
>>> there is no role of the Registry or no permission from the registry is
> requied
>>> for appearing in a case wherein v r party.
>>>
>>> Anyway, contine with your 'sincere' efforts trying to bring the DISCOMS
>>> under
>>> the RTI ambit. For this, not only I but the entire Delhi based members or
>>> residents of Delhi will be with u.
>>>
>>> i repeat my aforesaid query and hope to get an answer for enhancing my
>>> and
>>> members knowledge.
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy...@gmail.com>
>>
>>> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
>>> Sent: Wed, 1 December, 2010 6:06:46 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] "Judge Uncle Syndrome" in the High Courts
>>>
>>> Dear Gupta ji
>>>
>>> Whatever you have written about why DISCOMS should be public authority
>>> is not relevant.
>>> It is precisely because of such emotional arguments that you and I
>>> cannot talk to each other in public forums such as this. I believe in
>>> going strictly by the letter of the law.
>>>
>>> The fact of the matter is that when Habibullah heard the DISCOMS
>>> matter the first time, he had already made up his mind to pass a bad
>>> and unreasoned order declaring them to be public authority. He had
>>> been influenced by the BJP and NGOs like SNS to declare them as public
>>> authorities. I had sought information about tariff and regulatory
>>> issues from the DERC. It was the DERC which took the stand that
>>> DISCOMS are a public authority, not me.
>>>
>>> The first time matter reached High Court, I properly put all these
>>> facts before the Court by way of detailed affidavit. None of the other
>>> Respondents (CIC, DERC, GoNCTD) cared to file affidavit. The Court
>>> therefore remanded the matter back to CIC to reconsider and pass a
>>> detailed order. The Court also passed caustic observations (orally)
>>> about CIC's failure to hear the DISCOMS (3rd party) before passing
>>> orders prejudicial to them.
>>>
>>> When the matter was reheard at CIC, I placed on record the official
>>> notifications of GoNCTD constituting the DISCOMS. These were gazette
>>> notifications which the GoNCTD had later destroyed at the DISCOMS
>>> behest. As the 4 ICs (ie. 1CIC + 3 ICs) were unable to draft an order
>>> which would stand up to the Court's scrutiny, I had to draft the order
>>> for them.
>>>
>>> It was promptly appealed by the DISCOMS. Their sole issues for the
>>> last 3 years is that the CIC is not competent / empowered to pass
>>> orders declaring them to be public authority. DISCOMs entire
>>> grievance/lis is with CIC.
>>>
>>> Recently, a particular judge has gone to great lengths to assist the
>>> DISCOMS by his orders. These orders are matter of public record and
>>> speak for themselves. That is all I shall say in this matter.
>>>
>>> Sarbajit
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 5:33 PM, Mahendra Kumar Gupta
>>>
>>
>>> <mkgupta1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Dear Sarabjit,
>>>
>>> > The case is eye opener while the DISCOMS are dealing with Public, using
>>> > government land and offices of DESu, anserable to Electricity
>>> > Regularatory
>>> > and Delhi Govt, but still are out of purview
>>> > of RTI Act.
>>>
>>> > However, I request to enlighten us how the Registry of the High Court
>>> > stopped you to appear in the case on time and from the details given by
>>> > u,
> I
>>> > understand that u r the petitioner.
>>> > Last time, I heard tht the DHC has referred back the case to CIC for
>>> > reconsideration, please inform about the status of the case and matter
>>> > for
>>> > the benefit of the members. . This is very important issue concerning
>>> > all
>>> > the citizens.
>>>
>>> > On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Dr. Jagnarain Sharma
>>
>>> > <dr.jagnarainsha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> dear Roy
>>> >>      i have also suffered a lot
>>> >>      Regards
>>> >>      Dr JN Sharma
>>>
>>
>>> >> On 11/28/10, sroy 1947 <sroy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> >http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=67078
>>>
>>> >> > It is not only Judge Uncle syndrome.in the High Courts.
>>>
>>> >> > There is another sinister and secret association which controls the
>>> >> > Judiciary.
>>> >> > Its motto is clear, when 1 of the parties (or their advocate) is a
>>> >> > member
>>> >> > and
>>> >> > the others are not, the judge MUST favour his brother irrespective
>>> >> > of
>>> >> > the
>>> >> > merits of the case. You can spot them by their secret signs and
>>> >> > symbols,
>>> >> > such as the metal of their pens, and the number of pens they are
>>> >> > allowed
>>> >> > to wear to indicate their "degree" within the brotherhood.
>>>
>>> >> > Take my one of my own long pending cases in the Delhi High Court.
>>> >> > The
>>> >> > writ
>>> >> > where DISCOMS of Delhi challenged CIC's order holding them to be
>>> >> > Public Authority.
>>>
>>> >> > At the very first hearing they arranged that matter was listed in
>>> >> > 2006
>>> >> > before a judge
>>> >> > whose brother practices in the same high court and has represented 1
>>> >> > of the DSCOMS
>>> >> > previously on numerous occasions. They got an ex-parte state order
>>> >> > in
>>> >> > their favour
>>> >> > which carries on till today. In April 2010 the ASG Chandiok appeared
>>> >> > for
>>> >> > DISCOMS
>>> >> > (who vociferously claim not to be Govt) and despite the opposite
>>> >> > party
>>> >> > being
>>> >> > 2 bodies of Govt, and secured an order allowing CIC to be dropped as
>>> >> > a
>>> >> > party
>>> >> > and all hearings to be frozen till further notice. I was prevented
>>> >> > by
>>> >> > the High Court
>>> >> > Registry from reaching the court in time to voice my objections. The
>>> >> > judge who passed
>>> >> > these orders is the toast of the NGO chatterati circuit for his bold
>>> >> > orders.
>>>
>>> >> > The state of the judiciary is a reflection of the sate of the nation
>>> >> > today. As someone who
>>> >> > has been attending the superior courts for almost 30 years now, I
>>> >> > can
>>> >> > say that the gangrene
>>> >> > has corrupted all the courts in the land, and there is no hope till
>>> >> > they are all amputated.
>
>
>