Re: [HumJanenge] CIC bungles (and loses) yet again in LPA: Delhi High Court

Thanks manoj

I think this is an important ground on which single judge (murlidhar)
order should be challenged where he is routinely interfering in
penalty cases.

On Sunday, 20 February 2011, Manoj Pai <manojpai@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I note that the Public Authority had booked an advocate, funded from public funds, to defend the CPIO. What happened to the observation of Punjab & Haryana High Court asking the CPIO, if penalised, to approach the court in his personal capacity? Check link for news story
>
> http://www.indianexpress.com/news/if-penalised-approach-courts-in-personal-ca/706897/
>
> Manoj
>
> --- On Sun, 2/20/11, Pranav Sachdeva <pranavsachdeva@gmail.com> wrote:
> I argued this matter for CIC in the division bench. I think the negative attitude of the CJ of DHC is more to blame. At one point he said govt would have got the penalty amount of 25000 and now they are getting only 5000. if govt is not worried, why is the CIC worried. I told him it is not
> about the money, but the deterrent effect that penalty has on PIOs that is important.
>
>
> Anyway, CIC has so far decided not to challenge this in SC.
> Pranav
>
>
>

--
Pranav Sachdeva
Advocate
Chamber: 301, New Chambers for Lawyers,
Supreme Court of India, New Delhi-110001
Office: C-1A/41A Janak Puri, New Delhi-110058
Ph: 91-11-45523419, 25572311. Fax: 91-11-45523419
Mobile: 91-9910523811 Email: pranavsachdeva@gmail.com