Re: [HumJanenge] PUBLIC GRIEVANCE: Intemperate language used in decisions of the Commission

Dear Mr. Sarbajit,

 

Before writing this and blaming the IC, I humbly call upon you to remember that you wrote the greater number of RTI activists are killed is better and that you support even the word limit of 150 instead of 250 for an RTI application.  If u have forgotten this, please see your past mails. When I protested about your remarks on the killing of RTI activists in a mail titled "real face of Sarbajit Roy, you reiterated your views.

 

I am some kind of confused retard or not should be decided by other memeber but this kind of exchanges are not good on a blog.  However, I do not criticise each and every bod who is contributing any thing to the cause of RTI, fighting corruption and doing a social service.  I consider myself humble RTI volunteer and not superior of all others in this field. My mission is to propogate RTI tool and not the work for its dillution and I respect all other activists without considering them RTI h*r*m*s.

---

From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, 22 March, 2011 2:31:42 PM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] PUBLIC GRIEVANCE: Intemperate language used in decisions of the Commission

Dear Mr Gupta

Is this deliberate or are you some kind of confused retard ?

The matter which is sub-judice is whether DSGMC is a public authority or not. When this issue is pending before a superior court it is grossly contemptuous for any public servant  (especially a lower tribunal like Mr Gandhi who has adjudicated on the question)  to pass intemperate comments (in orders) concerning a party in the matter - and especially where CIC was DELETED as a party in the matter.

As I have said, it is a matter for the CIC to sort out internally, as citizens we are only here to assist the CIC to see that "justice" is done.

If the members of this house wish I can point out umpteen specific instances where Mr Gandhi has BETRAYED the RTI movement.

FOR INSTANCE WILL MR GANDHI DENY (ON ANY PUBLIC FORUM) THAT HE WAS AN AUTHOR OF THE 250 WORD + 1 SUBJECT LIMIT ON RTI APPLICATIONS DRAFT RTI RULE.

This is an open challenge from me to him !!!

Sarbajit.

On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 1:25 PM, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

Let the PIO or SGPC file a contempt petition before the Court and in that eventuallity, it will be for Shri Shailesh Gandhi, IC and CIC to defend the action in question and all the doubts will be addressed.  Why r v so much such worried for Mr. Gandhi and he must have given the decision after considering all pros and cons.

 

However, if v buy argument about the matter being sub-judice, in most of the cases, no body will get any information. (Remember cases of CWG and 2G scams).  The PIOs and Public Authorities will file a case before the court and will drag the matter for years to stop the dissimination of information.

 

I recall, in one of the decisions, Mr. Gandhi has pronounced that matter being subjudice is no ground to deny the information unless there is a specific stay and the such question will only arise if after the decision of the CIC, PA approach to the Court to stay the order of the CIC or SICs.

 

If member want, I can give detail or full decision for their benefit.