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

Replying point wise

Firstly the judgment of the Delhi High Court (single judge) is here
http://lobis.nic.in/dhc/SMD/judgement/23-07-2010/SMD22072010CW7202010.pdf
(Personally, I agree with the decision to declare DSGMC as PA on the
facts as stated, but that is neither here nor there).

This is a very complicated case. Initially a PIO / FAA was designated
by DSGMC. Then they obtained legal opinion that they are not a public
authority (based on errors in the printed version of the law and also
some previous judgment of the Delhi High Court & PHC )

1) The former PIO now contends he is not a PIO till the matter is
finally decided. The PIO is correct that till the matter is finally
decided he is not bound to comply. This flows from the Constitutional
scheme and Code of Civil Procedure and not the RTI Act. The
information has not been denied by the PIO - it is actually a
complaint case. I would go so far as to say that by expressing an
opinion on a sub-judice matter and publishing it on CIC website, Mr
Shailesh Gandhi has committed criminal contempt of court.
Unfortunately Mr Gandhi is a well known contemnor who got away last
time by the skin of his teeth after an unqualified apology to Justice
Swatenter Kumar. When it was very well known to Mr Gandhi that both
the "PIO" and "FAA" stated that matter was already in LPA appeal
(matter having been heard and listed on several occasions till then)
was it not a CORRUPT act of Mr Gandhi to record that DSGMC "intended"
to file an LPA and then proceeded to award compensation on that basis.
How much was he bribed to pass such an absurd order ?

2) On point #2 I am glad to see that you concur with my line of
argument - especially that it is for the aggrieved party to agitate
his matter before the concerned court and not at the CIC. Why didn't
Mr Agrawal rush back to CIC saying that the CJI was not complying with
CIC's order - could it be that Mr Prashant Bhushan (or whoever
represents him free of cost these days) knows a little more law than
Mr Shailesh Gandhi does ?

3) Since I am the party in the CIC Management Regulations case, the
Court specifically struck down the Constitution of benches by the CIC
by a reasoned order and held that section 12 conferred no such powers
on the CCIC to constitute benches. If for 186 days after that order Mr
Gandhi still continued to hear matters sitting singly it is still open
to any aggrieved person to prosecute him. Certainly the CIC could have
continued to function after the Court struck down their Regulations -
AS A FULL BENCH OF ALL INFORMATION COMMISSIONERS - Like the
"collegium" of the US Supreme Court. !!!

In any case my griervance petition is addressed to the CCIC - who can
better appreciate my legal points alongwith his legal team. As I have
also previously said here, the vast majority of demonstratably
"eminent" ICs refuse to sit near Mr Shailesh Gandhi and the corrupt
little circus he conducts at Old JNU campus.

Sarbajit

On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 10:31 PM, umapathy subramanyam
<umapathi.s.rti@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Roy Sir, could please clarify the following ?
>
> 1) Whether the stand of PIO and FAA that the information Can't be provided
> since the matter had been appealed in Court is justified ? is there any
> provision in RTI ACT for denial of information merely because the matter is
> pending before the Court ? so, I feel Mr. Gandhi is right in his stand
> since unless there is an express prohibition from the Court , the CPIO can't
> refuse the information.Whether PIO Intend to file or actually filed the case
> in court, it doesn't matter for furnishing the information, so where is the
> case of corruptly recording the statements by Mr. Gandhi. ?
>
> 2) you can't compare the case of CJ Assets case with that of the present
> one. each and every case has its own facts and circumstances. it also
> depends upon the nature of the prayers sought in the petitions. We don't
> know what were the prayers in these two petitions and hence you can't
> assume that information should have been supplied as soon as the order of
> the Court is announced. it is left for the petitioner i.e. Aggrieved party
> to enforce his order.
>
> 3) Regarding your point no.3, the Court only struck down the CIC Management
> Regulation , not the constitution and functioning of the CIC.So why should
> the CIC should stop function , was there any specific order to the effect
> that the CIC functions be stopped ? Obviously no. The functioning of the CIC
> is regulated by the provisions of RTI Act i.e. section 12 of RTI Act . so,
> there is no question of stopping the functioning of CIC merely the
> regulation formulated by CIC is struck by the Court. so, the logic and
> reasoning you are putting forward has no relevance to the points you raised
> in your grievance petition .
>
> regards.
>
> umapathi.s