Re: [HumJanenge] SC cannot deny information under RTI Act: CIC

please note Mr. A.N. Tiwari was Central information commissioner in Central information commission and as chief info commissioner he would have referred appeal to larger bench why he has not referred why i was given opportunity of hearing  in my complaint against bombay High court viadya --- On Sat, 21/5/11, Abhijit Mehta <abhijit@abhijitmehta.com> wrote: From: Abhijit Mehta <abhijit@abhijitmehta.com> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] SC cannot deny information under RTI Act: CIC To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com Date: Saturday, 21 May, 2011, 7:09 AM Dear Sarbajit In that case, I do stand corrected. Thank you. Regards Abhijit Mehta The Best Is Yet To Come  God Bless On 21-May-2011, at 6:28 AM, Sarbajit Roy wrote: Hi Abhijit This is just to clarify that the 2 points you made in your email are independent of each other, since Mr Tiwari was a Central Information Commissioner along with Mr Habibullah in the first CIC. Sarbajit. On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Abhijit Mehta <abhijit@abhijitmehta.com> wrote: Mr Prasad Vaidya Mr Wajahat Habibullah could not have taken any action against A.N.Tiwari. The Central Information Commission and the state information commission are independent of each other. Only the Governor of Maharashtra Can take action against the State Information Commission. Regards Abhijit Mehta The Best Is Yet To Come  God Bless On 20-May-2011, at 10:47 AM, prasad vaidya wrote: Mr. Sarbajit roy , respected sir forward my grievances to Mr. Habibullah if you respct rights of common man like me. Mr. Wajahat Habibullah has adopted double when he was in office as a Chief Information Commission. I wrote to him regrding one judgment related to incometax appellate tribunal and requested him reconsider his decision but he never took cognizance of my letter which includes amany constitutional apsects. I wrote to him about behaviour of information Commssioner Shri. A.N. Tiwari who dispoed my appeal against Bombay High Court and during hearing he had passed order in which he has assured me to allow file inspection but in the printed order the sentences were ommitted and even he took decision without reading my written notes of arguments but Mr. Habibullah has not taken action on my complaint against Mr. A.N. Tiwari also my reqquest for hearing of Appeal against before Full Bench was acccepted and even Mr. Habibullah never informed whether my request is accpeted if not why the same is rejected.Remember as section 4(1)(d) CIC and c\hief information Commissioner was bound to inform me reasons even my complaint against bombay high court was decided without giving any opprtunity of hearing which in turn against the provisions of Article 14 includes principles of natural justice Mr. Habibullah was considering requests of those who were represented by big lawyers and and paries who were big industrials Mr. Habibullah has nothing to do with common man like he partial fellow and also the information commissioners and also Maharashtra infor Commssion and Bombay High Court also Prasad B Vaidya mo.08149558468 viadya --- On Wed, 18/5/11, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote: From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] SC cannot deny information under RTI Act: CIC To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com Date: Wednesday, 18 May, 2011, 7:57 AM Sir Whereas I freely admit that there are some of your decisions in my cases which were not drafted by me at all, I stick to my stand that 2 of them (fairly lengthy ones) were substantially drafted by me, to the extent that in one of them I had even taken the trouble to provide it in electronic form (a Floppy disk since the CIC PCs didn't have a CD option in those days) so that it could reach your computer to polish up in your inimitable style. PS: My comments which you incorporated were already placed by me in the public domain using this group and other "blogs" Sarbajit On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 9:22 PM, wajahat <whabibullah@nic.in> wrote: Yes, Singhi was indeed brought in by me, but only as legal advisor, not as a drfatsman for decision writing! And because I might have incoprportaed your comments in my decisions, it hardly means that the draft decision was yours. And ofcourse all my decisions are still on my computer. Good old Er Srabajit-ever the endearing court jester! Wajahat ----- Original Message ----- From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 8:49 pm Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] SC cannot deny information under RTI Act: CIC To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com > Sir, > > 1) It was a typo - it should be read as Mr L. C. Singhi who was also the Registrar of the CIC and is probably well known to you from LBSA days if not earlier. > > 2) The statement that all your decisions were drafted by yourself is not true, because at least 2 decisions issued under your signature in my RTI cases were actually substantially drafted by me. > > 3)  I have never shirked from admitting that you are / were a vastly superior Commissioner than the likes of Mr Shailesh Gandhi. > > With best wishes > > Sarbajit > > > On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 4:18 PM, wajahat <whabibullah@nic.in> wrote: > Excuse me! All my decisions were drafted by myself, and there never was anybody by the name of Singhvi in the position of JS or anything else in the Commission. But thanks for the very rare compliment-which would never have come were I still CCIC! > Wajahat > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> > Date: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 1:29 pm > Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] SC cannot deny information under RTI Act: CIC > To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com > > > Dear Mr Varma (and also Mr MK Gupta) > > > > It seems that you gentleman (like Mr Gandhi) are not aware of the facts concerning RTI process in the Supreme Court, and you would be well advised to read again Mr Habibullahs order in Adv Manish Khanna versus Supreme Court which is exceedingly well crafted considering the ground realities alluded to therein. It is another entirely that the decision in Adv Khanna's case was drafted by Mr LCSinghvi (the then JS-Law/CIC) and not by Mr Habibullah. The case number is CIC/WB/A/2006/00940 > > > > Sarbajit > > > > On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Narayan Varma <narayanvarma2011@gmail.com> wrote: > > It is no bunking. It is taking different view if one is convinced that view earlier taken by IC/CIC is incorrect. If One is to follow always what is decided  earlier, there will be no development of law or progress of law or understanding different view in any matter. I believe view now expressed by IC SG is the correct view, In fact sometime before on this sight strong objection was taken in context of registrar of companies matter and decision was debunked by many members. > > Narayan Varma > > > > > > On 16 May 2011 23:51, Shailesh Kumar Shukla <shailesh183@yahoo.co.in> wrote: > > Thanks for the updates.. > > Please keep it up.. > > Regards.... > > > > From: Sidharth Misra <sidharthbbsr@gmail.com> > > To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com > > Sent: Mon, 16 May, 2011 4:55:19 PM > > Subject: [HumJanenge] SC cannot deny information under RTI Act: CIC > > > > IF IC Gandhi debunks his old boss Wajahat this way, does it mean that > > the prior decisions of CIC/SIC has no precedential  value ? > > > > > > http://goo.gl/umpW6 > > > > > > > > -- > > Narayan Varma > > 56B Mittal Tower, > > 210 Nariman Point > > Mumbai 400 021 > > RTI PCGT helpline 09322882288            > >  my cell   09821096052 > > >