[HumJanenge] Re: Attn. Mr. Girish Mittal

Dear Girish

I think that you have not read your cited decision carefully.

Firstly, the Court has not gone into ex-party stays and delays as a
question of law. Hence there is no settled law on this point emanating
from this decision. In fact FINAL para 59 makes it abundantly clear
that this decision does NOT settle any law on this (or any other)
question of law.

Secondly, this decision DILUTES Article 226(3) of the Constitution. It
introduces ADDITIONAL requirements for vacation of ex-parte ad-interim
stays in para 47 like "as expeditiously as possible" and suggests
securing indemnities for mesne profits etc.. By this logic
"expeditiously" in RTI Act means that applicants should get
information within 1 or 2 weeks. Why dont you cite this decision to
every CPIO you apply to ?

As anyone knows the general practice in the High Courts is that after
an ex-parte stay is granted, and the other parties enter appearance,
after a token discussion the ex-parte stay is simply extended.

Vacation of ex-parte stays granted by High Courts is precisely defined
in Article 226. Till you have a substantial decision on this please
don't waste our time which such inapplicable judgments

In any case, Shailesh Gandhi has apparently gone into 226(3) in his
counter-affidavit in Aakashdeep's WP. Lets see how Justice Sanghi
deals with it (within 2 weeks). I am sure that Shailesh being so
legally knowledgeable would know that Aaakshdeep must get the matter
listed before the Court within 2 weeks or else he can move a IA for
contempt against Aakashdeep.

http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1242743/
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1385257/
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/648042/
http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/552281/

and so many more

Sarbajit

Girish Mittal wrote:
> Dear Sarbajit,
>
> Attached is the SC judgement which says that the ex-parte stay should not
> be more than 1-2 weeks(para 46-48). I hope you will have the courage to
> write a letter to Justice Sanghi in your typical tone expressing your
> displeasure at his tendency of granting granting ex-parte stays of more
> than 6 months. Please circulate the letter to this group as well.
>
> You still have not explained what is your interest in defending Akashdeep
> and what business he has got in not obeying the orders of the commission.
>
> We are aggrieved by the 1st appeals settled by Ms Anita Gupta and we write
> in every appeal made to CIC that she should not be hearing the 1st appeals.
> She continues to hear. We have made few requests for change of bench of
> commission also, but that also has not been acceded. What does that imply??
>
> Regards.
>
> Girish Mittal