Re: [HumJanenge] Attn Girish Mittal / High Court stay case involving Shailesh Gandhi

My Dear Suresh

1) You know very well that Mr. Naveen Kumar Peer is a professional
"RTI taxi" (aka self proclaimed "whistleblower") affiliated to the
same gang of "RTI parasites" which Shailesh was the ring master of
before he became an IC. I would request you to kindly do a google
search of his name on the CIC website to draw your own conclusions.

1a) You may also read this
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/293460/

2) Mr. Naveen Kumar Peer and the entire gang of RTI "parasites" have
ensured that ordinary decent appellants and complainants are made to
wait for years because of these frivolous complaints which are filed
at the drop of a hat by RTI professionals. Shailesh had no business
taking up Mr. Peer's instant petition. Unfortunately the relevant
decision with the primary facts of the dispute appears to have been
taken off the CIC website after the DHC stay order, otherwise I would
have explained this matter to your satisfaction.

3) I am sure that you would agree that a party who has reason to
suspect bias/prejudice of the "judge" can approach a higher "judge"
for redress / transfer / constitution of a new bench.

4) May I also ask yourself to imagine yourself in the shoes of a
JS(Law) who is required to defend numerous patently bad decisions of
an incompetent Information Commissioner in the High Court. Let
Shailesh publicly state that the adverse decision of Justice Sanghi in
the other matter had nothing to do with this vindictive penalty matter
against JS(Law) and others. Is it a coincidence that it was Mr.Naveen
Kumar Peer who is the complainant ?

5) You also know very well that had SG passed an order (ie achieving
"finality"), there would have been no further appeal possible within
CIC. DURING PROCEEDINGS it is open to any party OR the Commission to
request for Constitution of a larger Bench. As a JS (and appearing for
the Commission) , Mr.Aakashdeep had to move through "proper channels"
(ie the Secretary/CIC) to request the Larger Bench. The proper
procedure was followed. If Shailesh bhai doesnt even know such basics
he had no business being an IC

6) What is really bugging Shailesh Bhai is this --- He wanted to "fix"
Aakashdeep with a penalty order just before he remitted office, which
Aakashdeep would have had to prosecute for years while Shailesh would
have been enjoying himself. Because Aakashdeep shot first, now
Shailesh will be defending also.

Sarbajit

On 7/17/12, suresh nangia <sknangia2004@yahoo.com> wrote:
> My dear Sarbajit
>
> I have been following with interest this exchange of mail(s) about
> Delhi High Court granting a stay stopping a Central Information Commissioner
> from proceeding with disposal of a 2nd Appeal case where one of the
> functionaries at Central Information Commission is involved and faced
> prospect of attracting penalty provisions under RTI Act as a deemed PIO.
>
> The case traveled to High Court just because Chief IC had agreed to a
> request from deemed PIO at CIC {JS(Law)} making a prayer, and Secretary of
> CIC making recommendation to Chief IC for constituting a full bench to hear
> his case. This was even before the case had been heard to finality and an
> Order passed by Information Commissioner disposing of the Appeal.
>
> For my information, can you quote any provision of RTI Act which
> authorizes Secretary CIC, who has no role function in the scheme of things
> under RTI nor has this position been given any cognizance under the ACt,
> except for taking care of the administrative side of the functioning at CIC,
> to make recommendations to Chief IC, to withdraw the case from the
> Commissioner the hearing of a case matter which had been assigned to him by
> was of arrangements at CIC, and constitute a full bench. That too midway
> through the hearing process even when case had not reached to its finality.
> All this was stage managed just because JS (Law) was apprehensive of some
> penal action against him. If all this is all allowed to go on un-checked, it
> will sound the death-knel for RTI
>
> I am aware of your antipathy - rather strong antipathy towards Shailesh
> Gandhi. I have nothing to say on that because that is personal perception.
> But we should not lose sight of principles underlying RTI while discussing a
> case matter and attribute motives behind everything done by a person whom
> you do not like. You should have discussed and also commented on the act of
> JS(Law) in avoiding facing the inquiry set up by SG as a Commissioner and
> Secretary of CIC going overboard to help him in his such endeavour by making
> recommendation to CIC on a subject matter which is totally outside his
> domain.
>
> I would expect a response from you.
>
>
> S K NANGIA
>
>
> --- सोम, 16/7/12 को, Girish Mittal <rtng.mittal@gmail.com> ने लिखा:
>
> द्वारा: Girish Mittal <rtng.mittal@gmail.com>
> विषय: [HumJanenge] Re: Attn. Mr. Girish Mittal
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> दिनांक: सोमवार, 16 जुलाई, 2012, 11:54 AM
>
> Dear Sarbajit, Why do you think that if then CIC has passed an
> illegal order in past, it should continue in perpetuity? If you read the
> order of Wajahat carefully, even that has not been implemented in CIC???
> Did you write about it?
>
>
>
> Shailesh Gandhi has passed a very reasoned order. We can agree
> to disagree on this.
>
>
>
> I don't understand the motivation you have in defending
> Akashdeep, who is an accused in the in the instant case and who writes to
> CIC to constitute a full bench, who meekly agrees. Does the JS/Law not know
> the 19(7) of RTI Act? Besides, what business he has in not following the
> order of legally appointed IC, irrespective of whether that order is
>
>
> There is an order of SC, which has cautioned against arbitrary
> granting of ex-parte stay...But our HCs are very much doing the same..If you
> want, I can send you copy of the said judgement.
>
>
> Regards.Girish Mittal
>
>
>
> Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> Jul 15 12:24AM +0530
>
> Dear Girish
>
> http://www.moneylife.in/article/did-the-chief-information-commissioner-subvert-rti-provisions-to-protect-a-cic-officer/26903.html
>
>
>
>
> I would like to publicly discuss with you your father's RTI
> application to CIC, and your moneylife article in the background of
> this CIC decision in which I intervened.
>
> http://indiankanoon.org/doc/990634/
>
>
>
>
> I find that your father's RTI application is word for word a copy of
> Shekhar SIngh's RTI of 2008 which I intervened to get disclosure
> stopped in the NATIONAL INTEREST.
>
> Since the Chief Information Commissioner in 2010 has already decided
>
>
>
> that the information cannot be disclosed, who the F*** is a mere IC
> like SG to over-rule him in 2011 ?
>
> This is exactly the point of the Delhi High Court's latest order which
> shred's Shailesh Bhai's arbitrary and egoistic (and as per me corrupt)
>
>
>
> style of functioning. This is also why HONEST and COMPETENT
> (relatively) officers are forced to approach Courts against
> INCOMPETENT and CORRUPT Information Commissioners who are obliging
> their NCRPI seniors (who got him his job .. with pension).
>
>
>
>
> PS: You will note that Mr. Akash Deep was also present in the decision
> I have cited.
>
> Warmly
> Sarbajit
>
> C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> Jul 14 07:17PM -0700
>
> Mr Sarbajit,
>
> What kind of JS (Law) is Mr Akash Deep Chakravarti, if he does not even know
> a WP number in the Delhi HC but still insists that the a reference be made
> in the CIC order ?
>
>
>
>
> Please see:
>
> http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_AD_C_2012_000936_M_85989.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
> Points (ii), (v) and (vi)
> Since the DoPT has obtained a stay order from the Delhi High Court on the
> said directive of the
> Commission, these points can only be taken up after the court pronounces
> its final decision.
>
>
>
>
> With such a JS (Law), no wonder ICs are passing illegal orders. LOL
>
> RTIwanted
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
>
>
>
> To: humjanenge <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2012 12:24 AM
> Subject: [HumJanenge] For Attn: Mr. Girish Mittal
>
>
>
>
> Dear Girish
>
> .
> .
> .
>
>
> PS: You will note that Mr. Akash Deep was also present in the decision
> I have cited.
>
> Warmly
> Sarbajit
>
>
>
> sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> Jul 14 11:10PM -0700
>
> I presume you are referring to some stay DoPT has obtained against
>
>
>
> CIC(AT)'s direction to appoint "Transparency Officers" .. carry out
> suo-moto section 4 etc...
> With 100's of cases involving CIC orders (the bulk of them passed by
> incompetent ICs like SG) how do you expect a Law Officer to have the
>
>
>
> case numbers at his finger tips.
>
> The solution is to give CIC officers IPADs so that such petty details
> can be incorporated in decisions delivered by an IC (and not those
> decisions delivered by a JS(Law))
>
>
>
>
> Sarbajit
>
>
> C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> Jul 15 06:14AM -0700
>
>
>
>
> Mr Sarbajit,
>
> What a joke........
>
> You want to give iPads to those who cant differentiate between
> a Computer Monitor and a windscreen ?
> Or between "windows" and a khidki ?
>
> Your most favoured IC says his eyes pain when he looks at a screen.
>
>
>
>
> PS: 5 (and a half) out of 8 ICs are computer unfriendly !
> (The half is because he is at least SMS friendly)
>
> And you still want them to bite the apple.
>
> He He He LOL !
>
> RTIwanted
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
> To: "HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005"
> <HumJanenge@googlegroups.com>
>
>
>
> Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2012 11:40 AM
> Subject: [HumJanenge] Re: For Attn: Mr. Girish Mittal
>
>
> The solution is to give CIC officers IPADs so that such petty details
> can be incorporated in decisions delivered by an IC (and not those
>
>
>
> decisions delivered by a JS(Law))
>
> Sarbajit
>