Re: [HumJanenge] Attn.: Mr. Girish Mittal

Dear Girish

Thanks for clarifying that your queries in that RTI were your own (and
that you / your dad are not RTI taxis). I hope that you will
appreciate why I was so allergic to your queries in the background of
my previous emails.

Can you give /cite me the SC decision on 2 weeks ex-parte stay.
Although I haven't read it, it may be based on a sub-clause of Art.226
which sets a 2 week deadline IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.

Regarding Mr. Aakashdeep, I have replied to Suresh Nangia on almost
the same issue (posted to this group).

On "CIC as a collegium", I must publicly respond as follows for the
record. Although I am convinced that the RTI Act intends for the CIC
to act as a body, BUT considering the practical ground realities I am
not advancing this proposition in the SC (where I am the 2nd
Respondent). I am sitting quiet over there so that the CIC can salvage
the situation from the mess of Mr. Habibullah's creation. As such I am
a "responsible" person (looking at the larger public interest of RTI
users) despite my own intense desire to prove a theoretical point
which I am suppressing (for the moment).

Sarbajit

On 7/17/12, Girish Mittal <rtng.mittal@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Sarbjeet,
>
> (a) Judges/ almost judges have right to independent opinion. It has been
> happening all these years and will continue to happen in various courts
> including high courts and supreme court.
>
> (b) The full bench decision in RR Patel vs. RBI in an illegal decision and
> it was constituted merely to overturn the decision of Ansari...Wajahat
> merely wanted to appease RBI, hence he constituted a full bench...What is
> the reason to follow such decision?
>
> (c) i don't really want to comment on decisions of DHC- Justice Vipin
> Sanghi...He doesn't seem have much love for Shailesh Gandhi and I would
> like to believe that it is mutual. SC has said that ex-parte stays should
> not be granted for more than 2 weeks-Hon'ble Mr. Sanghi doesn't seems to
> believe in the same..I wonder if you have the guts to write a critique to
> Mr. Sanghi citing the judgement of SC? Would you do that Mr. Roy?
>
> (d) I don't know the background and work of Mr. Shekhar Singh...so I would
> refrain from commenting. As for identical queries, I don't see any reason
> why the queries asked should not be answered by CIC...be it for Shekhar
> Singh or my father or anyone else...Information under RTI can be denied
> only under section 8 or 9..here CPIO has not claimed any such reason for
> denial...
>
> (e) I and my father don't work for anyone..We file RTIs for the causes
> which we believe in...We don't need to explain anything beyond that...
>
> (f) I can claim to know Shaileshbhai...Infact, I got to know him better
> after he became IC and heard several cases...He did not agree to our
> queries in many cases..but it doesn't mean he became my sworn enemy...I
> also know Wajahat equally well...and know what all he is capable of
> doing...
>
> (g) You havent answered my query on Akashdeep..what business does he have
> in not following order of commission, however illogical it may be???
>
> (f) CIC being a collegium is pending before SC..But if it were to happen,
> CIC would cease to function..already it is in ICU...it will die its natural
> death...
>
> Girish
>
>
> Thanks for reverting
>
> 1) It seems that you agree that individual Information Commissioners
> sitting singly can pass orders disregarding the previously passed
> decisions of other ICs (especially the Chief).
>
> 2) Mr. Shailesh Gandhi goes 1 step further by openly disregarding
> decisions of "Full Benches" of the Commission even when they are
> brought to his notice by the parties. He says that "this
> Commission" (whatever that may mean) "respectfully disagrees" and then
> passes his orders. What are the poor appellants expected to do with
> all this confusion ??
>
> 3) Well they go to High Court.and get scathing orders passed
> concerning his "lack of judicial discipline".
>
> 4) My particular grievance was against Mr. Shekhar Singh, the Google
> financed "spy", who was intent on getting the Govt instrumentalities
> to digitise tens of thousands of documents for him, (at 60 paise per
> page) to be provided to him at Rs. 50 only. Not only is this a
> collossal waste of tax payers money, he was doing this at Google's
> behest so that Google could publish it (like they publish so many
> books still under copyright). It is another matter that Mr. Shekhar
> Singh was assuming the garb of a transparency advocate till I got him
> to admit during proceedings that he had received over Rs. 1 crore from
> Google for all this.
>
> 5) I was therefore shocked to see the identical queries ostensibly
> submitted by your father. The queries were submitted well after the
> Shekhar Singh order (which was publicised from this group also). Since
> it is well known that Google (which is closely associated with
> America's intelligence agencies and is a CIA front) is financing
> many
> so-called RTI Activists in India, I was curious if you / your father
> are among them ? Or are you unwitting pawns of the NCPRI (what I call
> "RTI taxis" like Subhash Chandra Agrawal who will file an RTI for
> anyone .. or qv. your RTIs against Corporation Bank, BoB etc).
>
> 6) We have different views on Shailesh Bhai. Since you are from
> Mumbai, you probably know him better than me. Mr. Habibullah, for all
> his faults at least afforded me the opportunity to intervene as 3rd
> party in Shekhar Singh's matter and get the information denied, why
> could not Shailesh Gandhi not do the same in your case ?
>
> 7) Kindly note that I am not defending Aaakash Deep. Like him, I am
> aggrieved at Shailesh Gandhi's completely, egoistic, incompetent,
> legally illiterate style of functioning, and also the deep and
> pervasive stench of corruption in his office when he was an IC. You
> don't know all the facts in AkaashDeep's case, I am sure the truth
> will come out eventually despite Shailesh engaging some big legal
> names to see that it doesn't.
>
> 8) regarding 19(7). ALL citizens are aggrieved by ALL ICs sitting
> singly and their orders. When I got the Delhi High Court to declare
> that ICs sitting singly was illegal the entire NCPRI brigade was up in
> arms and got CIC to approach the SC - despite ANT, Deepak Sandhu etc
> publicly agreeing with my reading of the RTI Act - The CIC is a
> "collegium" like the US Supreme Court, and must sit jointly to decide
> all cases.. That is the only way to stop corrupt ICs sitting singly.
>
> Warmly
> Sarbajit
>