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

Dear Girish

I have never hankered for ICship unlike SG.
He was bought off (and I am incorruptible).

I have yet to see any quality reasoned order from SG.
Please show me one.

I have not supported JS(Law). How did you reach this
conclusion ? What I have objected to is SG's initiating
a section 18 "enquiry" on a section 19 2nd Appeal. As
the same matter has already been decided by an LPA
bench of Delhi High Court and confirmed in the Supreme
Court where I was a party, I am shocked that SG
displays such little care for the spirit of RTI Act.

Re para 59, It is impossible to make a blind man see.

I have never filed a PIL in my life. All my litigations are
private actions where I am personally aggrieved. No
cause of action against ex-parte stays has ever arisen
for me.

RTI activists are greatest threat to RTI

Sarbajit

On 7/22/12, Girish Mittal <rtng.mittal@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Sarbjeet,
>
> I couldn't resist this one either...
>
> Oh so you have grouse against SG for being made IC and not
> you??? In that case, you can continue to have your grouse and continue to
> abuse SG...Looking at quality of reasoned orders of SG, I am sure he must
> be seeking sound legal advice, certainly not from moribund babus in CIC,
> who are good for nothing....By the way, you have still not clarified your
> vested interested in defending the JS/Law running to HC when faced with
> inquiry..If he was so honest, he would have had faced the inquiry and not
> ran to DHC to have the inquiry stayed. It is sad to note that Chief Comm
> Mr. Mishra, saying that it is a trivial matter...
>
> Reg. para 59, i must reproduce the same:
> " We make it abundantly clear that the trial court should not be
> influenced by any observation or finding arrived at by
> us in dealing with these appeals as we have not decided the matter on
> merits of the case"...Which to any reasoned man would mean that the court
> has not decided on the specific issues involved in the case, but has
> limited itself to the issue of "ex-parte" stays..As I said earlier, you
> have an amazing ability to twist the facts...
>
> If you were a man of so high moral values and expert in legal
> matters, i would challenge to you to file a PIL in SC against the mindless
> granting of ex parte stays against the orders of CIC by various
> HCs...Judiciary is greater threat to RTI than CIC...
>
> All the best my friend...
>
> Girish Mittal
>
>
>
>
> Dear Girish
>
> I am truly disappointed by your reply.
>
> You have shown that you are no better than an "RTI activist" who
> struts about until called upon to defend his position, whereupon they
> simply run away and claim the moral high ground through the (bought
> off) media or controlled groups like HJ-YG .
>
> You stated previously that there is a SC judgment on vacation of
> interim stay orders. I was very surprised to learn about this since I
> track these things. I asked you for it. You sent me the judgment. I
> read it and clearly explained (precisely and legally) why your
> conclusions were incorrect.
>
> Now you can only accuse me of twisting words and facts. A a person who
> first stepped into the SC in my teens (and have being arguing in
> person from that age) I am probably much better suited to interpret SC
> judgments (spoken / unspoken) than you are. As somebody who had
> assisted over 200 poor persons to successfully secure justice from SC,
> I can assure you that I have excellent knowledge of how higher courts
> work, and I share this knowledge freely with everyone (I have never
> taken a paise from anyone for such social work). It is another matter
> that I adopt a highly conservative strategy/interpretation to ensure
> that my "win-loss" ratio is excellent, which conservative strategy is
> misinterpreted as being pro-Govt. by foolish RTI activists to defame
> me.
>
> FYI, I have never been in Govt.
>
> FYI, I have taken on MANY high and mighty persons successfully. For
> instance I was instrumental in getting Mr. Pramod Mahajan to resign
> from Union Cabinet. The fact that he was from BJP was not relevant for
> me.
>
> Insofar as Mr. Gandhi is concerned, my dissatisfaction with him stems
> from the incidents of 11-August-2008 and subsequently. I have placed
> these facts in public domain on many occasions. On 11-August 2008 at
> about 4 PM, Shailesh Gandhi, Arvind Kejriwal, myself and another
> person (very well known RTI personality) spoke to each other for quite
> some time outside Mr. Habibullah's office in August Kranti Bhawan. The
> next month Mr. Gandhi became an IC. SG is not a "soft" person/target -
> IMHO he is a weak/morally bankrupt person who was bought off and he is
> a disgrace to the RTI users fellowship. He had the chance to redeem
> himself in office by his orders. Had he done so I would have been the
> first person to let bygones be bygones and supported him. Instead he
> carried on in his reckless fashion, ignorant arrogance (very deadly
> combination and desire for constant self publicity.
>
> Ball is in your court.
>
> Sarbajit
>