Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Mr. Shailesh Gandhi

please read the order forwared to me by humjanenge in the matter of Registrar of Comapnies VsDharmendrakumar Garg WP(C)11271/2009 The learned Judge in his judgment frequently and spcefically wrote the name of Shri Shailesh Gandhi information commission I feel i would have avoided to quote name repeately instead he would written plain comments on judgment and order of Information commissioner. There are many cases where even Hon'ble High Courts have ignored supreme court constitution bench judgment but no has crticised such decision specifically in the language the learned used about MrGandhi The Right to information is not mere statutory right but fundamental right "right to know" has given more effect by the Act "Right To Information Act 2005"The right To Information implicit under concept of right to know. the statute is enacted to give effect to the provision of Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 to which India is signatury and bound enact laws related to the provisions of UDHR. The court must follow liberally the rule of harmonious construction The plain meaning of this rule implies that effect is given to both status as far as possible when there is no direct conflict between the provisions of both laws. In the present case (the writ petition mentioned above) there is no direct conflict between comapanies law and RTI therefore the law under which applicant has filled application as per provisions of that law the office of Registrar is bound to information there is no need repeal any or question as whether there is repugnancy should be unnecessarily be caLLed in to create confusion this is porper rule of harmonious construction in my opinion.no need to repeal any law prasad vaidya latur 08857993253  viadya --- On Mon, 6/8/12, indrani Mukherjee <juno.im@gmail.com> wrote: From: indrani Mukherjee <juno.im@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Mr. Shailesh Gandhi To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com Date: Monday, 6 August, 2012, 3:43 PM Dear All   I am sorry to intervene amidst your conversation. The term "Ld." is used in the Court orders or even while addressing arguments as a mark of respect towards even the opponent lawyer and in order to maintain the dignity and decorum of the judicial functions. Similarly, the term "Hon'ble Court" is used while addressing any Court of judicature.  This is my observation and experience over the last decade of law practice as an advocate. Sorry if I have intervened  in your discussion, but intent was only to share my experience.   On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Prasad I have no enmity with Mr Shailesh Gandhi. Insofar as the judgment is concerned, it s a public document. Everyone is entitled to form his own opinion while read it. It is my experience, however, that when a judge uses phrases like "Ld. counsel" or "Ld. Commissioner" in orders, more often than not it is a code phrase for the next stage implying that the Ld. gentleman knows too much for his own good. Sarbajit On 8/6/12, prasad vaidya <prasadbvaidya@yahoo.com> wrote: > Mr Sarbjit sir >                     you might have enmity with Mr. Shailesh Gandhi but dont > use this discussion forum for passing remarks for individual enmity with Mr. > Gandhi Yours views might be proper according to you but there is also other > side which may call you as wrong. > please dont take it as my advice but take it as my opinion which personal > I have gone through Judgment of Justice Sanghi I feel that he wrote judgment > which is not proper and the way he wrote about Mr. Gandhi in fact he has > lowered down the dignity of human by passing remarks which can be said to > scandolous in nature and therefore Justice Sanghi is otherwise eligible for > contempt of his own court. > > > viadya > viadya --- On Mon, 6/8/12, indrani Mukherjee <juno.im@gmail.com> wrote: From: indrani Mukherjee <juno.im@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Mr. Shailesh Gandhi To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com Date: Monday, 6 August, 2012, 3:43 PM Dear All   I am sorry to intervene amidst your conversation. The term "Ld." is used in the Court orders or even while addressing arguments as a mark of respect towards even the opponent lawyer and in order to maintain the dignity and decorum of the judicial functions. Similarly, the term "Hon'ble Court" is used while addressing any Court of judicature.  This is my observation and experience over the last decade of law practice as an advocate. Sorry if I have intervened  in your discussion, but intent was only to share my experience.   On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Prasad I have no enmity with Mr Shailesh Gandhi. Insofar as the judgment is concerned, it s a public document. Everyone is entitled to form his own opinion while read it. It is my experience, however, that when a judge uses phrases like "Ld. counsel" or "Ld. Commissioner" in orders, more often than not it is a code phrase for the next stage implying that the Ld. gentleman knows too much for his own good. Sarbajit On 8/6/12, prasad vaidya <prasadbvaidya@yahoo.com> wrote: > Mr Sarbjit sir >                     you might have enmity with Mr. Shailesh Gandhi but dont > use this discussion forum for passing remarks for individual enmity with Mr. > Gandhi Yours views might be proper according to you but there is also other > side which may call you as wrong. > please dont take it as my advice but take it as my opinion which personal > I have gone through Judgment of Justice Sanghi I feel that he wrote judgment > which is not proper and the way he wrote about Mr. Gandhi in fact he has > lowered down the dignity of human by passing remarks which can be said to > scandolous in nature and therefore Justice Sanghi is otherwise eligible for > contempt of his own court. > > > viadya > -- Regards Indrani Mukherjee Advocate 9811394136