Saturday, September 1, 2012

[HumJanenge] WHAT BASIS FOR INFO COMMISSIONERS APPOINTMENT IN TAMIL NADU?

RTI Group

WHAT BASIS FOR INFO COMMISSIONERS APPOINTMENT IN TAMIL NADU?

It is good that the Tamil Nadu government has at last appointed five new information commissioners . Until now, there have been one chief information commissioner and only one information commissioner in Tamil Nadu , resulting in huge backlog of work and several representations to the information commissioner from RTI activists remaining unanswered.

In the recent interactive meeting of RTI activists organized by Nandini Voice for Deprived, a Chennai based NGO , the importance of filling up the posts of information commissioners was stressed repeatedly and the above decision of the Tamil Nadu government would certainly satisfy the RTI activists. This is a long pending matter.

However, it is not clear about the selection procedure adopted by government of Tamil Nadu to fill these vacancies. It is necessary for the Tamil Nadu government to explain the procedure adopted , so that there would not be an impression that the selections have been made in an arbitrary manner.

RTI Act is a very important tool available to the common man to get vital information from the government agencies. There have been many complaints in recent times that several government departments either do not respond to the RTI queries or direct the question to some other departments thus wasting time or provide incomplete details. The RTI activists have no alternative other than approaching the information commissioners to redress their grievances. Under the circumstances, the post of information commissioners have become very crucial and they should enjoy high level of public confidence.

It is high time that proper and transparent guidelines for the selection of information commissioners should be adopted. One would hope that Tamil Nadu government has adopted such procedure in appointing the five information commissioners and it is necessary that the Tamil Nadu government would explain the procedure adopted to the public.

N.S.Venkataraman

Trustee

Nandini Voice for the Deprived

Chennai

Email:- nsvenkatchennai@gmail.com

Re: [HumJanenge] Re: DELAY IN ANNOUNCING DECISIONS AT CIC

Not satisfied at all. Even a very junior level employees, an inspector, from the Deptt. of Post attended the hearing. When I objected to this and said that either PIO or some Sr. employee of that level should be present from the Deptt., but this did not cut an ice with the IC. The inspector tried to give assurances about the handling of speed posts on behalf of Secy. Deptt. of Post but we know that the Secy. may not even be aware of such assurances being given on his behalf and even may not grant time to an inspector to meet him on this issue to know the first hand information. Tomorrow, the Deptt. may send some peon or clear in the hearing and that will not be acceptable but the IC was unfazed on this issue.

On my insistence to penalize the PIO for the delay in reply by the PIO which I proved on the basis of documents, IC agreed to issue notice to the PIO. Let us await for the order and see that on this issue.

From: sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: "HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005" <HumJanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, 1 September 2012 9:09 PM
Subject: [HumJanenge] Re: DELAY IN ANNOUNCING DECISIONS AT CIC

I explained why he is one of the 3 "duffers".
PS: Are you satisfied with the manner he conducted \the proceedings.

On Sep 1, 12:03 pm, "M.K. Gupta" <mkgupta...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> My appeal against the Deptt. of Post was heard on 23rd August, 2012 by Shri Basant Seth, Hon'ble Information Commissioner. Till date, I fail to spot any decision on the CIC's website. On searching the decisions, I found that the last decision of Shri Seth on the CIC's website pertain to 14th August. The delay of 15 days to announce the decision or to put the same on the website is too much and speak poorly about ICs. However, appreciably, I found the decisions of the cases heard on 31 and 30 by by CCIC, Satyanana Mishra, Ms. Sushma Singh and Ms. Deepak Sandhu, ICs. Other Commissioners should try to follow this example.

Re: Fw: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - If the Opp Party is found to have given false notarised affidavit.

Dear C R Mohan Raj

I believe, Shri Sarbajit Roy , is right in informing ALL herein , that you have the right to invoke section 191 / 193, [which is appended hereunder fro clairty sake] and disprove it by way of cross-examination or counter-affidavit & seeking indepth investigation of it, that will be rewarding for you.

But please keep in mind that if it becomes other way TRUE, the Opponent may use the same stick, hence not in vogue off late.

Thanks & Regards,

UDAYPRABHU- 093 222 666 17
==================================================================================================================================

Indian Penal Code (IPC)

Section 191. Giving false evidence

Whoever, being legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth, or being bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, is said to give false evidence.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Indian Penal Code (IPC)

Section 193. Punishment for false evidence

Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine,

and whoever intentionally gives or fabricates false evidence in any other case, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.

===========================================================================================================================================

----- Original Message -----

From: Satish Kumar Kapoor

Sent: 08/31/12 07:22 PM

To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: Fw: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - If the Opp Party is found to have given false notarised affidavit.

Dear Sir

It will not effect the 'independence of judiciary', of-course will effect corrupt practices of mis-recording arguments/submissions, It is why Judges will not agree.

S.K.Kapoor

From: capt beniwal <trident142@yahoo.co.in>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 1:56 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - If the Opp Party is found to have given false notarised affidavit.

i am sure Indian "honourable" judges will never allow the audio/video recording/live broadcast of the court proceeding as it will effect the "independence of judiciary".

--- On Fri, 31/8/12, Victor Cooper <victor99cooper@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Victor Cooper <victor99cooper@yahoo.com>
Subject: Fw: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - If the Opp Party is found to have given false notarised affidavit.
To: "LK Advani" <advanilk@sansad.nic.in>, "Asian Age" <editor@asianage.com>, "Goa Bachao" <goabachaoabhiyan@gmail.com>, "BBC" <newsonline@bbc.co.uk>, "Kiran Bedi" <kiranbedi2005@yahoo.co.in>, "Prashant Bhushan" <prashantbhush@gmail.com>, "Supreme Court" <supremecourt@nic.in>, "CVC" <cvc@nic.in>, "DNA" <inbox@dnaindia.net>, "Economist" <letters@economist.com>, "Letters to the Editor" <lettersmailbox@economist.com>, "Frontline" <frontline@thehindu.co.in>, "GOACAN" <goacan@gmail.com>, "Gurumurthy" <comment@gurumurthy.net>, "Herald" <mail@herald-goa.com>, "Human Rights" <chairnhrc@nic.in>, "Asia Human Rights India" <india@ahrc.asia>, "Times of India" <toi.goa@timesgroup.com>, indiaagainstcorruption.2010@gmail.com, "Jairam" <jairam54@gmail.com>, "Presm Jha" <premjha@airtelmail.in>, "WallStreet Journal" <nbudde@wsj.com>, "Fast Justice" <fastjustice@gmail.com>, "Karmayog" <infor@karmayog.org>, "Arvind Kejriwal" <pcrf@pcrf.in>, "Times London" <overseas.news@the-times.co.uk>, "Narayan Murthy" <nmurthy@infosys.com>, "Newsweek" <editors@newsweek.com>, "Paranjoy" <paranjoy@gmail.com>, "Manohar Parrikar" <manoharparrikar@yahoo.co.in>, "PM" <pmindia@pmindia.nic.in>, "Washington Post" <letters@washpost.com>, "Manmohan Singh" <manmohan@sansad.nic.in>, "Business Standard" <niraj.bhatt@bsmail.in>, "Sushma Swaraj" <sushmaswaraj@hotmail.com>, "Tehelka" <editor@tehelka.com>, "Time" <letters@time.com>, "Navhind Times" <lpost@navhindtimes.com>, "Gomantak Times" <gteditor@gmail.com>, "NewYork Times" <editorial@nytimes.com>, "Voiceofindia" <voiceofindiagroup@yahoogroups.co.in>, "Wall Street" <wsj.ltrs@wsj.com>, "Humanrightsactivist Yahoogroups" <humanrightsactivist@yahoogroups.com>, humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Friday, 31 August, 2012, 3:22 AM

First they gave birth to Naxals by gross injustices to them. Then we got Anna movement against corruption. Now, one hopes against hope that those in whose power it is to rectify such a poor state of affairs of THE MAIN PILLAR of democracy will wake up. Some the immediate steps required are:

1. CCTV coverage and recording of all courtroom proceedings;

2. Say, 10%- random evaluation of such proceedings and orders;

3. An ombudsman to immediately look into and act on complaints of misconduct and corruption by panel of retired senior judges;

4. Three or five-fold increase in number of judges-courts;
5. All-India judicial service (with culling every 1, 3, 7, 15, 30 years of service). No automatic promotions.
6. Etc.

On a different level:

1. Lokpal & Lokayukt bills with 32 functional teeth;

2. Electrol reforms to keep criminal types out of public life;

3. Judicial reforms;

4. Administrative reforms;

5. Overhaul of CPC, CrPC, Evidence Act, etc.

I wonder if the powers know at all that today's India is at the cross-roads of anarchy, and its fate hangs by the slender string of hope, even though going by the record of past 65 years, one is pessimistic,

Regards

--- On Wed, 8/29/12, capt beniwal <trident142@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

From: capt beniwal <trident142@yahoo.co.in>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - If the Opp Party is found to have given false notarised affidavit.
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Wednesday, August 29, 2012, 8:48 PM

dear cooper, a lawyer even if he is ones son/father/friend will charge money to start talking. individual cases have to be fought individually or similarly placed/effected persons can join hands. i think Luck and/or Money is more important for our courts then the Law. rgds. beniwal

--- On Wed, 29/8/12, Victor Cooper <victor99cooper@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Victor Cooper <victor99cooper@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - If the Opp Party is found to have given false notarised affidavit.
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Wednesday, 29 August, 2012, 12:12 AM

I know what you mean. I am facing a similar serious problem with our "independent judiciary" and "vibrant democracy".

Just this morning, I filed an application for disallowing further adjournments to Opposite Party as being against the letter and spirit of Consumer Protection Act, as out of the 5 years delay in settling case, 3.5 years could be attributed to unlawful adjournments. The "judge" gave another adjournment!!!!

Now, after if I still fail after one more try, am planning an international media campaign / or a dharna outside the court. I will probably be arrested for contempt or some such thing, but there has to be some limit to nonsense.

Could some lawyer friends in this group provide some guidance on the matter please?

Would you or any other aggrieved reader friends care to team up?

--- On Mon, 8/27/12, capt beniwal <trident142@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

From: capt beniwal <trident142@yahoo.co.in>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - If the Opp Party is found to have given false notarised affidavit.
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Monday, August 27, 2012, 10:29 PM

what could a petitioner ( particularly if in person) do, when his SLP is dismissed with out hearing his oral argument(standing in court and told not to speak) against the (false/misleading) one line oral submission made by the govt. panel ordinary advocate, and then order comes out after few days saying the ASG made the statement and quotes a paragraph. please note-Neither the ASG was present in the court nor the paragraph quoted in the order was stated in the court. there was no discussion of the contended rules under which relief was requested. now that judgement and order being cited to deprive the other similarly placed petitioner. such petitioners do not know how the collusive order was obtained by the govt. this is how some judges work and govt. obtains orders. by the way that judge got higher position in reward. this is the real meaning of "independence of judiciary".

--- On Mon, 27/8/12, Victor Cooper <victor99cooper@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Victor Cooper <victor99cooper@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - If the Opp Party is found to have given false notarised affidavit.
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Monday, 27 August, 2012, 8:45 AM

Dear Friend:

Right away, I should inform you that I am not a lawyer, and am going from the experience of court battles. Therefore:

You should consult good lawyer,

You could consider filing a perjury case (it will probably be a separate case under criminal jurisprudence),

But you should keep in mind that such an option at this stage will probably slow down your original complaint,

So, (my preference), do a clever written cross-examination of opponent to bring out the perjuries,

Wait till your case is heard and finally disposed off, and then proceed with perjury complaint.

(I should warn you that India's laws are plentyful, but their implementation is horrendously flawed. This is so mostly on account of "judges" that give adjournment after adjournment at the drop of a hat -or even without the drop of any hat at all, and matters that could/should be disposed off in months will often take many years; they will come up with judgments you never argued, they will ignore precedents set by even SC, after a 10 year battle will "allow" a princely 5,000 as costs - whereas in matters relating to certain types of litigants, they will give costs of 10 or 30 lacs!, etc., etc. Under these conditions, one should not be surprised that many would question the integrity and competence of judges.)

--- On Sun, 8/26/12, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - If the Opp Party is found to have given false notarised affidavit.
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Sunday, August 26, 2012, 7:21 PM

If it is tendered on affidavit (as evidence in chief), you
have the right to disprove it by way of cross-examination
or counter-affidavit.

On 8/27/12, C R Mohan Raj <crmohanraj@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dear Sir,
> In my case the Opposite Party has given a false affidavit [Notarised].
> Kindly advice as to how I proceed?
> Thanks
> Mohan Raj
>
> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - ADDITION OF GROUND IN THE PETITION AT
> CONSUMER FORUM
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> Date: Sunday, 26 August, 2012, 10:25 PM
>
> You should make out an application for amendment of complaint.In that
> amendment application, you should set out the changes / additions /
> deletions you want made to your original complaint, alongwith evidence if
> any.After the same is allowed by court, you should compile all the evidence,
> notarise same, and put it up in an affidavit as Evidence Affidavit.Hope this
> helps.
>
> --- On Sun, 8/26/12, prasad vaidya <prasadbvaidya@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> From: prasad vaidya <prasadbvaidya@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - ADDITION OF GROUND IN THE PETITION AT
> CONSUMER FORUM
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> Date: Sunday, August 26, 2012, 6:18 AM
>
> to you can file application to amend your complaint filled with the District
> consumer forum. You can even add additional parties as complainant .
>
> viadya
>
> --- On Sun, 26/8/12, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
>
> From: M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in>
> Subject: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - ADDITION OF GROUND IN THE PETITION AT
> CONSUMER FORUM
> To: "RTI Act 2005 Hum Janenge Forum People's Right to Information"
> <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
> Date: Sunday, 26 August, 2012, 11:00 AM
>
> I
> filed a case against
> a builder (Vatika
> Land Base, Gurgaon) in the Consumer Forum, Gurgaon and which has been
> admitted.
> After this, another consumer told me about some other instances of
> misrepresentation of facts and cheating which came to his knowledge from the
> reply of Jaipur Development Board on an RTI
> filed by him.
>
>
>
> Now, what is the procedure to add these
> such facts in the petition? Please
> enlighten me.

[HumJanenge] Re: DELAY IN ANNOUNCING DECISIONS AT CIC

[HumJanenge] DELAY IN ANNOUNCING DECISIONS AT CIC

My appeal against the Deptt. of Post was heard on 23rd August, 2012 by Shri Basant Seth, Hon'ble Information Commissioner. Till date, I fail to spot any decision on the CIC's website. On searching the decisions, I found that the last decision of Shri Seth on the CIC's website pertain to 14th August. The delay of 15 days to announce the decision or to put the same on the website is too much and speak poorly about ICs. However, appreciably, I found the decisions of the cases heard on 31 and 30 by by CCIC, Satyanana Mishra, Ms. Sushma Singh and Ms. Deepak Sandhu, ICs. Other Commissioners should try to follow this example.

Friday, August 31, 2012

Re: Fw: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - If the Opp Party is found to have given false notarised affidavit.

Whenever judges misbehaves and does not record written applications, I have started sending same via registered letter. This will, no doubt anger the "judge" into deliberately givnig false judgement, but better to go down fighting.

Regards

--- On Fri, 8/31/12, Satish Kumar Kapoor <kapoorsatish@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Satish Kumar Kapoor <kapoorsatish@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Fw: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - If the Opp Party is found to have given false notarised affidavit.
To: "humjanenge@googlegroups.com" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
Date: Friday, August 31, 2012, 6:52 AM

Dear Sir

It will not effect the 'independence of judiciary', of-course will effect corrupt practices of mis-recording arguments/submissions, It is why Judges will not agree.

S.K.Kapoor

From: capt beniwal <trident142@yahoo.co.in>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 1:56 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - If the Opp Party is found to have given false notarised affidavit.

i am sure Indian "honourable" judges will never allow the audio/video recording/live broadcast of the court proceeding as it will effect the "independence of judiciary".

--- On Fri, 31/8/12, Victor Cooper <victor99cooper@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Victor Cooper <victor99cooper@yahoo.com>
Subject: Fw: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - If the Opp Party is found to have given false notarised affidavit.
To: "LK Advani" <advanilk@sansad.nic.in>, "Asian Age" <editor@asianage.com>, "Goa Bachao" <goabachaoabhiyan@gmail.com>, "BBC" <newsonline@bbc.co.uk>, "Kiran Bedi" <kiranbedi2005@yahoo.co.in>, "Prashant Bhushan" <prashantbhush@gmail.com>, "Supreme Court" <supremecourt@nic.in>, "CVC" <cvc@nic.in>, "DNA" <inbox@dnaindia.net>, "Economist" <letters@economist.com>, "Letters to the Editor" <lettersmailbox@economist.com>, "Frontline" <frontline@thehindu.co.in>, "GOACAN" <goacan@gmail.com>, "Gurumurthy" <comment@gurumurthy.net>, "Herald" <mail@herald-goa.com>, "Human Rights" <chairnhrc@nic.in>, "Asia Human Rights India" <india@ahrc.asia>, "Times of India" <toi.goa@timesgroup.com>, indiaagainstcorruption.2010@gmail.com, "Jairam" <jairam54@gmail.com>, "Presm Jha" <premjha@airtelmail.in>, "WallStreet Journal" <nbudde@wsj.com>, "Fast Justice" <fastjustice@gmail.com>, "Karmayog" <infor@karmayog.org>, "Arvind Kejriwal" <pcrf@pcrf.in>, "Times London" <overseas.news@the-times.co.uk>, "Narayan Murthy" <nmurthy@infosys.com>, "Newsweek" <editors@newsweek.com>, "Paranjoy" <paranjoy@gmail.com>, "Manohar Parrikar" <manoharparrikar@yahoo.co.in>, "PM" <pmindia@pmindia.nic.in>, "Washington Post" <letters@washpost.com>, "Manmohan Singh" <manmohan@sansad.nic.in>, "Business Standard" <niraj.bhatt@bsmail.in>, "Sushma Swaraj" <sushmaswaraj@hotmail.com>, "Tehelka" <editor@tehelka.com>, "Time" <letters@time.com>, "Navhind Times" <lpost@navhindtimes.com>, "Gomantak Times" <gteditor@gmail.com>, "NewYork Times" <editorial@nytimes.com>, "Voiceofindia" <voiceofindiagroup@yahoogroups.co.in>, "Wall Street" <wsj.ltrs@wsj.com>, "Humanrightsactivist Yahoogroups" <humanrightsactivist@yahoogroups.com>, humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Friday, 31 August, 2012, 3:22 AM

First they gave birth to Naxals by gross injustices to them. Then we got Anna movement against corruption. Now, one hopes against hope that those in whose power it is to rectify such a poor state of affairs of THE MAIN PILLAR of democracy will wake up. Some the immediate steps required are:

1. CCTV coverage and recording of all courtroom proceedings;
2. Say, 10%- random evaluation of such proceedings and orders;
3. An ombudsman to immediately look into and act on complaints of misconduct and corruption by panel of retired senior judges;
4. Three or five-fold increase in number of judges-courts;
5. All-India judicial service (with culling every 1, 3, 7, 15, 30 years of service). No automatic promotions.
6. Etc.

On a different level:

1. Lokpal & Lokayukt bills with 32 functional teeth;
2. Electrol reforms to keep criminal types out of public life;
3. Judicial reforms;
4. Administrative reforms;
5. Overhaul of CPC, CrPC, Evidence Act, etc.

I wonder if the powers know at all that today's India is at the cross-roads of anarchy, and its fate hangs by the slender string of hope, even though going by the record of past 65 years, one is pessimistic,

Regards

--- On Wed, 8/29/12, capt beniwal <trident142@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

From: capt beniwal <trident142@yahoo.co.in>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - If the Opp Party is found to have given false notarised affidavit.
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Wednesday, August 29, 2012, 8:48 PM

dear cooper, a lawyer even if he is ones son/father/friend will charge money to start talking. individual cases have to be fought individually or similarly placed/effected persons can join hands. i think Luck and/or Money is more important for our courts then the Law. rgds. beniwal

--- On Wed, 29/8/12, Victor Cooper <victor99cooper@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Victor Cooper <victor99cooper@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - If the Opp Party is found to have given false notarised affidavit.
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Wednesday, 29 August, 2012, 12:12 AM

I know what you mean. I am facing a similar serious problem with our "independent judiciary" and "vibrant democracy".
Just this morning, I filed an application for disallowing further adjournments to Opposite Party as being against the letter and spirit of Consumer Protection Act, as out of the 5 years delay in settling case, 3.5 years could be attributed to unlawful adjournments. The "judge" gave another adjournment!!!!
Now, after if I still fail after one more try, am planning an international media campaign / or a dharna outside the court. I will probably be arrested for contempt or some such thing, but there has to be some limit to nonsense.
Could some lawyer friends in this group provide some guidance on the matter please?
Would you or any other aggrieved reader friends care to team up?

--- On Mon, 8/27/12, capt beniwal <trident142@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

From: capt beniwal <trident142@yahoo.co.in>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - If the Opp Party is found to have given false notarised affidavit.
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Monday, August 27, 2012, 10:29 PM

what could a petitioner ( particularly if in person) do, when his SLP is dismissed with out hearing his oral argument(standing in court and told not to speak) against the (false/misleading) one line oral submission made by the govt. panel ordinary advocate, and then order comes out after few days saying the ASG made the statement and quotes a paragraph. please note-Neither the ASG was present in the court nor the paragraph quoted in the order was stated in the court. there was no discussion of the contended rules under which relief was requested. now that judgement and order being cited to deprive the other similarly placed petitioner. such petitioners do not know how the collusive order was obtained by the govt. this is how some judges work and govt. obtains orders. by the way that judge got higher position in reward. this is the real meaning of "independence of judiciary".

--- On Mon, 27/8/12, Victor Cooper <victor99cooper@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Victor Cooper <victor99cooper@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - If the Opp Party is found to have given false notarised affidavit.
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Monday, 27 August, 2012, 8:45 AM

Dear Friend:

Right away, I should inform you that I am not a lawyer, and am going from the experience of court battles. Therefore:

You should consult good lawyer,
You could consider filing a perjury case (it will probably be a separate case under criminal jurisprudence),
But you should keep in mind that such an option at this stage will probably slow down your original complaint,
So, (my preference), do a clever written cross-examination of opponent to bring out the perjuries,
Wait till your case is heard and finally disposed off, and then proceed with perjury complaint.

(I should warn you that India's laws are plentyful, but their implementation is horrendously flawed. This is so mostly on account of "judges" that give adjournment after adjournment at the drop of a hat -or even without the drop of any hat at all, and matters that could/should be disposed off in months will often take many years; they will come up with judgments you never argued, they will ignore precedents set by even SC, after a 10 year battle will "allow" a princely 5,000 as costs - whereas in matters relating to certain types of litigants, they will give costs of 10 or 30 lacs!, etc., etc. Under these conditions, one should not be surprised that many would question the integrity and competence of judges.)

--- On Sun, 8/26/12, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - If the Opp Party is found to have given false notarised affidavit.
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Sunday, August 26, 2012, 7:21 PM

If it is tendered on affidavit (as evidence in chief), you
have the right to disprove it by way of cross-examination
or counter-affidavit.

On 8/27/12, C R Mohan Raj <crmohanraj@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dear Sir,
> In my case the Opposite Party has given a false affidavit [Notarised].
> Kindly advice as to how I proceed?
> Thanks
> Mohan Raj
>
> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - ADDITION OF GROUND IN THE PETITION AT
> CONSUMER FORUM
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> Date: Sunday, 26 August, 2012, 10:25 PM
>
> You should make out an application for amendment of complaint.In that
> amendment application, you should set out the changes / additions /
> deletions you want made to your original complaint, alongwith evidence if
> any.After the same is allowed by court, you should compile all the evidence,
> notarise same, and put it up in an affidavit as Evidence Affidavit.Hope this
> helps.
>
> --- On Sun, 8/26/12, prasad vaidya <prasadbvaidya@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> From: prasad vaidya <prasadbvaidya@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - ADDITION OF GROUND IN THE PETITION AT
> CONSUMER FORUM
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> Date: Sunday, August 26, 2012, 6:18 AM
>
> to you can file application to amend your complaint filled with the District
> consumer forum. You can even add additional parties as complainant .
>
> viadya
>
> --- On Sun, 26/8/12, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
>
> From: M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in>
> Subject: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - ADDITION OF GROUND IN THE PETITION AT
> CONSUMER FORUM
> To: "RTI Act 2005 Hum Janenge Forum People's Right to Information"
> <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
> Date: Sunday, 26 August, 2012, 11:00 AM
>
> I
> filed a case against
> a builder (Vatika
> Land Base, Gurgaon) in the Consumer Forum, Gurgaon and which has been
> admitted.
> After this, another consumer told me about some other instances of
> misrepresentation of facts and cheating which came to his knowledge from the
> reply of Jaipur Development Board on an RTI
> filed by him.
>
>
>
> Now, what is the procedure to add these
> such facts in the petition? Please
> enlighten me.

Re: Fw: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - If the Opp Party is found to have given false notarised affidavit.

Yes, we do need such amendments in all our systems. Transparency will definitely bring changes.

Regards

Bunch

--- On Fri, 31/8/12, Satish Kumar Kapoor <kapoorsatish@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Satish Kumar Kapoor <kapoorsatish@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Fw: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - If the Opp Party is found to have given false notarised affidavit.
To: "humjanenge@googlegroups.com" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
Date: Friday, 31 August, 2012, 7:22 PM

Dear Sir

It will not effect the 'independence of judiciary', of-course will effect corrupt practices of mis-recording arguments/submissions, It is why Judges will not agree.

S.K.Kapoor

From: capt beniwal <trident142@yahoo.co.in>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 1:56 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - If the Opp Party is found to have given false notarised affidavit.

i am sure Indian "honourable" judges will never allow the audio/video recording/live broadcast of the court proceeding as it will effect the "independence of judiciary".

--- On Fri, 31/8/12, Victor Cooper <victor99cooper@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Victor Cooper <victor99cooper@yahoo.com>
Subject: Fw: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - If the Opp Party is found to have given false notarised affidavit.
To: "LK Advani" <advanilk@sansad.nic.in>, "Asian Age" <editor@asianage.com>, "Goa Bachao" <goabachaoabhiyan@gmail.com>, "BBC" <newsonline@bbc.co.uk>, "Kiran Bedi" <kiranbedi2005@yahoo.co.in>, "Prashant Bhushan" <prashantbhush@gmail.com>, "Supreme Court" <supremecourt@nic.in>, "CVC" <cvc@nic.in>, "DNA" <inbox@dnaindia.net>, "Economist" <letters@economist.com>, "Letters to the Editor" <lettersmailbox@economist.com>, "Frontline" <frontline@thehindu.co.in>, "GOACAN" <goacan@gmail.com>, "Gurumurthy" <comment@gurumurthy.net>, "Herald" <mail@herald-goa.com>, "Human Rights" <chairnhrc@nic.in>, "Asia Human Rights India" <india@ahrc.asia>, "Times of India" <toi.goa@timesgroup.com>, indiaagainstcorruption.2010@gmail.com, "Jairam" <jairam54@gmail.com>, "Presm Jha" <premjha@airtelmail.in>, "WallStreet Journal" <nbudde@wsj.com>, "Fast Justice" <fastjustice@gmail.com>, "Karmayog" <infor@karmayog.org>, "Arvind Kejriwal" <pcrf@pcrf.in>, "Times London" <overseas.news@the-times.co.uk>, "Narayan Murthy" <nmurthy@infosys.com>, "Newsweek" <editors@newsweek.com>, "Paranjoy" <paranjoy@gmail.com>, "Manohar Parrikar" <manoharparrikar@yahoo.co.in>, "PM" <pmindia@pmindia.nic.in>, "Washington Post" <letters@washpost.com>, "Manmohan Singh" <manmohan@sansad.nic.in>, "Business Standard" <niraj.bhatt@bsmail.in>, "Sushma Swaraj" <sushmaswaraj@hotmail.com>, "Tehelka" <editor@tehelka.com>, "Time" <letters@time.com>, "Navhind Times" <lpost@navhindtimes.com>, "Gomantak Times" <gteditor@gmail.com>, "NewYork Times" <editorial@nytimes.com>, "Voiceofindia" <voiceofindiagroup@yahoogroups.co.in>, "Wall Street" <wsj.ltrs@wsj.com>, "Humanrightsactivist Yahoogroups" <humanrightsactivist@yahoogroups.com>, humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Friday, 31 August, 2012, 3:22 AM

First they gave birth to Naxals by gross injustices to them. Then we got Anna movement against corruption. Now, one hopes against hope that those in whose power it is to rectify such a poor state of affairs of THE MAIN PILLAR of democracy will wake up. Some the immediate steps required are:

1. CCTV coverage and recording of all courtroom proceedings;
2. Say, 10%- random evaluation of such proceedings and orders;
3. An ombudsman to immediately look into and act on complaints of misconduct and corruption by panel of retired senior judges;
4. Three or five-fold increase in number of judges-courts;
5. All-India judicial service (with culling every 1, 3, 7, 15, 30 years of service). No automatic promotions.
6. Etc.

On a different level:

1. Lokpal & Lokayukt bills with 32 functional teeth;
2. Electrol reforms to keep criminal types out of public life;
3. Judicial reforms;
4. Administrative reforms;
5. Overhaul of CPC, CrPC, Evidence Act, etc.

I wonder if the powers know at all that today's India is at the cross-roads of anarchy, and its fate hangs by the slender string of hope, even though going by the record of past 65 years, one is pessimistic,

Regards

--- On Wed, 8/29/12, capt beniwal <trident142@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

From: capt beniwal <trident142@yahoo.co.in>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - If the Opp Party is found to have given false notarised affidavit.
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Wednesday, August 29, 2012, 8:48 PM

dear cooper, a lawyer even if he is ones son/father/friend will charge money to start talking. individual cases have to be fought individually or similarly placed/effected persons can join hands. i think Luck and/or Money is more important for our courts then the Law. rgds. beniwal

--- On Wed, 29/8/12, Victor Cooper <victor99cooper@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Victor Cooper <victor99cooper@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - If the Opp Party is found to have given false notarised affidavit.
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Wednesday, 29 August, 2012, 12:12 AM

I know what you mean. I am facing a similar serious problem with our "independent judiciary" and "vibrant democracy".
Just this morning, I filed an application for disallowing further adjournments to Opposite Party as being against the letter and spirit of Consumer Protection Act, as out of the 5 years delay in settling case, 3.5 years could be attributed to unlawful adjournments. The "judge" gave another adjournment!!!!
Now, after if I still fail after one more try, am planning an international media campaign / or a dharna outside the court. I will probably be arrested for contempt or some such thing, but there has to be some limit to nonsense.
Could some lawyer friends in this group provide some guidance on the matter please?
Would you or any other aggrieved reader friends care to team up?

--- On Mon, 8/27/12, capt beniwal <trident142@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

From: capt beniwal <trident142@yahoo.co.in>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - If the Opp Party is found to have given false notarised affidavit.
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Monday, August 27, 2012, 10:29 PM

what could a petitioner ( particularly if in person) do, when his SLP is dismissed with out hearing his oral argument(standing in court and told not to speak) against the (false/misleading) one line oral submission made by the govt. panel ordinary advocate, and then order comes out after few days saying the ASG made the statement and quotes a paragraph. please note-Neither the ASG was present in the court nor the paragraph quoted in the order was stated in the court. there was no discussion of the contended rules under which relief was requested. now that judgement and order being cited to deprive the other similarly placed petitioner. such petitioners do not know how the collusive order was obtained by the govt. this is how some judges work and govt. obtains orders. by the way that judge got higher position in reward. this is the real meaning of "independence of judiciary".

--- On Mon, 27/8/12, Victor Cooper <victor99cooper@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Victor Cooper <victor99cooper@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - If the Opp Party is found to have given false notarised affidavit.
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Monday, 27 August, 2012, 8:45 AM

Dear Friend:

Right away, I should inform you that I am not a lawyer, and am going from the experience of court battles. Therefore:

You should consult good lawyer,
You could consider filing a perjury case (it will probably be a separate case under criminal jurisprudence),
But you should keep in mind that such an option at this stage will probably slow down your original complaint,
So, (my preference), do a clever written cross-examination of opponent to bring out the perjuries,
Wait till your case is heard and finally disposed off, and then proceed with perjury complaint.

(I should warn you that India's laws are plentyful, but their implementation is horrendously flawed. This is so mostly on account of "judges" that give adjournment after adjournment at the drop of a hat -or even without the drop of any hat at all, and matters that could/should be disposed off in months will often take many years; they will come up with judgments you never argued, they will ignore precedents set by even SC, after a 10 year battle will "allow" a princely 5,000 as costs - whereas in matters relating to certain types of litigants, they will give costs of 10 or 30 lacs!, etc., etc. Under these conditions, one should not be surprised that many would question the integrity and competence of judges.)

--- On Sun, 8/26/12, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - If the Opp Party is found to have given false notarised affidavit.
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Sunday, August 26, 2012, 7:21 PM

If it is tendered on affidavit (as evidence in chief), you
have the right to disprove it by way of cross-examination
or counter-affidavit.

On 8/27/12, C R Mohan Raj <crmohanraj@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dear Sir,
> In my case the Opposite Party has given a false affidavit [Notarised].
> Kindly advice as to how I proceed?
> Thanks
> Mohan Raj
>
> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - ADDITION OF GROUND IN THE PETITION AT
> CONSUMER FORUM
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> Date: Sunday, 26 August, 2012, 10:25 PM
>
> You should make out an application for amendment of complaint.In that
> amendment application, you should set out the changes / additions /
> deletions you want made to your original complaint, alongwith evidence if
> any.After the same is allowed by court, you should compile all the evidence,
> notarise same, and put it up in an affidavit as Evidence Affidavit.Hope this
> helps.
>
> --- On Sun, 8/26/12, prasad vaidya <prasadbvaidya@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> From: prasad vaidya <prasadbvaidya@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - ADDITION OF GROUND IN THE PETITION AT
> CONSUMER FORUM
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> Date: Sunday, August 26, 2012, 6:18 AM
>
> to you can file application to amend your complaint filled with the District
> consumer forum. You can even add additional parties as complainant .
>
> viadya
>
> --- On Sun, 26/8/12, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
>
> From: M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in>
> Subject: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - ADDITION OF GROUND IN THE PETITION AT
> CONSUMER FORUM
> To: "RTI Act 2005 Hum Janenge Forum People's Right to Information"
> <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
> Date: Sunday, 26 August, 2012, 11:00 AM
>
> I
> filed a case against
> a builder (Vatika
> Land Base, Gurgaon) in the Consumer Forum, Gurgaon and which has been
> admitted.
> After this, another consumer told me about some other instances of
> misrepresentation of facts and cheating which came to his knowledge from the
> reply of Jaipur Development Board on an RTI
> filed by him.
>
>
>
> Now, what is the procedure to add these
> such facts in the petition? Please
> enlighten me.

Re: Fw: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - If the Opp Party is found to have given false notarised affidavit.

Dear Sir

It will not effect the 'independence of judiciary', of-course will effect corrupt practices of mis-recording arguments/submissions, It is why Judges will not agree.

S.K.Kapoor

    From: capt beniwal <trident142@yahoo.co.in>
 To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com 
 Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 1:56 PM
 Subject: Re: Fw:   Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - If the Opp Party is found to have given false notarised affidavit.
  


i am sure Indian "honourable"  judges will never allow the audio/video recording/live broadcast of the court proceeding as it will effect the "independence of judiciary".    
       
--- On Fri, 31/8/12, Victor Cooper <victor99cooper@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Victor Cooper <victor99cooper@yahoo.com>
Subject: Fw: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - If the Opp Party is found to have given false notarised affidavit.
To: "LK Advani" <advanilk@sansad.nic.in>, "Asian Age" <editor@asianage.com>, "Goa Bachao" <goabachaoabhiyan@gmail.com>,   "BBC" <newsonline@bbc.co.uk>, "Kiran Bedi" <kiranbedi2005@yahoo.co.in>, "Prashant Bhushan" <prashantbhush@gmail.com>, "Supreme  Court" <supremecourt@nic.in>, "CVC" <cvc@nic.in>, "DNA" <inbox@dnaindia.net>, "Economist" <letters@economist.com>, "Letters to the Editor" <lettersmailbox@economist.com>, "Frontline" <frontline@thehindu.co.in>, "GOACAN" <goacan@gmail.com>, "Gurumurthy" <comment@gurumurthy.net>, "Herald" <mail@herald-goa.com>, "Human Rights" <chairnhrc@nic.in>, "Asia Human Rights India" <india@ahrc.asia>, "Times of India" <toi.goa@timesgroup.com>, indiaagainstcorruption.2010@gmail.com, "Jairam" <jairam54@gmail.com>, "Presm Jha" <premjha@airtelmail.in>, "WallStreet Journal" <nbudde@wsj.com>, "Fast Justice" <fastjustice@gmail.com>, "Karmayog" <infor@karmayog.org>, "Arvind Kejriwal" <pcrf@pcrf.in>, "Times London" <overseas.news@the-times.co.uk>, "Narayan Murthy" <nmurthy@infosys.com>, "Newsweek" <editors@newsweek.com>, "Paranjoy"  <paranjoy@gmail.com>, "Manohar Parrikar" <manoharparrikar@yahoo.co.in>, "PM" <pmindia@pmindia.nic.in>, "Washington Post" <letters@washpost.com>, "Manmohan Singh" <manmohan@sansad.nic.in>, "Business Standard" <niraj.bhatt@bsmail.in>, "Sushma Swaraj" <sushmaswaraj@hotmail.com>, "Tehelka" <editor@tehelka.com>, "Time" <letters@time.com>, "Navhind Times" <lpost@navhindtimes.com>, "Gomantak Times" <gteditor@gmail.com>, "NewYork Times" <editorial@nytimes.com>, "Voiceofindia" <voiceofindiagroup@yahoogroups.co.in>, "Wall Street" <wsj.ltrs@wsj.com>, "Humanrightsactivist Yahoogroups" <humanrightsactivist@yahoogroups.com>, humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Friday, 31 August, 2012, 3:22 AM

First   they  gave birth to Naxals by gross injustices to them. Then we got Anna movement against corruption. Now, one hopes against hope that those in whose power it is to rectify such a poor state of affairs of THE MAIN PILLAR of democracy will wake up. Some the immediate steps required are:

1. CCTV coverage and recording of all courtroom proceedings;
2. Say, 10%- random evaluation of such proceedings and orders;
3. An ombudsman to immediately look into and act on complaints of misconduct and corruption by panel of retired senior judges;
4. Three or five-fold increase in number of judges-courts;
5. All-India judicial service (with culling every 1, 3, 7,   15, 30 years of service). No automatic promotions.6. Etc.

On a different level:

1. Lokpal & Lokayukt bills with 32 functional teeth;
2. Electrol reforms to keep criminal types out of public life;
3. Judicial reforms;
4. Administrative reforms;
5. Overhaul of CPC, CrPC, Evidence Act,  etc.

I wonder if the powers know at all that today's India is at the cross-roads of anarchy, and its fate hangs by the slender string of hope, even though going by the record of past 65 years, one is pessimistic, 

Regards

--- On Wed, 8/29/12, capt beniwal <trident142@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

From: capt beniwal <trident142@yahoo.co.in>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - If the Opp Party is found to have given false notarised affidavit.
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Wednesday, August 29, 2012, 8:48 PM

dear cooper, a lawyer even if he is ones son/father/friend will charge money to start talking.  individual cases have to be fought individually or similarly placed/effected persons can join hands. i think Luck and/or  Money  is more important for our courts then the Law. rgds. beniwal   

--- On Wed, 29/8/12, Victor Cooper <victor99cooper@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Victor Cooper <victor99cooper@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - If the Opp Party is found to have given false notarised affidavit.
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Wednesday, 29 August, 2012, 12:12 AM

I know what you  mean.  I am facing a similar serious problem with our "independent judiciary" and "vibrant democracy".
Just this morning, I filed an application for disallowing further adjournments to Opposite Party as being against the letter and spirit of Consumer Protection Act, as out of the 5 years delay in settling case, 3.5 years could be attributed to unlawful adjournments. The "judge" gave another adjournment!!!!
Now, after if I still fail after one more try, am planning an international media campaign / or a dharna outside the court. I will probably be arrested for contempt or some such thing, but there has to be some limit to nonsense.
Could some lawyer friends in this group provide some guidance on the matter please?
Would you or any other aggrieved reader friends care to team up?


--- On  Mon, 8/27/12, capt beniwal <trident142@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

From: capt beniwal <trident142@yahoo.co.in>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - If the Opp Party is found to have given false notarised affidavit.
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Monday, August 27, 2012, 10:29 PM

what could a petitioner ( particularly if in person) do, when his SLP is dismissed with out hearing his oral argument(standing in court and told not to speak) against the (false/misleading) one line oral submission made by the govt. panel ordinary advocate, and then order comes out after few days saying the ASG made the statement and quotes a paragraph.  please note-Neither the ASG was present in the court  nor the paragraph quoted in the order was stated in the court. there was no discussion of the contended rules under which relief was requested.   now that judgement and order being cited to deprive the other similarly placed petitioner. such petitioners do not know how the collusive order was obtained by the govt.  this is how some judges work and govt. obtains orders.  by the way that judge got higher position in reward. this is the real  meaning of "independence of judiciary".       

--- On Mon, 27/8/12, Victor Cooper <victor99cooper@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Victor Cooper <victor99cooper@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - If the Opp Party is found to have given false notarised affidavit.
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Monday, 27 August, 2012, 8:45 AM

Dear Friend:

Right away, I should inform you that I am not a lawyer, and am going from the experience of court battles. Therefore:

You should consult good lawyer,
You could consider filing a perjury case (it will probably be a separate case under criminal jurisprudence),
But you should keep in mind that such an option at this stage will probably slow down your original complaint,
So, (my preference), do a clever written cross-examination of opponent to bring out the perjuries,
Wait till your case is   heard and finally disposed off, and then proceed with perjury complaint.

(I should warn you that India's laws are  plentyful, but their implementation is horrendously flawed. This is so mostly on account of "judges" that give adjournment after adjournment at the drop of a hat -or even without the drop of any hat at all, and matters that could/should be disposed off in months will often take many years; they will come up with judgments you never argued, they will ignore precedents set by even SC, after a 10 year battle will "allow" a princely 5,000 as costs - whereas in matters relating to certain types of litigants, they will give costs of 10 or 30 lacs!, etc., etc. Under these conditions, one should not be surprised that many would question the integrity and competence of judges.)


--- On Sun, 8/26/12, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE  - If the Opp Party is found to have given false notarised affidavit.
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Sunday, August 26, 2012, 7:21 PM

If it is tendered on affidavit (as evidence in chief), you
have the right to disprove it by way of cross-examination
or counter-affidavit.

On 8/27/12, C R Mohan Raj <crmohanraj@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dear Sir,
> In my case the Opposite Party has given a false affidavit [Notarised].
> Kindly advice as to how I proceed?
> Thanks
> Mohan Raj
>
> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - ADDITION OF GROUND IN THE PETITION AT
> CONSUMER FORUM
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> Date: Sunday, 26 August, 2012, 10:25 PM
>
> You should make out an application for amendment of complaint.In that
> amendment application, you should   set out the  changes / additions /
> deletions you want made to your original complaint, alongwith evidence if
> any.After the same is allowed by court, you should compile all the evidence,
> notarise same, and put it up in an affidavit as Evidence Affidavit.Hope this
> helps.
>
> --- On Sun, 8/26/12, prasad vaidya <prasadbvaidya@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> From: prasad vaidya <prasadbvaidya@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - ADDITION OF GROUND IN THE PETITION AT
> CONSUMER FORUM
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> Date: Sunday, August 26, 2012, 6:18 AM
>
> to you  can file application to amend your complaint filled with the District
> consumer forum. You can even add additional parties as complainant .
>
> viadya
>
> --- On Sun, 26/8/12, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
>
> From: M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in>
> Subject: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - ADDITION OF GROUND IN THE PETITION AT
> CONSUMER FORUM
> To: "RTI Act 2005 Hum Janenge Forum People's Right to Information"
> <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
> Date: Sunday, 26 August, 2012, 11:00 AM
>
> I
>  filed a case against
>  a builder (Vatika
> Land Base, Gurgaon) in the Consumer Forum, Gurgaon and which has been
> admitted.
> After this, another consumer told me about some other instances of
> misrepresentation of   facts and cheating which  came to his knowledge from the
> reply of Jaipur Development Board on an RTI
> filed by him.
>
>
>
> Now, what is the procedure to  add these
> such facts in the petition?  Please
> enlighten me.

[HumJanenge] Eye-wash Exercise of Mr. Jagadanand, Odisha Information Commissioner

Odisha Information Commissioner Mr. Jagadanand's direction to Public authorities to comply with RTI Act – An Eye-wash only

Dear friends,

On 26^th August, 2012, in a press release issued by Mr. Jagadanand Mohanty, State Information Commissioner which has been published in a few local dailies ( attached ) , it was claimed that Mr. Jagadanand while adjudicating a complaint case filed by Mr. Judhisthira Rout of Jeypore directed Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj , Govt. of Odisha to maintain transparency in implementation of all development programmes like MGNREGA, BRGF and Indira Awas Yojana and issue instructions to lower level officials to provide information about such programmes to applicants. Such a direction by Mr. Jagadanand as highlighted in mass media is not a single instance of its kind, but one of many where he issued such direction to the public authorities concerned and then simply forgot them, never caring as to the compliance by the public authorities to the said direction. As penalty is not imposed in these cases, the concerned public authorities seldom cared about such directions or sent any compliance report to the Commission. In the process the Commissioners bloat about their so-called success stories, but in practice nothing happens.

Let me share a case of mine, which will give you a true picture how the cases are heard and disposed and direction issued by Information Commissioner Mr.Jagadanand. On 23.12.08, I had submitted an RTI Application to the PIO, Department of Information and Public Relations, Govt. of Odisha seeking information relating to arrangement/ procedure put in place by the Govt. for proactive disclosure of information made under section 4 (1b) of the RTI Act, 2005. Finding no information, I lodged an 1^st appeal to the First Appellate Authority and then being aggrieved by the decision of First Appellate Authority, I made a second appeal to the Commission in February, 2009. My appeal petition ( SA No- 49/2009) was heard twice by Mr. Jagadanand and disposed on 29.6.10 with a direction to Secretary, I and PR to issue a comprehensive guideline for inspection of proactively disclosed information under section 4 of the RTI Act. But astonishingly, I got the copy of the decision from Mr. Jagadanand after around 11 months ( officially issued on 7.3.11). Immediately, I submitted an RTI application for seeking a copy of compliance report if any submitted by the I and PR dept to the above order of the Commission. When I saw the so-called compliance report, I got astonished. The Secretary, I and PR Dept has issued a letter to all Departments to prepare their respective guidelines, but no Department had done anything about it till then.

Finding no Section-4 guideline in place in any Department in the state, I made an appeal to Mr. Jagadanand, SIC on 26.3.12 to reopen the case and take action against the authorities responsible for non-execution of the order of the Commission. In the meantime I have sent two reminders to Mr. Jagadanand for hearing the case. But Mr.Jagadanand remains unresponsive till date as ever before. Though more than six years has elapsed since the implementation of RTI Act started in the state, there is no guideline in place for facilitating the public authorities in respect of people's right to inspection of and access to proactively disclosed information under Section 4 of the Act.

It seems, the act of issuing directions by the Commissioners and the so-called compliance by the Public authorities are merely a drama played out by a clandestine understanding between the Commission and bureaucracy. As per this drama the Commission will just issue some directions as a routine affair and the bureaucracy will just submit a compliance report without doing anything. However, the dubious nexus between the bureaucracy and the Commission is getting more and more visible, only when some concerted public actions are taken by civil society groups, such as in the form of demonstration before the office of Commission, filing writs/PILs in High Court and submitting of complaint to Governor under section 17 of the RTI Act. But to save their face, the Commission has started using media to highlight the so-called important decisions, but little do they know that the members of public have already got a sense of the larger game-plan that lies behind such orchestrated decisions.

Pradip Pradhan

RTI Activist, Odisha

M-99378-43482

Date-31.8.12

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "KBK O TABLE, citizen's collective for a better and different
KBK" group.
To post to this group, send email to kbkroundtable@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
kbkroundtable+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.co.in/group/kbkroundtable?hl=en-GB
website: http://kbkotable.wordpress.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "KBK O TABLE, citizen's collective for a better and different KBK" group.
To post to this group, send email to kbkroundtable@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to kbkroundtable+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/kbkroundtable?hl=und.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.