Friday, September 7, 2012

Re: [HumJanenge] Fwd: Need Help

file an application before civil court pray for permanent injunction and also pray to issue necessary directions to municipal authorities to remove obstacles .

viadya

--- On Fri, 7/9/12, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
Subject: [HumJanenge] Fwd: Need Help
To: "humjanenge" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
Date: Friday, 7 September, 2012, 10:21 PM

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Bala A <bala_mf@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 01:43:00 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Need Help
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com


  Dears,

  I need legal advice, can u
  pls suggest me.



  1.We have bought a small
  house. The site was allocated to someone in 1983 and brought it on 2008.We
  have  sale agreement is there. It has East and South road(Still as per
  layout). We were built a compound wall in east side within my limit and some
  of persons had objection that we were built a wall in his area (one year ago
  it was occupied by him, by that time some of people who are staying near by
  had given complaint to MRO as well as Municipal commissioner. And it was
  removed by municipal authorities. Again it was occupied by him in midnight).

  2. Now they demolished
   my wall and tried to attack on my family members. And they are giving
  warning to everyone(who were trying to protect them) that they will complaint
  as sc/st atrocity.

  3. We have given complaint  in local police station. No favourable
  response. And tried to meet DSP by the time local police station SI was
  there, he told DSP that he will take care.

  Next day SI came and saw the
  demolished wall. He suggested that survey the land by revenue dept
.Now opponent person showing one patta
  that road was assigned on his name.

  Is it possible to the
   assign road(patta) to some one.



  4. Some of ladies who are
  staying near by given complaint to Municipality as well as MRO.



  5. MRO said no one give
  patta(road) to someone,  he will take
  care when municipal commissioner referred.



  4. Can u suggest me. How can
  we follow. opposite person  occupy road, demolished my wall and tried to
  attack my family members. Now they are trying to put SC/SDT atrocity case.
  We know some body is there beyond this. Shall we
  give complaint to Human Rights on who demolished the wall and who are beyond
  this. Whether HR will accept.

  Pls let me know if any other ways.
Thanks & RegardsBala
Posted by at No comments:

RE: [HumJanenge] High Court status w.r.t. Delhi Airport

Thanks Mr. Gulati. Your reply is very helpful. I can now decide if I need to intervene in the case too.

 

Rakesh

 

From: atul gulati [mailto:atulgulatir@gmail.com]
Sent: 07 September 2012 20:50
To: rakesh@nyayabhoomi.org
Subject: Fwd: [HumJanenge] High Court status w.r.t. Delhi Airport

 

 

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: atul gulati <atulgulatir@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 8:47 PM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] High Court status w.r.t. Delhi Airport
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com


Dear Sir,

 

I have done the research on your query and found the status of DIAL, whether a Public Authority or not? I believe the latest order of Delhi High Court would answer all your queries. The Question whether DIAL Public Authority or not, is still subject matter of following case and subjudice : 

 

 

  

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
  
  
  
  W.P.(C) 3816/2011 and C.M. No. 7958/2011 (for stay)
  
  
  
  DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PRIVATE LIMITED..... Petitioner
  
  Through: Mr. Atul Sharma and Mr. Milanka Chaudhury, Advocates.
  
  
versus
  
  
  
  UNION OF INDIA and OTHERS ..... Respondent
  
  Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate for the applicant/Sh. Brijesh
  Kumar.
  
  
  
  CORAM:
  
   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
  
  
  
   O R D E R
  
   18.05.2012
  
  
  
  C.M. No. 16891/2011
  
  By this application, the applicant/Sh. Brijesh Kumar seeks
  impleadment as party respondent in the present writ petition.
  
  The case of the applicant is that he moved an application under the
  Right to Information Act (RTI Act) before the Airports Authority of India
  (AAI). It appears that the said application was forwarded by AAI to the
  petitioner/Delhi International Airport Private Ltd. (DIAL) for answering
  the query. The petitioner has responded to the application on 08.08.2011
  taking the stand that it is not a public authority under the RTI Act. It
  was also informed to the applicant that the issue ? whether the
  petitioner is a public authority, or not, is pending adjudication before
  this Court in the present writ petition, wherein the Court had passed an
  interim stay order against the order of the CIC, whereby the CIC has held
  the petitioner to be a public authority. It is in this background that
  the applicant wishes to get impleaded as a party respondent to contest
  the petition.
  
  Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent?s
  RTI application is now pending consideration in second appeal before the
  CIC. He submits that the petitioner is not a party in those appellate
  proceedings.
  
  I am inclined to allow this application as the petitioner itself
  has warded of the queries raised by the applicant, which have been
  forwarded to it by AAI, by claiming that it is not a public authority.
  So far as CIC is concerned, the issue ? whether the petitioner is a
  public authority, or not, already stands concluded against the
  petitioner. The decision in the present case is bound to affect the
  rights of the applicant to seek information under the Act from the
  petitioner.
  
  In the light of the aforesaid position, the application is allowed.
  
  W.P.(C) 3816/2011 and C.M. No. 7958/2011 (for stay)
  
  Let the amended memo of parties be filed within two weeks and
  complete paper book be provided to learned counsel for the newly added
  
  respondent within the same period. Counter-affidavit, if any, be filed by the newly added respondent within six weeks thereafter. Rejoinder
  thereto, if any, be filed before the next date.
  
  Adjourned to 19.10.2012.
  
  VIPIN SANGHI, J
  
  MAY 18, 2012/?BSR?

 

Regards

Atul Gulati

9811145682

On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 5:32 AM, Rakesh Agarwal <rakesh@nyayabhoomi.org> wrote:

Would anyone know the fate of attempt to bring Delhi International Airport Limited under the RTI Act? Limited information available online is outdated and does not speak of current status of the case in Delhi High Court. Search on the court’s website hasn’t helped either.

 

Rakesh Agarwal

 

 

Posted by at No comments:

Re: [HumJanenge] Anti corruption movement- Forged POA

Sir,

I know of a case where on the basis of forged Power of Attorney shares held by Broker
was disposed off without the knowledge of the owner of the shares.

When complaint about this was made with all the proof neither SEBI nor CDSL chose to take any action. They do not even acknowledge mails reporting this irregularity on which 
they should feel outraged. The watchdogs, SEBI/CDSL are not protecting public money.

Such a serious corrupt act is not being probed by the regulatory authority maintained on tax 
payers money.

Can any one suggest a solution to this problem please?

Regards

Mohan Raj

--- On Fri, 7/9/12, Venkatraman NS <nsvenkatchennai@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Venkatraman NS <nsvenkatchennai@gmail.com>
Subject: [HumJanenge] Anti corruption movement
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Friday, 7 September, 2012, 8:42 PM

To

RTI Group


CALL FOR  SUSTAINED ANTI CORRUPTION MOVEMENT BY BOYCOTTING
                          CORRUPT POLITICIANS AND BUREAUCRATS

 Many concerned  citizens in India feel sad and demoralized that country's  administration and public affairs have gone into the hands of corrupt people. They wonder as to what they can do to save the country from such corrupt forces when even such measures like RTI Act cannot make visible impact in eliminating corruption.

Anna Hazare's anti corruption call received such widespread and spontaneous support because it reflected the mood of the people and gave an opportunity to them to vent their anger and bitterness. Even though Anna Hazare's anti corruption  movement has lost its direction  which is regrettable , the concerned country men should not lose hope. 

It is high time  that a silent movement should be started to boycott the corrupt politicians and bureaucrats in a way similar to Gandhiji's movement to boycott foreign clothes.

Let not anyone invite those politicians and bureaucrats facing corruption cases in courts  to any public functions  or gatherings and the people  should refrain from attending any gatherings  where such corrupt people would be the invitees.

Educated people should give a lead and spread this message and certainly everyone including the people belonging to lower economic group who are much bigger sufferers of corrupt conditions, would follow suit. This can be a very effective and dignified as well as peaceful anti corruption movement that is bound to spread very fast , given the mood of the country men today.

Every citizen concerned about corrupt conditions can take a lead at his own level, without looking for some one from somewhere to give a lead.

Please consider circulating this message  everywhere in India  and watch the dramatic results for better.

N.S.Venkataraman

Nandini Voice for The Deprived
Email:- nsvenkatchennai@gmail.com

Posted by at No comments:

[HumJanenge] Fwd: Need Help

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Bala A <bala_mf@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 01:43:00 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Need Help
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com


Dears,

I need legal advice, can u
pls suggest me.



1.We have bought a small
house. The site was allocated to someone in 1983 and brought it on 2008.We
have sale agreement is there. It has East and South road(Still as per
layout). We were built a compound wall in east side within my limit and some
of persons had objection that we were built a wall in his area (one year ago
it was occupied by him, by that time some of people who are staying near by
had given complaint to MRO as well as Municipal commissioner. And it was
removed by municipal authorities. Again it was occupied by him in midnight).

2. Now they demolished
my wall and tried to attack on my family members. And they are giving
warning to everyone(who were trying to protect them) that they will complaint
as sc/st atrocity.

3. We have given complaint in local police station. No favourable
response. And tried to meet DSP by the time local police station SI was
there, he told DSP that he will take care.

Next day SI came and saw the
demolished wall. He suggested that survey the land by revenue dept
.Now opponent person showing one patta
that road was assigned on his name.

Is it possible to the
assign road(patta) to some one.



4. Some of ladies who are
staying near by given complaint to Municipality as well as MRO.



5. MRO said no one give
patta(road) to someone, he will take
care when municipal commissioner referred.



4. Can u suggest me. How can
we follow. opposite person occupy road, demolished my wall and tried to
attack my family members. Now they are trying to put SC/SDT atrocity case.
We know some body is there beyond this. Shall we
give complaint to Human Rights on who demolished the wall and who are beyond
this. Whether HR will accept.

Pls let me know if any other ways.
Thanks & RegardsBala
Posted by at No comments:

[HumJanenge] Anti corruption movement

To

RTI Group


CALL FOR  SUSTAINED ANTI CORRUPTION MOVEMENT BY BOYCOTTING
                          CORRUPT POLITICIANS AND BUREAUCRATS

 Many concerned  citizens in India feel sad and demoralized that country's  administration and public affairs have gone into the hands of corrupt people. They wonder as to what they can do to save the country from such corrupt forces when even such measures like RTI Act cannot make visible impact in eliminating corruption.

Anna Hazare's anti corruption call received such widespread and spontaneous support because it reflected the mood of the people and gave an opportunity to them to vent their anger and bitterness. Even though Anna Hazare's anti corruption  movement has lost its direction  which is regrettable , the concerned country men should not lose hope. 

It is high time  that a silent movement should be started to boycott the corrupt politicians and bureaucrats in a way similar to Gandhiji's movement to boycott foreign clothes.

Let not anyone invite those politicians and bureaucrats facing corruption cases in courts  to any public functions  or gatherings and the people  should refrain from attending any gatherings  where such corrupt people would be the invitees.

Educated people should give a lead and spread this message and certainly everyone including the people belonging to lower economic group who are much bigger sufferers of corrupt conditions, would follow suit. This can be a very effective and dignified as well as peaceful anti corruption movement that is bound to spread very fast , given the mood of the country men today.

Every citizen concerned about corrupt conditions can take a lead at his own level, without looking for some one from somewhere to give a lead.

Please consider circulating this message  everywhere in India  and watch the dramatic results for better.

N.S.Venkataraman

Nandini Voice for The Deprived
Email:- nsvenkatchennai@gmail.com

Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, September 5, 2012

[HumJanenge] High Court status w.r.t. Delhi Airport

Would anyone know the fate of attempt to bring Delhi International Airport Limited under the RTI Act? Limited information available online is outdated and does not speak of current status of the case in Delhi High Court. Search on the court’s website hasn’t helped either.

 

Rakesh Agarwal

Posted by at No comments:

Monday, September 3, 2012

Re: [HumJanenge] Rules regarding making of a POWER of Attorney


what ever suggestion you gave regarding recording of court room proceeding are abosolutely correct and also related complaints of misbehavior I was present for Full Bench hearing on April 30,2008 my petition was clubbed to other petition by one line order dated 07.02.2008 by single judge of bombay high court he didn't wrote reasons as why my petition was clubbed to the other petition I got letter from deputy registrar in which he wrote that the other petition towhich my clubbed is referred to the 3 judges bench (full bench) however he has not mentioned term of reference I was present my petition was not pronounced for hearing nor i was called to give my say and reference was disposed When I read the order I was schoked my name is mentioned in the order although I didn't argued before the court nor i was called for hearing and the lawyer for although present ( the lawyers are following dress code ) his name is missing in the order .
The Court ask a party to appear without giving any reference on what issues he has to argue before the court secondly court is not verifying whether the party has got opportunity of hearing and fabricates the order this is case of gross misuse of judicial power
"An absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely is true with Bombay High Court and Suprem court "  please read all orders in W.P. 4518 of 1999 and full bench order in W.P. 6550 of 2006
prasad vaidya
viadya

--- On Mon, 3/9/12, C R Mohan Raj <crmohanraj@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: C R Mohan Raj <crmohanraj@yahoo.com>
Subject: [HumJanenge] Rules regarding making of a POWER of Attorney
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Monday, 3 September, 2012, 5:37 PM

Thank you very much Sir.

I have another doubt.

When we make a Power of Attorney we are told that it should have two witnesses
who witness your signing, with their name address and date.

We are also told that it should be notarised.

Where are all these requirements listed out?
Power of Attorney act does not say any of it.

Regards

Mohan Raj

--- On Sun, 2/9/12, Udhe Prabhu <udayprabhu@activist.com> wrote:

From: Udhe Prabhu <udayprabhu@activist.com>
Subject: Re: Fw: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - If the Opp Party is found to have given false notarised affidavit.
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com, crmohanraj@yahoo.com
Date: Sunday, 2 September, 2012, 8:13 AM


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>
%0
Posted by at No comments:

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

Some say that the biggest qualification is the loyalty to the ruling dispensation in any important appointment, may be Director, CBI CVC, EC.  In future, I perceive this to prevail in the appointment of CAG.

From: Justice Kamleshwar Nath <justicekn@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, 3 September 2012 11:59 AM
Subject: RE: [HumJanenge] WHAT BASIS FOR INFO COMMISSIONERS APPOINTMENT IN TAMIL NADU?

Dear Friends,
 
            The same grievance was laid by us before State Govt. of Uttar Pradesh. An extract of our representation is set out below for your consideration. It is heard that some appointments are in the offing in U.P., but it is not heard that Criteria for appointments have been determined by the Government. A Writ Petition is pending in Lucknow Bench of High Court on this question. We are watching the developments.
 
            Regards,
                KN  
 
 
 
"We the undersigned Petitioners, finding that the appointments of Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) and Information Commissioners (IC) in U.P., by and large, have not been done in accordance with the provisions of Right to Information Act 2005 (the Act), causing violation of the Laws and serious injustice to the people, approach you and Government of Uttar Pradesh to ensure that all such future appointments are made strictly in accordance with law and, in particular, with the mandatory provisions of Section 15(5) of the Act.
 
            2. The exalted Status of CIC/IC, their Emoluments, the stipulated high achievements of prospective incumbents and the sweep of their powers under the Act may be appreciated:
            (a) Salaries, allowances and terms of Conditions of Service of CIC are equivalent to those of an Election Commissioner of India , and those of IC are equivalent to those of Chief Secretary of the State under Section 16(5).
            (b) By Section 15(5), both must ("shall") be 'persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media, or administration and governance'.
            (c) Information Commission is an autonomous Apex body not subject to directions from any other Authority under Section 15(4) of the Act in all matters relating to Right to Information. Under Section 19(7), its decisions 'shall be binding' on all concerned. It has authority to issue certain directions to every Public Authority under the Act, which includes High Court and Governor u/s 2(h). It has Monitoring role u/s 25, and may require the Public Authority to take necessary steps to secure compliance with the provisions of the Act or to require it to compensate the Complainant for any loss or detriment suffered or to impose penalties on Public Information Officer u/s 19(8).
2
            3. Unfortunately for the People, the expression 'persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience …………' in Section 15(5) has not been elaborated. Each one of the terms in this expression is weighty, and the rationale for stated high achievements and exalted status of CIC & IC lies in the statutory powers exercisable by them on the highest Public Authority in the State as indicated above. No Government, Central or State, has framed Rules u/s 27 of the Act 'to carry out the provisions contained' in  Section 15(5).
 
            4. In the absence of Rules or Guidelines, the Citizen shall have to rely on Law Lexicons and English Dictionaries to find the meaning of the terms/expression as understood in common parlance, i.e., by the People for whom the Act has been framed to give effect to Constitutional Right of Information. A study has revealed the following:
           
(a) Collins English Dictionary & Thesaurus UK (Major New Edition 1994):
·         P.365 'Eminence' = a person of superiority or fame; 'Eminent' = above others in rank, merit or reputation, distinguished; noteworthy or outstanding.
·         P. 924 'Public' = of or concerning the people as a whole; well-known or a public figure
(b) Chambers 20th Century Dictionary (1977): P. 423 'Eminent' = rising above others; conspicuous, distinguished, exalted in rank or office. 'Eminence' = distinction.
(c) The New Lexicon Websters Dictionary of English Language (1987) New York :
·         P.308 'Eminence' = distinction in Society or in profession. 'Eminent' = 'distinguished',  'widely thought of as superior in some way', 'outstanding', 'conspicuous'.
·         P. 807 'Public' = 'of or pertaining  to the community as a whole', 'prominent in public life', 'often receiving publicity, a public figure'.
(d) The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1933) Vol 1:
·         P. 600 'Eminence' = Distinguished superiority as compared with others in rank, station, character, attainments or the possession of any quality good or bad. 'Eminent' = exalted in rank or station, distinguished in character or attainments.
·         Vol 2 : P. 1613 'Public' = pertaining to or engaged in the affairs or service of the community; devoted or directed to promotion of general welfare; public spirited.
(e) The Compact Edition of Oxford English Dictionary (1971) Vol 1:
·         P. 853 'Eminence' = Distinguished superiority, elevated rank as compared with others in social or official position, wealth or power. 'Eminent' = Exalted, distinguished in rank or station.
            
     5.The universally accepted essence of the expression 'person of eminence in public life', thus, demands that person to be of distinction in attainments, widely thought of as being exalted, superior and prominent in Society/people as a whole, and devoted to promotion of general welfare. Added to these, the specific requirement of Section 15(5) is that he must have 'wide knowledge and experience' of any of the specified fields of learning.
 
6. On Ground Reality, these mandatory provisions for appointment have not been observed, with the result that quite a few ICs do not satisfy the appointment criteria and the work of the Commission greatly suffers both in quality and quantity, and numberless applicants for Information fail to get justice. To mention a few on the basis of data/information furnished by PIO of U.P. Prashashanik Sudhar Anubhag-2 or State Information Commission ……………"…[We are not setting out the details of certain ICs who we referred as illustrations in support of our point]
 
We have referred to the decision of your High Court  dealing with a case of appointment of 3 ICs under Section 15 of RTI Act in WP No. 5741 of 2011, S.Vijaya Lakshmi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others (decided on 25.11.2011), relying on Supreme Court directions in Chief Vigilance Commissioner P.J.Thomas appointment case as CVC, reported in (2011) 4 SCC 1,  and have demanded the Government to spell out appropriate and transparent criteria for selection/appointments under Section 15 by framing Rules or Guidelines and publish them for public awareness to enable aspirants to apply for the post and may include:
 
                                                              i.      Length of Public Service & Experience: Since CIC is on parity with Election Commissioner, and IC is on parity with State Chief Secretary, the proper period should correspond to the average length of service preceding those appointments; this may be 25 to 30 years.
                                                            ii.      Test of Eminence in public life: The incumbent for CIC or IC should be a personality of outstanding merit with high integrity, well known and admired for distinction in attainments in the field of his activity. These could be reflected from his service record or by confidential inquiry from seniors in his field or intelligence agency. He should be  known as one devoted to promotion of General Welfare. He should also be payer of significant amount of Income Tax for at least 10 years.
                                                          iii.      An appropriate Empanelling Authority (or Screening Committee) should be constituted to prepare a panel of suitable persons amongst aspirants (as indicated earlier) and forward the same, with complete material and data of each name on the panel, for consideration of the Selection Committee u/s 15(3).
                                                          iv.      The Selection Committee must have an Agenda consisting  of adequate documentation. All the Members of the Selection Committee must meet at the selection process. Minutes of the proceedings, including dissenting notes, must be recorded.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
From the Desk of :
Justice Kamleshwar Nath
Retd.
:
Up-Lokayukta ( Karnataka ),
Vice Chairman – C.A.T ( Allahabad ),
Judge – High Court ( Lucknow & Allahabad )
Address
:
`Gunjan', C - 105, Niralanagar, Lucknow : 226 020. Uttar Pradesh , India
Phone(s)
:
+91-522-2789033 & +91-522-4016459. Mobile : +91-9415010746
 
From: humjanenge@googlegroups.com [mailto: humjanenge@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of Venkatraman NS
Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2012 10:05 AM
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Subject: [HumJanenge] WHAT BASIS FOR INFO COMMISSIONERS APPOINTMENT IN TAMIL NADU?
 
 
To
 
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
 
 


Posted by at No comments:

Re: [HumJanenge] Rules regarding making of a POWER of Attorney

Please read section 4 of PoA Act 1882

"Deposit of original instruments creating powers- of- attorney.- (a)
An instrument creating a power- of- attorney, its execution being
verified by affidavit, statutory declaration or other sufficient
evidence, may, with the affidavit or declaration, .... "

On 9/3/12, C R Mohan Raj <crmohanraj@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Thank you very much Sir.
> I have another doubt.
> When we make a Power of Attorney we are told that it should have two
> witnesseswho witness your signing, with their name address and date.
> We are also told that it should be notarised.
> Where are all these requirements listed out?Power of Attorney act does not
> say any of it.
> Regards
> Mohan Raj
>
> --- On Sun, 2/9/12, Udhe Prabhu <udayprabhu@activist.com> wrote:
>
> From: Udhe Prabhu <udayprabhu@activist.com>
> Subject: Re: Fw: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - If the Opp Party is found to
> have given false notarised affidavit.
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com, crmohanraj@yahoo.com
> Date: Sunday, 2 September, 2012, 8:13 AM
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)