AD's decision is on the CIC website. It is very difficult to access
and you will have to wait for about 7,000 links load before you
will find the date it was delivered on
On 8/9/12, Girish Mittal <rtng.mittal@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have perused the interim decision in above case by larger bench of ICs
> AD/SS/LS..
>
> It metions that the decision in above case has already been passed by
> IC/AD...If the deicison has already been passed, what is need for larger
> bench? It tantamounts to review of the said decision probably under
> pressure from some quarters who are not comfortable with the decision.
>
> Also, the decision in above case passed by IC/AD is not available on the
> website of CIC. Does anyone has copy of the said decision?
>
> Regards.
>
> Girish Mittal
>
Friday, August 10, 2012
RE: [HumJanenge] DoPT Notifies new RTI appeal rules
Mr. Jam,
New RTI Appeal Rules notified are nothing new. For the last five years, since I am doing this free social service of helping
people interested if filing an RTI application and APPEALS at CIC level, this format is being used.
Hari Goyal
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 19:06:09 -0700
From: rtiwanted@yahoo.com
Subject: [HumJanenge] DoPT Notifies new RTI appeal rules
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
New RTI Appeal Rules notified are nothing new. For the last five years, since I am doing this free social service of helping
people interested if filing an RTI application and APPEALS at CIC level, this format is being used.
Hari Goyal
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 19:06:09 -0700
From: rtiwanted@yahoo.com
Subject: [HumJanenge] DoPT Notifies new RTI appeal rules
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/New-RTI-appeal-rules-notified/Article1-910489.aspx
New RTI appeal rules notified
The government has notified a new set of rules for moving the Central Information Commission (CIC) against government departments, laying down the basic standards that the appeal will have to meet to be taken up. The new rules were notified by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) at the request of the CIC that was grappling with incoherent and incomplete appeals.
Chief Information Commissioner Satyananda Mishra said the commission had not insisted on a format or content of an appeal in the initial phase since the implementation of the law was still in its infancy.
"But now that the number of RTI appeals has gone up, it has become extremely difficult for us to cope with incomplete, and sometimes illegible appeals," Mishra told Hindustan Times.
In the past, the CIC has accepted letters written to the commission as formal appeals and got around to putting together the necessary paperwork at its own initiative.
With nearly a million RTI applications filed annually, the proportion of appeals has also increased considerably. As the CIC, Mishra has about 1,233 pending appeals to deal with.
As a result of the backlog, a denial of information appeal would have to wait for about 8 to 12 months before the information commissioner can take up the case.
The new rules – notified on 31 July but yet not put in public domain by DoPT – not only lists the documents that would need to accompany an appeal but also lays down a format for the applications.
Deviation from the format would not be a ground for rejecting an appeal to ensure that the poor were not discriminated against.
But for the rest, "I think it is only fair to expect people to cooperate with us".
But for the rest, "I think it is only fair to expect people to cooperate with us".
Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Mr. Shailesh Gandhi
Dear Mr Varkey
What you have written was not meant to be circulated so widely.
It is better that these things come out in the Court so Mr.Gandhi
can be exposed thoroughly.
Sarbajit
On 8/9/12, Baby Varkey <babyjohn.varkey@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sir,
>
> Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi sits to adjudicate on
> relative rights of various persons arising from a Central legislation.
>
> *The Central Information Commission is a creation of statute, and every
> action of Mr Gandhi must be only within the 4 corners of that statute.*
>
> When an individual Commissioner repeatedly disagrees over interpretation of
> the statute with each of his brother Commissioners (and officers of the
> Commission) and incorporates his disagreement publicly in his orders, it
> makes the functioining of the Commission impossible.
>
> Justice Sanghi on receiving several separate Writ Petitions against Mr
> Gandhi controversial orders has come to the correct conclusion and
> strictured Mr. Shailesh by name to highlight the seriousness of Mr.
> Gandhi's impropriety. While that case was being heard Mr. Chakravarti
> (JS-Law) was present in the court and had no answer to Courts' query why
> Chief Commissioner was not intervening to withdraw cases from Mr. Gandhi.
> *Mr
> Chakravarti assured Court he would pass on Court's suggestion to withdraw
> cases from Mr. Gandhi.*
>
> This is the incident resulting in CIC withdrawing cases from Mr. Gandhi.
> Mr. Gandhi then approaches Chairperson UPA. The circular is made to
> disappear. Mr. Gandhi then victimises Mr. Chakravarti and other CIC
> officers making them approach High Court for stay.
>
> BJ Varkey, Advocate
>
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Gaur J K <gaurjk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dt.08/08/12
>> It is no good talking in riddles and fill in the blanks.
>> It is my observation that some are biased against Sailesh Gandhi. We all
>> know he is not a legal lumanary nor he has claimed to be so. So If his
>> judgements/orders are deficient from that angle, there is no need to
>> atribute motives without proof and if one has proof there are remdies
>> available.
>> JKGaur
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> Date: eTue, 7 Aug 2012 23:00:46 +0800
>> From: djshah1944@yahoo.com
>>
>> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Mr. Shailesh Gandhi
>> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
>>
>>
>> Mr Gandhi is encouraging bad practices adopted by one Company for more
>> than 19 years in all Courts proceedings!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>> Once I talked with him when I was in India. Over the phone he replied
>> that
>> this case is complete!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* indrani Mukherjee <juno.im@gmail.com>
>> *To:* humjanenge@googlegroups.com
>> *Sent:* Monday, 6 August 2012 5:13 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Mr. Shailesh Gandhi
>>
>> Dear All
>>
>> I am sorry to intervene amidst your conversation. The term "Ld." is used
>> in the Court orders or even while addressing arguments as a mark of
>> respect
>> towards even the opponent lawyer and in order to maintain the dignity and
>> decorum of the judicial functions. Similarly, the term "Hon'ble Court" is
>> used while addressing any Court of judicature. This is my observation
>> and
>> experience over the last decade of law practice as an advocate.
>> Sorry if I have intervened in your discussion, but intent was only to
>> share my experience.
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Prasad
>>
>> I have no enmity with Mr Shailesh Gandhi.
>>
>> Insofar as the judgment is concerned, it s a public document.
>> Everyone is entitled to form his own opinion while read it.
>>
>> It is my experience, however, that when a judge uses phrases
>> like "Ld. counsel" or "Ld. Commissioner" in orders, more often
>> than not it is a code phrase for the next stage implying that the
>> Ld. gentleman knows too much for his own good.
>>
>> Sarbajit
>>
>>
>> On 8/6/12, prasad vaidya <prasadbvaidya@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > Mr Sarbjit sir
>> > you might have enmity with Mr. Shailesh Gandhi but
>> dont
>> > use this discussion forum for passing remarks for individual enmity
>> > with
>> Mr.
>> > Gandhi Yours views might be proper according to you but there is also
>> other
>> > side which may call you as wrong.
>> > please dont take it as my advice but take it as my opinion which
>> > personal
>> > I have gone through Judgment of Justice Sanghi I feel that he wrote
>> judgment
>> > which is not proper and the way he wrote about Mr. Gandhi in fact he
>> > has
>> > lowered down the dignity of human by passing remarks which can be said
>> > to
>> > scandolous in nature and therefore Justice Sanghi is otherwise eligible
>> for
>> > contempt of his own court.
>> >
>> >
>> > viadya
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards
>>
>> Indrani Mukherjee
>> Advocate
>> 9811394136
>>
>>
>>
>
What you have written was not meant to be circulated so widely.
It is better that these things come out in the Court so Mr.Gandhi
can be exposed thoroughly.
Sarbajit
On 8/9/12, Baby Varkey <babyjohn.varkey@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sir,
>
> Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi sits to adjudicate on
> relative rights of various persons arising from a Central legislation.
>
> *The Central Information Commission is a creation of statute, and every
> action of Mr Gandhi must be only within the 4 corners of that statute.*
>
> When an individual Commissioner repeatedly disagrees over interpretation of
> the statute with each of his brother Commissioners (and officers of the
> Commission) and incorporates his disagreement publicly in his orders, it
> makes the functioining of the Commission impossible.
>
> Justice Sanghi on receiving several separate Writ Petitions against Mr
> Gandhi controversial orders has come to the correct conclusion and
> strictured Mr. Shailesh by name to highlight the seriousness of Mr.
> Gandhi's impropriety. While that case was being heard Mr. Chakravarti
> (JS-Law) was present in the court and had no answer to Courts' query why
> Chief Commissioner was not intervening to withdraw cases from Mr. Gandhi.
> *Mr
> Chakravarti assured Court he would pass on Court's suggestion to withdraw
> cases from Mr. Gandhi.*
>
> This is the incident resulting in CIC withdrawing cases from Mr. Gandhi.
> Mr. Gandhi then approaches Chairperson UPA. The circular is made to
> disappear. Mr. Gandhi then victimises Mr. Chakravarti and other CIC
> officers making them approach High Court for stay.
>
> BJ Varkey, Advocate
>
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Gaur J K <gaurjk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dt.08/08/12
>> It is no good talking in riddles and fill in the blanks.
>> It is my observation that some are biased against Sailesh Gandhi. We all
>> know he is not a legal lumanary nor he has claimed to be so. So If his
>> judgements/orders are deficient from that angle, there is no need to
>> atribute motives without proof and if one has proof there are remdies
>> available.
>> JKGaur
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> Date: eTue, 7 Aug 2012 23:00:46 +0800
>> From: djshah1944@yahoo.com
>>
>> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Mr. Shailesh Gandhi
>> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
>>
>>
>> Mr Gandhi is encouraging bad practices adopted by one Company for more
>> than 19 years in all Courts proceedings!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>> Once I talked with him when I was in India. Over the phone he replied
>> that
>> this case is complete!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* indrani Mukherjee <juno.im@gmail.com>
>> *To:* humjanenge@googlegroups.com
>> *Sent:* Monday, 6 August 2012 5:13 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Mr. Shailesh Gandhi
>>
>> Dear All
>>
>> I am sorry to intervene amidst your conversation. The term "Ld." is used
>> in the Court orders or even while addressing arguments as a mark of
>> respect
>> towards even the opponent lawyer and in order to maintain the dignity and
>> decorum of the judicial functions. Similarly, the term "Hon'ble Court" is
>> used while addressing any Court of judicature. This is my observation
>> and
>> experience over the last decade of law practice as an advocate.
>> Sorry if I have intervened in your discussion, but intent was only to
>> share my experience.
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Prasad
>>
>> I have no enmity with Mr Shailesh Gandhi.
>>
>> Insofar as the judgment is concerned, it s a public document.
>> Everyone is entitled to form his own opinion while read it.
>>
>> It is my experience, however, that when a judge uses phrases
>> like "Ld. counsel" or "Ld. Commissioner" in orders, more often
>> than not it is a code phrase for the next stage implying that the
>> Ld. gentleman knows too much for his own good.
>>
>> Sarbajit
>>
>>
>> On 8/6/12, prasad vaidya <prasadbvaidya@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > Mr Sarbjit sir
>> > you might have enmity with Mr. Shailesh Gandhi but
>> dont
>> > use this discussion forum for passing remarks for individual enmity
>> > with
>> Mr.
>> > Gandhi Yours views might be proper according to you but there is also
>> other
>> > side which may call you as wrong.
>> > please dont take it as my advice but take it as my opinion which
>> > personal
>> > I have gone through Judgment of Justice Sanghi I feel that he wrote
>> judgment
>> > which is not proper and the way he wrote about Mr. Gandhi in fact he
>> > has
>> > lowered down the dignity of human by passing remarks which can be said
>> > to
>> > scandolous in nature and therefore Justice Sanghi is otherwise eligible
>> for
>> > contempt of his own court.
>> >
>> >
>> > viadya
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards
>>
>> Indrani Mukherjee
>> Advocate
>> 9811394136
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Mr. Shailesh Gandhi
So either the judge is incompetent or Mr Shailesh Gandhi is incompetent.
TAKE YOUR PICK !!!
Sarbajit
On 8/10/12, prasad vaidya <prasadbvaidya@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> there is no need to specify name since order under contains the name there
> is no purpose in quoting the in every para of court order there are many
> instances where supreme court has criticised decisions of high court but i
> havent found hon'ble judges have quoted name of high court judges who passed
> order at least in each every para of judgment or repatedly in several para's
> there cases where many judgments of same have been criticised and still
> supreme court has not quoted name of such judges in the judgment
> viadya
>
TAKE YOUR PICK !!!
Sarbajit
On 8/10/12, prasad vaidya <prasadbvaidya@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> there is no need to specify name since order under contains the name there
> is no purpose in quoting the in every para of court order there are many
> instances where supreme court has criticised decisions of high court but i
> havent found hon'ble judges have quoted name of high court judges who passed
> order at least in each every para of judgment or repatedly in several para's
> there cases where many judgments of same have been criticised and still
> supreme court has not quoted name of such judges in the judgment
> viadya
>
[HumJanenge] Re: advice needed
Only court approved translators / agencies will be acceptable unless
all parties agree on translation as authentic.
On Aug 10, 3:35 pm, Sandeep gupta <drsandgu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> if the volume is low, i can translate.
>
> On 8/10/12, sarbajit roy <sroy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Sir
>
> > You can apply for CERTIFIED COPIES of EXISTING RECORD.
>
> > You must then get translated and file OFFICIAL TRANSLATION
> > (there is a procedure for this which your counsel will brief
> > you) to the Court you are filing in AT YOUR OWN COST.
>
> > Unfortunately RTI Act does not allow for TRANSLATED copies
> > of records to be given as of right.
>
> > OTH if you are e RESPONDENT then the Petitioner must
> > serve you with OTs.
>
> > Sarbajit
>
> > On Aug 10, 10:42 am, brig sateesh kuthiala <kuthial...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> friends. i need some information from a punjab govt deptt. the documents
> >> are all in punjabi. can i ask for translated copies in hindi, which will
> >> then become officially and legally acceptable in courts in other states.
> >> thanx
>
> >> Sateesh Kuthiala
>
> --
> Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
> 1722, Sector 14, Hisar-125001, INDIA
> Phone: 91-99929-31181
all parties agree on translation as authentic.
On Aug 10, 3:35 pm, Sandeep gupta <drsandgu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> if the volume is low, i can translate.
>
> On 8/10/12, sarbajit roy <sroy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Sir
>
> > You can apply for CERTIFIED COPIES of EXISTING RECORD.
>
> > You must then get translated and file OFFICIAL TRANSLATION
> > (there is a procedure for this which your counsel will brief
> > you) to the Court you are filing in AT YOUR OWN COST.
>
> > Unfortunately RTI Act does not allow for TRANSLATED copies
> > of records to be given as of right.
>
> > OTH if you are e RESPONDENT then the Petitioner must
> > serve you with OTs.
>
> > Sarbajit
>
> > On Aug 10, 10:42 am, brig sateesh kuthiala <kuthial...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> friends. i need some information from a punjab govt deptt. the documents
> >> are all in punjabi. can i ask for translated copies in hindi, which will
> >> then become officially and legally acceptable in courts in other states.
> >> thanx
>
> >> Sateesh Kuthiala
>
> --
> Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
> 1722, Sector 14, Hisar-125001, INDIA
> Phone: 91-99929-31181
Re: [HumJanenge] Re: advice needed
if the volume is low, i can translate.
On 8/10/12, sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sir
>
> You can apply for CERTIFIED COPIES of EXISTING RECORD.
>
> You must then get translated and file OFFICIAL TRANSLATION
> (there is a procedure for this which your counsel will brief
> you) to the Court you are filing in AT YOUR OWN COST.
>
> Unfortunately RTI Act does not allow for TRANSLATED copies
> of records to be given as of right.
>
> OTH if you are e RESPONDENT then the Petitioner must
> serve you with OTs.
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On Aug 10, 10:42 am, brig sateesh kuthiala <kuthial...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> friends. i need some information from a punjab govt deptt. the documents
>> are all in punjabi. can i ask for translated copies in hindi, which will
>> then become officially and legally acceptable in courts in other states.
>> thanx
>>
>> Sateesh Kuthiala
>
--
Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
1722, Sector 14, Hisar-125001, INDIA
Phone: 91-99929-31181
On 8/10/12, sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sir
>
> You can apply for CERTIFIED COPIES of EXISTING RECORD.
>
> You must then get translated and file OFFICIAL TRANSLATION
> (there is a procedure for this which your counsel will brief
> you) to the Court you are filing in AT YOUR OWN COST.
>
> Unfortunately RTI Act does not allow for TRANSLATED copies
> of records to be given as of right.
>
> OTH if you are e RESPONDENT then the Petitioner must
> serve you with OTs.
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On Aug 10, 10:42 am, brig sateesh kuthiala <kuthial...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> friends. i need some information from a punjab govt deptt. the documents
>> are all in punjabi. can i ask for translated copies in hindi, which will
>> then become officially and legally acceptable in courts in other states.
>> thanx
>>
>> Sateesh Kuthiala
>
--
Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
1722, Sector 14, Hisar-125001, INDIA
Phone: 91-99929-31181
[HumJanenge] Re: advice needed
Sir
You can apply for CERTIFIED COPIES of EXISTING RECORD.
You must then get translated and file OFFICIAL TRANSLATION
(there is a procedure for this which your counsel will brief
you) to the Court you are filing in AT YOUR OWN COST.
Unfortunately RTI Act does not allow for TRANSLATED copies
of records to be given as of right.
OTH if you are e RESPONDENT then the Petitioner must
serve you with OTs.
Sarbajit
On Aug 10, 10:42 am, brig sateesh kuthiala <kuthial...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> friends. i need some information from a punjab govt deptt. the documents are all in punjabi. can i ask for translated copies in hindi, which will then become officially and legally acceptable in courts in other states. thanx
>
> Sateesh Kuthiala
You can apply for CERTIFIED COPIES of EXISTING RECORD.
You must then get translated and file OFFICIAL TRANSLATION
(there is a procedure for this which your counsel will brief
you) to the Court you are filing in AT YOUR OWN COST.
Unfortunately RTI Act does not allow for TRANSLATED copies
of records to be given as of right.
OTH if you are e RESPONDENT then the Petitioner must
serve you with OTs.
Sarbajit
On Aug 10, 10:42 am, brig sateesh kuthiala <kuthial...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> friends. i need some information from a punjab govt deptt. the documents are all in punjabi. can i ask for translated copies in hindi, which will then become officially and legally acceptable in courts in other states. thanx
>
> Sateesh Kuthiala
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)