Dear Bhaskar I think you are misinformed. Any party who has entered appearance is allowed to speak before a court. It is up to the Court to recognise a party in a matter. The same is also provided for in the Advocates Act as well as the CrPC / CPC etc. It is a pillar of our legal system that all parties must be afforded opportunity of hearing, and be afforded natural justice, doctrine of of proportionality, the Wednesbury Principles etc . I myself fought for these important principles in the High Court of Delhi against the Central Information Commission and won. Consequently the CIC was forced to issue this public notice http://cic.gov.in/PublicNotices/NoticeForHearing-05102006.pdf
It is not my fault if IC(SG) is not as legally competent as I am and gets repeatedly admonished by the Superior Courts as a troublesome interloper :-) As other members have said on this group - "Mushrooms grow well in the dark". FYI the specific rule for 3rd parties to be heard is 5(5) and has nothing to do with assisting appellants as you have stated. In any case as a third party why should I assist the other parties? I think it is very important that IC(SG) behaves as a BABU (ie public SERVANT). If he does not then CIC should withdraw all cases from him. Sarbajit --- In [email protected], Bhaskar Prabhu <mahitiadhikarma...@...> wrote: > > Dear Sarbajit, > > In court also third person is not allowed to speak. Even the petitioners are > not allowed to argue but there advocates do it. SG has not done his own > rules but some of u are publishing what rules should be or your > interpretation or your point of opinion. If the appellant is agrees that you > are assisting the appellant then IC need to allow and this permitted by all > IC. > > And your advice to SG to behave properly as BABU, OH ! We really donot want > him to behave like BABU. As we have seen how babus have behaved and are > behaving. The situation are the result of your so called BABUs. > > Bhaskar Prabhu > On 3/17/09, sroy1947 <sroy1...@...> wrote: >
