Dear Sarbajit,
I read your posted Dihi High Court directions, they have called to present
fully veruified wrtten submissiobn before particvular date , it is not
written to interfere in the running procedings and this judgement is not in
GENERAL but case to case basis. Your statement says that court is open to
all present to comment while procedings in any court. Donot just misguide
the the Board. Even if we read this the arder does not show to interefere in
the running procedings to submit on particular date before procedings start
to decide the matter.

It was good that u posted this site and I have copied the major portion to
be read by all.
Bhaskar

*Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2006/00011*

*NOTICE FOR HEARING*

WHEREAS the Central Information Commission vide its decision dated

16.3.06 in appeal no.CIC/WB/A/2006/00011 (Shri Sarabjit Roy Vs. Delhi
Electricity

Regulatory Commission decided that M/s. North Delhi Power Limited, BSES

Rajdhani Power Limited, BSES Yamuna Power Limited (Hereinafter referredto as

DISCOMs ) are “public authorities” under the Right to Information Act, 2005;
and

WHEREAS the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 6833-35/2006 has

issued directions to all parties to appear before this Commission on
16.10.2006 and

that this Commission has to decide as to whether the said DISCOMs are
“Public

Authorities” under the Right to Information Act or not by 30.11.2006 after
hearing all

the parties including such other parties whose interest may be affected or
whose views

may be relevant; and

WHEREAS the Commission has decided that the said matter shall be heard by

its Full Bench.

Now therefore, it is notified for general information that all interested

parties/persons or organizations may, if they so desire, file duly verified
written

submissions before this Commission so as to reach on or before 11.00 AM of
16th

October, 2006.

Dated this the 5th day of October , 2006

(L.C. SINGHI)

Additional Registrar

Copy forwarded to:

7. Shri Paul S, NIC — with a request to place the notice of hearing on the
website of

the Commission for information of the public.

(L.C. SINGHI)

Additional Registrar
I
On 3/18/09, sroy1947 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>   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] <rti_india%40yahoogroups.com>, 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:
> >
>
> 
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rti_india/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rti_india/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:[email protected] 
    mailto:[email protected]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Reply via email to