Dear Neeraj Agarwal, I am with you regarding filing writs in HC against CIC/SIC orders. Kindly arrange a brilliant advocate in HC for this purpose and let me know. We should select those CIC/SIC bad orders which had far reaching negative impact on RTI and let us get them vacated through HC and obtain proper directives/rulings from HC. I have already spent substantial amount of my own money in collecting evidences of scams through RTI. I will not accept any money in any form from anybody, I just need a ngos/lawyers who can take my cases of scams to HC in national interest. All interested in this mission may contact me. Sanjiva Dayal, B.Tech.(I.I.T. Kanpur)
--- On Sat, 4/4/09, ajay marathe <[email protected]> wrote: > From: ajay marathe <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [rti_india] HELP: Appeal in HC against CIC Decision against CIC > Decision. > To: [email protected] > Date: Saturday, April 4, 2009, 5:55 PM > Neeraj ji, > > My suggestion is you ask experience of others & if they > are willing to > join you in putting a case jointly against Sh. > Ansari. > > I am sure , like you there must be more people very unhappy > with the > decision & treatment meted out by Sh. Ansari to them. > > Thanks & Rgds > > On 4/4/09, Satish Kumar Kapoor <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Dear Neeraj Agarwal > > > > Not only Mr Ansari, other ICs are equally corrupt. > > > > S.K.Kapoor > > > > --- On Fri, 4/3/09, neeraj aggarwal <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > From: neeraj aggarwal <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [rti_india] HELP: Appeal in HC against > CIC Decision against CIC > > Decision. > > To: [email protected] > > Date: Friday, April 3, 2009, 8:29 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello Sanjeev and respected all, > > > > Neither i fear from anybody nor i have any finance > problem (will collect > > some donations, rest from our own pocket). > > > > I agree that there is nobody to support but let us do > whatever we could. > > Help me with your individual expertise. > > > > The purpose i am going to file writ in HC is not for > personal relief but to > > make HC give some directions to CIC and direct the > ministry concerned to > > mend its ways. The RTIs i am filing are on behalf of > an NGO and for general > > cause. > > > > I was informed by a senior RTI expert even before my > CIC hearing that CIC > > Ansari is corrupt and the same happened to me. > > > > Let us save the human race from Corruption. > > > > Best Regards, > > Neeraj Aggarwal > > 09818332305 > > http://sanesociety. wordpress. com > > Stand and die in your own strength; if there is any > sin in the world, it is > > weakness; avoid all weakness, for weakness is sin, > weakness is death. - > > Swami Vivekananda > > > > PS: If you do not wish to receive further emails from > this mail ID in > > future, just reply to this mail and write > "UNSUBSCRIBE" . > > > > --- On Fri, 3/4/09, sanjiva dayal <sanjivadayal@ > yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > From: sanjiva dayal <sanjivadayal@ yahoo.com> > > Subject: Re: [rti_india] HELP: Appeal in HC against > CIC Decision against CIC > > Decision. > > To: rti_in...@yahoogrou ps.com > > Date: Friday, 3 April, 2009, 5:19 PM > > > > Dear Neeraj, > > 1. > > I have filed several appeals/complaints before CIC/SIC > and in most of the > > cases I have received good orders but some orders are > against the provisions > > of law and fact. We should file writs in HC against > such bad orders but the > > cost is prohibitive. > > 2. > > In developed countries there are NGO's and lawyers who > take these matters to > > court withour any cost to petitioner and they get > fundings from various > > sources. Unfortunately, in our country there are NGO's > who get fundings but > > they are not interested in taking matters to Court but > are only interested > > in staging agitation and dharna-pradarshans to get > instant media > > publicity. Alegal defect can only be cured through > provision of law. In HC, > > Allahabad no significant writ has been filed so far, > wereas in HC > > Punjab/Haryana several remarkable writs have been > filed. > > 3. > > It is unfortunate that in India no NGO is interested > in helping people to go > > to Court. > > > > Sanjiva Dayal, B.Tech.(I.I. T. Kanpur) > > > > --- On Fri, 4/3/09, neeraj aggarwal <weaknessasin@ > yahoo.co. in> wrote: > > > > From: neeraj aggarwal <weaknessasin@ yahoo.co. > in> > > Subject: [rti_india] HELP: Appeal in HC against CIC > Decision against CIC > > Decision. > > To: "RTI-India Yahoogroup" <rti_in...@yahoogro u > ps.com>, "SIF RTI Wing" > > <SIF-RTIWing@ yahoogroups. com> > > Date: Friday, April 3, 2009, 12:20 PM > > > > Hello Everybody, > > > > I had a hearing at CIC for my appeal and the IC was > shri M. M. Ansari. I had > > a very bad experience with this information > commissioner and want to > > appeal/review further. Please oblige me with your > expertise. > > > > 1. Is there any time bar of appealing against the > Decision of a central > > Information commissioner in High Court. I read The > Central Information > > Commission (Management) Regulations, 2007 and didn't > find any mention of > > High Court appeal. Where can i find guidelines > regarding appealing in the > > High Court.. > > > > 2. In the The Central Information Commission > (Management) Regulations, I > > read that against the Decision of the Central > Information commissioner an > > appellant can write to Chief central Information > Commissioner for "appeal or > > review" of the decision u/s 23(2). Is it mandatory > that we have to approach > > the chief Central Information Commissioner first, > before approaching the > > Honb'le High Court? If so, can anybody provide me with > the sample > > appeal/review petition? > > > > 3. The Central IC M. M. Ansari has not followed any > judicial discipline in > > his order (http://cic.gov. in/CIC-Orders/ MA-26032009- 05.pdf). > > Breif facts of the case are: > > a) The event, a Round table conference with Men’s > Group was conducted on > > June 25, 2008. > > b) The present RTI was filed on June 26, 2008. > > c) The CPIO with Women and Child Development ministry > (WCD) replied to above > > RTI on July 28, 2008. > > d) The first appeal with Appellate Authority was filed > on August 12, 2008. > > e) The Appellate Authority replied on August 22, > 2008. > > f) The 2nd Appeal with CIC was filed on November 11, > 2008. > > g) After receiving the copy of 2nd Appeal with CIC the > WCD ministry supplied > > some documents via a letter dated December 16, 2008 > which was received by me > > on December 23, 2008. > > At the CIC hearing, The IC (Mr. Ansari): > > > > (i) He has not mentioned in his order about neither > the first date of > > hearing (23-02-09) when the respondent deliberately > avoided their presence > > nor about the proceeding of said date. > > > > (ii) In the first ex-parte hearing on 23-02-09, the IC > starts arguing that > > how could we seek info based on newspaper reports. I > want to ask what are > > the means of knowledge to the citizens, Except media, > that what a ministry > > is doing? The news was published and we asked the info > based on that. If > > there was no such happenning, the PIO or first > appellate authority in their > > respective replies must have denied that there is no > such event took place > > on that date. The IC further said you should have > filed for inspection of > > records as you demanded vague information. How could > the copies of the > > official agenda, the suggestions received from various > stake-holders and the > > list of invitees/participan ts of a round table > conference are vague > > information? > > > > (iii) We explained our grievances and it was decided > that at least the > > reason for 6-months delay in providing the information > will be asked. > > > > (iv) In the second hearing on 26-03-09, IC just > ignored our repeated request > > to ask the respondent about the reason of such a long > delay in providing the > > partial information. Mere reply of PIO and first > appellate authority (as in > > para 3 of decision) can not be equated to providing > information. > > > > (v) IC himself started defending the respondents that > the suggestions and > > representations received are third party information > and PIO has already > > obliged the appellant by providing the same. How could > public > > comments/suggestion s received by a ministry on some > review of law could be > > termed third party information and that is by the IC > himself? > > > > (vi) Is the copy of second appeal forwarded to the > CPIO and first appellate > > authority, an another chance to the respondents to > provide the information? > > On an RTI filed on 26th june 2008, and after receiving > the copy of second > > appeal for filing their counter, if the CPIO provides > some junk & misleading > > info on 23rd Dec 2008, and even then IC is not asking > the reason for delay, > > is it not corruption in CIC? > > > > (vii) When we asked the IC, who is going to fix the > accountability, you are > > just saying that "you have got the information , > otherwise under official > > secrets act you would have not even got this". When I > asked, do you have any > > powers to impose penalty u/s 20(1) or not, he said > "_NO_, you challenge and > > I (ansari) will defend it". > > > > (viii) In para 4, The reply that ministry is in > consultation with statke > > holders on the suggestions received itself says that > info is available but > > not provided. The appellant had not demanded any > action taken report on the > > suggestions received but just the copy of the > suggestions. Why the info at > > first instance was not given even if the infor was > available. How there is > > "No denial of Information" ? > > > > (ix)Para 6: > >> The CPIO replied and furnished partial information > and for the remaining > >> information the appellant was informed that the > suggestions received from > >> various stake-holders were being examined by the > respondent in > >> consultation with the National Commission for > Women. > > Contention: Without verifying, where the CPIO provided > info? He just said we > > are discussing? If the info is not with the ministry > and it has been > > forwarded to the National Commision for Women (NCW), > why the CPIO didn't > > forwarded the application to NCW as per section 6(3) > of RTI, after providing > > the info the ministry has? > > > >> Clearly, the complete information, as asked for, > was not available. Hence, > >> it could not be furnished. > > The IC is pronouncing decisions based on presumption > even when there is no > > such reason given by either CPIO or first appellate > authority that the info > > is not available or not prepared at all. Can IC not > ask the PIO, why after 6 > > months of the consulation program, the meetings of > minutes are not > > available? Under section 4(1)(b)(viii) every public > authority need to make > > meeting of minutes. > > > > (x) The IC had not even ordered the respondents to > invite us for inspection > > of records for remaining information. Why we need to > file a separate > > application again for the same, as you all could see > from his decision? > > > > (xi) How IC can comment like "Ministry has other works > to do, like food > > programs for children etc..."? IC ansari had crossed > his jurisdiction. The > > way Ansari was protecting the respondents, I smell a > foul play here and I do > > not see any recourse but to seek justice from the > Honb'le High court. > > > > (x) Last para: > >> As regards the appellant’s allegations against > the respondent for not > >> drawing up the formal minutes in respect of the > Consultation programme, > >> the appellant is advised to approach the competent > authority with a plea > >> to do the needful as per the established > practices. > > Even on request why ansari not ordered the respondents > to prepare formal > > minutes of meetings and provide to the appellant? Does > an IC has power of, > > require the public authority to take any such steps as > may be necessary to > > secure compliance with the provisions of the RTI Act: > > 1. by making necessary changes to its practices in > relation to the > > maintenance, management and destruction of records u/s > 19(8)(a)(iv) and > > 2. by providing it with an annual report in compliance > with clause (b) of > > sub-section (1) of section 4 u/s 19(8)(a)(vi) ; > > > > I have other appeals pending to be heard on 16-04-09, > against same > > respondents and with the same IC ansari. Ansari is a > corrupt man and as per > > the Honb'le Suprme court justice Justice Markande > Katju "Corrupt should be > > hanged from lamp post". I will hang Ansari, help me. > It was a shocking first > > experience for me. > > > > Please help me by suggesting, On what law points > (w.r.t the above mentioned > > CIC decision) I can challenge ansari's decision in the > Honb'le HC. > > > > > > Best Regards, > > Neeraj Aggarwal > > 09818332305 > > http://sanesociety. wordpress. com > > Stand and die in your own strength; if there is any > sin in the world, it is > > weakness; avoid all weakness, for weakness is sin, > weakness is death. - > > Swami Vivekananda > > > > PS: If you do not wish to receive further emails from > this mail ID in > > future, just reply to this mail and write > "UNSUBSCRIBE" . > > > > Connect with friends all over the world. Get Yahoo! > India Messenger at > > http://in.messenger .yahoo.com/ ?wm=n/ > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > Cricket on your mind? Visit the ultimate cricket > website. Enter http://beta. > > cricket.yahoo. com > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > -- > Thanks & Rgds > > Ajay Marathe > > Vashi, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra > > > ------------------------------------ > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > mailto:[email protected] > > >
