Dear Ashish, My specific objection in that reported CIC decision was that Mr Habibullah had seen fit to get Ms Raghunandan's case assigned to a double "bench" including Mr Shailesh Gandhi and that Mr. Gandhi DID NOT RECUSE HIMSELF from this matter despite knowing the facts!!!
Was Mr Gandhi unaware that Mr Shekhar Singh was his predecessor as NCPRI convenor and that Mr Suman ahai of Gene Campaign is also a NCPRI W.Committee member? Was Mr Shailesh Gandhi (or for that matter also Mr Habibullah) unaware that Mr Gandhi CONTINUES TO BE NCPRI CONVENOR as per the NCPRI website? http://www.righttoinformation.info/member_working.htm Is Mr Habibullah communicating to us that this is not his decision but Mr Gandhi's (a-la Pontius Pilatus)? I shall comment on the "fee" vs "cost" aspect you have raised in a separate post. Sarbajit "LIST OF MEMBERS > Working Committee Members 1. Ajit Bhattacharjea 2. Anjali Bhardwaj 3. Aruna Roy 4. Arvind Kejriwal 5. Bharat Dogra 6. Harsh Mander 7. Maja Daruwala 8. Nikhil Dey 9. Prabhash Joshi 10. Prakash Kardaley 11. Prashant Bhushan 12. Shailesh Gandhi (Convenor) 13. Shekhar Singh 14. Suman Sahai 15. Vishaish Uppal 16. Angela Rangad 17. V. Suresh 18. Jagdeep Chhokar 19. Trilochan Sastry 20. Samir Acharya 21. Balraj Puri 22. Manesh Kumar Gupta 23. Venkatesh Nayak 24. Jagmohan Singh 25. P. Wangchuk 26. Debu Bandhopadhya 27. Jean Dreze 28. Harivansh 29. Sandeep Pande 30. Vinay Mahajan 31. S. R. Sankaran" --- In [email protected], ashish kr1965 <ashishkr1...@...> wrote: > > Dear Virresh Kumar > > you wrote: > "> Sh Sekhar Singh is pioneer of RTI in India. There is nothing wrong in > > it if he helps people to file RTI or is charging fees for giving > > professional services for RTI." > > I find your approach to be quite pragmatic. Shekhar Singh is undoubtedly > a man with many talents, not limited to RTI - being a former member of > the Planning Commission and also on an Supreme Court Environmental > Committee. etc. > > I suspect that the 10,000 rupee "fee" he took from Greenpeace actually > represents the "cost" of filing and succeeding in a Second Appeal before > India's highest appellate body for obtaining information. > > best wishes > Ashish > > == sent from my Blackberry === > --- In [email protected], veeresh kumar <v4veeresh@> wrote: > > > > Dear Roy, > > > > Sh Sekhar Singh is pioneer of RTI in India. There is nothing wrong in > > it if he helps people to file RTI or is charging fees for giving > > professional services for RTI. > > > > veeresh > > > > --- In [email protected], sarbajit roy <mail.sarbajitroy@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Mr Kalia > > > > > > I presume that when a responsible activist like Ms Divya Raghunandan > > > of Greenpeace avers that she had paid the Big Daddy of RTI (ie Mr > > > Shekhar Singh) Rs.10,000/= to "assist" her in her RTI 2nd appeal, that > > > she has actually done so. If this statement (which is duly recorded in > > > the CIC's order) is false, then Mr Singh or any of his well wishers > > > would have denied it by now. > > > > > > This is not the first time Mr Singh has lent his weight to such > > > "public spirited" citizens who are saving Indian farmers. I recall his > > > "assistance" to Ms Aruna Roy (on behalf of Ms Medha Patkar) to > > > "procure" within 48 hours official GoI documents marked "Secret" and > > > "Confidential" by using the good offices of the CIC. It is not > > > pertinent that they already had illegal copies of those documents but > > > required to show that it was legally obtained in RTI. > > > > > > Sarbajit > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 12:29 AM, nripinder kalia <nnkalia@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > My dear Roy, > > > > If it is true,then it is really shamefull.The activist at the level of > > > > Mr.Shekhar is,did it.I doubt. > > > > N.N.Kalia. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 9:10 AM, sroy1947<sroy1947@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/WB-26062009-01.pdf > > > > > > > > > > In this decision at page 9, Ms Divya Raghunandan of Greenpeace claims > > > > > to > > > > > have paid Mr Shekhar Singh Rs.10,000 as "consultation fees". > > > > > The CIC has observed thereafter that these are "normal expenses" > > > > > incurred in > > > > > the course of pursuing an RTI 2nd appeal. > > > > > > > > > > Mr Habibullah (in his capacity as CIC Vigilance head) may also explain > > > > > (preferably publicly) why Mr Shekhar Singh's colleague at NCPRI - IC > > > > > Mr > > > > > Shailesh Gandhi was on this bench, and how much was paid to him to > > > > > get the > > > > > decision in favour of Ms Divya Raghunandan. > > > > > > > > > > Sarbajit Roy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
