Hi,

This is not a practice I do anymore. I now prefer to pursue matters to their 
logical and final conclusion.

In the old days I used to ensure that a copy of my Petition was also served to 
the Other Party(s) despite there being no legal requirement for me to do so. 
This was a common courtesy as my Petition was invariably filed after exhausting 
all remedies WITHIN the Other Party's office. It is pertinent that in many 
cases the bureaucracy is unable to take the action they are legally bound to 
due to extraneous considerations - my Petitions would then give them another 
chance to make amends. Unfortunately with the prevailing atmosphere of all 
pervasive corruption (and especially in the higher judiciary) such an approach 
would not work nowadays.

Sarbajit


--- In [email protected], "Bhushan Kumar" <b4bhus...@...> wrote:
>
> Do you mean..that public authorities used to keep a track/spy on such
> pending petitions, due to defects, and initiated corrective action
> immediately, so that you withdraw the petition within the defect curing
> period???
> 
>  
> 
> ?????
> 
>  
> 
>   _____  
> 
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
> Of sroy1947
> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 11:45 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [rti_india] Re: RTI Application for information of ILLEGAL
> selection of supreme court judges.
> 
>  
> 
>   
> 
> Yes, but in SC the matter can be delayed in the Registry on various pretexts
> (like rectification of filing defects) for upto 1 year before it gets
> registered.
> 
> --- In rti_in...@yahoogrou <mailto:rti_india%40yahoogroups.com> ps.com,
> "Bhushan Kumar" <b4bhushan@> wrote:
> >
> > Only delhi high court is exception, where copy is served to respondent at
> > the time of filing. But not SC. In SC, Serving of copy is only after
> > issuance of notice by the court. Which means that petition is already
> listed
> > and heard in the court by the Judges. By that time, one doesn't have
> option
> > to withdraw the case from 'registry' 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>


Reply via email to