CIC will never issue contempt notice to CPIO/PIO/FAA as they are their own people ( chor chor musrey bhai ). In how many cases they have levied fine for not giving information in time?
S.K.Kapoor ________________________________ From: C K Jam <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sat, August 28, 2010 9:57:05 PM Subject: Re: [rti_india] Re: Another Major Threat to RTI Applicants- "Notice of CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS BY C Since everyone agrees on one thing - that this is the first time that CIC has issued such a notice, then why doesn't it start issuing such notices to PIO/FAA/PAs who do not comply with its orders. Surely that also constitutes contempt ? RTIwanted --- On Sat, 8/28/10, ashish kr1965 <[email protected]> wrote: >From: ashish kr1965 <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [rti_india] Re: Another Major Threat to RTI Applicants- "Notice >of >CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS BY C >To: [email protected] >Date: Saturday, August 28, 2010, 3:38 AM > > > >Dear moderators > >I think it is appropriate to reply "parawise" ;-) to Mr Umathi > >0. As previously explained by moderator The CIC is well within its powers to >approach the High Court to uphold its authority from contemnors. > >1. It is immaterial if CIC is a court, or not, for purposes of criminal >contempt. As the CIC's proceedings involve the appreciation of evidence, these >are judicial proceedings within the scope of the offence. > >2. It is very well settled in law that notice may be given to the opposite >parties. > > >3. The observations of the High Court is a concise summation of what is >stated >in the law. > >4. The show cause notice referred to in the High Court judgment is where the >subordinate court intended to prosecute the contemnor before itself. In your >case, the notice clearly indicates that it is a preliminary to moving a motion >to the High Court. > >5. It matters if this group is private or public. As has been repeatedly >clarified, every message posted here may be publicly accessible over the >internet. As a consequence the moderators are required to firmly expel all >members who persistently invite legal action by their intemperate posting. > >6. Agreed. You are the first such person I am aware of such notice being >issued >to. You should therefore avail services of competent counsel immediately or >apologise to Mr Tiwari as he has kindly offered. > >7. Agreed. Mr Tiwari is evidently considering such drastic action to uphold >the >dignity of the Central Information Commission. > >8. It is incorrect Your contemptuous publication was prior to publication of >the Commission's decision. You have also requested Chief Information >Commissioner to transfer other matters pending before Mr Tiwari. > >9... 11. No comment > >12. Your complaint to President of India is replete with defamatory statements >concerning Mr Tiwari. I again suggest that you either engage competent counsel >or apologize uncondtionally. The option suggested by Mr Leslie Almieda >(arguing >in person) is not advisable considering your past performance. > >Regards > >Ashish > > > >>> >> >> >
