Dear Girish
I am truly disappointed by your reply.
You have shown that you are no better than an "RTI activist" who
struts about until called upon to defend his position, whereupon they
simply run away and claim the moral high ground through the (bought
off) media or controlled groups like HJ-YG .
You stated previously that there is a SC judgment on vacation of
interim stay orders. I was very surprised to learn about this since I
track these things. I asked you for it. You sent me the judgment. I
read it and clearly explained (precisely and legally) why your
conclusions were incorrect.
Now you can only accuse me of twisting words and facts. A a person who
first stepped into the SC in my teens (and have being arguing in
person from that age) I am probably much better suited to interpret SC
judgments (spoken / unspoken) than you are. As somebody who had
assisted over 200 poor persons to successfully secure justice from SC,
I can assure you that I have excellent knowledge of how higher courts
work, and I share this knowledge freely with everyone (I have never
taken a paise from anyone for such social work). It is another matter
that I adopt a highly conservative strategy/interpretation to ensure
that my "win-loss" ratio is excellent, which conservative strategy is
misinterpreted as being pro-Govt. by foolish RTI activists to defame
me.
FYI, I have never been in Govt.
FYI, I have taken on MANY high and mighty persons successfully. For
instance I was instrumental in getting Mr. Pramod Mahajan to resign
from Union Cabinet. The fact that he was from BJP was not relevant for
me.
Insofar as Mr. Gandhi is concerned, my dissatisfaction with him stems
from the incidents of 11-August-2008 and subsequently. I have placed
these facts in public domain on many occasions. On 11-August 2008 at
about 4 PM, Shailesh Gandhi, Arvind Kejriwal, myself and another
person (very well known RTI personality) spoke to each other for quite
some time outside Mr. Habibullah's office in August Kranti Bhawan. The
next month Mr. Gandhi became an IC. SG is not a "soft" person/target -
IMHO he is a weak/morally bankrupt person who was bought off and he is
a disgrace to the RTI users fellowship. He had the chance to redeem
himself in office by his orders. Had he done so I would have been the
first person to let bygones be bygones and supported him. Instead he
carried on in his reckless fashion, ignorant arrogance (very deadly
combination and desire for constant self publicity.
Ball is in your court.
Sarbajit
On Jul 21, 9:02 am, Girish Mittal <rtng.mit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Sarabjit,
>
> I don't know your background, but I suspect you have long experience
> in government....I am sure you would make a popular(with govt) IC as you
> know very well how to twist facts and blatantly claim written words
> as unwritten and unwritten as written....
>
> It seems you are feigning ignorance of how our courts
> functions..Inspite of well laid down rules and procedures, people can get
> away by doing anything and everything...especially our judicial and quasi
> judicial authorities...And people like you, who take every opportunity to
> attack soft targets like SG, have no courage to take on those mighty and
> powerful.
>
> I have understood your agenda and would not like to join issues with
> you on this or any other issue any more.
>
> Regards.
>
> Girish Mittal
>
> arbajit roy <sroy...@gmail.com> Jul 20 12:52AM -0700
>
> Dear Girish
>
> I think that you have not read your cited decision carefully.
>
> Firstly, the Court has not gone into ex-party stays and delays as a
> question of law. Hence there is no settled law on this point emanating
> from this decision. In fact FINAL para 59 makes it abundantly clear
> that this decision does NOT settle any law on this (or any other)
> question of law.
>
> Secondly, this decision DILUTES Article 226(3) of the Constitution. It
> introduces ADDITIONAL requirements for vacation of ex-parte ad-interim
> stays in para 47 like "as expeditiously as possible" and suggests
> securing indemnities for mesne profits etc.. By this logic
> "expeditiously" in RTI Act means that applicants should get
> information within 1 or 2 weeks. Why dont you cite this decision to
> every CPIO you apply to ?
>
> As anyone knows the general practice in the High Courts is that after
> an ex-parte stay is granted, and the other parties enter appearance,
> after a token discussion the ex-parte stay is simply extended.
>
> Vacation of ex-parte stays granted by High Courts is precisely defined
> in Article 226. Till you have a substantial decision on this please
> don't waste our time which such inapplicable judgments
>
> In any case, Shailesh Gandhi has apparently gone into 226(3) in his
> counter-affidavit in Aakashdeep's WP. Lets see how Justice Sanghi
> deals with it (within 2 weeks). I am sure that Shailesh being so
> legally knowledgeable would know that Aaakshdeep must get the matter
> listed before the Court within 2 weeks or else he can move a IA for
> contempt against Aakashdeep.
>
> http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1242743/
> http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1385257/
> http://indiankanoon.org/doc/648042/
> http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/552281/
>
> and so many more
>
> Sarbajit
>
> Girish Mittal wrote:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.