Jump to content
News Ticker
  • NPAs under PM Modi's Mudra scheme jumped 126% in FY19
  • shows RTI
  • RTI query reveals banking frauds of ₹ 2.05 Trillion reported in the last 11 years
  • 509 per cent rise in cases under child labour law: Study
  • The Central Information Commission has allowed disclosure of file notings on the mercy petition of a rape and murder convict, rejecting the government's contention that the records cannot be disclosed as these are privileged documents under Article 74(2) of the Constitution.
  • Electoral bonds worth over ₹5,800 crore were bought by donors to fund political parties between March 1, 2018 and May 10, 2019, a Right to Information reply has said.
  • Don't pay 500/- for answer sheet now- Supreme Court says if Answer sheet is asked under RTI, RTI Fees will be governed
Guest pcbali

The District & Sessions Judge, Amritsar replies is strange against my appeal to him as FAA

Recommended Posts

Guest pcbali

DSJ has decided the appeal and has sent me the order dated 8/6/2010 by hand on 9/6/10. As expected he has upheld the decision of PIO to deny the information. His detailed order will be posted by me in the evening. Now the grounds are ready for 2nd appeal. Suggest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
smbhappy

Great. Now the FAA has given you a written document of his deliberate violation of the RTI act. Has he given a reasoned decision and quoted any section from the RTI Act?

 

Will come up with suggesstions when you post the reply of D&SJ online. this is my post #777 - luckiest for all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest pcbali

The order of the DSJ is attached with this post. Now please suggest the next.:D

DSJ Order.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest pcbali

Dear Mr. Modi, Mr smbhanot, Mr Karira and other freinds on forum.

 

The cat is out of bag now. The DSJ has passed the orders and I have posted it in the thread just now. The order is bizarre and need strong counter action in 2nd appeal. Please now see the whole case and the attachments of Form A as well as appeal to FAA in post # 1 and the strange letter from FAA is also posted in Post #1. Now the FAA order is received. Please make 2nd appeal draft and send it to me on my email id xxx@yyy.zzz. My cell no is +91xxxxxxxx. Deleted email id and mobile number - posting against forum rules

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
smbhappy

Hello Mr. Bali,

 

D&SJ-cum-First Appellate Authority, has taken a very Narrow (rather personal/individual) interest of the matter instead of taking a "Larger Public Interest". More over he had overlooked the "Overriding effects of the RTI over all other law in force for the time being".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest pcbali

please give me strong arguments to make 2nd appeal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
smbhappy

Some of the points that need to be elaborated further are:

 

01. Information sought was not covered under Section 8 & 9 (exempt), Section 8(1)(d), Section 8(1)(e),

02. Information asked for is required to be disclosed u/s 4 (Pro-active disclosure) - not followed by the D&SJ even after 5 years after the RTI Act come into being, while it was require to be done within a year and revised as frequently as possible, but once a year.

03. Larger Public Interest is involved and D&SJ failed to appreciate this.

04. Section 22 - The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. Punjab Subordinate Courts (Right to Information Act) Rules, 2007 are there for over ridden by RTI,

05. Misused 8(1)(j) - No invasion to the privacy of the Court Official was involved.

06. Misinterpreting of word 'Individual' - Therefore, the contention of the appellant that the word 'Individual' mentioned under rule 4(b) of the Rules does not mean judicial officer, Is not tenable. Rather, the individual means official or officer as the case may be In the matter under context.

 

May come up with more later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest pcbali

Finally, The 2nd appeal is fixed for hearing on 26/7/2010 by CIC himself,. Hon;ble R.I.Singh, chief information commissioner will listen and decide. Let us see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
smbhappy

Good Luck and See you there at SIC office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest pcbali

The battle is won, Congrats to RTI Activists community. The order is passed by CIC-Punjab, Honble Ravi Inder Singh, today and have passed very substantive, detailed and interesting order in may favor. The D&S Judge, Amritsar will do with in 60 days, what I demanded. The PIO & FAA are considered liable for penalty but excused ( as usual). It is victory of RTI over the egoistic Judicial Officer who consider themselves above law (while they claim to impart neutral justice. Is it ???) Please see the link

 

http://www.infocommpunjab.com/htm/documents/2009/28.07.2010%20Orders.doc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest pcbali

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB

SCO No. 84-85, 2nd Floor, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

 

Shri Parbodh Chander Bali, 16,

Shiv Nagar, Batala Road, Amritsar-143001. _______ Appellant

Vs.

The Public Information Officer,

o/o the District and Sessions Judge, Amritsar.

 

FAA- District and Sessions Judge, Amritsar. _______ Respondents

 

AC No. 533 of 2010

 

ORDER

 

The present second appeal has been filed against the order dated 7.6.2010 passed by the Ld. District and Sessions Judge, Amritsar-cum-appellate authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

2. The appellant had moved an application on 11.3.2010 to the PIO o/o the District and Sessions Judge seeking information on the following two issues:-

“a) Email IDs of Hon’ble District & Sessions Judge, Amritsar as well as all the various courts under your jurisdiction

b) Web address of office of the District & Sessions Judge for finding the information put on it as desired by RTI Act, 2005.”

In response to this request, the PIO sent a letter No.3742 dated 4.5.2010 stating that “You are hereby directed to send the details of your identity and also for what purpose you have made request to supply the information regarding e-mail IDs of Judicial Officers and Website address of this Sessions Division.”

3. The information-seeker, while reiterating his request for the information, drew intention of the PIO to Section 6(2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 which states that an applicant making request for information shall not be required to give any reasons or any personal details for requesting the information except that may be necessary for contacting him. The PIO, nevertheless, rejected the request of the information-seeker and conveyed to him the grounds of rejection vide letter No.4421 dated 27.5.2010 that “The information asked for cannot be supplied due to following reason:- (i) As per Rule 4(b) of the Punjab Subordinate Courts (Right to Information Act) Rules, 2007, enacted by the Hon’ble High Court, vide its Correction Slip No.142, Rule II.D.4 dated 14.8.2007, “ the information which is unwarranted/invasion of privacy of the individual has been exempted from the disclosure of the information:.”

4. An appeal against this decision of the PIO was also rejected on the additional ground that e-mail issuing authority for the subordinate judicial courts is the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and that there is no notification/directive from the Hon’ble High Court regarding the mode of using e-mail IDs in court business. The first appellate authority further observed that there is every possibility of e-mail ID of judicial officers being misused by some disgruntled elements and that no larger public interest justifies disclosure of e-mail IDs. It was also observed that the information could not be disclosed under rules 4 and 5 of the Punjab Subordinate Courts (Right to Information Act) Rules, 2007 framed under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

5. The case of the appellant is that the PIO did not respond to his query within 30 days as mandated under Section 7(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. This would amount to a deemed denial of the information and therefore, penalty should be imposed on the PIO. It was argued that the PIO is not conversant even with the basic provisions of the Act.

6. It was averred by the appellant that he has not asked for personal e-mail IDs of judicial officers but only the official IDs of e-mail addresses of the judicial courts. He drew the attention to the proviso of Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which provides that a request for information may be made electronically by an information seeker. Even the Rules framed by the Hon’ble High Court under the Right to Information Act, 2005 for the subordinate courts contain a provision for sending a request for information through electronic means. The appellant drew attention to the proviso of Section 3 of the Rules which is reproduced:-

“Provided that a person, who makes a request through electronic form, shall ensure that the requisite fee is deposited with the authorized person, in the manner mentioned above within seven days of his sending the request through electronic form, failing which, the application be treated as dismissed.”

Relying on the above mentioned Rule, the appellant pleaded that e-mail ID is to be created by each court as per provision of Rule 3 and not do so would be a violation of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and rules framed thereunder. He pleaded that the observation of the learned first appellate authority that electronic IDs, if created, may be misused by some disgruntled elements shows total ignorance of the about computers and the way e-mail communication is conducted.

7. Lastly, it was argued that Section 4 of the RTI Act implies a legal duty on each public authority to computerize its record and publish the same as detailed in Section 4(1)(b) of the Act ibid, including all relevant facts relating to formulation of important policies or announcing the decisions which affect public. Section 4(2) further enjoins upon all public authorities to make constant endeavor to provide as much information suo-moto to public at regular intervals through various means of communications including internet. This naturally implies that every public authority shall have a web-site. It was pleaded that even the Hon’ble High Court has a website and all its judgments and orders are displayed and disseminated to the public electronically.

8. The respondents, in their written reply dated 24.7.2010 and also written preliminary submissions dated 24.7.2010 contested the appeal and relied on Rule 4 and 5 of the 2007 Rules framed under the Act ibid. It was pleaded that “the e-mail IDs issuing authority to the subordinate Courts/Judicial officers is the Hon’ble High Court and the decision/direction, as to how these e-mail IDs are to be used or operationalized, is also to be issued by the Hon’ble High Court itself. Still there is no notification/directions from the Hon’ble High Court regarding the mode of using of e-mail IDs by the judicial officers in their court business and even e-mail filing, has not been permitted by the Hon’ble High Court. There is every possibility of e-mail IDs of the judicial officers, being misused by some disgruntled elements. It is wrong to say that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of the information to the general public. So far as receiving of requests through electronic under rule 3 of the Rules is concerned, it is just a proviso and so far requests under the RTI in this Sessions Division are not being received through electronic media, as no official e-mail IDs have been issued to the PIOs of this Session Division.

“That the averments made in para No.5 are incorrect. While dealing with the applications u/s 6 of the Act by the PIOs in the subordinate Courts in the State of Punjab the rules made by the Hon’ble High Court are to be followed and the word individual used, thereunder, refers to an official or an officer working in all the Subordinate Courts in the State of Punjab. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that the word “individual: mentioned under rule 4(b) of the Rules does not mean judicial officer, is no tenable. Rather, the individual means official or officer as the case may be in the matter under context.”

9. I have heard the parties and gone through the record. Letter No.3742 dated 4.5.2010 issued by the ld. District and Sessions Judge, Amritsar calling upon the information-seeker to disclose the purpose of his request was a clear violation of the provision of Section 6(2) of the Act, ibid. The denial of the information on the grounds that the disclosure would be an invasion of privacy of individual is also not sustainable. The information seeker was asking the official IDs and the web-site with its address pertaining to the office of the District and Sessions Judge, Amritsar. Both, the e-mail ID and web-site address of each public authority are to be disclosed in view the provisions of Section 6 of the Act ibid and in view of the provision of Section 4 of the Act. Even rule 3 of the rules ibid framed by the Hon’ble High Court contain a provision for electronic filing. These provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder can only be implemented if an e-mail ID is created by the concerned public authority and in addition, a web-site is put on the net for suo-moto disclosure under Section 4 of the Act. Once the rules framed under the Act include a provision for e-filing of request under the Act for information, a legal obligation devolves on the concerned public authority to create the electronic identity. Not to do so would amount to non-compliance of the Rules and Act. Therefore, the PIO and first appellate authority are not correct in rejecting the request of the information. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 19(8) I direct the public authority to take the required steps to secure compliance with the provisions of the Act by providing electronic access to the official information as required under the Right to Information Act by creating a web-site. The Ld. District and Sessions Judge, Amritsar in his capacity as the public authority shall make necessary changes to its practices in relation to maintenance and management of information.

10. There is weight in the plea of the appellant that the facts of the case confirm delay beyond 30 days and therefore call for imposition of penalty. However considering that there was no malafide intention on the part of both, the PIO and the Ld. District and Sessions Judge to deny the information, which happened due to ignorance of the legal provisions, I am inclined not to impose any penalty for the time being.

11. The ld. public authority shall, however, ensure compliance of this order within 60 days. A copy of the order be also endorsed to the Registrar (General), Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh for appropriate action at his end.

 

 

(R.I. Singh)

July 28, 2010. Chief Information Commissioner

Punjab

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest pcbali

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB

SCO No. 84-85, 2nd Floor, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.

 

Shri Parbodh Chander Bali, 16,

Shiv Nagar, Batala Road, Amritsar-143001. _______ Appellant

Vs.

The Public Information Officer,

o/o the District and Sessions Judge, Amritsar.

 

FAA- District and Sessions Judge, Amritsar. _______ Respondents

 

AC No. 533 of 2010

 

ORDER

 

The present second appeal has been filed against the order dated 7.6.2010 passed by the Ld. District and Sessions Judge, Amritsar-cum-appellate authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

2. The appellant had moved an application on 11.3.2010 to the PIO o/o the District and Sessions Judge seeking information on the following two issues:-

“a) Email IDs of Hon’ble District & Sessions Judge, Amritsar as well as all the various courts under your jurisdiction

b) Web address of office of the District & Sessions Judge for finding the information put on it as desired by RTI Act, 2005.”

In response to this request, the PIO sent a letter No.3742 dated 4.5.2010 stating that “You are hereby directed to send the details of your identity and also for what purpose you have made request to supply the information regarding e-mail IDs of Judicial Officers and Website address of this Sessions Division.”

3. The information-seeker, while reiterating his request for the information, drew intention of the PIO to Section 6(2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 which states that an applicant making request for information shall not be required to give any reasons or any personal details for requesting the information except that may be necessary for contacting him. The PIO, nevertheless, rejected the request of the information-seeker and conveyed to him the grounds of rejection vide letter No.4421 dated 27.5.2010 that “The information asked for cannot be supplied due to following reason:- (i) As per Rule 4(b) of the Punjab Subordinate Courts (Right to Information Act) Rules, 2007, enacted by the Hon’ble High Court, vide its Correction Slip No.142, Rule II.D.4 dated 14.8.2007, “ the information which is unwarranted/invasion of privacy of the individual has been exempted from the disclosure of the information:.”

4. An appeal against this decision of the PIO was also rejected on the additional ground that e-mail issuing authority for the subordinate judicial courts is the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and that there is no notification/directive from the Hon’ble High Court regarding the mode of using e-mail IDs in court business. The first appellate authority further observed that there is every possibility of e-mail ID of judicial officers being misused by some disgruntled elements and that no larger public interest justifies disclosure of e-mail IDs. It was also observed that the information could not be disclosed under rules 4 and 5 of the Punjab Subordinate Courts (Right to Information Act) Rules, 2007 framed under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

5. The case of the appellant is that the PIO did not respond to his query within 30 days as mandated under Section 7(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. This would amount to a deemed denial of the information and therefore, penalty should be imposed on the PIO. It was argued that the PIO is not conversant even with the basic provisions of the Act.

6. It was averred by the appellant that he has not asked for personal e-mail IDs of judicial officers but only the official IDs of e-mail addresses of the judicial courts. He drew the attention to the proviso of Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which provides that a request for information may be made electronically by an information seeker. Even the Rules framed by the Hon’ble High Court under the Right to Information Act, 2005 for the subordinate courts contain a provision for sending a request for information through electronic means. The appellant drew attention to the proviso of Section 3 of the Rules which is reproduced:-

“Provided that a person, who makes a request through electronic form, shall ensure that the requisite fee is deposited with the authorized person, in the manner mentioned above within seven days of his sending the request through electronic form, failing which, the application be treated as dismissed.”

Relying on the above mentioned Rule, the appellant pleaded that e-mail ID is to be created by each court as per provision of Rule 3 and not do so would be a violation of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and rules framed thereunder. He pleaded that the observation of the learned first appellate authority that electronic IDs, if created, may be misused by some disgruntled elements shows total ignorance of the about computers and the way e-mail communication is conducted.

7. Lastly, it was argued that Section 4 of the RTI Act implies a legal duty on each public authority to computerize its record and publish the same as detailed in Section 4(1)(b) of the Act ibid, including all relevant facts relating to formulation of important policies or announcing the decisions which affect public. Section 4(2) further enjoins upon all public authorities to make constant endeavor to provide as much information suo-moto to public at regular intervals through various means of communications including internet. This naturally implies that every public authority shall have a web-site. It was pleaded that even the Hon’ble High Court has a website and all its judgments and orders are displayed and disseminated to the public electronically.

8. The respondents, in their written reply dated 24.7.2010 and also written preliminary submissions dated 24.7.2010 contested the appeal and relied on Rule 4 and 5 of the 2007 Rules framed under the Act ibid. It was pleaded that “the e-mail IDs issuing authority to the subordinate Courts/Judicial officers is the Hon’ble High Court and the decision/direction, as to how these e-mail IDs are to be used or operationalized, is also to be issued by the Hon’ble High Court itself. Still there is no notification/directions from the Hon’ble High Court regarding the mode of using of e-mail IDs by the judicial officers in their court business and even e-mail filing, has not been permitted by the Hon’ble High Court. There is every possibility of e-mail IDs of the judicial officers, being misused by some disgruntled elements. It is wrong to say that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of the information to the general public. So far as receiving of requests through electronic under rule 3 of the Rules is concerned, it is just a proviso and so far requests under the RTI in this Sessions Division are not being received through electronic media, as no official e-mail IDs have been issued to the PIOs of this Session Division.

“That the averments made in para No.5 are incorrect. While dealing with the applications u/s 6 of the Act by the PIOs in the subordinate Courts in the State of Punjab the rules made by the Hon’ble High Court are to be followed and the word individual used, thereunder, refers to an official or an officer working in all the Subordinate Courts in the State of Punjab. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that the word “individual: mentioned under rule 4(b) of the Rules does not mean judicial officer, is no tenable. Rather, the individual means official or officer as the case may be in the matter under context.”

9. I have heard the parties and gone through the record. Letter No.3742 dated 4.5.2010 issued by the ld. District and Sessions Judge, Amritsar calling upon the information-seeker to disclose the purpose of his request was a clear violation of the provision of Section 6(2) of the Act, ibid. The denial of the information on the grounds that the disclosure would be an invasion of privacy of individual is also not sustainable. The information seeker was asking the official IDs and the web-site with its address pertaining to the office of the District and Sessions Judge, Amritsar. Both, the e-mail ID and web-site address of each public authority are to be disclosed in view the provisions of Section 6 of the Act ibid and in view of the provision of Section 4 of the Act. Even rule 3 of the rules ibid framed by the Hon’ble High Court contain a provision for electronic filing. These provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder can only be implemented if an e-mail ID is created by the concerned public authority and in addition, a web-site is put on the net for suo-moto disclosure under Section 4 of the Act. Once the rules framed under the Act include a provision for e-filing of request under the Act for information, a legal obligation devolves on the concerned public authority to create the electronic identity. Not to do so would amount to non-compliance of the Rules and Act. Therefore, the PIO and first appellate authority are not correct in rejecting the request of the information. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 19(8) I direct the public authority to take the required steps to secure compliance with the provisions of the Act by providing electronic access to the official information as required under the Right to Information Act by creating a web-site. The Ld. District and Sessions Judge, Amritsar in his capacity as the public authority shall make necessary changes to its practices in relation to maintenance and management of information.

10. There is weight in the plea of the appellant that the facts of the case confirm delay beyond 30 days and therefore call for imposition of penalty. However considering that there was no malafide intention on the part of both, the PIO and the Ld. District and Sessions Judge to deny the information, which happened due to ignorance of the legal provisions, I am inclined not to impose any penalty for the time being.

11. The ld. public authority shall, however, ensure compliance of this order within 60 days. A copy of the order be also endorsed to the Registrar (General), Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh for appropriate action at his end.

 

 

(R.I. Singh)

July 28, 2010. Chief Information Commissioner

Punjab

 

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira

Congrats Mr Bali.

Just keep a watch that the respondent doesn't go to HC to get a stay on this order of the SIC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest pcbali

Mr. H.C. Arora, at Chandigarh will be only hope in that case, but I don't think, he may go. Let us see and hope for the best, But I thank you specially for your guidance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
smbhappy

Congratulation to Mr. Bali. I was present before the IC with Mr. bali. Mr. Bali has very excellent pleading skills. It was apparant from the mood of the IC that he was going to nip D&S judge. IC did so and did it beautifully. This decision is going to be a landmark decision.

 

However, IC has endorsed a Copy of the order to P&H High Court also.

 

11. The ld. public authority shall, however, ensure compliance of this order within 60 days. A copy of the order be also endorsed to the Registrar (General), Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh for appropriate action at his end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sajib Nandi

Congratulations !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest pcbali

smbhappy, sir, you have been always my source of inspiration. Your grasp on RTI is extraordinary. This is your achievement. Congratulations to you rather.

 

As Mr. Karira anticipates, if the respondent goes to HC, how it will be handled. Then the HC may support its junior office. What is your idea.

 

I talked to Mr. HC Arora, of Chandigarh, Convener of RTI Federation, he was also much concerned with this order. Just think on it. I am again at Chandigarh SIC on 30th for two appeals. We can discuss. Mr. HC Arora is also coming to CIC on 30th for his own pleadings in some other case. Let us see him there.:o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kautilya Saini

It was a good achievement to show path to PIO of concerned court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest pcbali

The real success will be if all The D&S Judges do it. It can be if all members of this forum who are from Punjab, do post here to make a group and they all should take copy of this order and send a letter demanding the implementation in their district (all of 18 districts should be done) After then an RTI application should be made as per my form "A" along with the action taken on the fresh request ( a combined RTI query). The D&S Judges will be bound to do this. Please do it for social welfare so that the litigants can at least interact electronically with the courts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
smbhappy

RI (The IC), in last paragraph of his decision, has mentioned that a copy is also endorsed to Registrar, Punjab & Haryana High Court for appropriate action at his end. This means the matter already stood referred to P&H HC. In a way the P&H High Court has been implicated as a party. The D&S judge also mainly referred to the Rules of the P&H High Court, we as an appellant also referred to the RTI Rules of P&H High Court. Registrar will certainly take a cognizance of the same and put it up to Chief Justice. Chief Justice may/will take it up a writ petition sou-moto.

 

So be prepared for the eventuality.

 

 

11....A copy of the order be also endorsed to the Registrar (General), Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh for appropriate action at his end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ambadas

It is a big achievement that too against judiciary. It is difficult to digest ignorance of legal provisions by judiciary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira
RI (The IC), in last paragraph of his decision, has mentioned that a copy is also endorsed to Registrar, Punjab & Haryana High Court for appropriate action at his end. This means the matter already stood referred to P&H HC. In a way the P&H High Court has been implicated as a party. The D&S judge also mainly referred to the Rules of the P&H High Court, we as an appellant also referred to the RTI Rules of P&H High Court. Registrar will certainly take a cognizance of the same and put it up to Chief Justice. Chief Justice may/will take it up a writ petition sou-moto.

 

So be prepared for the eventuality.

 

 

 

That is exactly why I warned Mr Bali to be be ready for this eventuality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
smbhappy

Karira ji,

 

This also is a similar nature of issue of Section 4 disclosures as you have taken up with the various HCs abd SC. You also be ready, your complaint may also be clubbed, as soon as P&H HC gets the notice from CIC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira

I am ready...in my case, all my complaints might be clubbed, because the issues raised are common.

So, I might end up facing some 11 or 12 HCs at one time in one hearing.

I just hope that it happens before September, when CIC Wajahat Habibullah is to retire.

 

I know for sure that the next CIC (if it is the same person who becomes CIC as I think it will be) will not have the courage to take on the HCs and SC. So, it will all be a futile exercise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest pcbali

Ambadas, you are perfectly right and pin pointed the gist of my exercise. I am going to make now, complaint of D&SJ on admistrative ground to HC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy