Jump to content

Non application of mind by Hon'ble IC of CIC


harinder dhingra

Recommended Posts

harinder dhingra

To Dated 26th June 2015

The Hon'ble Mr. M A Khan Yusufi,

Information Commissioner,

Central Information Commission, New Delhi

 

Sub: File Nos. CIC/KY/A/2015/000310 & CIC/KY/A/2015/000311: Factual inaccuracies in the above mentioned orders of Hon'ble Commission; Prayer for issuance of correct order consisting of facts

 

Sir,

 

Kindly refer to the decision of Hon'ble Commission in file numbers CIC/KY/A/2015/000310 & CIC/KY/A/2015/000311 dated 17th June 2015.

The Hon'ble Commission observed that in the said order, QUOTE ".................

2. It is seen as that as per contents of respondent's letter dated 08.06.2015, the FA filed by Sh.Harinder Dhingra, was already disposed of by learned FAA vide its order dated 21.07.2014 & 06.08.2014 and copy thereof was provided to the appellant vide respondent's forwarding letter dated 04.08.2014 & 27.08.2014. However, this fact was not disclosed by the appellant in his second appeal dated 06.07.2014 (both) dealt by Commission earlier in files number CIC/KY/ A/2015/000745 & CIC/KY/A/2015/000747 on 23.01.2015. Thus Sh. Dhingra, has suppressed these materials facts deliberately before the Commission while dealing with earlier second appeals dealt in files no.CIC/KY/A/2015/000745 & CIC/KY/A/2015/000747. For this Commission now took a serious view in the matter. " UNQUOTE

As per the above orders of Hon'ble Commission,

a) the second appeals in question were filed on 06.07.2014.

b) the FA order was passed on 04.08.2014 & 27.08.2014

And in second appeal hearing held on 23rd January 2015, neither the respondent nor the undersigned was present in hearing.

Sir, where are suppression of material deliberately on 6th July 2014 of orders passed (much later than at the time of filing of second appeals) by FAA after 30-45 days namely 04th August 2014 & 27th August 2014.

Sir, instead of penalizing the learned CPIO & Learned FAA for delaying and not providing the information as stipulated under section 2(f) read with section 2(i)(j) of RTI Act 2005 which is violation of section 7(1) read with section 7(2) of RTI Act 2005 inviting action under section 20(1)(2) of RTI Act 2005, the appellant who is trying to bring transparency is defamed for no fault.

Sir, I pray before you to kindly pass the amended order keeping the facts as stated above.

For this I shall be grateful to you,

 

Yours Sincerely

 

 

Harinder Dhingra

RTI & Human Rights Activist,

CIC_decision_Custom_Chennai0001.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites
harinder dhingra

Yes Learned Mr. Manoj B Patel Sir. This had happened earlier also when the Hon'ble IC in question dismissed my second appeal as " the appellant has not deposited Rs 138/- as demanded by learned CPIO on 19th December 2013 and the same was communicated by learned FAA on 9th Oct 2013 in his order of first appeal". KINDLY SEE THE DATE of asking for extra money and FAA informing the undersigned of post dated demand of learned CPIO.

 

I pointed out this to him in one of the hearing but he said, "I am not listening of any other case except the one of which the hearing is going on"

 

GOD BLESS HIM.

 

I am not Sarcasist BUT I AM OF THE OPINION THAT HON"BLE IC does NOT CARRY HIS MIND WITH HIM TO THE OFFICE.

 

hd

Link to post
Share on other sites
harinder dhingra

Learned Mr. G L N Prasad Sir,

 

Thus Sh. Dhingra, has suppressed these materials facts deliberately before the Commission while dealing with earlier second appeals dealt in files no.CIC/KY/A/2015/000745 & CIC/KY/A/2015/000747. For this Commission now took a serious view in the matter.

 

I am supposed to have suppressed (sic)/concealed the materials from Hon'ble Commission and Hon'ble Commission has taken a serious note of this means THAT I WAS LYING/HIDING FACTS and as such I am A LIAR.

 

I am not a liar and this is defamatory when the Commission has come to conclusion that I am concealing facts from Commission without even noting the Hon'ble Commission noting in which I am supposed to have hidden letters dated Aug 2014 in July 2014.

 

Hope you understand.

 

harinder dhingra

Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

IC ought to have raised those specific issues discussed earlier and concealed now issue wise otherwise it becomes mere assumptions and clearly shows that Hon IC is prejudiced against one individual. Now when such is the case like seeking for transfer of one suit to another court/place/state, can an appellant seek for transfer of his cases to some other ICs when IC is prejudiced against one appellant for no reason ? Any precedent ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
harinder dhingra

Learned Mr. G L N Prasad Sir,

 

IC ought to have raised those specific issues discussed earlier and concealed now issue wise otherwise it becomes mere assumptions and clearly shows that Hon IC is prejudiced against one individual. Now when such is the case like seeking for transfer of one suit to another court/place/state, can an appellant seek for transfer of his cases to some other ICs when IC is prejudiced against one appellant for no reason ? Any precedent ?

 

It seems that I have not communicated what I intended to say. The fault lies in my communication skill. Sorry for that.

Sir, the question here is simple as to how, while writing my second appeal on 6th July 2014 could anticipate the replies of FAA dated 4th August 2014 & 27th August 2014. This is I am alleged to conceal by the Hon'ble Learned Commissioner.

And Hon'ble Commissioner has audacity & common sense to take serious note of this.

 

Kya ho raha hain???????????

 

This is the limited question.

 

No Sir, I do not want to shift or transfer my appeals before him as if I run away to save little mental harassment then what would happen to common laymen who files RTi application, first appeal & second appeal in the hope to get information.

 

We have to fight for the last RTI applicant standing the queue and for that One said Hon'ble IC of CIC or thousands can not force US to run away.

 

harinder dhingra

Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

Hon.Hd. Saab,

May be the communication by me also is not proper and the issue now raised in my post is "If IC has formed individual prejudice against one appellant, whether that appellant has the right to seek hearing by another IC"

Link to post
Share on other sites
harinder dhingra

Learned Mr. G L N Prasad Sir,

 

"If IC has formed individual prejudice against one appellant, whether that appellant has the right to seek hearing by another IC"

 

In my view the transfer of affected appellant is not the answer.

 

I give you an example Sir,

 

When I came into RTI, I used to file RTI applications before ECGC I ltd regarding a claim of Rs 56 Lacs of my son's export (since closed) firm and my appeals would go to the then Hon'ble IC of CIC by the name of Ms. Sushma Singh.

 

She did not like the way I used to follow up my appeals or my face/or my sense of dressing/or and my consistency of following up. Either or all of these. She would invariably dismiss my appeal/complaint or order for not providing very limited information. A esteemed friend suggested that I should seek transfer of my petitions because the CIC at that time "off the record saw the issues brought to his notice by my same learned friend" agreed that there is something wrong as far as I am concerned but I did not opt for the transfers because that would be seeking "convenient Benches" or "Bench Hunting".

 

Sir, I continued that way and collected so much information despite being "unwelcome" and filed Writ Petition in 2011 for the claim of Rs 57 Lacs plus interest. The CWP is in advanced stage and all the judges In Hon'ble HC who have presided this case has admired the collection of inputs/documents that the paying of claim is matter of time along with INTEREST ( by the way the interest is more than insured amount).

 

Sir, had I adopted the softer way of going to "easier bench", I would not have been able to take this case

to the logical ends.

 

Sir, it is always better to improve the system then improving your self interests.

 

I am against the transfer.

 

thanks for your time

 

harinder dhingra

Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

Hon.Hd. I have not raised your individual point alone, I wish to know if transfers can be done by ordinary mortals to other IC and if there was such a precedent. Hon. Hd. may have the capacity, but a common man is not having that guts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
harinder dhingra

Learned Mr. G L N Prasad Sir,

 

The issues raised by you are relevant and need extensive discussions. Other members are requested to provide/give their valuable inputs.

 

I bow before you Sir with the humble submission that undersigned is more ordinary and lessor mortal.

 

thanks for your time,

 

hd

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
jps50

My suggestion would be that you represent to the Chief IC and pray that paras attributing personal aspersion on you should be deleted from the said order. Let us see what Chief IC does on your representation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
harinder dhingra

Thanks Learned Mr. J P Shah Sir,

 

Kindly refer to undersigned post at # 1 in which the undersigned has written to same IC of CIC to amend/rectify the order and if he does not do it, I am 100% moving Punjab & Haryana HC.

 

it is matter of my prestige, honour and standing for what is right.

 

thanks for your time,

 

hd

 

 

P S : The public authority namely Customs Chennai (opposite party in the instant case) has been boycotting his Bench since last year.. Kindly see the orders of 23rd Jan & instant one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
harinder dhingra

Learned Mr. Karira Sir,

 

I was not present in hearing as on 23rd January, 2015, the hearing was postponed from 11 AM to after lunch because the Hon'ble IC had to go to Cab Sectt.

 

And last date, I was not there.

 

Please note that on both occasions, the public authority choose to remain ABSENT.

 

hd

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Moderator
karira

I think I mentioned this once to you:

 

"After Lunch" is a VERY VERY bad time for this IC.

 

He goes into siesta mode.

Link to post
Share on other sites
GirijaSiva

In second appeal hearings via telephone, he is always in 'Siesta' mode.

 

1. PIO's presence would be unknown to the appellant

2. Appellant's arguments are thrown out of the window - always

3. Length of the whole hearing would be no more than 3-4 minutes

Link to post
Share on other sites
harinder dhingra

Learned Mr. Karira Sir,

 

Can we do something about it Sir?

 

hd

 

Learned Mr. GirijiSiva Sir,

 

Yes Sir, this is the actual position on the ground. Can we do something about it Sir,

 

hd

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Moderator
karira
Learned Mr. Karira Sir,

 

Can we do something about it Sir?

 

hd

 

Learned Mr. GirijiSiva Sir,

 

Yes Sir, this is the actual position on the ground. Can we do something about it Sir,

 

hd

 

In your next second appeal / complaint to him , also include the following "prayer"

 

"I request the Hon'ble Commission to schedule the hearing of this appeal/complaint

in the forenoon hours since at that time, everyone's mind is fresh and uninfluenced by post-lunch lethargy"

Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

Hon.Karira can do any thing but take it in a lighter way and do not implement his jovial advice seriously.

(My friend always says why should you not file RTI Application with wife of IC asking her as to what food was served on him, and whether they have a quarrel in between last night, I said that only retired persons are appointed as ICs)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Moderator
karira

I am dead serious !

 

Although I have never prayed like that in writing, in one full bench hearing where this IC was on the bench, I had to mention the same thing since he was continuously staring at the wall clock and dozing off !

 

So, I suggested that since people are "sleepy" due to a good lunch, it might be a good idea to shift the hearing to early next morning.

 

Of course, after that, everyone paid proper attention.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

But the question is that others (IC's sitting on bench) might have taken it in lighter vein or jovial. If it is APHC, they should have framed prejudice and insult to JO' as additional charge. (It is normal in HC/lower courts and regular practice, and some litigants have benefit and when a case is weak on their side) Some Judges discharge other duties while hearing arguments like signing routine administrative papers and like that and pretend as though they are listening, whereas they are reading corresponding and signing). Hence time and again it is submitted that written submissions must be made mandatory.

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.   Paste as plain text instead

  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.

  • Tell a friend

    Love RTI INDIA- Online RTI? Tell a friend!
  • Members

    No members to show

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      119,472
    • Total Posts
      427,159
  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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