The courts expect the recording of reasons for decision even from the matriculate clerks, but fail do follow the same principle in the judgments.IN THE ABOVE ORDER CAN ANYONE SEE THE REASON OF DISMISSAL?
CRUX OF THE APPLICATION OF ANGOORI DEVI IS:
1. "Hon’ble Court may take note of the fact that
the information sought be the Petitioner is very basic information; relating to
the deduction of certain amount from her family pension and the same was
required to be provided, suo-moto, in first instance; as mandated under Section
– 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act, which reads:
4(1) (d): Every public authority shall provide reasons for its administrative or
quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.”
Moreover, a Bank, the service
provider to customers, is supposed to promote transparency and accountability
in its functioning, even without resorting to the provisions of the RTI Act.
Therefore, the Petitioner has been
unnecessarily forced to peruse the remedies, from bottom to the top hierarchy,
provided under the RTI Act and finally under Article 226/227 of the
Constitution before this Hon’ble Court."
1. "The written statement of PIO & FAA is, prima-facie,
completely false, incorrect and misleading; amounting to perjury in terms of
Section 191, 192 IPC and gross criminal contempt of
court; requiring indulgence of this Hon’ble Court in terms of Section – 195/340
Cr.PC. The answering Respondents with a view to mislead this Hon’ble Court
appears to have taken the shelter of falsehood,
misrepresentation and suppression of facts. In fact, the written statement
appears to be the glaring instance of definite improprietory abuse of process
of court and justice and is a motivated attempt to misguide the Court. The facts and circumstances in the
present case would indicate that the written statement of the answering respondents
really throw a great challenge to the common human prudence."
h Therefore, in view of the aforesaid
peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case; this Hon’ble may kindly
be please to:
(i) Direct the PIO to provide requisite information.
(ii) Conduct
enquiry to ascertain the truthfulness of the letter dated 03.03.2012 (ANNEXURE
R-1) and letter dated 18.06.2013 (ANNEXURE R-5), by calling
the proof of delivery of these letters to the Petitioner and take appropriate
action in accordance with law."
PETITIONER
THROUGH COUNSEL
CHANDIGARH (PARDEEP KUMAR RAPRIA)
DATED: 20.08.2015 ADVOCATE"
![]() |
SUBHASH CASE IS RELATED TO THE DISCLOSURE OF LIST OF IAS, IPS, HPS, HC OFFICERS INVOLVED IN CORRUPTION CASES. |
KULDEEP'S CASE IS RELATED TO HIS ANSWER SHEETS OF ARMY RECRUITMENT AND AFTER SOME TIME HE WILL BE OVERAGE FOR JOINING ARMY
![]() |
CHANDERKANTA'S CASE RELATES TO THE CAUSING DELAY IN FURNISHING INFORMATION RELATING TO HER RETIREMENT BENEFITS |
By looking at the refereed orders can anyone see any trace of reasoning?
The common feature of all the cases referred by me is that in non of the cases except Kuldeep, the counsel for the Respondents did not seek next date. In fact, after getting irritated from the nature of my cases; Justice Mahesh Grover; despite my opposition had given a long date.
My hear burn is:
1. Whether in the orders referred here justice has been delivered to an old lady who is running from pillar to post to know the reasons for deducting amount from her family pension account?
2. Whether the delay and denial of list of corrupt IAS, IPS, HCS, HPS Officers has benefited the society?
3. Whether the court would be able to compensate the candidate who would be over-age for joining Army; despite the fact that his fate is sealed in the Answer-Sheet wrongly denied to him?
4. Whether the court has done justice to an old lady whose retirement benefits were delayed in the expectation of bribe by clerks/babus?
And, can anyone tell who is responsible for delaying the court cases?
No comments:
Post a Comment