2c rc-ug-09-10538401v

8/7/2019 2c RC-UG-09-10538401v

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2c-rc-ug-09-10538401v 1/5

To, 14-Oct-2009

Hon. Chief IC Mr. Wajahat Habibullah

Central Information Commission

Club Building, Old JNU Campus

New Delhi – 110067

Sub : Appl-11 Review Petition for “CIC/SG/A/2009/001314/4020”

(u/s 114 “Code of Civil Procedure (CCP)” AND u/s 14 “RTI Act”)

Ref :

a. Decision# CIC/SG/A/2009/001314/4020 dt 07-Jul-2009 b. Non-compliance Complaint# “RC/UG/09/104456b7x” (11-Oct-2009)

Attachments :

i. PIO on IC Visit-1.pdf

ii. PIO on IC Visit-2.pdf

iii. PIO on IC Visit-4.pdf

Respected Sir,

Kindly approve my humble prayer for special leave for review

of CIC decision# CIC/SG/A/2009/001314/4020. I beg to submit

this prayer under “Code of Civil Procedure” AND “RTI Act”.

Grounds for this Petition :

1. Sir, power to review its decision resides in EACH judicial/quasi-judicial authority. Section 114 of the “Code of Civil

Procedure (CCP)” is reproduced below for ready reference,

114. Review : Subject as aforesaid, any person

considering himself aggrieved-

(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed

by this Code,but from which no appeal has been preferred,

8/7/2019 2c RC-UG-09-10538401v


(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed

by this Court, or

(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small

Causes, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court

which passed the decree or made the order, and the Court

may make such order thereon as it thinks fit.

2. Power to review an order certainly lies with CIC infollowing circumstances (please refer Order 47 Rule 1 CPC):

On discovery of new and important matter or evidence; (which was not within applicant’s knowledge or could not

be produced by him at the time when the order or decree

was passed despite exercise of due diligence).

On account of some error apparent on the face of record.3. Thus, in THIS particular instance, review may lie because,

In cases decided by CIC, which are binding, there is noprovision for appeal (ref 114(b) of CCP).

New information revealed by PIO (attachment#iii) was***NOT*** available when Hon. IC choose to give his

decision “CIC/SG/A/2009/001314/4020” (above ref#a).

Errors apparent on the face of record : Many of the

grounds for appeal (above ref#a) and prayers made in my

2nd Appeal have been overlooked by Hon. IC.

In this matter reference may also be made to AIR 1996 SC742, AIR 1932 O 23, PLD 1991 SC 105, PLD 2003 SC 724, PLD

2003 Kar 145, PLD 1979 SC 741, AIR 1934 PC 213

4. Sir, in both above ref#a/b, I am the applicant and therespondent is IIM, Ahmedabad (Min of HRD, GoI).

5. (attachment#ii) On 04-Apr-2009 Director of IIMA extended

invitation to Hon. IC Mr. Shailesh Gandhi to visit the

campus, ostensibly for academic purpose. The invite was sent

just 4 days prior to 08-Apr when Hon. IC was due to hear and

decide on many petitions in which IIMA was the respondent.

8/7/2019 2c RC-UG-09-10538401v


6. (attachment#i) Needless to say, Mother India is blessed with

many illustrious scholars to “educate IIM community on

provisions of RTI Act”. However, for some reasons, Director

chose NOT to consider ANYONE other than “Hon.IC Mr. Gandhi”.

7. (attachment#ii) Several petitions (including above ref#a)

were already listed with Hon. IC Mr. Shailesh Gandhi even

while he visited respondent institute (IIMA) on 30-31 May.

8. Immediately thereafter (08-Jun-2009) Mr. S.L. Bhuttan (A.R.)scheduled hearing of my 2nd Appeal for 07-Jul-2009.

9. While management side accrued to themselves unfair benefitby remaining present during interactive classroom sessions

of Hon. IC, I (appellant) was ejected after first session.

There were some attendees who did not figure on list of

invitees. PIO has confirmed that classroom event was video

recorded, but he denied me a copy of the same. Sir, I feel

wronged and deceived by conflicts of interest.

10. (attachment#iii) On 18-Sep-2009 PIO revealed this NEW

evidence dated 27-Feb. Accordingly, authorities at IIMA

were very much aware that Hon. IC Mr. Gandhi "IS THE"

specific commissioner who hears petitions related to IIMA.

NOT ONLY THAT, as a corollary, Hon. IC was considered to be

the “MOST APPROPRIATE” person for IIMA to invite !!!

NOT ONLY THAT, such a reasoning was known to both Hon. IC

Mr. Gandhi (guest) as well as Director, IIMA (host).

Ref : "CIC Code of Ethics" AND sec 14(3)(e) of RTI Act.

11. STILL, Hon. IC Respected Mr. Shailesh Gandhi could havedeclined the invitation from IIMA or at least transferred

my applications back to Hon. Chief IC.

12. THUS, it appears that from the very beginning instituteauthorities were working with malafide intensions to cast

foul influence on judicial process. And for some reasons

even Hon. IC chose to give his decision even after

accepting hospitality from respondent institution.

8/7/2019 2c RC-UG-09-10538401v


Sir, this information (attachment#iii) was not available

when Hon.IC gave his decision (above ref#a).

13. Management of IIMA feels emboldened after having receivedand hosted Hon. IC Respected Mr. Gandhi.

14. Sir, I believe these developments amounts to breach of propriety (by both, hosts as well as Hon. Guest),

a. acquisition of interest which could have prejudiciallyaffected functions at the Commission (sec 14(3)(e)),

b. Sir, Hon. IC chose to continue with his scheduled visit(30-31 May) to respondent institution EVEN AFTER “Code

of Ethics” was adopted by CIC 19-MAY-2009.

c. Conflict of interest15. Errors apparent on the face of record : For some

unspecified reasons Hon. IC Mr. Shailesh Gandhi choose

***NOT*** to opine on following listed prayers and grounds

for my 2nd appeal dated 16-May-2009,

a. Point#8(A(d)) : PIO gave vague information.b. Point#8(A(e)) : Institute does NOT maintain a document as

basic as “Register of Grievances”.

c. Point#8(E) : Deliberate attempt by PIO to givemisleading and false information ((18(1)(e)).

d. Point#8(F) : FAA did not schedule first appeal hearingand mechanically agreed to PIO without proper application

of mind.

e. Point#10(B) : Request to give directions to PA tomaintain “Register of Grievances”, which is vital record

of public interest.

f. Point#10(C) : Hon. IC did not opine on prayer forcompensation to RTI applicant.

g. Explicit written submission during hearing wasoverlooked. –viz- Decision of FAA (pg-23 of 2nd Appeal)

is a strong evidence of harassment to RTI applicant. Many

8/7/2019 2c RC-UG-09-10538401v


2c rc-ug-09-10538401v

Documents