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,
 (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 in
following circumstances (please refer Order 47 Rule 1 CPC):
9 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).
9 On account of some error apparent on the face of record.
3. Thus, in THIS particular instance, review may lie because,
9 In cases decided by CIC, which are binding, there is no
provision for appeal (ref 114(b) of CCP).
9 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).
9 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.
9 In this matter reference may also be made to AIR 1996 SC
742, 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 the
respondent 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.
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 benefit
by 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 have
declined the invitation from IIMA or at least transferred
my applications back to Hon. Chief IC.
12. THUS, it appears that from the very beginning institute
authorities 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.
 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 received
and 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 prejudicially
affected 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 interest
15. 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 give
misleading and false information ((18(1)(e)).
d. Point#8(F) : FAA did not schedule first appeal hearing
and mechanically agreed to PIO without proper application
of mind.
e. Point#10(B) : Request to give directions to PA to
maintain “Register of Grievances”, which is vital record
of public interest.
f. Point#10(C) : Hon. IC did not opine on prayer for
compensation to RTI applicant.
g. Explicit written submission during hearing was
overlooked. –viz- Decision of FAA (pg-23 of 2nd Appeal)
is a strong evidence of harassment to RTI applicant. Many
 other evidences were also listed Annexure of 2nd Appeal.
These called for strong CIC action u/s 18(2) and u/s 20.
16. In effect, for some unspecified reasons Hon. IC Mr. Gandhi
chose not to opine on a very strong case for CIC actions
u/s 19(8)(a), 19(8)(b), 20(1), 20(2), 25(5). Had he opined,
I believe, it could have gone against IIMA. Sir, this may
be little unfair to me as well as general citizenry.

Prayer from Applicant :

A. In the light of above specified “Grounds for this Petition”,
be pleased to allow my humble prayer and grant review of CIC
decision# CIC/SG/A/2009/001314/4020.
B. Request your decision on acts of impropriety u/s 14 RTI Act.
C. Be pleased to counsel Director of the respondent public
authority (IIMA) to exercise due-diligence (attempt to
establish an unholy association with the jury).

Thank you.

------------------------
Details of petitioner :
KETAN PRADYUMNA BHATT
“OM”, 1, Gunjan Park
AMC Office Road, Thaltej Lake
AHMEDABAD – 380059
Phone : 09824000963
Email-ID: ketan.bhatt@iitbombay.org (prefer)
ketan.p.bhatt@gmail.com