yes, we have chice dissent start with one voice. and like minded peron join them. you are not along. i am with you in the boat . kindly note even biggest fire start with one match stick with regards 'rakesh gupta
colnrkurup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Still, none of the aspects brought out by me is answered. So,let us agree to disagree. Sorry, that I have no choice other than maintain my view and join the fleet of thousands of hapeless cityzens of India who have no choice other than suffer Withregards Col Kurup --- In [email protected], "sroy1947" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dear Col Kurup, > > You are too emotionally attached to this matter to debate logically. I > am only debating this academically (for further education) since I > have high regard for you. > > 1) It is very well settled that when there are multiple remedies for > granting a particular relief, the litigant may only agitate one of > them. This is allied to the legal concept of "res adjudicata" or "a > thing once decided cannot be reagitated again (and again)". So you > must choose to use 18(3) or 19(1) but not both. This principle is so > well settled that it is not inserted into the laws of India. > > 2) 18(3) is the specific provision in the RTI Act for your lis - > namely deemed refusal of the PIO. You failed to use it at the right time. > > 3) Having chosen the route of 19(3) which is ALSO permissible, you > should have followed it up with a 2nd Appeal rather than going for > 18(3) complaint after the avenue was closed. > > 4) S'CIC very kindly allowed you to continue on to 2nd Appeal, but > you chose not to pursue it. > > 5) A bad carpenter blames his tools. Either be a bad carpenter with > better tools OR become a good carpenter who will be able to work with > the very poor tools of RTI Act. > > Sarbajit > > --- In [email protected], "colnrkurup" <colnrkurup@> wrote: > > > > I repeat that this may kindly be considered only as an accademic > > discussion clarifying a very vital factor to prevent hijacking of the > > RTI Act by some of the corrupt and influencial officials with the > > connivance of the Commissions. > > 1. There is absolutely no provision anywhere in the Act that > > stipulate that a First Appeal under 19(1) bar a complaint u/s 18 (1)(c) > > 2. In fact one is not expected to approach SIC/CIC as and when with > > the deemed refusal of the PIO lest the Commission is over- burdened. > > It is normal protocal to approach the Commission only when an > > aggrieved exhaust all other opportunitiesstipulated in the Act. > > Naturally when the PIO refuces, one should approach his AA by the > > only means of approach viz., first appeal. In majority of the cases > > the AA will direct the PIO to furnish the reply - it maynot be the > > information sought; but one will get a reply as the PIO will not have > > any reason for not replying.I donot find anything wrong in making one > > more first appeal based on the reply if required. In case this > > second "first appeal" is rejected, it is good enough reason. > > 3. Section 19(1) is very specific. Any person not receiving a > > decision ....may file an appeal. IT DOES NOT SAY SAY that on deemed > > refusal one should not file first appeal but should resort to > > complaint only. > > 4. Sec 19(3) is too specific. A SECOND APPEAL SHALL LIE ONLY AGAINST > > THE DECISION UNDER 19(1). This means that there could be no Second > > Appeal unless there is a DECISION of first appeal. If there is NO > > DECISION or NO REPLY, there cannot be a Second appeal. The Act does > > not allow it.Of course anything can happen in "KHANSI RAM KA > > PALTAN ".Thjat is a diferant matter altogether > > 5. Kindly forget the number of days or delay aspects. That is not > > the issue > > 6. Can anyone quote the relevant Section of the Act which says that A > > SECOND APEAL SDHALL LIE without a First Appeal ? > > 7. Can any one quote the Section which bar a complaint when first > > ppeal is made or rather where does it state that a first appeal > > disqualify the appellant from making a complaint. > > 8. Kindly leave aside the somersoult of First appeal, Second appeal > > and complaint. Let us examine the ground realities. A cityzen make an > > application seeking an information falling under the defenition of > > information given in Section 2(f). The information is held by the PA > > and not falling under any of the exedmptions or disportionately > > divert the resosurces nor spoil the record. Can anyone, PIO or AA or > > the SIC, deny it and dismiss the case just because the information if > > given will expose serious corruption which the PIO, AA and SIC does > > not want to disclose. By converting the Complaint suo motu into a > > Second appeal the sIC has barred the appellant's chance to prefer the > > second appeal with relevant provisions which does not suit the PIO,AA > > and SIC. With such a disposal how can one approach judiciary ? These > > are all deliberate hy-jacking theRTI Act. I feel that forums likeRTI- > > india should stand for that. Can anyone justify the above > > actofSIC,Kerala ? It is an open challenge > > > --------------------------------- Bollywood, fun, friendship, sports and more. You name it, we have it. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
