Thanks for the head up, but I hadn't missed Section 3
as it was included in " barely three pages long. Print
them out in large letters and read them as many times
as possible.".
This Bond style, one liner, Section 3, has be used
repeatedly by IC (Ansari) in many of his decisions,
which we had posted on this list. A short while ago, I
posted about Veena Distributors of Valsad listed as
appellant in IC(PB) chamber ;-)
Col Kurup & Rakesh, the two subsection (c) & (d) are
sort of inclined towards each other. It all depends on
the information which you seek. The former is
universally applicable. However, the latter is
favourable for individual cases. One may note, that
the Goa SIC has used Section 4(1)(d) in many of its
decisions, even if the appellant did not raise this
issue, while the Gujarat SIC had done the same in 1-2
cases. I havent come across other SICs doing the same.
Perhaps some of our friends in those regions could
inform us.
Best wishes
Manoj Pai
Ahmedabadd
--- sroy1947 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is just a brief riposte to Col. Kurup and
> Manoj(Pai).
>
> 1) Manoj--> Don't overlook section 3. This single
> line is a
> tremendously important (and limiting) clause in the
> RTI Act.
>
> 2) Col Kurup --> 4(1)(d) is the option mainly for
> people who fail to
> avail their opportunity to participate in statutory
> public processes
> which seek to deprive them of their rights and hence
> affect them.
> Therefore I say that 4(1)(c) is perhaps MORE
> important and to be
> focussed on. 4(1)(d) then becomes the fallback
> position if we lose.
>
> Sarbajit
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
