Dear Rakesh Assuming what you say is correct and that P. Rajan's *APPEAL* indeed had 5 pages (16-21) on public interest - STILL, IC (MA)'s order is absolutely correct when he says "Nothing is mentioned in his *APPLICATION* how the disclosure of the information would serve the larger public interest."
Why are you making a fool of yourself in public here? (AND I am saying this here because I know you for long and I genuinely want you to WIN !!! in future. Pls take this in right spirit.) The whole point /consensus of this group of RTI users is that PIO's and P/As cannot introduce new grounds in appeal. The corollary of this is that neither can appellants. Sarbajit --- In [email protected], RAKESH GUPTA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > IC (MA) order is lie about absence of public interest. > Public interest are given in page 16 to 21 of appeal > Kindly note, this are full five page.In very few cases so many public interest are involved. > Whereas in the appeal order, nothing is discussed in the order. > kindly see the relavant portion of appeal order. > I am not satisfied that the > disclosure of the information sought for by Shri. Rajan will serve any such public > interest. Nothing is mentioned in his application how the disclosure of the > information would serve the larger public interest. > with regards > rakesh gupta >
