dear sirs, my point wise reply to your comment. sroy1947 comment Assuming what you say is correct and that P. Rajan's *APPEAL* indeed had 5 pages (16-21) on public interest - my reply. any one obtain the copy of 5 page from CIC. Public Interest involved are very good and explained and presented in very good manner. Some of them is applicable in all the cases. Therefore i suggested to members to obtain its copy from CIC. sroy1947 comment 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." my reply. CIC should deal with the Public Interest given in the appeal. And specifically when various public interest is assumed in every request as per RTI ACt object and purpose.CIC should specifically dealt in his order , why he had not considered public interest given in the appeal. however, i admire your faith in the IC (MA).
sroy1947 comment 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.) my reply. I know, the rejector of my request are big criminals taking big bribe , therefore in the begining i will lose ,is not unexpected outcome. However in the long run, criminals are loser after their deeds are come in public domain. Every one protecting them will be known suspect as criminls. I do not stop for working for a casue, on the fear of losing. Sometime it take decade to acheive the objective. Kindly note, in how many years/genereations India got independence.If the starting generation did not work for independence , you will be still living in the slave country. sroy1947 comment 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. my reply. kindly note, CIC routinely present new ground for rejecting the RTI request on behalf of CPIO. This is illegal , CIC can not sit on two chair as Judge as well CPIO specially , when in the ACt, it is CPIO to justify the rejection. Regarding applyng the corollary of this to the appellants. is wong. i will expain in the new issue. Kindly note, Courts allow new interprateions of law in the higher forum. What is discourage is presentation of new facts and even it is allowed after giving justification. with regards rakesh gupta sroy1947 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 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 > --------------------------------- Get the freedom to save as many mails as you wish. Click here to know how. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
