Dear Rakesh, Sometime in the course of our discussions I am reminded of Guruji - the Late Editor Prakashji. The RTI ACt is not what you or I think of it, or what the literal definition of words in Blacks' Legal Dictionary is. By fighting so hard to prove that I am wrong, or that PIO is wrong, we are wasting our energy. Look at the Act in totality and not in isolation.
1) The FACT of the matter - no matter how much you disguise it - is that M.A.Ansari is absolutely correct when he records that there is no mention of "public interest" in the original application. Public Interest is not something that can be introduced in Appeal stage to counter rejection - it must be an integral part of the original application. It is quite obvious that you have not read / understood the "Responsible RTI-CODE" of this group. Just as contents of PIO's mind does not constitute information as defined in RTI Act, so also the contents of Applicant's mind (ie. Motives in seeking information for eg. Public Interest) are not known to PIO. The PIO / Appellate / CI / Judge is limited to what is before him (in accordance with procedural rules - one of which is that no new matters may be introduced without foundation). 2) I fail to see why members of this group should waste their resources getting appeals of LOSERS from CIC. Let them study orders of WINNERS instead. 3) Since you have referred to History and our Independence, as per you, a) who are the 5 individuals most responsible for India securing Independence? b) Do you think that Vande Mataram is our National Song, if so, does it deserve to be our National Song? Sarbajit --- In [email protected], RAKESH GUPTA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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
