Dear Manoj (K). We are dealing with professional bureaucrats. They know the laws for their jurisdiction very well. In fact they know each and every word in those laws since these laws were drafted by them (directly) or by their biradari Mir Jafar's (indirectly). RTI Act is their law not ours.
So when we play their game on their territory, we must understand their laws very well - to the same degree they do. Mr.Habibullah has remanded these complaints because the *GROUNDS* were either non-existent or flimsy. If a FAA does not do his job (by delivering an order) the CIC is essentially powerless (this has been done deliberately). It this point it is NOW suggested as practice that (in addition to other remedies) the appellant file a departmental PG complaint against the FAA for non-reply. This is a separate remedy with interesting possibilities. HOWEVER, the subject of many RTI's being filed (and reaching the CIC) causes me to wonder if this is the true purpose of RTI and how many NGO Mir Jafar's we have hiding in our little Group. Sarbajit --- In [email protected], "Manoj K. Kamra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dear Sh.Sarbajit Royji and all members, > > In the latest decision of Sh.Manoj Pai(Appeal Nos CIC/WB/A/2007/00676 > & 00748 dated 09.05.2007) and Ms.Sonal Amit Shah (Appeal > No.1810/ICPB/2008),CIC have reverted back to AAs' by stating > complaint/second appeal direct to CIC without giving opportunity to AA > by appellants. > > Please suggest where both have lacked. >
