Dear Mr Singhal You are correct on many aspects
1) The RTI Act has been castrated by a systematic campaign of Govt acting via their touts who are mainly former bureaucrats and who seem to be concentrated in NCPRI and MKSS, regularly receiving Magasysay awards and Ashoka awards (ie. foreign funding to carry out these subversive activities from CIA and MI6). 2) The RTI ACT is now reduced to a "systematic regime of information denial". Previously citizens could approach a HC in Writ jurisdiction to get information. Nowadays we are told by courts - explore your alternate remedy of RTI Act before approaching us. 3) At First Appeal stage and CIC stage, the citizens are up against a formidable barrier of legal knowledge and capability by the other side. They have some very expert people on their side and vast legal databases at their disposal. Ordinary citizens stand no chance against the system. Whatever that is given to them is by way of charity. Some of these expert people contribute to our group, under pseudonyms, as 'prayaschit' for their official misdeeds. 4) [RTI_India] emphatically opposes legal experts and advocates soliciting business from our members. We discourage posting of addresses and telephone numbers in group emails. Direct contact by advocates and other touts seeking business of our members, if reported, results in instant expulsion. 5) A great deal of misinformation about Rights to citizens via RTI is being circulated from various RTI forums. Ours is not one of them. A lot of what we say is unpalatable to RTI activists - bitter medicine to reach the 'kadwa sach'. 6) In your factory allotment case, the proper way would have been to simply ask for "inspection" of the concerned records and the right to obtain copies of interest to you thereafter. Place yourself in the PIO's shoes. If you ask HIM to give you a list of potentially troublesome information he will automatically oppose you. If you ask for inspection - (which leaves no trail and also imposes no obligation on him personally) he may allow it. Sarbajit --- In [email protected], M K Singhal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dear Friends, > RTIA05 is framed to enable common citizens to get information in a simple and easy way. >From the following comments, it appears that even RTI applications should be got framed by experts (or say advocates) and got followed by experts (or say advocates) for success. I do not know if it is a way to promote greater consultation by legal consultants in RTI matter. For information of Sarbjit & Satya Prakash, I may inform that I retired as a senior govt official and understand the need for proper drafting very well. In this case, it was certainly not a case of poor drafting but pure and simple use of discretion by IC. I had clarified while asking for addresses and telephone nos that they were needed for identification of allottees and the PIO or IC could give any information they deemed fit for identification instead of denying the info asked for completely. I find from other mails appearing in this group that some activists tried to find out and got names and particulars of beneficieries of say National Rural Employment Guarantee Program in some area and later on field check, many of them were found fake. They could not have carried out field checks unless they got sufficient info about beneficieries and not only names. The basic intention of RTIA is to enable enough information to be had to enable field check and thus ensure transparency. Addresses and telephone nos of industrial units, to whom the said industrial sheds were allotted, cannot result in security breach (sec 8) or pertain to commercial secrets of the third party (sec 11). In fact, the indstrial units are themselves advertising their addresses and telephone nos through various means as part of their marketing efforts. Further, as per sec 8(j), any informtion which cannot be denied to Parliament or a state legislature cannot be denied. > Please note that I have given these comments not to offend anyone but just to clarify my own views. As RTI activists, I feel, that our efforts should be not to justify actions by the bureaucracy or the ICs but to encourage citizens to get info under RTIA and ensure that the provisions of RTIA are interpreted properly by all concerned. As I also wote earlier, the information sought by me should already have been given by DSIDC u/s 4 on their website. The information asked for by me is already available with most of the property dealers operating in this area and most of the sheds thus allotted are actualy lying vacant waiting to be sold or rented out. Thanking you, sincerely, mksinghal > > > > > ________________________________ > From: spjrti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Saturday, 15 November, 2008 9:15:21 AM > Subject: [rti_india] Re: Is addresses of allottees of sheds/plots by Development Authorities an exemp > > > Dear Friends > > I was also like Singhalji, frustrated with CIC decision and unable to > accept that I could be wrong. Then I joined this group and come in > touch with Sarbajitji. Drafting the RTI application properly (by > Responsible RTI) and filing the First Appeal is most important steps > to avoid disappointment. > > Everyone must read Sarabjitji's First Appeal to RBI (In FILES section > of group) before submiting their First Appeal. > > Satya Prakash > > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED] ps.com, M K Singhal <mk.singhal@ ...> wrote: > > > > My Dear Sarabjit, > > Thanks for your comments. With best wishes, > > sincerely, > > mksinghal > > > > > > > Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Go to http://messenger.yahoo.com/invite/ > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
