i had done search on my name on MTNL telephone directory. There are more than 2500 Mr Rakesh in Delhi , who had MTNL numbers. So , if only name is given, no one can identify the specific person.There are atleast 10,000 Mr rakesh in Delhi with regards rakesh gupta
--- On Fri, 14/11/08, M K Singhal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: From: M K Singhal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [rti_india] Re: Is addresses of allottees of sheds/plots by Development Authorities an exemp To: [email protected] Date: Friday, 14 November, 2008, 10:01 AM I feel Mr Sarabjit has given very strange logic to justify refusal of list of allottees with their addresses by IC, Ms Balaubramaniam. Sec 4(1)(d) no where says that only names of allottee and seial no of applications would be given. In fact, sec 4(1)(b)(xiii) clearly says that full particulars of recepients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by a body shall be given. Sec 8 & 11 do not prohibit giving of this info at all. This info does not fall in the category of info dealt with in Sec 8 & 11. Besides, DSIDC had not published any info about the allottees at all under sec 4 on their website and hence I had made this reqest for info. I am with Rakesh and such attitude on the part of ICs certaily needs to be nipped in the bud. Thanks & best wishes, sincerely, mksinghal ____________ _________ _________ __ From: sroy1947 <[EMAIL PROTECTED] com> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ps.com Sent: Thursday, 13 November, 2008 8:41:29 PM Subject: [rti_india] Re: Is addresses of allottees of sheds/plots by Development Authorities an exemp Hi Rakesh (Gupta), (Rakesh and I are RTI veterans from "Delhi RTI Act" days. The reasons we disagree are due to our Legal dictionaries - he prefers "Blacks" whereas I use Indian ones :-) You are corrected that information sought by Mr Singhal ought to be disclosed u/s 4. In my view it attracts 4(1)(d) disclosure of only the following - 1) Name of allottee 2) Serial No.of Application form. Nothing else personal to the succesful allottee is liable to be disclosed. Once an information is published by a PA proactively u/s 4, there is no obligation for a PIO to disclose it. Please understand what I am saying here very carefully !!! There are many CIC decisions on this which are substantially correct. At best a PIO can be expected to respond to a request for such information on a section 6 request by guiding the applicant to the website or other section 4 disclosure - although he is not obliged to. Sarbajit --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED] ps.com, RAKESH GUPTA <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > REPY IS NO DUE TO FOLLOWIONG REASN. > Ground 1-Objection raised to deny is wrong because, these are section 4 of the RTI Act, information , which can not covered under Section 8(1)(j) /11 of the RTI Act, 2005. as follows. > .Right to information and obligations of public authorities > 4. (1) Every public authority shallâ€" > b) publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,â€" > (iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, > including channels of supervision and accountability; > (iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; > (v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by > it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging > its functions; > (vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or > under its control; > In the light of above , I had following submission in this regards >  > > Information seek are covered under Section 4(1)(b)(iii) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and should be provided by the public authority on their own. > Section 4(1)(b)( (xii) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; > Section 4(1)(b) (xiii) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it; > It prove , public authority had failed in his duty as per Section 4(1)(a) the Right to Information Act, 2005-to maintain all its records duly catalogued and index This is the duty of Public Authority since 2002 due to freedom of Information Act, 2002. It shows for the last 5 years public authority failed in his function , which should be complete in six month. > Ground â€"2 > All the information sought is given in the sale deed/ lease deed / such deed on which land / plot/ flat are given to private party, which is to be registered with the Registrar. > All the documents registered with the Registrar are Public documents and any one takes copy of the same. > Therefore, these information, which are already public or became public in due course of action cannot be said covered under Section 8(1)(j) /11. > Ground Number 3. > Similar information is published by DDA and Urban Development Ministry in their websites as per obligation of Section 4 on the Public Authority. > Ground -4 > q      The information contain in this file is commercial information, and nothing is personal in the file . Exemption 8(1)(j) claimed is wrong. > q      This kind of commercial information is not covered under exemption 8(1)clause d) (information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; ) because disclosure of this information has not would harm the competitive position of a third party > WITH REGARDS > RAKESH GUPTA Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Go to http://messenger. yahoo.com/ invite/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Be the first one to try the new Messenger 9 Beta! Go to http://in.messenger.yahoo.com/win/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
