I strongly object for thses type of language. are we here for fightimg each other, like the politicians fight in Parliament and Assembly. if we are in this mood it is better we should finish our job of cleaning the system.
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 veeresh kumar wrote : >Dear Sarabjit > >Please disregard such people. Those of us who have had the privilege of >knowing you can vouch for your integrity, tenacity and sound command over >RTI. > >By analyzing the "Inspections" which the motley crew conducted at SIC/Mah, >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rti_india/message/2490 I see that they were >only granted inspection of the order files of SIC's decisions. This is >routine proactive disclosure in terms of 4(1)(d) and "inspectable" u/sub-sec >4(4) anyway. To extrapolate from this that 4(4) confers a right to unbridled >inspection of offices of public authority is folly and we don't need such >fools (and their media releases) in the group. > >I think it also needs to be revealed now that the junior moderators of other >RTI groups are sharing group members lists with RTI-India as the consensus >is Sarabjit is one of the few people around who can kick the CICs where it >hurts. > >Let the sunshine in - the bloodsuckers will run towards the darkness. > >Veeresh > >--- In [email protected], "sroy1947" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hmmm... > > > > Those who cant stand the heat of the kitchen shouldn't cook. > > Elvis has just left the building. > > > > We don't deal in conspiracy theories but fact. > > Here is a fact: > > http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_31012008_28.pdf > > The decision of CIC in Shri Dinesh Thaker versus Ministry of > > Company Affairs. > > > > Shri Thakker r/o Mumbai (Maharashtra) applied for information > > u/s 6 of RTI Act - IC ANT asked him to fuck off - saying that > > by a previous decision of his (ie. ANT's) the P/A is not > > bound to honour requests for information under RTI Act, that > > the PIO is not bound to give information, and that the P/A > > is free to demand whatever fees it wants to provide information > > including by requiring the applicant to withdraw his RTI > > request in favour of already laid down procedures. > > > > In a nut-shell Mr Thakker (like scores of similar applicants) was told > > that provisions in the Companies Act of 1956 OVER-RIDE those of RTI > > Act 2005. > > > > Now the moot point is, "WHERE IS THE PREVIOUS DECISION OF ANT > > AND WHY IS IT NOT ON THE CIC WEBSITE?" > > > > For those interested it is "K. Lall Vs. Ministry of Company Affairs; > > Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2007/00112; Date of Decision:12.4.2007." > > > > Well as it turns out, this "landmark" decision was WRITTEN BY the P/A > > (and rubber stamped by ANT) because the bloody fool Appellant( a > > serial RTIer senior citizen) failed to show up, and incidentally > > raised all sorts of stupid grounds - such as "I am not interested in > > receiving information but only want my queries to be answered". > > CRUCIALLY, it was not delivered in "open proceedings" as required by > > Rules. > > > > As a result, this "binding" decision of IC ANT is used by every other > > IC to deny information via RTI Act - and to allow P/As to charge > > whatever they want to provide information. > > > > These buggers are stealing the RTI Act from under our noses, what are > > we going to do about it ? > > > > Sarbajit > > > > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > BIMAL KUMAR KHEMANI member TRAP , TRANSPARENT REELIABLE ACCOUNTABLE PEOPLES MOVEMENT Saha-Prant Sangathan Mantri, AKHIL BHARATIYA GRAHAK PANCHAYAT BRAJ PRANT, 2/40D, Janakpuri, Marrish Road, ALIGARH-202001. INDIA Phone:0571-2401557, MOB:-09359724625 e.mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
