Dear all I always say our country is run by BABUS only and the officers/bureacrates are busy in their SHIKARS.
On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 Satish Kumar Kapoor wrote : >THESE RETIRED "BABUS" AS INFORMATION COMMISSIONERS, FIND EXECUSES TO FRUSTRATE >INFORMATION SEEKERS. IC MR TIWARI IS MOST NOTORIOUS IN SUCH A ACTS, HE WILL >NEVER ORDER INQUIRY U/S 18 (2) IN COMPLAINTS OF MISLEADING INFORMATION, BUT >TRY TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT ON LAME EXECUSES. > >S.K.KAPOOR > >--- On Sun, 11/30/08, RAKESH GUPTA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: RAKESH GUPTA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: [rti_india] An analysis of why IC(T) is wrong. >To: [email protected] >Date: Sunday, November 30, 2008, 3:01 PM > > > > > > >there is no losse end in the law at least on this point.It will be prove in >the future as the order ICT in the Bhagat Singh was change in the Delhi High >Court. >These IC are in the habit of inventing excuses outside Section 8 and 9 and >applying the same for denying the information. >with regards >rakesh gupta > >--- On Sun, 30/11/08, sarbajit roy <mail.sarbajitroy@ gmail.com> wrote: > From: sarbajit roy <mail.sarbajitroy@ gmail.com> >Subject: Re: [rti_india] An analysis of why IC(T) is wrong. >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ps.com >Date: Sunday, 30 November, 2008, 11:51 AM > >Dear Rakesh > >While I concur with your conclusion, ie > >" Under lined portion clearly means fees should be as per Section 7(1) >Further fee in the present subsection means additional fee to be paid in >addition to fee already paid Rs 10/ Rs 50/ or any other fee at the time of >RTI request as per the RTI Act." > >Your steps to reach there are not sufficiently rigorous to take on a >master like IC(T).. > >IC(T)'s logic here goes something like this >(NB: underlining / rich formatting is not allowed on this group - so use >* or CAPITALS for emphasis). > >1) 7(1) only deals with the prescribed fees for providing COPY of >the information >ie - xerox charges, floppy charges etc. > >2) Section 7(3) operates INDEPENDENTLY of 7(1) AND IN ADDITION TO IT >for the cases where there is a COST for PROVIDING the information >TO BE DETERMINED BY THE PIO. In such case the CPIO is required to >not only inform the Applicant of this COST but give a calculation TOGETHER >WITH the prescribed fees for copying the information or providing an already >printed / priced version. > >3) Especially cases of 7(9) - disproportionately diverting resources of P/A >they are entitle to demand these additional COSTS from the applicant. > >Like it or not, there is some loose drafting in the Act, when the >letter is ambiguous >what is the spirit of the law / intent of the legislature. ? > >All members of the group should analyse this and post their comments for >a thorough discussion. Where are the CIC decisions / SIC decisions which hold >otherwise ? For example Rakesh Agrawal also had a 2nd appeal on this pending >against Delhi Police - what happened? > >The answer also possibly lies in the Fee Cost Rules, and obligations >of P/As under >section 4 of the RTI Act. Group please research this fast. > >Sarbajit > >On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 11:04 AM, RAKESH GUPTA <[EMAIL PROTECTED] co.in> >wrote: > > Kindly see the section refered in the Judgement. > > > > 7 (3) Where a decision is taken to > > provide the information on payment of any > > further fee representing the cost of > > providing the information, the Central Public > > Information Officer or State Public > > Information Officer, as the case may be, shall send > > an intimation to the person making the > > request, giving > > > > (a) the details of further fees representing the cost of providing the > > information as determined by him,together > > with the calculations made > > to arrive at the amount in accordance with > > fee prescribed under subsection > > (1), requesting him to deposit that > > fees, and the period > > intervening between the despatch of the said > > intimation and payment of > > fees shall be excluded for the purpose of > > calculating the period of thirty > > days referred to in that sub-section; > > > > Under lined portion clearly means fees should be as per Section 7(1) > > Further fee in the present subsection means additional fee to be paid in > > addition to fee already paid Rs 10/ Rs 50/ or any other fee at the time of > > RTI request as per the RTI Act.. > > > > Now see Section 7(1) > > > > 7. (1) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of > > section 5 or the proviso to subsection > > (3) of section 6, the Central Public > > Information Officer or State Public > > Information Officer, as the case may be, on > > receipt of a request undersection 6 shall, > > as expeditiously as possible, and in any case > > within thirty days of the receipt of the > > request, either provide the information on > > payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of > > the reasons > > specified in sections 8 and 9: > > > > Provided that where the information sought > > for concerns the life or liberty of a person, > > the same shall be provided within forty-eight > > hours of the receipt of the request. > > > The plain reading of above clear that interpreation by ICT is without > > reading the whole provision. > > with regards > > rakesh gupta > >------------ --------- --------- ------ > >Yahoo! Groups Links > >Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Go to http://messenger. >yahoo.com/ invite/ > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > >------------------------------------ > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > 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]
