Dear
a) CK
b) Sid
c) Bimal K

a) Thanks for the information about the public notice. Wonder how we
missed that one. Anyway thats what RTI groups are for - one for all
and all for one.

b) Members who stick to discussing RTI and associated issues have
nothing to worry about. The 13 are not necessarily the obvious ones.
Re: 1st / 2nd appeal: Knowledgeable RTI experts to assist in
controlling this group are welcome, if you want to volunteer the
factum of your HJ association will not stand in the way.

c) Bimal has nothing to worry about, so resignation not accepted.

Update on our 7(3) today before IC(T). In 1 matter show cause is
likely to be issued to PIO for misleading and / or destroying the
information sought. In the other matter the Respondent FAA appears to
have backtracked from his "further fees of 7(3)(a)" stand to bring the
same within ambit of prescribed fees  of 7(1) - although he continues
to demand Rs. 4,700  to give 3 pages of information (Rs. 6 extra),
casus beli is postponed since FAA order was not served on us prior to
hearing.

Sarbajit

--- In [email protected], C K Jam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> Dear Mr Sarbajit,
> 
> http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/MA-08092008-01.pdf
> 
> (There is a full bench hearing based on the above:
http://cic.gov.in/PublicNotices/NoticeForHearing-27102008-A.pdf )
> 
> Also have a look at:
> 
> http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_19062006_5.pdf
> http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_21092007_26.pdf
> http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_21092007_16.pdf
> 
> RTIwanted
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) A list of decisions (with CIC links) of other ICs where they go
> 
> along with IC(T)'s reasoning. I seem to recall IC(A) had also given a
> 
> few decisions like this.
> 
> 
> 
> 2) A list of decisions of other ICs where this approach of 7(3) was
> 
> rejected. I seem to recall IC(PB) had a few of these.
> 
> 
> 
> 3) An analysis of why IC(T) is wrong. Any SC judgements etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 4) An analysis of why IC(T) could be ri
> ..
>                          
> 
>       
>       
>       
>        
>       
>       
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>       
> 
> 
>       
>       
> 
> 
>       
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>


Reply via email to