Lets await the order, or is it up already? I'm sure you would have reminded her about "4(1)(b)(xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it;"
Did she grant you a personal hearing before a Double Bench? Was a copy of P/a comments served on you well prior to the hearing? At what stage was 8(1)(d) introduced ? Did you file a 2nd appeal or Complaint? If Appeal what was the FAA's order? If AD introduced 8(1)(d) herself, file a PCA-98 against her - not a WBA. "If what you say is correct", don't take this lying down - fight back - to the bitter end. Sarbajit PS: Mods have deleted / unsubscribed about 45 recent additions to the group. Most of them turn out to be from a HJ members list supplied to us 3 days back by a Moderator there. If anyone still wants to unsubscribe send an email to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" and dont bug this group. --- In [email protected], Sidharth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hello forum, > > Recently IC AD rejected my appeal for denial of informaion on > recipients of free/concessional telephones citing the reasons that it > will harm the competitive position of BSNL u/s 8(1)(d). > > Is it justified? > > Initially the RTI query was rejected by CPIO u/s 8(1)(e) & 81(j). > > I am surprised with the change of track by the commission. > > Sidharth >
