Thank you for giving me an A. Master, I shall try to improve my performance so you could give me A+ next time.
To my mind, CPIO and BSNL are not two separate entities. "Third party" in the definition refers to an external "public authority" which may not want information being held by the first PA to be disclosed. I made a few calls this morning after seeing your email. I have been told Mr. Habibullah has not been "boxed into" yet. He hasn't even commissioned a box for himself like the people in the West do when they visit the Funeral Directors for best deals in space, location, box, will... It is cheaper for Hindus. They simply burn up in flames. I am hoping to have my heart, lungs, eyes, kidney, brain removed before I am consigned to agni-devta. In fact, I have already planned to donate/sell my body for medical and research purposes. As for locking the SCIC into his room, it is not true. However, if it were, it was certainly not wrongful. So IPC would not apply. I am BCCing this email to someone who might have a hearty laugh. Keep guessing who this out of the box BCC-ite is. Rakesh Agarwal From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of sroy1947 Sent: 04 December 2008 22:19 To: [email protected] Subject: [rti_india] Re: Information on Free Telephones by BSNL cannot be disclosed Dear Rakesh(A) BSNL *IS* a third party. plz Read defn. of "third party in Act. First party is applicant, 2nd party is CPIO and everybody else is a third party. But don't worry - you are in good company, because even Mr Habibullah wouldn't (or couldn't) understand this when I explained it to him - but the sly old fox obviously remembered my coaching for he used it to wriggle out of another tight corner he was "almost" boxed into later. Sarbajit PS: What are your views on your co-"RTI promoter"'s media reported antics of locking SCICs into their rooms till they deliver orders? Please remind him of the Indian Penal Code sections for "wrongful confinement, wrongful restraint" etc. which he is under some delusion are never registered as FIRs. --- In [email protected] <mailto:rti_india%40yahoogroups.com> , "Rakesh Agarwal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 1. BSNL is not a third party. > > 2. ICs are not supposed to allow new grounds for rejection, but they do > so routinely. This is what we need to fight against. > > 3. I can understand the IC's stand if you are seeking details of > corporate deals with BSNL but disclosure of the list of routine concessions > cannot harm competitive position. > > Rakesh [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
