Dear Rakesh The "A" was only to distinguish you from Rakesh(G).
There are now several CIC decisions which hold that P/As can challenge decisions of their PIOs as "third parties". Before filing RTIs in English (or whatever language RTI "promoters" use these days to promote themselves in the media), ensuring that a dictionary is at your side is useful. "Boxed-In" obviously conveys an entirely different meaning to 'chaddi / knicker wallahs' than it does to either me or Mr H. I am sure that Mr.H will be as amused by your BCC as he was by the public display of your chaddis / knickers at/outside First CIC Convention and your follow-up 2nd appeal versus PMO before him :-) Sarbajit PS: You needn't worry about BCCs, one of my idiot co-mods (commodes) has made Mr.H a subscriber here too. --- In [email protected], "Rakesh Agarwal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 >
