Dear Sarbajit, Thanks so much, I much appreciate that.
In the same breath, I completely agree to disagree with what you have written about both the IC's - but I also appreciate your right to criticize IC(SG) and appreciate IC(MLS). Have you read IC(SG)'s recent decisions on: 1) NMMIS? http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/SG-31032009-13.pdf 2) One's right to obtain a copy of Court order under RTI apart from the Court's own prescribed procedure? What is your opinion on that? Moreover please elaborate and justify the stand taken by IC(MLS) that no decisions of IC's should be henceforth uploaded on Internet and his decision are not subject to questioning under sec. 4(1)(d) of the act, because they are neither quasi - judicial nor administrative in nature: 1) Apart from Information Commissions, the decisions/ judgments of all the Courts are regularly uploaded on Internet. 2) Moreover the decisions /judgments of an IC are uploaded and not the information provided to the applicant/appellant. 3) The decisions of IC's are quasi-judicial in nature and that is the reason court fee stamps are accepted for filing RTI applications and appeals in some states. 4) Hence IC's decisions are subject to sec. 4(1)(d) of the act, RTI is in it's nascent stage, let us wait and watch and time will tell.... 5) If his decisions are neither administrative nor quasi-judicial and of course they are not judicial in nature, then what is the nature / definition of his decisions? Warm Regards, On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 00:47:39 +0530 wrote >Hi Abhi > >1) IC(MLS) is one of the smarter ICs - and very painstaking - so far. Quite >unlike IC(SG). In fact MLS's views on 4(1)(d) are very well researched and not >without basis. > >2) I completely disagree with what you have written about IC(SG) - but I will >defend to the end your right to say it on this forum. > >"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to >say it." (Evelyn Hall, but wrongly attributed to Voltaire) > >3) "garbage decisions" ?? >a) http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/SG-16042009-21.pdf >b) http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/SG-16042009-17.pdf >c) http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/SG-16042009-16.pdf > >Are these (3 of the first 5 of SG's "recent decisions" on CIC website) >anything but garbage? Seriously , someone should be filing RTI's demanding to >know why as tax-payer we have to pay 4 lakhs a month to subsidise these clowns >? > >4) For the record, IC (SG)'s performance and selection for an IC appears to >be:- > >a) incompetent, >b) corrupt, >c) lazy, > >Sarbajit > >--- In [email protected], "abhi987" wrote: >> >> >> Dear Sarbajit, >> >> And so IC(MLS)is out of the ambit of RTI Act, WOW Great!!!! >> >> This is completely illogical in fact a paradox, Secrecy and Right to >> Information, especially the IC himself. >> >> I too am disappointed that IC(SG) is not penalising PIO's as per the RTI >> Act, but IC(SG) is a very honest,intelligent and a person of strong moral >> character. >> >> I have a difference of opinion with IC(SG) but not to the extent that his >> decisions are garbage. His decisions have to be well reasoned. >> >> Please prove your argument by citing a decision. >> >> Warm Regards, >> >> >> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 17:18:13 +0530 wrote >> >Hi >> > >> >Virii ? In the CIC ?? Dear me, somebody is using pirated software and/or >> >downloading porn from the internet. I do wonder who would be doing that >> >amongst MLS's staff ;-) >> > >> >On the other hand, IC(MLS) has now taken a very proper stand that >> >publishing his decisions on the internet is prohibited vide RTI Act - >> >information is only to be given to the citizen who requested it and the P/A >> >(ie. the parties). He has also taken the stand (again quite properly) that >> >section 4(1)(d) doe not REQUIRE him to publish details of his decisions - >> >which in his learned view are neither administrative nor quasi-judicial. >> > >> >I do wish C'IC Habibullah would follow the sterling example of this bold >> >and dynamic IC - ie IC(MLS) and stop wasting the limited computer resources >> >of NIC by publishing IC(SG)'s garbage orders. >> > >> >Sarbajit > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
