Hi RTIWanted, I think we need to understand one thing here, that there are two parts to uploading a decision on internet:
1) The decision itself, and 2) The information to be (or not to be) disclosed, by virtue of the decision. The decision needs to be uploaded for one and all to share their knowledge and interpret the various sections of the act and evolve in the process. The information to be disclosed by virtue of a decision may or may not be uploaded in keeping with the exemptions under the act. Warm Regards, On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 00:20:06 +0530 wrote >Mr. Sarbajit, > >Now here is a very difficult choice for you ! >Whose side are you on? > >Your "smarter", "painstaking" and "properly standing" IC MLS > >OR > >Your much admired (I am just too lazy - just like IC MLS - to scroll back and >find the adjectives you initially showered on her) IC AD > >IC MLS says that publishing his decisions is prohibited under the RTI Act but >IC AD says that all documents which form the part of the RTI process are >disclosable (subject to severability under 10. Please see: > >http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/AD-15042009-03.pdf > >This being the voting season, make your choice. Hopefully Rule 49(O) does not >apply to this group. > >By the way, please convey to your friend and much admired IC MLS that before >passing any order, he should at least painstakingly read the "title page" and >the "prayer" of the appellant/complainant, specially since your other best >friend, CIC WH, has withdrawn Item 23 and this lesser mortals Right of Review. > >But alas, since IC MLS does not believe in uploading his orders on the CIC >website and your Chinese friends being at work in IC MLS's office, you will >never get to read at least one piece of brilliance. > >RTIwanted > > > > > > >--- In [email protected], "sroy1947" 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. > > >> > > >> > >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]
