Dear Mr Sarbajit, How you have concluded that Ms Thakur is blackmailer or misusing RTI act? S.K.Kapoor
--- On Sat, 5/2/09, sroy1947 <[email protected]> wrote: From: sroy1947 <[email protected]> Subject: [rti_india] Re: Any Question- Same answer To: [email protected] Date: Saturday, May 2, 2009, 2:38 PM Dear Mrs Thakur, >From the sort of information you are requesting, it appears that you are >misusing the RTI Act, that you are a blackmailer (or a front / beard for >blackmailers) , and that the PIO has rightly relied upon 8(1)(j) to deny you >the information. It is oparticularly noteworthy that there is no "larger public interest" evident in your RTI request which would enable an Appellate Authority to over-ride this exemption ;-) Sarbajit --- In rti_in...@yahoogrou ps.com, "Nutan Thakur" <drnutanthakur@ ...> wrote: > > Friends, > > The RTI Act was formulated with much fanfare and with great hopes that it > will bring some kind of transparency and a related sense of responsibility in > the government servants who would be feeling the heat of the people's power > because of their power to seek information at will. It would be too > ungrateful to say that the promulgation of the Act has not helped the common > people. On the contrary this Act is certainly among the most powerful and > potent tools in the hands of the people of this country and can easily be > regarded as one of the most memorable and laudable gifts of the UPA > government. Yet, there are departments and people in these establishments who > are still not over with their colonial hangover. The result is that these > people are not only making an open fun of the provisions of this Act but are > also defeating completely the very purpose of the Act. > I shall present before you one such department where a few examples would > suffice to let you understand how such people are treating this Act. The > department is the Home department in the Uttar Pradesh which is generally > held to be responsible for keeping the law and order in the State as also to > see to it that there is a the proper implementation of various laws and > people don't go breaking laws, rules and regulations. Yet, the department > itself seems to notoriously believe in the dictum- "rules are there to be > broken." This holds true particularly with regards to the RTI Act. > Information was sought from the Department as regards the details of the IPS > and State Police Service (PPS) officers placed under suspension during a > given period. The information dealt with issues like the date of suspension, > the date of reinstatement, the grounds for suspension, the time required in > conducting the enquiry and the result of the enquiry etc. One section of the > Home Department which deals with the PPS officers provided the details, > though a bit delayed. But another section, dealing with the IPS officers > refused to give the information saying that that this information cannot be > given without the prior written permission of the concerned IPS officers > because it comes under section 8(j) of the RTI Act. Section 8(j), as we all > know, deals with information of personal nature which have a tendency of > infringing the privacy of a person. Can anyone explain that the information > sought can be termed private in nature? or one that is infringing upon someone's privacy? > The second example is that of asking some details from two departments of the > UP Government as regards the Study leave of the IAS and IPS officers. While > the Appointments department dealing with the IAS officers gave the requisite > information, the same section of the Home department again said this > information cannot be given without the prior written permission of the > concerned IPS officers under section 8(j) of the RTI Act as being of personal > nature and having a tendency of infringing the privacy of a person. Isn't it > a deliberate and blatant flouting of the provisions of the Act? > In two other cases where the information as regards the selection criteria > for promotion to the rank of DIG by the UP government for some given period > and information as regards the decision by the government in the departmental > cases in the month of May 2007 were sought, the sane section again came up > with Section 8(j). > Now it seems that the Home department of UP government has got the section > 8(j) under its name and any information sought from it would be abjectly > rejected taking the plea of this section alone. > I would request the friends here to help me proceed with this matter by > suggesting me the future course of action, other than making a request to the > First Appellate authority in each of these cases. > > Dr Nutan Thakur > IRDS, > Lucknow > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
