Mr Dear Friends The order of Muzibur Rehman was won due to a combination of circumstances. Justice Ravidra Bhat is a rare exception and you are unlikely to get judges like these in the other Courts. Sometimes even Justice Bhar has also passed some very "bad" orders - like virtually exempting SC from RTI Act etc. I am worried that ignorant / untrained Petitioners in Person filing "copy cat" petitions all over the country will result in BAD orders which will undo all the good work we have achieved. It took us over 3 years to setup this judgement and planning viable / winnable "cause of action". The significant thing is not Muzibur Rahman's order per se, but the analysis of section 20(1) which this judgement sets out and which our group RTI_India has been agitating from day 1 FYI : The Writ Petition itself is very badly (by which I mean "routinely") drafted and is a litany of woes against the CIC which has been ignored in the final judgement. Sarbajit
--- On Mon, 5/18/09, Jagnarain Sharma <[email protected]> wrote: From: Jagnarain Sharma <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Fw: [rti_india] Re: Delhi High Court upholds MANDATORY Penalty To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Date: Monday, May 18, 2009, 9:47 AM Yes Dear Bimal, I want that as far as it is possible, I want at least 10 people should file Writ in High Courts IN PERSON. We all will prepare the Writs. I will help to do this job and make the applicant to appear before Court. As regards Delhi, the order in Muzib's case will be sufficient and no more Writs are required to be filed in Delhi High Court. I am talking of other states like Lucknow or Aligarh. If however, the copy of Muzib order is furnished in Lucknow or Aligarh and the SIC take a notice of it and start behaving in a rightful manner and order to impose fines on PIOs. and order is followed in letter and spirit and required action is initiated in the light of Delhi High Court Judgment, then we may not require to file fresh Writs in Lucknow and Aligarh or any other place/city. But the truth is that these SIC/CIC are Hard skinned people, may not comply the judgment of Delhi High Court, telling that it is not binding at Aligarh or Lucknow or Mumbai or Kerala. In that case we have to prepare ourselves and be ready to file together with Writ the Written Arguments, in that case the petitioner need not to argue in detail and Advocate's expenses can be saved by many poor RTI activists or applicants who are seeking information. That is why I wrote to Dear Leslie and Dear Sarabjit Roy and Muzib also to make available the copy of Writ, so that more and more people should file Writs in their respective states in High Court. I hope I have been able to propose a better option, specially for Lucknow, Aligarh, or any other state. Regards Dr JN Sharma On 5/18/09, Bimal Khemani <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear Dr. Sharma, > You are right , we as a group has more than 200 appeals pending with Mr. > B.K.Saxena. We have made an appeal in the month of December,08, before the > Chief State Information Commissioner to transfer all our Group appeals to > another commissioner, since we may not get proper legal remedy from Mr. > saxena as he is purely a pro-PIO. Our appeal before CSIC is still pending > awaiting any decision. > If we want the RTI be implemented in our state, we must do something > jointly, > > > > On Mon, 18 May 2009 07:21:25 +0530 wrote >>Dear LESLIE AND SARABJIT >>Thanks and Congratulations >> >>Mr Sarabjit Roy had sent only highlights of the judgment. >>It is good that Sarabjit was associated with the case of Mujib at >>Delhi High Court. >>Now most affected people/members of the RTI groups are in Lucknow, >>where no penality is being imposed. >> ( may be that CIC/SIC do not file any SLP before SC against >>this order) >> This High Court Judgment has opened the Flushgates for the >>RTI Activists. >> It is a good start and let us hope for the good. >> I had suggested to Dear Muzib to help other applicants/RTI >>activists so that they can prepare the writ and file against the >>SIC/CIC at Lucknow and all other centres. >>Along with SIC/CIC the PIOs be also made parties. >> I also suggested Urvashi Sharma to prepare Writs and file >>against the SIC Lucknow >> >> You are therefore requested to obtain a copy of the Writ and send as >> attachment to all members of the group so that in Lucknow as well as in >> other states RTI activists may also file similar writs, so that PIO who >> are hands in glove with SIC/CIC, will have only option to impose fine >> against the erring PIOs who refuse or unnecessary delay the furnishing >> the information to applicant. >> I request that you kindly obtain a copy of the Writ and send >>as attachment to all the RTI activists/members of the group as soon >>as possible so as to enable them to proceed further. >> If it is time taking, in the first instance send only Writ copy >>( no other applications), or only Grounds which were taken in the >>Writ by Muzib,as you feel convenient . >> Hope the grounds may be similar in all Writs proposed to be filed. >> Also ensure that this land mark judgment is published in AIR >>and other Law magzines, so that it can be quoted in the Courts.The >>Certified copy of the above Judgment be also sent as attachment. >> You and Muzib have got a great achievement. >> >> Now it become mandatory for the SIC/CIC to impose fine, and no >>leniency or laxity be permitted in this behalf and they should not >>hesitate that the PIO is his friend being a bureaucrat or other >>officer where SIC/CIC was posted or the PIO is of same rank officer. >>Regards >>Dr JN Sharma >> >> >> >>On 5/17/09, LESLIE ALMEIDA wrote: >>> >>> >>> --- On Sat, 5/16/09, sroy1947 wrote: >>> >>> >>> From: sroy1947 >>> Subject: [rti_india] Re: Delhi High Court upholds MANDATORY Penalty >>> To: [email protected] >>> Date: Saturday, May 16, 2009, 7:13 PM >>> >>> >>> >>> Here is the official link to the judgement >>> http://lobis. nic.in/dhc/ SRB/judgement/ 11-05-2009/ SRB28042009CW384 >>> 52007.pdf >>> >>> Very well worth reading in its original form (not in the garbled versions >>> being circulated on RTI groups). >>> >>> Highlights:- >>> >>> 1) "A close and textual reading of Section 20 itself reveals that there >>> are >>> three circumstances, whereby a penalty can be imposed i.e. >>> (a) Refusal to receive an application for information; >>> (b) Not furnishing information within the time specified; and >>> (c) Denying mala fidely the request for information or knowingly given >>> incorrect, incomplete or misleading information for destroying >>> information >>> that was the subject matter of the request. >>> Each of the conditions is prefaced by the infraction "without reasonable >>> cause"." (para 10) >>> >>> 2) "CIC is UNDENIABLY a TRIBUNAL amenable to High Court supervision if it >>> fails to exercise jurisdiction lawfully vested in it or acts beyond its >>> jurisdiction, an expression that includes >>> acting contrary to the provisions of law, or established principles of >>> law >>> or the Constitution. " (para 11) >>> >>> 3) "In these circumstances, even though the CIC recommended disciplinary >>> action under Section 20 (2), its denial of any penalty >>> order under Section 20, in the considered opinion of this Court, cannot >>> be >>> upheld." (para 13) >>> >>> 4) "The court cannot be unmindful of the circumstances under which >>> the Act was framed, and brought into force. It seeks to foster an >>> "openness >>> culture" among state agencies, and a wider section of "public >>> authorities" >>> whose actions have a significant or >>> lasting impact on the people and their lives. Information seekers are to >>> be >>> furnished what they ask for, unless the Act prohibits disclosure; they >>> are >>> not to be driven away through sheer inaction or filibustering tactics of >>> the >>> public authorities or their officers. It is to ensure these >>> ends, that time limits have been prescribed, in absolute terms, as well >>> as >>> penalty provisions. These are meant to ensure a culture of information >>> disclosure so necessary for a robust and >>> functioning democracy. In the above circumstances, Court is of the >>> opinion >>> that the impugned order to the >>> extent it discharges the sixth respondent of the notice under Section 19 >>> (8) >>> and does not impose the penalty sought for has to be declared illegal." >>> (paras 14,15) >>> >>> Sarbajit >>> >> > > BIMAL KUMAR KHEMANI > member TRAP , > TRANSPARENT REELIABLE ACCOUNTABLE PEOPLEÂ’S MOVEMENT > Saha-Prant Sangathan Mantri, > AKHIL BHARATIYA GRAHAK PANCHAYAT BRAJ PRANT, > 2/40D, Janakpuri, Marrish Road, > ALIGARH-202001. INDIA > Phone:0571-2401557, MOB:-09359724625 > e.mail: [email protected] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
