There are 4 identical mails from Sri Vikram Simha. And I find all the mails 
were only
forwarding the mail of Sri Sarbajit.  I am confused. Did I miss some thing?

Secondly, it appears, that a  typographical error crept in the text of the 
judgement forwarded.  I think  the word "for" occuring in the 2nd line of para 
10 (C) shall be substituted by the word "or".

M. Rama Rao





--- On Sun, 17/5/09, Vikram Simha <[email protected]> wrote:

From: Vikram Simha <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [rti_india] Re: Delhi High Court upholds MANDATORY Penalty
To: [email protected]
Date: Sunday, 17 May, 2009, 3:22 PM











    
            
            


      
      



N vikramsimha , KRIA Katte , #12 Sumeru Sir M N Krishna Rao Road , Basvangudi < 
Bangalore 560004.



--- On Sat, 16/5/09, sroy1947 <sroy1...@yahoo. com> wrote:



From: sroy1947 <sroy1...@yahoo. com>

Subject: [rti_india] Re: Delhi High Court upholds MANDATORY Penalty

To: rti_in...@yahoogrou ps.com

Date: Saturday, 16 May, 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



--- In rti_in...@yahoogrou ps.com, "sroy1947" <sroy1...@.. .> wrote:



>



> The Delhi High Court (Justice Ravindra Bhat again) has recently
slapped the CIC - and Mr Wajahat Habibullah in particular - for
refusing to levy penalty against a Public Authority. The case is of
Muzibur Rehman versus SECL - WP (C) No.3845/2007 order dd
28-April-2009. I was assisting Mr Rehman at the CIC in his battle there.



> 



> Not only has the Hon'ble Court upheld Mr Rehman and ordered that
Rs. 25,000 will be deducted from salary of the PIO, but also awarded
costs of Rs. 50,000 to Mr Rehman.



> 



> We do hope that Mr Habibullah now investigates the corrupt little
"penalty condonation" racket which IC(SG) is running in cahoots with
his Under-Secy.



> 



> Sarbajit Roy



>



        

         

        

        



        



        

        



        

        

        



Explore and discover exciting holidays and getaways with Yahoo! India Travel 
http://in.travel. yahoo.com/



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




 

      

    
    
        
         
        
        








        


        
        


      Explore and discover exciting holidays and getaways with Yahoo! India 
Travel http://in.travel.yahoo.com/

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Reply via email to