Dear Friends, Yahoo Groups is overloaded, it sometimes takes upto 30 minutes for messages to be posted to the group. You may also get false messages saying that your message is not transmitted. So please wait for at least 10 minutes before resending the message after checking that it is not on the homepage http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rti_india/.
Rammitra, you are quite correct it should be "or" and not "for", and you evidently miss nothing :-). Sarbajit --- In [email protected], srammi...@... wrote: > > 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 <vikramsimh...@...> wrote: > > From: Vikram Simha <vikramsimh...@...> > 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
