Dear All : I wish to file a Writ Petition against IC(SG) Orders before the Delhi High Court when it reopens after vacations .
I am advised that after an Order u/s 19 has been passed, a Complaint u/s 18 does not lie . Background : That I had applied to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies to let me know how many suits had been filed against them in Delhi High Court and how many petitions before Central Information Commission and in how many such cases, adverse decisions had been passed against RCS . In response, I received varying responses from a dozen PIOs , some referring me to CIC/High Court website, others stating that they do not maintain this kind of information, yet others stating that I should go and inspect hundreds of files and collect the needed information by myself , yet some others informed the number of pending suits/petitions. But no one answered the other part No.2, viz. how many cases during 2007-2008 had been decided against RCS ? In First Appeal, the FAA upheld the" information" communicated to me by the dozen PIOs and stated that there was nothing else that could be supplied to me . My pleadings, incl: verbal submissions in the 2nd Appeal before IC(SG ) : 1. That I have no idea how many PIOs are there within the same PA , therefore, a CPIO should take charge and supply me the information asked for , instead of dozen PIOs sending different kinds of information and "disinformation" . This is also in terms of relevant DoPT circulars/directions in this regard . 2. That the PIOs have no rights to refer me to "third parties" namely the concerned websites, when such an information is already available with them . 3. That the FAA be reprimanded for not applying his mind and giving a flat one liner response, instead of dealing with the responses provided by the PIOs individually and that the cas ebe remanded back to FAA for passing a proper reasoned order . 4. That information at S.No.2 had not been provided to me at all . 5. That the PIOs are obliged to provide me with the requested information instead of asking me to collect by myself , therefore, they be issued with SHOW CAUSE why penalty not be imposed on them . 6. That the concerned PA is obliged to maintain the desired information/records as it is mandated to submit yearly returns to its controlling authority in Delhi Government which in turn has to submit it to the CIC . ORDER Only prayer at S.No.6 allowed . RCS Office directed to submit quarterly returns to CIC ( ? ) . COMMENTS In a recent Hearing for Non-compliance ( Bimal Khemani v/s BSNL) where I was also present, IC(AD) ruled that it is CPIO's job to collate all the information from different Circles/Training Centres and to provide it to the information seeker/appellant , in view of the fact that there were several PIOs . She directed that BSNL CPIO review the response provided to the Appellant and ensure that all the PIOs provide all the information requested for within 15 days to the Appellant . ACTION PROPOSED I wish to file a Writ Petition against the IC(SG)'s Orders before Delhi High Court when it re-opens after summer vacations . QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS/EXPERTS I want that the matter be remanded back to IC(SG) to pass proper orders on my prayers 1-5 above in the 2nd Appeal . Is my WP maintainable ? What grounds could I possibly take to take care of items not attended/ignored by IC(SG) ? ? I would argue the WP by myself to save on expensive legal costs , whenever it comes up before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court . Thanks to everyone in advance . Dear Arun, Re: "Joker", That was not stated as my "opinion", but stated as a "fact". A fact which I backed up with sufficient citation admissible under the Evidence Act, namely a law of Parliament which is being breached. Insofar as the "single PIO" concept is concerned this has been adequately disposed of in my "famous" case against DDA of 2006 .... 'DDA being a single public authority ..." http://cic.gov. in/CIC-Orders/ CIC_Order_ Dtd_25022006. pdf <http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/CIC_Order_Dtd_25022006.pdf> The receiving PIO is to deal with the RTI request - all PIOs are equal with equal access to a P/A's information and they may "assist" each other. Re: "> I had also urged that the PIOs had stated that they did not have the > required information, but had asked me to come and collect the > information by myself by inspecting hundreds of files ." Obviously IC(SG) is a double joker, because he does not know the concerned section of RTI Act which deals with this issue ... namely 4(1)(a). Concerning why IC(SG) is such a fast worker, his garbage orders speak for themselves. Sarbajit Shri Kalia : > > In our country, we can achieve nothing except by "satyagrahas" and > agitations. Representations to the Government or to the Commissions > will not lead us anywhere . If someone is committing mistakes after > mistakes, he muist be restrained - the earlier the better - in the > interest of citizens. > > > > Dr Arun Agrawal > > > > > > > > > My dear Dr Arun Agarwal and Sarabjit, > > > > I agree, but our problem is, that he was also an activist like u and > me. > > > > Should we start agitation against such decision or should we have > patience > > for some. > > > > However my own opinion is to start. > > > > Your comments please. > > N.N.Kalia > > > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Arun Agrawal arun_agra...@...: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not share the opinion that IC(SG) is a joker . This would > > > tantamount to abusing his Office publicly . He is a very > knowledgeable > > > person on RTI issues and is disposing off appeals pretty fast . > > > > > > Although in one of my 2nd Appeals, he did do a great deal of > injustice > > > to me . I had proposed that the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, > > > Delhi appoint a single point CPIO in terms of DoPT directions, > instead > > > of me chasing and getting varying response on the same RTI > application > > > from a dozen PIOs . That was not considered worthy of being taken > note > > > of. > > > > > > I had also urged that the PIOs had stated that they did not have the > > > required information, but had asked me to come and collect the > > > information by myself by inspecting hundreds of files . > > > > > > He took no note of that either, refusing to take my argument as to > how I > > > was to know which PIO had responded and which one had not , and that > the > > > response was evasive. > > > > > > Another IC , Ms Annapurna Dixit on 16.6.2009 dealt with a similar > case , > > > Bimal Khemani v/s BSNL in a different manner . She directed that > BSNL > > > collate the information asked for by the appellant from different > > > Circles/Training Centres and then forward it to the appellant in one > go > > > instead of asking the Training Centres/Circles to provide the > > > information to Mr Khemani directly . > > > > > > Dr Arun Agrawal > > > > > > In this decision, IC(SG) proceeds to make a series of ignorant > boo-boos > > > concerning third party rights. > > > > > > Now the RTI Act clearly specifies that third parties are to be > allowed > > > opportunity of hearing at every stage. For example > > > > > > "19(4) If the decision of the Central Public Information Officer or > > > State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, against which > an > > > appeal is preferred relates to information of a third party, the > Central > > > Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case > may > > > be, shall give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to that third > > > party." > > > > > > > > Instead this corrupt idiot (we all know now why he is an I.C.), > > > proceeds to opine that third parties like Co-op Societies should be > shut > > > out of appeal hearings. > > > > > > > > "The FAA's practice of calling societies during hearings is > completely > > > undesirable and must be stopped immediately..." > > > > > > > > Why oh why does Mr Habibullah assign such important P/As to this > > > joker? Give him Agriculture and Fisheries instead. > > > > > > > > Sarbajit > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
