Dear Ashish This refers to the 2nd statement of Shekhar Singh you set out.
Here is a graphic example of how these RTI "touts" work http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/FAAD_02032009_02.pdf and exploit / loot limited Gov resources for their own benefit. If Mr Singh has so much "public interest" to get this information and that too FREE OF COST, then why is it not put in public domain? BTW: Mr Habibullah should note that publishing / circulation of court pleadings to non-parties may constitute contempt of court. And in any case why was section 11-A not followed in Mr Singh's case? Sarbajit "Too poor to afford a Blackberry" --- In [email protected], ashish kr1965 <ashishkr1...@...> wrote: > > Sarbajit > > You might want to check these out > http://www.genecampaign.org/home/Reports/Workshop%20I%20.pdf > http://www.genewatch.org/uploads/f03c6d66a9b354535738483c1c3d49e4/Workshop_I__Delhi.pdf > > It is "Ms. Suman Sahai" and not "Mr. Suman Ahai" of Gene Campaign and > Ms Divya Raghunandan has quite a bit to say about RTI too here :-) > > "In the discussion following the three presentations on the Right to > Information > Act, Mr. Shekhar Singh of the NCPRI (National Campaign for People's Right to > Information) while praising the three efforts, spoke about using the > RTI to solve > systemic issues." > > "From a campaign perspective, it would be best if a legal position could be > advocated which requires government to collect this information. In such a > case, > government would be bound to give the information as it would be collected > using > the taxpayer's money. Unless there are very good reasons, the very fact that > the > public wants certain information, should be reason enough for the public > authorities to start collecting the information." > > rgds > Ashish > ==Sent from my Blackberry== > --- In [email protected], "sroy1947" <sroy1947@> wrote: > > > > Dear Ashish, > > > > My specific objection in that reported CIC decision was that Mr Habibullah > > had seen fit to get Ms Raghunandan's case assigned to a double "bench" > > including Mr Shailesh Gandhi and that Mr. Gandhi DID NOT RECUSE HIMSELF > > from this matter despite knowing the facts!!! > > > > Was Mr Gandhi unaware that Mr Shekhar Singh was his predecessor as NCPRI > > convenor and that Mr Suman ahai of Gene Campaign is also a NCPRI > > W.Committee member? > > > > Was Mr Shailesh Gandhi (or for that matter also Mr Habibullah) unaware that > > Mr Gandhi CONTINUES TO BE NCPRI CONVENOR as per the NCPRI website? > > http://www.righttoinformation.info/member_working.htm > > > > Is Mr Habibullah communicating to us that this is not his decision but Mr > > Gandhi's (a-la Pontius Pilatus)? > > > > I shall comment on the "fee" vs "cost" aspect you have raised in a separate > > post. > > > > Sarbajit > > > > "LIST OF MEMBERS > Working Committee Members > > > > 1. Ajit Bhattacharjea > > 2. Anjali Bhardwaj > > 3. Aruna Roy > > 4. Arvind Kejriwal > > 5. Bharat Dogra > > 6. Harsh Mander > > 7. Maja Daruwala > > 8. Nikhil Dey > > 9. Prabhash Joshi > > 10. Prakash Kardaley > > 11. Prashant Bhushan > > 12. Shailesh Gandhi (Convenor) > > 13. Shekhar Singh > > 14. Suman Sahai > > 15. Vishaish Uppal > > 16. Angela Rangad > > 17. V. Suresh > > 18. Jagdeep Chhokar > > 19. Trilochan Sastry > > 20. Samir Acharya > > 21. Balraj Puri > > 22. Manesh Kumar Gupta > > 23. Venkatesh Nayak > > 24. Jagmohan Singh > > 25. P. Wangchuk > > 26. Debu Bandhopadhya > > 27. Jean Dreze > > 28. Harivansh > > 29. Sandeep Pande > > 30. Vinay Mahajan > > 31. S. R. Sankaran" > > > > --- In [email protected], ashish kr1965 <ashishkr1965@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Virresh Kumar > > > > > > you wrote: > > > "> Sh Sekhar Singh is pioneer of RTI in India. There is nothing wrong in > > > > it if he helps people to file RTI or is charging fees for giving > > > > professional services for RTI." > > > > > > I find your approach to be quite pragmatic. Shekhar Singh is undoubtedly > > > a man with many talents, not limited to RTI - being a former member of > > > the Planning Commission and also on an Supreme Court Environmental > > > Committee. etc. > > > > > > I suspect that the 10,000 rupee "fee" he took from Greenpeace actually > > > represents the "cost" of filing and succeeding in a Second Appeal before > > > India's highest appellate body for obtaining information. > > > > > > best wishes > > > Ashish > > > > > > == sent from my Blackberry === > > > --- In [email protected], veeresh kumar <v4veeresh@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Roy, > > > > > > > > Sh Sekhar Singh is pioneer of RTI in India. There is nothing wrong in > > > > it if he helps people to file RTI or is charging fees for giving > > > > professional services for RTI. > > > > > > > > veeresh > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], sarbajit roy <mail.sarbajitroy@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Mr Kalia > > > > > > > > > > I presume that when a responsible activist like Ms Divya Raghunandan > > > > > of Greenpeace avers that she had paid the Big Daddy of RTI (ie Mr > > > > > Shekhar Singh) Rs.10,000/= to "assist" her in her RTI 2nd appeal, that > > > > > she has actually done so. If this statement (which is duly recorded in > > > > > the CIC's order) is false, then Mr Singh or any of his well wishers > > > > > would have denied it by now. > > > > > > > > > > This is not the first time Mr Singh has lent his weight to such > > > > > "public spirited" citizens who are saving Indian farmers. I recall his > > > > > "assistance" to Ms Aruna Roy (on behalf of Ms Medha Patkar) to > > > > > "procure" within 48 hours official GoI documents marked "Secret" and > > > > > "Confidential" by using the good offices of the CIC. It is not > > > > > pertinent that they already had illegal copies of those documents but > > > > > required to show that it was legally obtained in RTI. > > > > > > > > > > Sarbajit > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 12:29 AM, nripinder kalia <nnkalia@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My dear Roy, > > > > > > If it is true,then it is really shamefull.The activist at the level > > > > > > of > > > > > > Mr.Shekhar is,did it.I doubt. > > > > > > N.N.Kalia. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 9:10 AM, sroy1947<sroy1947@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/WB-26062009-01.pdf > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In this decision at page 9, Ms Divya Raghunandan of Greenpeace > > > > > > > claims to > > > > > > > have paid Mr Shekhar Singh Rs.10,000 as "consultation fees". > > > > > > > The CIC has observed thereafter that these are "normal expenses" > > > > > > > incurred in > > > > > > > the course of pursuing an RTI 2nd appeal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mr Habibullah (in his capacity as CIC Vigilance head) may also > > > > > > > explain > > > > > > > (preferably publicly) why Mr Shekhar Singh's colleague at NCPRI - > > > > > > > IC Mr > > > > > > > Shailesh Gandhi was on this bench, and how much was paid to him > > > > > > > to get the > > > > > > > decision in favour of Ms Divya Raghunandan. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sarbajit Roy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
