Rakeshji: I am very concerned to read all this .
How is this mud being splashed in the open ? I thought S Roy was an ethical and knowledgable person . Rakesh : * You are much younger to me in age so I take the liberty of addressing you as such .* Whatever the internal squabbles of NBH. ORG be , no one has the right to comment on internal matters . RTI Act provide or require any applicant to state the reason for filing the RTI , nor to what purpose the information so obtained wil be put to . Quite often , more particularly in case of NGOs , personal interests and public interests are inter related . The reason for all this messy business is that this seems to be an unmoderated portal where anyone can us his constitutional right of expression to denigrate anyone ( at the same time one could consider defamation if aggrived ) . On 14 July, Punjab Kesari in its NCR edition, published some defamatory remarks against me in respect an international NGO I am associated with and my transactions with it . I gave them hell threeatening to take them to Press Council and now today they have published my version . Another (bigger) story will come tomorrow . You must not take such things lying down and be satisfied with some comments on a portal , which not many take seriously . Earlier also I had noticed that some other groups were entering this forum and using it to air their own grievances . I put the entire blame at the door of the moderator , I believe Sarabjit Roy, the person whom you thanked in adbance for agreeing to come for the hearing on 15th July before IC (MLS) . Dr Arun Agrawal rom: Rakesh Agarwal <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: Wajahat Habibullah <[email protected]>; [email protected]; aruna roy <[email protected]>; aruna roy <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, 21 July, 2009 0:29:32 Subject: RE: [rti_india] Re: Hearing - Disclosure I.T. returnsof NGOs Mr. Roy You have a remarkable quality of putting your foot into your mouth - the mouth that does not even wait for the hat to drop before expletives gush out of it like muddy water out of a broken sewer line. Yes, I am using RTI to settle private differences inasmuch as to serve public interest. You object? No, I am not "formerly with" NyayaBhoomi. The so-called third party is, and his son is ashamed of him. Let the court decide where the matter rests. No, the IT Dept did not make out a convincing case, let alone a "very". They are making a laughing stock of themselves, much like you do of yourself. You have accused everyone from God downward - including Wajahat, S. Gandhi, Aruna Roy - of being a CIA agent. It has now been conclusively proven that you are the only CIA - Certified Idiot of Asia. Rakesh From: rti_in...@yahoogrou ps.com [mailto:rti_in...@yahoogrou ps.com] On Behalf Of sroy1947 Sent: 17 July 2009 13:41 To: rti_in...@yahoogrou ps.com Subject: [rti_india] Re: Hearing - Disclosure I.T. returnsof NGOs Has this order come up on net? The buzz on another egroup is that IT Dept made out a very convincing case during arguments that Rakesh Agrawal "formerly with" NyayaBhoomi was misusing RTI to settle his private differences. Hope the final order does not f*** up the scene even more. Sarbajit --- In rti_in...@yahoogrou ps.com <mailto:rti_ india%40yahoogro ups.com> , Sidharth <sidharthbbsr@ ...> wrote: > > Dear Rakesh ji & Sarbajit Roy ji, > > Pls do your best at the hearing. Best of Luck. > > Dear Rakesh, > > Please raise the issue of 35AC exemptions. Much bigger moollah is > invloved there. > > Best rgds, > > Sidharth > > > > > On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 8:52 AM, Rakesh Agarwal <rak...@...> wrote: > > > > > > Exactly, Sir. Thank you. So are we meeting on 15th at 2:30 p.m.? Your > > presence will be of great help. > > > > Rakesh > > > > From: rti_in...@yahoogrou ps.com <mailto:rti_ india%40yahoogro ups.com> [mailto:rti_in...@yahoogrou ps.com <mailto:rti_ india%40yahoogro ups.com> ] On Behalf > > Of sroy1947 > > Sent: 07 July 2009 11:02 > > To: rti_in...@yahoogrou ps.com <mailto:rti_ india%40yahoogro ups.com> > > Subject: [rti_india] Re: Hearing - Disclosure I.T. returnsof NGOs > > > > If information "relating to" an NGO is held by a public authority WHICH THE > > PIO INTENDS TO DISCLOSE IN RTI (there being no section 8 bar) a section 11 > > notice is issued to the NGO concerned to oppose disclosure. > > > > On the other hand if the PIO ON HIS OWN feels that a section 8 exemption > > applies to bar disclosure then where is the question of section 11 notice, > > because the PIO alone must defend his denial. This is especially so in cases > > where the Govt has granted financial concessions (like 80G) on the basis of > > material available to it. It is crucial that any citizen of India be allowed > > to examine the material (records) on the basis of which such administrative > > concession was given ON DEMAND - the non-disclosure of which shall only > > foster / perpetuate a regime of corruption. > > > > Sarbajit > > > > --- In rti_in...@yahoogrou ps.com <mailto:rti_ india%40yahoogro ups.com> <mailto:rti_ india%40yahoogro ups.com> , > > "Rakesh Agarwal" <rakesh@> wrote: > > > > > > A hearing is scheduled for 15.07.09 at 2:30 before Information > > Commissioner > > > Sh. M.L. Sharma, Delhi. I request presence of those who may want to > > present > > > their views before the Commission. > > > > > > Three hearings have been conducted into a matter involving disclosure of > > > income tax returns and other documents that the NGOs submit with the > > income > > > tax authorities to claim exemption u/s 80G. > > > > > > The public authority is seeking to deny information on the ground that it > > is > > > personal information whereas I am arguing that all NGOs, especially ones > > > seeking exemption, grants and subsidies, claim to work for the welfare of > > > public which is clearly a matter of public interest. NGOs cannot claim > > > protection from disclosure of information which is held by the Government. > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > Rakesh Agarwal > > > > > > Secretary, NyayaBhoomi > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
