Thank you Mr.Sarabajit for keeping the "so called CIC (Management)Regulation 2007" issue alive.
Col NR Kurup (Retd) --- In [email protected], "sroy1947" <sroy1...@...> wrote: > > Hi > > I agree with Venkatesh that this situation of 7(3) misuse by PIOs arises > primarily from misusers of the RTI Act. I supplement this by saying that such > misuse is encouraged by irresponsible people primarily from the NGO sector. > > On behalf of this group I had already presented / filed OUR viewpoints (ie. > of RTI users as well as responsible PIOs) firmly opposing any so called > "further fees of 7(3)". It was filed in the name and style of "Tatwasoochna > Sabha" which is, however, NOT an NGO. That entire document is available here: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rti_india/message/2724 > > I reiterated these submissions before the 3 member bench of CIC and the > entire bench agreed with our submissions, that of CHRI (through Venkatesh) > and Mr Rakesh Gupta. Their order was reserved. > > In the meantime one of the members of the bench was "fixed" and he began to > agitate some new questions which were not covered in either CHRI's > submisisons or ours. ie. the cost to provide information in "extra-ordinary" > situations of 7(9), the cost of "providing" information by "SpeedPost" etc. > etc. The CIC then decide to expand the 3 member bench to include also > IC(Tiwari) and IC(Gandhi). It is pertinent that IC(Tiwari) declined /refused > to sit on this bench and reportedly stated that irrespective of this Bench's > decision he was not bound by its directions. A decision was also taken by Mr. > Habibullah personally (behind our backs and in violation of Rules) to join in > about 20 PSUs to this matter to plead for further fees by 7(3). He did this > knowing very well that whilst striking down the 7(3) fees he would leave > considerable scope for these PSUs and their corporate lawyers to get stay > orders from the High Court. He also knew very well that ICSI (the actual > Respondent) is not inclined to press this matter in the High Court - but PSUs > like BSNL, ONGC, NTPC, Delhi Police etc are simply waiting for a chance which > he is giving them on a golden pre-retirement platter. > > My first query to Mr Habibullah on 23-Sep-2009 was about the status of we 3 > persons who had filed our comments to CIC's public notice, and why we were > not formally impleaded (and especially since Appellant Mr K.K.Kishore had > never entered appearance in CIC and matter was certain to be agitated further > in High Court). Mr Habibullah said that we were only "assisting the > Commission. This is damn funny - He has 8 ICs to assist him (see section > 12(4)) all of whom get huge salaries, perks and cars with 'red lights' > (enough to tell any intelligent person that it is a red light district) etc. > To the contrary we as RTI users are not only "proper parties" but also > "necessary parties" in this matter and we are doing it out for love and fresh > air. > > Thereafter speaking on the 23-Sep-2009 for Mr Muzib-ur-Rehman (whose case on > 7(3) is before IC)Tiwari) I agitated that the 4 member bench was unlawful and > that in view of DoPT's public dissemination the CIC has no lawful power to > appoint larger benches. I specifically drew the Bench's attention to section > 12(4) where the CIC could only do such things autonomously which were not > subject to direction by any other authority. I specifically drew the Bench's > attention to the Karnataka (SIC) Appeal Procedure Rules whereby a power for > Benches had been conferred on that SIC under section 19. I specifically drew > Mr Habibullah's attention to sub-sections 19(9) and 19(10) wherein the > DoPT(Cenral Govt) could notify Rules to constitute Benches as part of the > appeal procedure (as in Karnataka's case), OR (and this is important) a > larger Bench could be constituted IF the appellant/complainant approached for > a further appeal (which was not true in K.K.Kishotre's case). However, Mr > Habibullah (and the other ICs) seemed very disinclined to delve into the > legality of their own actions considering that there is pressure from No.10 > to have an "aam aadmi" RTI Act. I also advised Mr Habibullah that his > "powers" are derived only from sections 18,19, 20 of the RTI Act and from > other sections like section 12(4), I also impugned the legality of the > so-called CIC Management Regulations (which are as yet un-notified and hence > unlawful). > > I concluded my arguments by saying that for the case where information was > supplied in either the "printed" or "electronic" forms, 7(5) mandated that > only "prescribed" fees could be charged and which must be "reasonable". > > I am sure that not a whisper of these arguments will appear in the final > order where RTI will be f***ed once again by the CIC (sorry ladies). > > Sarbajit > > --- In [email protected], MALLAPRAGADA RAMARAO <srammitra@> wrote: > > > > the irresponsible use of rti act is a lesser evil we have to suffer. > > > >  however, such irresponsible use is not confined to information seekers > > under rti act. > >  the freedom of expression is often misused/abused by print > > media/electronic > > media. > > > > during the recent helicopter crash killing the then Chief Minister of > > Andhra Pradesh, > > on the night of September 2, when the search operation had actually stalled > > because of bad weather and nightfall, > > India TV declared unequivocally that the CM was alive and safe. It > > attributed the information to a âhighly placed (uchch padast)â > > source in the CMâs office. It didnât stop there. The same âhighly > > placedâ source, the channel claimed, had personally spoken > > .to the CM on mobile. Twelve hours later,  it became clear that YSR had > > died 12 hours earlier. still we rightly hold freedom of > > press as sacrosanct. same is the case with transparency in governance and > > rti act which is one of the instruments to > > achieve it. > > > > 2.it may be really not necessary, but i congratulate mr. nayak for cogently > > presenting OUR case. > > > > m. rama rao > > > > >
