Some body should ask the assets and liabilities and service records of this CIC. Anand S. Anti Corruption Form Bangalore 560 085 Cell No: +91-92410-12730 or +91-98450-39699
________________________________ From: sroy1947 <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thu, October 29, 2009 1:28:55 AM Subject: [rti_india] Re: Voluntary Disclosure of Assets by the Lok Ayukta in Karnataka Busybodies are regularly applying for information about assets of so-called "corrupt" officers. http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/LS-10122008-06.pdf In this decision, the CIC's "BEST" (as determined by this group) Commissioners throw them out yet again. The busybody herein wanted property/asset details of 34 DDA officers. It seems to be the well settled practice at CIC not to entertain such RTIs, I wonder why ? --- In rti_in...@yahoogrou ps.com, Nicholas Santiago <nick.santiargo@ ...> wrote: > > Hello > > I would like to contribute to this debate. > My understanding of India's RTI Act is as follows:- > > 1) The Public Authorities publish as much as they care to (suo moto) > so that the public does not have to apply for information, > > 2) The citizens then apply for any missing / unlocated information. > > In either case the Public Authority is not obliged to provide > information which is exempted. > > As "cpiodelhi" has rightly observed, a) there is no reason /mandate > for any public authority to publish under case-1 above or b) to supply > it when applied for. > > As someone who has been pursuing FoI for quite some time, I suggest > that activists should clearly distinguish the present reality and > their "wish lists". > > Nick > > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 12:18 PM, Venkatesh Nayak > <venkat...@. ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Mr./Ms. CPIODelhi, > > I have not claimed anywhere in my email that the RTI Act makes it mandatory > > for public servants to disclose their assets. The purpose of the email was > > to show that where a public servant occupying a position of command is > > positively inclined towards disclosure of assets related information, such > > ifnormation can be made publicly available even in the absence of a > > statutory obligation. I think when information is publicly available and > > when one is living within one's known sources of income, there need be no > > fear of the consequences of such disclosure. To the best of my knowledge no > > busybody has started any litigation against the officials of the Karnataka > > Lok Ayukta using their assets-related information from the website. > > However under the RTI Act the Central Information Commission has ruled > > against the disclosure of such information. Some Information Commissions > > have ruled on occasion that property statements of officers must be > > disclosed, but these have been stayed by the respective High Courts. This > > is where the matter stands I think. However readers may please correct me > > if I am wrong. > > Thanks > > Venkat > > ____________ _________ _________ __ >
