Dear Members I think this topic should be changed to "Is Mr Habibullah an idiot?"
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/CIC-slaps-fine-of-Rs-57500-on-Delhi-Sikh-Gurdwara-Management-Committee/articleshow/5280346.cms "CIC slaps fine of Rs 57,500 on Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee" Here is Mr Habibullah's original order http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/WB-10072008-04.pdf t page 3 he claims that the DGSMC is formed *BY* an order of Parliament (Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1971). He even underlines it for emphasis . Mr Habibullah CORRUPTLY refuses to set out that actually this Act only establishes the DSGMC *UNDER* the Act. He also corruptly claims that the Committee has accepted that they are a public authority (which they have not). The relevant portion of the DSGA,71 reads as "2. Definition. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- ..(c) "Committee" means the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee established under section 3;" Note use of the word "under". IC(SG) then roves even further in his own orders. such as http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/SG-22072009-02.pdf I have failed to find (on DHC website) any case disposed off on 20.Jan.2009 as he claims in the order. All these matters get challenged in the High Court at the tax payers expense. Since the CIC never defends its cases properly, the High Courts are whittling away the RTI Act. Sarbajit's new RTI Laws 1) "RTI Act is to be missued not used" 2) Save RTI gag CIC. Sarbajit --- In [email protected], "sarbajitr" <sroy1...@...> wrote: > > Dear Chitta > > I would not like to use the same language against long time members of this > group - who I expect to be RTI experts by now. > > It is also neccesary to communicate that the CIC's legal department is > equally fed up with CLOWNS / JOKERS like Shailesh Gandhi, O.P.Kejariwal / > Wajahat Habibullah etc who go around passing foolish and unlettered orders > which get ridiculed in the High Court. In fact even the CIC's venerable Prof > K.K.Nigam has said that he will not defend their foolishness anymore no > matter how much (actually very little) money they pay him. > > Firstly, bodies established *UNDER* an Act of Parliamnet / State Legislature > are NOT Public Authorities. They have to be established *BY* an Act of > Parliament. If these have been established *under* any Act they only become > P/As if they are established *BY* an order / notification etc. of appropriate > government. > > Secondly, I fail to see how private colleges *affiliated* to DU are deemed to > be public authorities vide section 5(1). FYI, I can be deemed to be an expert > on who is a public authority considering that my own case "Sarbajit Roy > versus DERC" is the leading case on this and the 35 page CIC decision which I > and Mr L.C.Singhi wrote jointly goes into all aspects of 2(h) and 2(f). > > Yes, info can be sought from private educational colleges through DU using > 2(f). There is a recent judgement of Delhi HC by J.Sanjeev Khanna on this > "Poorna Prajna Public School". > > http://lobis.nic.in/dhc/SKN/judgement/06-10-2009/SKN25092009CW72652007.pdf > > The Private School / College then retains the status of a 3rd party. It is > noteworthy that J.Khanna refused to go into the question of whether the > school is a public authority. > > In conclusion, Mr Habibullah and Mr Gandhi are adults capable of defending > themselves. Their office provides them no shield from responding to charges > which are levelled at them by any person who says J'accuse. I am prepared to > publicly debate this issue with them in any forum including a court of law. > > Sarbajit Roy > > --- In [email protected], Chitta Behera <chittabehera1@> wrote: > > > > Dear Mr.Roy, > > It seems the Commissioner took a right decision in imposing penalty against > > the private colleges affiliated to Delhi University. Of course, he could > > have in his discretion given a speaking exposition on how private colleges > > affiliated to DU are considered 'public authorities' within the meaning of > > definition thereof provided in Section 2(h) of RTI Act. According to this > > provision, any institution 'established or constituted' under any law made > > by Parliament is a public authority. As per this provision, Delhi > > University is a public authority since it is constituted under a Central > > law called Delhi University Act 1922 (No.8 of 1922). Once the DU is > > accepted as a public authority, the Colleges affiliated to it become > > necessarily the Public Authorities and are liable to appoint PIOs, APIOs > > and Appellate Authorities just as the DU or the Government run Colleges > > are. Because Section 5(1) says inter alia, "Every Public Authority shall . > > . . . . . > > designate as many officers as the Central Public Information Officers . . > > .. in all its administrative units or offices under it as may be necessary > > to provide information to persons requesting for information under this > > Act". Is there any dispute as to whether Aurobindo College, an affiliate > > of DU is a public authority? I think there shouldn't be any in view of the > > just quoted Section 5(1). And once the said College is legally covered > > under the purview of RTI Act as a Public Authority, it is bound not only to > > appoint PIOs and APIOs etc as per Section 5(1), but to carry out other > > obligations too including those under Section 4, since the opening words > > of Section 4 are "Every public authority . . . . . ". > >  > > Thus it seems, the concerned Commissioner has not done anything wrong by > > imposing penalty against an affiliate of DU on the grounds on > > non-compliance of Section4 and more so when the concerned institution was > > previously directed by the Commission to comply with the same.       > >      > > Chitta Behera, > > Cuttack, Orissa > > > > --- On Sat, 28/11/09, sarbajitr <sroy1947@> wrote: > > > > > > From: sarbajitr <sroy1947@> > > Subject: [rti_india] SPECIAL NOTICE: Dear Mr Habibullah - Is Shailesh > > Gandhi an idiot ?? > > To: [email protected] > > Date: Saturday, 28 November, 2009, 11:34 PM > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > http://www.dnaindia .com/academy/ report_principal s-of-9-du- colleges- > > penalised- for-rti-non- compliance_ 1317744 > > > > http://cic.gov. in/CIC-Orders/ SG-24112009- 18.pdf > > (and 8 other decisions like this? on complaint of some Rajiv Lala) > > This idiot Commissioner obviously doesn't possess a copy of the RTI Act. > > > > How is the Principal of this private college a PIO? Don't you know that > > only PIOs are liable to penalty ? On what basis have you computed the > > Rs.5,000 penalty - you stupid f**ker ?. > > > > Is Aurobindo College a public authority - settle that first you bloody > > fool! After that settle if they must appoint a PIO and put the neccesary > > RTI infrastructure in place you moron!!! > > > > This is a list of all DU colleges. Why don't you ask St Stephens College to > > appoint PIOs ?? > > > > BTW: What is a "demi-official letter?" > > > > Does anyone want more MGO appointees appointed to the CIC? Isn't one bad > > enough !!! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage. > > http://in.yahoo.com/ > > >
