Dear Sidharth

I am always in a mood to discuss <wink>

Not everyone understands the law or their rights. Case in point - 15 million 
residents of Delhi meekly pay up their traffic challans - I am the only one who 
used RTI and learnt that the cops were never authorised to issue challans - so 
they promptly put me on the VIP list to ensure I never get challans while I 
continue to fight them -matter is in SC).

On Monday I shall get in touch with Aurobindo College and rouse them into 
action. In any case CIC can only penalise PIOs. The question of section 4 
compliance doesn't arise for non-PAs irrespective of some error of fact/law 
they have fallen into.

I also find it highly suspicious (on Monday my CIC sources will confirm that 
corruption is involved - and who) that IC(SG) gets a complaint on 12.Nov.2009 
and conducts a hearing on 24.11.2009. On my own DDA section 4 compliance case 
Mr Habibullah took 4 years to schedule the hearing and then it took him  3 
hearings (assisted by another COmmissioner) to take cognisance of my complaint 
u/s 18(2) - no penalties as yet. 

I, King Sarbajit, do hereby dub thee RTI-Expert the 3rd.

Sarbajit


--- In [email protected], Sidharth <sidharthb...@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Sarbajit,
> 
> Since u are in mood to discuss, I would like to raise the following points.
> 
> When a body  (rightly or wrongly) accepts  itself as a Public
> Authority, then it must comply with the rigours of RTI. There is no
> point in going back on it. It cannot selectively pick and choose which
> provision to comply and which one to leave.
> 
> 1. In this particular instance this Aurobindo College meekly admits
> itself to be a Public Authority and never contested it anywhere. Then
> why must the IC have any problem poking into their affairs.
> 
> 2. Sec. 4 compliance is a collective responsibility of the PA then why
> should the poor Principal personally be penalised.
> 
> 3. IC SGs order totally obfuscated and less in fact. Even the the url
> of the website personally visited by IC SG is no where mentioned ! !
> 
> BTW I am yet to graduate into the EXPERTS category. So my apologies
> for raising these (silly) issues.
> 
> Sidharth
>


Reply via email to