Dear Sidharth, The tiny url is giving me some trouble so here is the text below:-
The Sanksriti judgement has been reserved with J. Ravindra Bhat for quite some time now (6 months) and it is waiting for a connected matter before the Double Bench of CJ and S.Muralidhar. Funny though my own High Court sources are not showing up anything about Venkateswara college obtaining a stay. Incidentally Sri Aurobindo college is granted aid by UGC to the extent of 90% of its budget - but that still does not make it a P/A (at least till the Sanksriti school judgement comes in). The smart money is that J.Bhat will declare Sanskriti to be a P/A and the double Bench will promptly stay his order. Sarbajit "The Delhi High Court has stayed an order of the Central Information Commission imposing penalties of Rs.5,000 on the principals of about 22 private colleges of New Delhi. On 24.11.2009 a single bench of Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi had fined the Principal of Delhi\'s Venkateswara College for not uploading the college\'s suo-moto disclosure under RTI Act 2005. The college then approached the High Court and obtained stay on the ground that similar institutes like Sanksriti School have already obtained stay against providing information in RTI and the final order of the Court in Sanskriti School\'s case has been reserved since April 2009. A complex question agitating the Court is whether "non-governmental organisations" which are heavily funded by the Government also require to be established by an Act of Parliament or order of Government. Shri Venkateshwara College is affiliated to Delhi University but is owned and controlled by the Tirupati Tirumala Devasthana Trust. Other colleges affected include Sir Aurobindo College, St.Stephens College and Hindu College." --- In [email protected], Sidharth <sidharthb...@...> wrote: > > Dear Sarbajit, > > You need not have to arouse the Shri Aurobindo college people. They > are getting adequate counselling & protection from elsewhere. > > According to (unconfirmed soucres) a stay has been granted to these > suspicious orders of SG. > Seems KKN shall have to defend it once again much to his consternation. > > http://bit.ly/5jqYLh > > > Sidharth > > On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 2:36 PM, sarbajitr <sroy1...@...> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Sidharth > > > > I am always in a mood to discuss <wink> > > > > 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 > > > > >
