Dear Mr.Roy, It was a pleasant surprise to discover from your mail that your great grandpa Prof.K.C. Routroy was Principal of then Ravenshaw College 100 years ago. Ravenshaw is my alma mater too for the entire post-matric college education upto completion of PG. Not only that. I happened to act as the elected Asst. General Secretary, General Secretary and President of its Students Union consecutively during 1971-75. Thus your Great Grandpa and myself share a common heritage, for which I shall ever cherish his name and brave deeds. I am also grateful to you for directing an important link http://www.indianka noon.org/ doc/477048 to me that contained the detail text of the verdict on "Khirode Chunder Roy Chowdhury vs Emperor on 17 November, 1911". I read with acute interest how Prof.Routroy was subject to intellectual persecution by the colonial Government and its lackeys, who sought to make a mountain out of a molehill by brandishing a too well known Oriya text 'Natu Chori' as obscene. Moreover, Prof.Routoy's zealous defence of the cause of the then Oriyas is easily understandable, for what better proof can be adduced in favour of his contribution than the mere fact that the English magazine 'Star of Utkal' initiated by him was proscribed by the British Government. Anyway, have you got copies of that glorious but ill-fated magazine. If so, we shall store in the Orissa Archieves. Needless to say further that any extant memorial of and on Prof.Routray, if made available with us, shall be a great asset to researchers and scholars on Orissa & Oriyas during British regime. I went through the referred order of Delhi High Court on DERC vs CIC, which, if I am right, focused on two questions (1) whether DISCOMS are amenable to the expression 'public authority' under RTI Act, and (2) whether DERC is bound to provide information an any matter that are dealt with by DISCOMS. And the said order seemed to be ok from the perspective.of RTI Act. But I am afraid, there can't be drawn a parallel between DU-Aurobindo Cllege relation and DERC-DISCOMS relation. In the former case the relation between the two authorities is a shared, collaborative and collegiate one, at least in respect of syllabus and examination, whereas in the latter case, DISCOMS is a private contractor engaged following a bid by the DERC a public authority under a certain set of terms and conditions, which are subject to frequent chnage. I think, you understand the difference between the two. Anyway I need to further enlighten myself on the nittigrity of such relation as, in our State, between GRIDCO (like DERC) and CESCO (like DISCOMS), which is also the continuing subject of a raging controversy at different levels, State Commission and Orissa High Court. With regards, Chitta Behera --- On Tue, 1/12/09, sarbajitr <[email protected]> wrote:
From: sarbajitr <[email protected]> Subject: [rti_india] Re: SPECIAL NOTICE: Dear Mr Habibullah - Is Shailesh Gandhi an idiot To: [email protected] Date: Tuesday, 1 December, 2009, 10:31 AM Many thanks to the Delhi High Court Infowire team for informing me the contents of the Court's Order in "DERC vs CIC". "IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P. (C) 6735/2007 DELHI ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Meet Malhotra, with Mr. Ravi S. S. Chauhan and Mr. M.S. Gupta, Law Officer (DERC). versus CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION and ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. K.K. Nigam, Adv. for CIC. Mr. Sarabjit Roy, Resp. in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT O R D E R 23.04.2009 The petitioner Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission challenges the decision/order of the Central Information Commission, holding it to be public authority. The respondent No.4 Mr. Sarabjit Roy had applied for information about certain DISCOMS from the DERC. The petition was ultimately heard by the CIC which firstly ruled that DERC was a public authority and then proceeded to direct as follows: - "This is also the case with DERC who, not able to access the information from the DISCOMs should have acted within its responsibility u/s 2 (f) instead of merely referring the matter to Government. DERC will now ensure that the information sought by appellant Er Sarbajit Roy is made available to him within one week of the date of issue of this order. Since DISCOMs have conceded during the hearing, while contesting their status as public authorities, that the information sought should be made available u/s 2 (f) by the DERC, they will provide this information to DERC, so as to facilitate adherence of the DERC to this directive." The DISCOMS have preferred writ petition against the very same order being WP (C) Nos.542/2007, 543/2007 and 544/2007. Those writ proceedings would be heard separately. The limited ground on which the DERC is aggrieved by the impugned order is that CIC has cast an obligation upon it to seek information from DISCOMS as and when RTI applications are preferred to it. It is conceded that DERC would be under duty to process such applications vis-a-vis information available with it and disclosable in terms of Right to Information Act, 2005. It is submitted that, however, it cannot be compelled to use its statutory powers to regulate DISCOMS and call upon them and other concerned/bodies to furnish information which is otherwise not in its possession. Learned counsel submits that in such cases if the information is with some other authority otherwise covered by the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, the application would have to be dealt with it (such authority) in accordance with its provisions. Mr. Sarabjit Roy, respondent in person submits that the CIC?s determination that DERC powers can be used to lawfully access such information as is with other DISCOMS, has been rightly directed by the CIC. This Court has considered the submissions of the parties. The structure of the RTI Act, 2005 is such that information which is available with the public authority [information is defined under Section 2 (f)] can be accessed by any applicant. In case the authority to whom the application is preferred does not possess it, it has to refer to another public authority which possess such information. In this case to the extent that the DERC does not possess such information and has been required to access it from DISCOMS,its grievance appears to be justified. The impugned order of CIC is to such extent modified; DERC cannot use its regulating powers merely to obtain information (not already with it) from other bodies or concerns, in order to answer queries or information applications received by it (the DERC). However, in case such information is available with any other public authority within the meaning of that expression that DERC is bound to forward the application to such authority. This Court is of the opinion that with this modification, the Writ Petition can be disposed of. It is made clear that DERC cannot be compelled to access information from any of the DISCOMS; the question of DISCOMS' amenability to the expression "public authority" is subject to the decision in Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J APRIL 23, 2009" --- In rti_in...@yahoogrou ps.com, "sarbajitr" <sroy1...@.. .> wrote: > > Dear Chitta > > Its great to know that RTI is alive and kicking in Orissa /Kalinga. > Sidharth has already mentioned that we have 2 ICs at CIC who are fluent in > Oriya. > > It occurred to me that one of them is IC (AN Tiwari) who studied at Ravenshaw > College (now a University) at Cuttack. Incidentally my great grandfather Prof > Khirode Chunder Roy Choudhury was for many years the Principal of Ravenshaw > College 100 years ago. He also brought out the first English newspaper of > Orissa called "Star of Utkal" but stopped publication of this newspaper due > to police censorship. He lived in Tulsipur (?), on one side lived Subhash > Bose's family (Janaki Bose) and on the other was Biju Patnaik's father. > > That I come from a family which insists on defending (in person) their own > RTI cases till the bitter end can be seen from this order dated 1911 from > Utkal " Khirode Chunder Roy Chowdhury vs Emperor on 17 November, 1911" > http://www.indianka noon.org/ doc/477048/ > > Anyway, a careful reading of the Delhi High Court Judgement makes it clear > that information can be accessed by a public authority from such private > schools / colleges via 2(f) if a) The information sought can be *lawfully* > accessed AND b) there is no bar or prohibition in *that* law. In another > (unreported) judgement of J.Ravindra Bhat in my own case against > DERC/DISCOMS, he has exempted the DERC (State Electricity Regulator) from > using its regulatory powers to summon information from Discoms on behalf of > RTI applicants. > > Your reasoning on such colleges being P/As in their own right is fallacious > and "wishful thinking". If wishes were horse then beggars would fly. > > The 35 page DERC decision (it loses 1 page in the PDF version somehow) > http://cic.gov. in/CIC-Orders/ Decision_ 30112006_ 12.pdf > (As usual we are back in the HC on this while the Discoms enjoy their > ex-parte stay) > > Sarbajit > The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage. http://in.yahoo.com/
