1. Why do you (or for that matter PIO/FAA/IC) want to know applicants locus ? Where does the RTI Act say that a locus is is needed to file RTI applications ?
The address of the applicant cannot be a basis of attributing locus or anything else. The address needs to be given for communication purposes - that's it. 2. Read my reply. I said the Sec 10(2) was not followed. The CPIO is supposed to follow Sec 10(2) if "severed" information is to be provided. Otherwise why is that section there in the Act ? If the CIC does not want to go through the documents to see if Sec 8(1)(d) is indeed applicable or not, why does it call for those papers...is there any shortage of toilet paper in A K Bhawan / old JNU campus ? Whether such matters go upto the CIC or not and how many hearings are held, will not make even a iota of difference in expediting hearings for you, me or a majority of others - unless of course you have also started a KGB/CIA/BOSS/MOSSAD funded NGO in the recent past and kept it hidden from the group. c) Decisions of HC or other CIC/SIC are added for "persuasive" value only. d) Cannot figure out why you refer to USP of this group. What are you trying to sell ? Something was posted here in this group, and a discussion is taking place here. Period. RTIwanted --- On Mon, 5/10/10, sarbajitr <[email protected]> wrote: From: sarbajitr <[email protected]> Subject: [rti_india] Re: IIMA and Prometric - Online CAT 2009 tender To: [email protected] Date: Monday, May 10, 2010, 2:46 PM Point wise a) The applicant had suppressed that he was an employee of Oracle which was also a participant in the tender process. The applicant was not a candidate in the CAT 2009 nor was any of his family. It was therefore a perfectly reasonable ground for the PIO to take that the appellant was interested to get the information for commercial / IPR reasons on behalf of his employer. The RTI Act does not prohibit a PIO from attributing motives to an applicant, what the Act says is that the applicant shall not be required to disclose his irrelevant personal details. Since "public interest" was the issue the PIO has every reason to claim that the applicant has no public interest but is acting at the behest of his interested employer for commercial reasons. So that is why I asked - and which you could not answer - what is applicant's locus ? b) Does the Act say that CIC has to go through each and every document which is to be given to applicant - and personally verify that complete information is given? Where does it say that CIC will personally get involved in 10(2) ? If we support such a stand - will it not slow down the information flow to a crawl ? Is it not a fact that numerous hearings were afforded to parties in this matter - thereby denying others in the queue an early hearing. I strongly feel that there should be a limit frivolous and busybody "RTI taxis" who file RTIs and appeals as a commercial business. Why the f*** should I (or you) have to wait 4 years to get an appeal decided in my favour by the CIC / SIC? c) Since neither CIC nor any of the parties / cause of action are based in territorial jurisdiction of Jharkhand High Court, the CIC had no business considering the decision of the Jharkhand High Court or citing it in the order. This is a clear example of incompetence of the Information Commissioners concerned. In passing, I may mention that while this kind of blind support (blind leading the blind) for appellants / applicant (while holding that the CIC / SIC are fools /corrupt) is par for the course at groups at rtiindia.org / HJ, and the other Yahoo groups - at RTI_India we shall always encourage a complete debate on the merits of each and every such assertion - and this is our USP. Sarbajit .
