1) The offer of 10(1) was given by the PIO because the appellant made remarks during hearing as follows
"Appellant Shri Dubbudu further submitted that he would have accepted any substantiated claim for exemption had respondents acted in accordance with sub sec. (1) of Sec. 10, but it would seem that CPIO is not even aware of this provision. Respondent Prof. Deodhar, however, submitted that if ordered so to do, he would re-examine the tender notices and bid received in accordance with sec. 10 but submitted that these are 2700 pages and examination of this bulky source of information would require that he divert his attention from all other work. " 2) Another aspect is why the Appellant was not present on 12.04.2010 when the documents were examined, especially when the date / time was communicated well in advance ? 3) Since the information is being provided "as agreed", the Appellant can now not renege on his agreement. ;-) Sarbajit --- In [email protected], C K Jam <rtiwan...@...> wrote: > > 1. No point discussing locus or the applicants address further, because we > will never come to a conclusion. I think I mentioned before that all > applications filed by this applicant (and there are many filed with state > level PA's) have the same address for communication purposes. > > 2. The order no where reflects that offer of 10(2) was suggested by the CIC > (2nd appellate). It was offered by the PIO after consultation with others > (don't know whether it was with assistance of FAA or not). It is the PIO who > is offering to severe the information. Therefore, irrespective of whether he > does it in the initial stage or after one hearing of the second appeal stage, > he has to follow 10(2). Note the word "shall" in 10(2). "Details of fees" is > only one of the 5 sub points in 10(2). 10(2)(e) even mentions the rights of > the applicant to appeal against the non disclosure of part of the > information. > > 3. Read some of the other decisions of the CIC where they have called for > papers for examination. All the decisions clearly state something to the > effect..."after examining....etc..". There is nothing in this order to show > that the CIC even went through a single page. They seem to have blindly > accepted the offer of the PIO to severe and passed the order. Even if the PIO > erred in not following 10(2), at least the CIC could have heard the > appellants view about receiving part of the information. > > RTIwanted >
