Dear Mr Singhal 1) The Hon'ble Court has agreed that CIC was correct in directing DDA (on my previous Complaint) that section 4 was to complied with by uploading to their website / internet
2) The Court has properly held that my pending complaint will continue to be disposed by the CIC itself (not by out-sourcing) under the RTI Act and the prescribed Rules. The Hon'ble Court has also allowed the CIC to summon the VC/DDA (or any other officer) for purposes of evidence. 3) A close analysis of the Judgement shows that the Court advises that CIC must deal with non-compliance with CIC's lawful directions by the Commission itself under its powers of section 18 (for complaints). Sarbajit --- In [email protected], M K Singhal <mk.sing...@...> wrote: > > Mr Sarabjit, > The main issue in this case was that DDA had still not uploaded sec 4 suo > motto declared info on their website nor organized their organization for > complying with RTI requirements. CIC efforts in this direction, by calling > VC, DDA for hearing and forming an enquiry committee to enquire into the > matter, failed as per Delhi HC orders. What can now be done in this matter. > Does it mean that nothing can now be done to ensure sec 4 compliance by PAs > or to ensure that they organize themselves to fulfil needs of RTIA05. > mksinghal > > > > > ________________________________ > From: sarbajit roy <mail.sarbajit...@...> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Tue, 25 May, 2010 10:50:10 PM > Subject: Re: [rti_india] Delhi HC impact: CIC emerges divided house > >  > Just some more inputs > > 1) Mr Habibullah (are you reading this ?) is getting obviously some very bad > advice from his charmed circle / legal advisers. > > 2) Mr Habibullah's cronies have decided to brazen it out, claiming > > a) that this decision changes nothing insofar as CIC is concerned > b) It is not a personal reflection on Mr Habibullah > c) That the "inherent powers" (also known as "all other powers enabling in > this behalf") of the RTI Act permit Tughlak to continue on in this fashion. > In partculuar Mr H is determined to show that he can and will constitute > "Benches" in the face of the judgement. > > Unfortunately for Mr Habibullah, his kitchen cabinet is wrong on all 3 counts > > Mr Habibullah is also badly advised that no contempt petition can lie against > him and his brother Commissioners for sitting henceforth either individually > or in Benches (other than as the complete collegium like the US Supreme > Court). Justice B.D.Ahmed has given me a double barrel shotgun loaded for > bear and I intend to use it :-) > > In passing after this judgement, for the CIC to sit singly or in Benches to > function effectively, now requires an amendment of the RTI Act itself and can > no longer be carried out simply by amending the DoPT's Appeal Procedure > Rules as Mr H's cronies fondly wish after this judgement > > Sarbajit > > > On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 9:31 PM, Sidharth Misra <sidharthbbsr@ gmail.com> > wrote: > >  > >Delhi HC impact: CIC emerges divided house > >AS reported in ZeeNews, (PTI), May 25, 2010 > > > >New Delhi: The Delhi High Court's decision on the working of Central > >Information Commission has divided the panel as some commissioners > >have favoured suspension of work till government clears the issue of > >constitution of benches, while others rejected the demand. > > > >A meeting of all the Information Commissioners was convened by Chief > >Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah Tuesday where some > >senior-most commissioners said that hearings should be stopped till > >the issue of benches is clarified by the government, sources privy to > >meeting said. > > > >When contacted, Habibullah refused to comment on the proceedings of > >the meeting but said there would be no change in the working of the > >Commission. > > > >"We have sought legal opinion on the order. I have been told that > >there was nothing in the order which barred the hearing by individual > >commissioners. We will abide by the High Court order and will approach > >the government seeking clarity on the matter but the work will > >continue," Habibullah said. > > > >The Delhi High Court on Friday struck down 'The Central Information > >Commission (Management) Regulations, 2007' framed by the Chief > >Information Commissioner for deciding appeals under the RTI, saying > >the CIC has no power to enact such regulations under the transparency > >law. > > > >The court order was seen by some Information commissioners as a > >question mark over the legality of the manner in which appeals are > >heard before it, sources said. > > > >At present, appeals are heard by individual commissioners or a group > >of commissioners in Division or Full Bench depending on the matter. > > > >Two senior-most commissioners said hearings should be stopped as > >continuation in the present manner would mean contempt of court. The > >view did not get support of the Chief Information Commissioner and two > >other members who said stopping work would not be in public interest, > >they said. > > > >Meanwhile, rest of the members remain indecisive about continuing the > >hearing. > > > >When the meeting was about to end the members demanding suspension of > >hearings asked Habibullah to issue an order for continuation of work > >and said in case there is a contempt of court, he must own > >responsibility for the same. > > > >"The constitution of benches has nothing to do with the rules that > >have been struck down by the Delhi High Court. CIC was working in this > >manner even before these rules came into being in 2007. The order does > >not say that hearing appeals in such a way is illegal or should be > >stopped," they said. > > > >PTI >
