Dear Sarabjit What is the moderator position on blacklisting NCPRI and other ngos from this group ? Unable to locate the "Chandra Kumar 1997" citation.
Rgds, Ashish --- In [email protected], "sarbajitr" <sroy1...@...> wrote: > > Dear Ashish > > 1) The "new" moderation policy is not the cause > for the reduction in postings to the group. The > fact is that the RTI scene is dead / dull / > exhausted. > > 2) Insofar as Venkatesh's plagiarism is concerned, > I think you may have gotten hold of the wrong > end of the stick. The one thing that the NCPRI does > not want at the present time is amendments to the > RTI Act. The Delhi High Court judgment has altered > the game in favour of Act amendment. For how long > can Mr Habibullah continue to stand in contempt > of the judgement by functioning in Benches ? > Prospective SLPs and single judge decisions from > other High Courts where CIC was not a contesting > party do not allow him to continue his willful > disobedience to Delhi HC's directions at all. Now > hat the Court has decided that 12(4) does not give > him the power, Mr Habibullah should publicly state > which other clause of RTI Act gives him powers. > > 3) I actually think that the opinion circulated by > Mr Akash Deep was drafted by the NCPRI gang. It is > legally weak, for instance the case law is full of > cherry picking - L Chandra Kumar (1997) is actually > very damaging to CIC's cause. The 2 single HC > decisions are not relevant - but actually work against > the CIC too. Venkatesh has reached an absurd conclusion > when he states that the Delhi HC decision is "per incuram" > on "benches". This is similar to his previous claim that > the HC decision was only "obiter", which was subsequently > propogated by Mr Habibullah and Shailesh Gandhi in the > CIC meeting and loudly rejected by all the other > Commissioners present. > > 4) It would be very very unwise if the CIC now embarks > on SLP adventurism in the SC to enable Mr Habibullah to > wriggle out of a tight corner. In the HC they had to face > DDA, in the SC they will have to face me. It is far far > better that the RTI Act be amended or the DoPT be > persuaded to amend the Rules. > > 5) Insofar as Plagiarism is concerned, the NCPRI > is notorious for stealing other peoples works, > RTI is now an additional tool to steal the labours of > others). I shall post on this with examples when I > get some time. > > 6) I now agree that the RTI Act contains provisions > to allow the competent authority to fix fees for > appeals also. > > Sarbajit > > --- In [email protected], ashish kr1965 <ashishkr1965@> wrote: > > > > Dear group moderators > > > > I am pleased that the new moderation policy is > > evidently quite successful in arresting the menace of > > frivolous postings to the group. > > > > Another development is that the NCPRI members > > here now appear reluctant to post on a public frequency > > where their puerile logic and "ngo-speak" will > > be exposed by the many RTI "experts" here. > > > > For instance Mr Venkatesh Naik is now posting > > on Hum Janenge. Of his 2 recent posts, the first > > on the DDA HC decision is plagiarized from the > > private legal opinion A.K.Chakravarthy of the C.I.C > > put up to the Information Commissioners for > > their fortnightly meeting. Somehow NCPRI has > > obtained a copy of this (Gandhi-giri :-)) and Mr Naik > > has the gall to palm off this work as his own > > research (right down to the case law). The second post > > of Mr Naik's claims that there is no basis in RTI Act 2005 for the > > competent authority to prescribe fees for 2nd appeals. > > This betrays a complete disregard (or perhaps ignorance) > > for the letter of the law, and I am strongly inclined > > towards seconding Sharma's suggestion to expel > > NCPRI (and other NGOs) from this group so that our > > group members are not deceived.. > > > > Ashish > > >
