Dear Mr. Ashish, You have accused me of plagiarism. I have no contact with this gentleman whose work you say I have plagiarised. Nor do I have any access to the official records of the CIC other than what has been placed by them in the public domain. The analysis of the DDA decision and the jurisprudence on the subject is several hours of my hard work spread over last week. So kindly prove your allegation that I have plagiarised from some source. If you are unable to do so I reserve my right to initiate action against you for libel. You have not fully understood the rule-making power given to the competent authority in the RTI Act. There is no provision in section 28(2) for prescribing fees for filing second appeals. Nowhere in Section 19 is there any reference to appeals fee. What is not provided for in the main provisions cannot be brought in the rules. So the general rule-making power in 28(1) cannot be used to impose appeals fees when the principal Act does not contemplate such a situation. This is basic commonsense in understanding law. But I suppose commonsense is not so common either. Thanks Venkat
_____ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of ashish kr1965 Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 7:53 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [rti_india] Proposal to blacklist NCPRI members from RTI_India 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
