Dear Sarbajit, As the moderator of this group you have done little to give me an opportunity to respond to the allegation of plagiarism before allowing the posting of that allegation. In this email of yours you have endorsed this allegation. I request you to prove that I as a member of NCPRI have plagiarised from any source. I reserve my right to take legal action for libel against you as moderator of this group. Thanks Venkatesh Nayak
_____ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of sarbajitr Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 7:34 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [rti_india] Re: Proposal to blacklist NCPRI members from RTI_India 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] <mailto:rti_india%40yahoogroups.com> , ashish kr1965 <ashishkr1...@...> 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 >
