Dear Mr. Ashish, You have accused me of plagiarism. so the burden of proving it is on you as you are not even the author of the document that you allege I have plagiarised from. Your understanding of Sections 27 and 28 is laughable to say the least. My arguments for section 28 apply equally to section 27. As for accusations of being anti-national because I have fought a case before the CIC, I can only say this much- you do not know the facts of the case. so it is better that you hold your silence rather than open your mouth and demonstrate your ignorance. Perhaps reading the decision in detail and making connections with all cases where top secret information was leaked from government as reported in newspapers would help you understand the issue better. As for the other conscious-keeper Mr. S D Shamra's accusation about me defending Brig. Dasgupta; the Brig is an undertrial prisoner. No court has proven him guilty yet. You have judged him guilty. Your opinion does not matter even an iota as you have little authority to do anything in this matter. It is for the courts to decide on whether he is guilty or not. Again you are commenting on this case based on inadequate knowledge of the material facts. I can only pity your adolescent comments. I wish this discussion were carried out at loftier levels than this. I would be happy to defend your right to information as well if you were to be in conflict with the law at any point of time. But I hope that day never comes as I do not want you or anybody to be in conflict with the law. Jis par guzarti hai, wahi jaanata hai ki hawaalaat ki hawa kaisi hoti hai. Baaki sab bekaar ki baatein hain. Thanks Venkat
_____ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of ashish kr1965 Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 6:26 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [rti_india] Re: Proposal to blacklist NCPRI members from RTI_India Dear Mr Naik You may kindly clarify how your "research" is so similar to the legal paper discussed at the C.I.C meeting by Prof Nigam and A.K.Charavarthi, especially now that Sarabjit has proposed (in the alternative) that the paper they circulated was actually your amd/or NCPRI's research. The rule making power of appropriate government to charge fees / costs for second appeals is clearly found within section 27, and not section 28, as part of general powers to frame the appeal procedure rules. When you concede that the government can require that the appeal must have an index you also concede that the same government can require you to affix a fee on it as is the usual practice in courts. Ashish --- In rti_in...@yahoogrou <mailto:[email protected]> ps.com, "Venkatesh Nayak" <venkat...@...> wrote: > > 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: rti_in...@yahoogrou <mailto:[email protected]> ps.com [mailto:rti_in...@yahoogrou <mailto:[email protected]> ps.com] On Behalf > Of ashish kr1965 > Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 7:53 PM > To: rti_in...@yahoogrou <mailto:[email protected]> ps.com > 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 >
