Re: [rti_india] Re: CIc refuses to entertain appeal on providing information by elected represen

Sunday, December 13, 2009

Re: [rti_india] Re: CIc refuses to entertain appeal on providing information by elected represen

Dear Sarbajit Royji,

In the following paragraphs, CIC has proved that MP,MLA etc. have no role in decision making of MLA,MP LADS. It is only district administration who is responsible for technical,financial sanction of these works. So DECISION SEEMS TO BE CONVINCING.

But they have remained silent over the selected work falls under the category of MP,MLA LADS or not. Often, works selected are for their chosen communities .Whether district administraiton can refuse/examine the selected work in view of classified work or not.

Please suggest major faults in this decision.

With regards

Manoj K.Kamra

--------------------------------------------------

In this 21 page decision ,page no.19-20 states--

"We have also examined the details of guidelines on Member of

Parliament, Local Area Development Scheme (MP LADS). According to this

each MP will recommend works up to the annual entitlement during the

financial year preferably within 90 days of the commencement of the financial

year in a prescribed format to the concerned District Authority. It is the District

Authority that is expected to get the eligible sanctioned works executed as per

the established procedure laid down by the State Government for

implementation of such works subject to the provision in this Guidelines."

"3.12 On receipt of the recommendation from the MP, the

District Authority should verify the eligibility and technical

feasibility of each recommended work. All such eligible

works should be sanctioned within 45 days from the date

of receipt of recommendation. In case of delay due to

genuine reasons ,a clarification for delay should be

incorporated in the sanction letter. The same may be

intimated to the MP and State/ UT Government. If a

recommended work is not eligible or not feasible, the

District Authority shall intimate the same with reasons to

the MP concerned, the Government of India and State/

UT Government.

3.14 Decision making powers in regard to technical,

financial and administrative sanctions to be accorded

under the Scheme, vest in the district level

functionaries.2 To facilitate quick implementation of

projects under this Scheme, full powers should be

delegated by the State/ UT Government to the district

functionaries. The District Authorities will have full

powers to get the works technically approved and

financial estimates prepared by the competent district

functionaries before according the final administrative

sanction and approval. The District Authority should,

before sanctioning the work, ensure that all clearances

for such works have been taken from the competent

authorities and the work conforms to the Guidelines."

--- On Mon, 12/14/09, sarbajitr <sroy1947@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: sarbajitr <sroy1947@yahoo.com>
Subject: [rti_india] Re: CIc refuses to entertain appeal on providing information by elected represen
To: rti_india@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, December 14, 2009, 12:19 PM

http://cic.gov. in/CIC-Orders/ WB-10122009- 01.pdf

Do we agree with this decision ?
I don't for the following reasons

A) Once again Mr Habibullah (and Shailesh Gandhi)
demonstrate craven loyalty to the false Gods who
appointed him (them).

B) The timing of this decision is a signal that
Mr H is on his way out.

C) Once again we see the open interference of NCPRI
in the CIC. How dare Mr Habibullah invite Prashant
Bhushan to assist the Commission? On what basis was
this done ? Why were special invitations extended
to the so-called legal luminaries (who quite properly
declined to be associated with Mr Habibullah's corrupt
little decision) named - most of whom strangely (or
not very strangely) are part of the "Committee for
Judicial Accountability" closely linked with NCPRI.

D) From where does the CIC derive powers to constitute
Benches?

E) The reasonings of the decision's conclusion are so
infantile that it is no surprise that 2 out of India's
3 worst Commissioners delivered it.

Sarbajit

--- In rti_india@yahoogrou ps.com, "Arun" <arun_agrawal@ ...> wrote:
>
> Elected representatives including MPs, MLAs and local bodies members are
> not covered under the Right to Information Act in 'individual' capacity,
> Central Information Commission has ruled.
>
> The Commission, however, has clarified that information regarding their
> activities can be accessed from bodies to which they are part of like
> Parliament, state legislative assembly or local bodies.
>
> A division bench of the Commission comprising Chief Information
> Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah and Shailesh Gandhi said, "we must
> conclude that individuals whether MPs, MLAs, Councillors or members of
> Panchayats cannot in themselves be deemed public authorities.
> Nevertheless, the organisations and Committees in which they fulfil
> their obligations under the Constitution are indeed organizations
> defined as public authorities, " the bench held while hearing several
> pleas that were clubbed together in the matter.
>
>