| a) The application is made in his personal capacity. The address is for communication purposes only. The applicant has filed several applications in the last 4 years - all give the same address for communication. In any case, it is not upto the PIO to attribute any motives to the applicant, based on the address he gives. This was strongly opposed by the applicant at the time of hearing, but was reiterated once again by the PA. Considering the fracas during CAT2009 and the subsequent doubts raised by applicants, public interest is involved. b) CIC called for the documents but did not go through them at all. They just went by the PIO's offer to apply severability and provide the rest of information. Having got the documents, they should have at least seen that whether 8(1)(d) is applicable to all the pages that are being severed. Sec 10(2) was never followed. CIC also never heard the third party/ies. CIC did not hear the appellant or call him for any subsequent hearing, when the offer for severed information was made. c) The Jharkhand HC judgment was cited since the exemption sought therein was exactly the same - Sec 8(1)(d) and the HC ruled that once the tendering process is over, all documents are disclosable under RTI. RTIwanted. --- On Sun, 5/9/10, sarbajitr <sroy1947@yahoo.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment