Re: [rti_india] Re: IIMA and Prometric

Monday, May 10, 2010

Re: [rti_india] Re: IIMA and Prometric - Online CAT 2009 tender

1. No point discussing locus or the applicants address further, because we will never come to a conclusion. I think I mentioned before that all applications filed by this applicant (and there are many filed with state level PA's) have the same address for communication purposes.

2. The order no where reflects that offer of 10(2) was suggested by the CIC (2nd appellate). It was offered by the PIO after consultation with others (don't know whether it was with assistance of FAA or not). It is the PIO who is offering to severe the information. Therefore, irrespective of whether he does it in the initial stage or after one hearing of the second appeal stage, he has to follow 10(2). Note the word "shall" in 10(2). "Details of fees" is only one of the 5 sub points in 10(2). 10(2)(e) even mentions the rights of the applicant to appeal against the non disclosure of part of the information.

3. Read some of the other decisions of the CIC where they have called for papers for examination. All the decisions clearly state something to the effect..."after examining....etc..". There is nothing in this order to show that the CIC even went through a single page. They seem to have blindly accepted the offer of the PIO to severe and passed the order. Even if the PIO erred in not following 10(2), at least the CIC could have heard the appellants view about receiving part of the information.

RTIwanted

--- On Mon, 5/10/10, sarbajitr <sroy1947@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: sarbajitr <sroy1947@yahoo.com>
Subject: [rti_india] Re: IIMA and Prometric - Online CAT 2009 tender
To: rti_india@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, May 10, 2010, 6:00 PM

1) The locus is needed because P/A has invoked 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(j). The term "larger public interest" does not mean that any busybody / interloper can agitate the matter (well settled case law - what is the cause of action ?) - he must have a well defined locus standi considering that only the "competent authority" (which is NOT the CIC) can rule on the public interest involved. The applicant gave an address which turned out to be that of one the participants in the tender.

2) 10(2) is meant to be followed when the CPIO is framing his section 7 computation of fees. In the present case only after the FAA and 2nd Appellate "assisted" him did PIO voluntarily make an offer of 10(2) out of the goodness of his heart to settle the matter finally. Kindly note that by 10(1) the PIO is NOT *required* to sever the information, but he "may" sever information. The fact that PIO subsequently offers severed info during appeal proceedings means that he is NOT bound to follow the section 10(2) procedure but submits to the CIC's directions.

3) The papers were called for to *generally* see if the PIO had grounds to invoke 8(1)(d). The CIC is not supposed to go into each and every bit of information especially in lengthy and vexatious RTIs like this one :-)

4) So the ICs can be so easily persuaded by illegalities ?

5) The USP of this group (not selling anything) is the acknowledgement that the applicants are not always correct, the PIOs are not always "bad guys" and the CICs/ SICs sometimes do pass good orders. Notwithstanding that, "RTI activists" are ALWAYS WRONG here !!! The aim of this group, is to make sure that applicants know as much RTI as the PIOs (and vice-versa) while avoiding getting brainwashed / misled by NGO /activist disinformation.

Sarbajit