RE: [rti_india] Proposal to blacklist NCPRI members from RTI

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

RE: [rti_india] Proposal to blacklist NCPRI members from RTI_India

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_india@yahoogroups.com [mailto:rti_india@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of ashish kr1965
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 7:53 PM
To: rti_india@yahoogroups.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