Re: [rti_india] Re: Fee for First and Second Appeals

Monday, June 21, 2010

Re: [rti_india] Re: Fee for First and Second Appeals

it is indeed heartening to hear that from you. just that the preceding posts in this thread did not voice the same, and hence the confusion.

incidentally, i fail to imagine how you developed the notion that i walked in here with preconceived notions... LOL

rgds, nilesh

On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 12:49 AM, sarbajitr <sroy1947@yahoo.com> wrote:

Dear Nilesh

I don't know why you think that there are personal differences.
We are all on the same team, fighting for

A) Citizens to get information from the State (subject to just exemptions), and in turn to be State friendly.

B) Governments to be more organised, transparent and Citizen
friendly.

C) Over-riding rights of 3rd parties to ensure that information
submitted by them in confidence, OR which relates to them, OR
which is their valuable intellectual property etc is NOT given away
to every lazy, incompetent, haraami who asks for it in RTI and
finds a terrified PIO who takes the easy way out by giving it to
such parasites.
(Please see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rti_india/message/1
our first message to understand what this group has always stood
for)

Sarbajit
(Group Mod)
PS: Welcome here, and leave all your preconceived notions at home.

--- In rti_india@yahoogroups.com, nilesh suchdev <nilesh.suchdev@...> wrote:
>
> i m sorry if i sound out of place, but IS THIS A GOOD GROUND FOR SETTLING
> PERSONAL DIFFERENCES...?
>
> please, friends, let us work for a common cause, which i m sure we all are
> oriented to, that of fair discussion of RTI Act... ONLY
>
> best regards, nilesh
>
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 12:13 AM, sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Dear Venkatesh
> >
> > A few brief numbered paras in case you want to reply.
> >
> > 1) It looks as though we shall have to award the decision to Ashish
> > after all. What a pity, I was rather hoping that you or Shekhar Singh
> > (remarkably silent on this group) would have been able to counter
> > Ashish's argument on the Court Fee Act.
> >
> > 2) Just FYI, "Ashish" was part of the core croup which drafted the RTI
> > Act de-novo after the disastrous FoI Act. Again FYI IC A.N Tiwari and
> > and Mr T.K.Vishwanathan were also part of that group in case you
> > didn't know.
> >
> > 3) In this context I can also inform our members that neither Ms Aruna
> > Roy, nor Mr Shekhar Singh nor CHRI nor Arvind Kejriwal etc etc have
> > made any significant contributions to the language of the RTI Act
> > despite their public posturing and the bullshit they dish out in
> > public.
> >
> > 4) And while on the topic of plagiarism, the RTI Act did not
> > originate from the NAC notwithstanding the fact that the draft RTI
> > Bill was only available on the NAC website (tucked away) for public
> > viewing / comments (and not even on the Parliament site).
> >
> > 5) Oh, and before I forget,.the parting kick, the RTI Act / movement
> > did not come about because of what the MKSS did in Rajasthan (or the
> > NCPRI did anywhere else).
> >
> > 6) So if the "A" team of the NCPRI wants to debate these and/or other
> > RTI related matters, and now that you (Venkatesh) have thrown in the
> > towel, this uncensored, unmoderated and no-holds barred NEUTRAL forum
> > is always open for them (and you).
> >
> > Sarbajit
> >
> > PS: I truly hope that you never felt that you were ever censored or
> > moderated while posting here, because unlike you WE don't believe in
> > classifying people as "fringe elements" or "moderates".
> >
> >
> > On 6/21/10, Venkatesh Nayak <venkatesh@...<venkatesh%40humanrightsinitiative.org>>

> > wrote:
> > > Dear friends,
> > > The recent threads of discussion on fees for appeals and before that the
> > > discussion on the implications of the Delhi High Court's decision in the
> > > matter of DDA v CIC have convinced me that this discussion group is in
> > the
> > > grip of some elements that would like to see RTI destroyed completely.
> > The
> > > moderator is also clearly in league with such elements. His
> > clarifications
> > > on the phone that I must not take these innuendoes and namecalling
> > > personally and that the extreme and often inane interpretations of the
> > RTI
> > > Act are only meant to encourage 'good debate' seem more and more
> > > unconvincing. This is not good debate. This is an anti-RTI agenda that is
> > > being carried out in the name of debate because other discussion groups
> > do
> > > not tolerate such fringe elements and chuck them out.
> > >
> > > Some of us have been trying to present views from the perspective of the
> > RTI
> > > Act- its original objectives and true intention. But as the old saying
> > goes-
> > > "none as blind as those who do not wish to see" we are unable to make
> > much
> > > headway. These threads of discussion are increasingly being directed in
> > the
> > > way of convincing the more moderate members to agree to destroying all
> > the
> > > protections that the RTI provides for citizens and placing more
> > restrictions
> > > on RTI and citizens. As this kind of agenda is being driven by some
> > members
> > > under the active collusion of the moderator, whatever those of us, truly
> > > interested in seeing RTI grow from strength to strength say, will not
> > help
> > > resolve these debates. Then these fringe elements resort to name calling
> > and
> > > obfuscating issues when their puerile arguments are met with sane and
> > > reasonable interpretations of the RTI Act which they find difficult to
> > > repudiate.
> > >
> > > RTI is more than lobbing balls at a tennis court as the moderator makes
> > it
> > > appear. Using the moderator's own metaphor for a little longer- importing
> > > the scheme of the Court Fees Act into the RTI Act is akin to playing a
> > game
> > > of tennis by the rules of soccer. The more moderate members of this group
> > > will understand what I am saying.
> > >
> > > This is all I would like to say on this or any other issue for a long
> > while
> > > starting now.
> > > Thanks
> > > Venkat
> >
> >
>