Thursday, June 17, 2010

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


Dear Mr Naik

This is not a court of law where I must prove anything, nor am I a PIO
on whom the onus of proof is placed. Since you repeatedly deny that
you have plagiarised the document in question, perhaps you can
enlighten us on why your document was circulated to the Information
Commissioners as the legal opinion of the CIC's legal branch ?

You are quite confused, where have I claimed that you are "anti-national"?
FYI, neither had Mr Sharma claimed that you were anti-national. As the
decision of Ms Singh records, the CPIO of the MHA classified you as an
anti-national to whom the information could not be given. As the Delhi
Hig Court recently held, the C.I.C is not a "court", so it equally laughable
for you to claim you are fighting a "case" at CIC (perhaps you meant
"cause"). It is as laughable as when you claim that you were "litigating"
before the CIC to be provided information from the DDA in RTI.

Your understanding of the RTI Act is pitiful.

-Ms Singh has already found your knowledge about RTI Act to be
deficient, as Mr Sharma had set out from that order. .

- Section 28 does not contain a clause analogous to 27(2)(e)
for the procedure to be adopted by the Central Information Commission or
State Information Commission, as the case may be, in deciding the appeals
under sub-section (10) of section 19;"

It is this clause which enables fees to be charged for appeals to the CIC/SIC,

Unlike Mr Sharma I do not believe in personality oriented discussion. But I
too find it curious that employees of Ms Maja Batliwala, daughter of
the great Sam Bahadur, are seeking information about the Army which has
been upheld to be anti-national on teh basis of newspaper reports, and also that
you are assisting under-trials like Brigadier Ujjwal when the matter is already
before the court and as an accused he has every legal avenue open to know
the evidence against him under the criminal procedural laws once charges
are framed / submitted.

As Mr Sharma had posted, what is the state of RTI when an appellant
is denied such information on sub-judice matters say Mr Tiwari or
Mr Mishra but granted it by Mr Gandhi ?


--- In, "Venkatesh Nayak" <venkatesh@...> wrote:
> Dear Mr. Ashish,
> You have accused me of plagiarism. so the burden of proving it is on you as
> you are not even the author of the document that you allege I have
> plagiarised from.
> Your understanding of Sections 27 and 28 is laughable to say the least. My
> arguments for section 28 apply equally to section 27.
> As for accusations of being anti-national because I have fought a case
> before the CIC, I can only say this much- you do not know the facts of the
> case. so it is better that you hold your silence rather than open your mouth
> and demonstrate your ignorance. Perhaps reading the decision in detail and
> making connections with all cases where top secret information was leaked
> from government as reported in newspapers would help you understand the
> issue better.
> As for the other conscious-keeper Mr. S D Shamra's accusation about me
> defending Brig. Dasgupta; the Brig is an undertrial prisoner. No court has
> proven him guilty yet. You have judged him guilty. Your opinion does not
> matter even an iota as you have little authority to do anything in this
> matter. It is for the courts to decide on whether he is guilty or not. Again
> you are commenting on this case based on inadequate knowledge of the
> material facts. I can only pity your adolescent comments. I wish this
> discussion were carried out at loftier levels than this. I would be happy to
> defend your right to information as well if you were to be in conflict with
> the law at any point of time. But I hope that day never comes as I do not
> want you or anybody to be in conflict with the law. Jis par guzarti hai,
> wahi jaanata hai ki hawaalaat ki hawa kaisi hoti hai. Baaki sab bekaar ki
> baatein hain.
> Thanks
> Venkat
> _____
> From: [] On Behalf
> Of ashish kr1965
> Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 6:26 PM
> To:
> Subject: [rti_india] Re: Proposal to blacklist NCPRI members from RTI_India
> Dear Mr Naik
> You may kindly clarify how your "research" is so similar to the legal paper
> discussed at the C.I.C meeting by Prof Nigam and A.K.Charavarthi, especially
> now that Sarabjit has proposed (in the alternative) that the paper they
> circulated was actually your amd/or NCPRI's research.
> The rule making power of appropriate government to charge fees / costs for
> second appeals is clearly found within section 27, and not section 28, as
> part of general powers to frame the appeal procedure rules. When you concede
> that the government can require that the appeal must have an index you also
> concede that the same government can require you to affix a fee on it as is
> the usual practice in courts.
> Ashish
> --- In rti_india@yahoogrou <>,
> "Venkatesh Nayak" <venkatesh@> wrote:
> >
> > 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@yahoogrou <>
> [mailto:rti_india@yahoogrou <>] On
> Behalf
> > Of ashish kr1965
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 7:53 PM
> > To: rti_india@yahoogrou <>
> > 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
> >

Recent Activity:


No comments:

Post a Comment