Friday, July 30, 2010

Re: [rti_india] Re: Review of Decision in CIC/AT/A/2009/000100 dated 16.9.2009


On the bright side, some of the group members who are not happy with their CIC decisions could quote this decision to seek a review of their own.;-)

2.  From the decision it looks like the respondent appellant did not do his home work properly. Like he opposed the review decision and tried to find fault with the PA. However, it is also possible that his POV was either not considered or simply left out of the decision. Maybe if he is on this list, he could shed some more light.

3. I cannot understand how IC ANT recommended the application of Section 11 at such a late stage. Surely there must be some thing that has transpired during the two hearing and has not figured in the two decisions.

4. Here is something that our die hard "RTI Activists" cum "Fighters of Corruptions" would like to use -

"Now, while the RTI Act, no-doubt, takes precedence over the Indian Evidence Act in a matter of inconsistency between their provisions, when the provisions of two Acts are consistent, the RTI Act and the Indian Evidence Act provisions should be harmoniously construed.

16. I find that there is ample consistency between Section 124 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 11(1) of the RTI Act read with Section 2(n) of the same Act."

If you folks are smart enough, you can turn tables in forthcoming decisions. No explanations need, I guess.

5. However, I just do not buy this story "This necessitated that records dealing with their movements and the movement of their vehicles were kept confidential ⎯ often overtly and always impliedly.". All such officers are provided with Mobile Phones. There numbers are just not confidential. Anybody who can access these numbers, can also access their handset IMEI numbers and there by, sitting @ home, connected to the net can always keep track on their entire movement. As for their vehicles, thanks to the various cams installed at different locations, it easy to access these records from other PA.

6. 1984 was written by George Orwell, born in Motihari in Bihar, not far from the review petitioners office.


--- On Fri, 7/30/10, sarbajitr <> wrote:

From: sarbajitr <>
Subject: [rti_india] Re: Review of Decision in CIC/AT/A/2009/000100 dated 16.9.2009
Date: Friday, July 30, 2010, 11:01 PM


1) I wonder what Shailesh Gandhi would have decided in these circumstances?

2) I know what Mr Habibullah would have done - ensured that such cases are not heard / decided for years and years.

Note how ANT mixes "inconsistency" in the context of sec.22 to "harmonise" IEA and RTIA. This is exactly how any sensible superior court would read it too.

Having said that, if the Vig officers are corrupt, then such decisions
shield the corrupt and perpetuate corruption. ANT's point is simply - "the matter is already in HC - go there and get your info instead of (mis)using RTI Act".


--- In, binu peter <binupeterdelhi@...> wrote:
> Dear members,
> Please go through Review of Decision in CIC/AT/A/2009/000100 dated 16.9.2009 and let us know the apprehensions of Hon'ble Information commissioner is correct or not.

Recent Activity:

Hobbies & Activities Zone: Find others who share your passions! Explore new interests.

Get great advice about dogs and cats. Visit the Dog & Cat Answers Center.

Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.



No comments:

Post a Comment