The answers lie here
http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/LS-17022010-04.pdf
http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_LS_A_2010_000107.pdf
http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/LS-08102009-05.pdf
http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/LS-29012010-06.pdf
http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/LS-02032010-07.pdf
http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/LS-16102009-04.pdf
The real point you are missing in all these decisions is
"THIS Commission in a series of decisions has held ..."
One thing you can be sure about is that IC(MLS) is
very well prepared if the DRDO takes him to Court.
Sarbajit
--- In rti_india@yahoogroups.com, "C K" <rtiwanted@...> wrote:
>
> http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_LS_A_2010_000107.pdf
>
> This Commission has consistently held in a series of its
> decisions that despite notification u/s 24 of the Act `establishment'
> matters of DRDO are not exempted from disclosure under the Act.
> The question really is whether the information requested for by the
> appellant can be denied to her under any clause of section 8 (1) of the
> Act. To my mind, the answer is in the negative. I may add that
> pendency of the matter in a court by itself can not be a ground for
> denial of information requested for by the appellant.
>
> ===
> Sec 24(1)
> Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:
>
> Do "establishment"" matters fall under the category of allegations of corruption and human rights violations ?
>
> RTIwanted
>
No comments:
Post a Comment