Tuesday, September 7, 2010

Re: [rti_india] Re: Can CIC be ask to write precedence orders

 

Sarabjit has dealt a powerfull blow for Indias citizens. Somone can kindly explain me why Habibulah used 1 year old email from Sarabjit in his orders.

"Included in applicant Er. Sarbajit Roy's e-mails, copies of which are projected on various blogs are the following comments:-

"We also read in the press how the great RTI Activist Subhas Chand Agrawal extracted the information in RTI from the Cabinet Secretariat.

But, what we do not read in the newspapers how these RTI 'haramis' operate, and how Mr. Habibullah is doing everything in his power to facilitate them. Last year Mr Shekhar Singh of NCPRI applied for about 50,000 pages of documents from the CIC. He wanted copies of all appeals and complaints filed in the CIC and also their High Court pleadings. To save money he demanded that all these be digitized and given to him at Rs. 50 on a CD. The matter was dismissed in First Appeal but crucially the First Appellate Authority Shri Mohammed Haleem Khan was compromised and he allowed the material to be given without following 3rd party procedure u/s 11. He also demanded the cost of digitizing the
documents (i.e. 67 paise per page) from Mr Shekhar Singh – the bill worked out to about Rs 27,000/-. Shekhar Singh refused to pay even this and wrote a letter / email to Mr Habibullah.""

If asked any CPIO at C.I.C why Subhash chandra aggrawal is given so much assistance by Mr Habibulah, they will tell you that he is onlythe dummy for Mandarweb in C.I.C whose local spymaster is Shekhar singh. They wil tell you that PA to habibulah phones them to give Subhash aggrawal out of turn hearing in hundreds of cases. The orders in aggrawalas matters are drafted by Shekar singh, Prasanth bushan, PK sheyasker etc. to blackmail people in supreme court. In 2007 when a upright PIO prtested in writing about so much favouritsm, to Subhash aggrawal, he was given a cettificate with Suhash chandra is handicapped person having disabiity and to be given special priority in putting up cases for disposal. Like this about 100 out of turn cases were given to Subash aggrawal on direct instruction from Habibulahs office on fake disability certificate. The internal inquiry report in this matter is buryed to save Habibulah.


On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 10:27 PM, sarbajitr <sroy1947@yahoo.com> wrote:
 

In a recent CIC decision
http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_WB_A_2009_000653_M_41446.pdf
my friend <smile> Mr Habibullah had this to say about Mr Tarun Kumar (then CPIO now FAA of CIC)

"Although CPIO has indeed advised appellant Shri Shekhar Singh to seek this information from the High Court or Supreme Court, he has so done without further clarifying that this information is not for the CPIO of the Central Information Commission to give, for the reasons argued before us in second appeal. CPIO can then be held to have misread the law ..."

Note here that Mr Habibullah is admonishing his present FAA for having "misread the law".

Mr Tarun Kumar was exactly carrying out the directions of IC A.N.Tiwari in this landmark decision "CIC/AT/C/2008/00335" at http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/AT-27022009-01.pdf
Unfortunately there is nobody to defend the PIOs and FAAs of
the CIC from the 'haraamis' who infest the place and bring his
exemplary decision to Mr Habibullah's notice.

Did Mr Habibullah actually want to say that it is Mr Tiwari who is misreading the law ?? Are there 2 sets of rules for Information seekers in RTI - ordinary citizens must face Mr Tiwari but well connected and well financed 'haramis' (a common Urdu/Hindustani word which Mr Habibullah inexplicably considers to be an abuse) can avail Mr Habibullah's facilitations to get court judgements free of cost ??

Here are the key paras of ANT's decision, Mr Habibullah would do well to read it and explain why there are different strokes for different folks at the CIC.

"6. Another point raised by the appellant/complainant is that CPIO, in calling upon the appellant to collect the court orders from the respective courts or from the courts' websites, somehow violated the provisions of the RTI Act.

7. I'm afraid this surmise is equally incorrect. In the scheme of the RTI Act, a document to be liable for disclosure ought to be `held' by a public authority, which in the first place was responsible for its creation/issue. Any other public authority subsequently coming to possess that information incidentally, or on account of the fact that the subsequent public authority was party to a proceeding such as a court matter, could not make that latter public authority the original
holder of the information within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the RTI Act. This scheme is perfectly logical because the disclosability of the information is a function which can be performed only by the original holder of the information and not the others who come to hold that information incidentally. The court order is always in the public domain, in the sense, that it can be taken from the Court Registry on payment of the fee prescribed by the Court. No party can claim that another public authority, who for some reasons happen to possess a
certain court order, must give copies to an applicant only because that request is made under the RTI Act. If this is allowed, every applicant would like to get copies of the Court orders from the parties to the Court case &#9135; who might also be a public authority &#9135; rather than go through the process of obtaining the same
copy from the Court Registry. If allowed, it will amount to abuse of the RTI Act, and will also be offensive to the systems laid-down by the Courts.

8. This particular case is only one among several such matters which are reaching the Commission. The petitioners use the RTI route to access information held by a public authority which might have originated from another public authority. So long as this information is an open information, disclosure of this from any point should not really matter. But the matter becomes slightly complicated when the originator of the information wishes to treat that information as confidential or secret. In such a situation, for the respondents to
disclose this information to an applicant without reference to the originator of the information may jeopardize the interest of the originator. In my view, all such matters should be examined within the purview of Section 11(1) of the RTI Act for the originator of the information becomes a third-party in the connect of an admittedly confidential information which has reached the hands of the public
authority from whom the information is sought.

9. Regardless of the orders of the Appellate Authority, it would be, therefore,entirely incorrect to fault the CPIO for directing the appellant to obtain the court related order from the source where such orders are kept, i.e. the Court Registry. There is absolutely no reason why a party to a court proceeding should be obligated to disclose the order of the court to other applicants, especially when
the option to obtain that order from the Court Registry itself is always open."

Sarbajit


__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
MARKETPLACE

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


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


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

.

__,_._,___

No comments:

Post a Comment