Dear Mohit,
This is what happens to our Group when we approach the matter on emotional basis, rather than on logical and meaningful purpose. The purpose of this Group is to discuss matters concerning RTI Act. Please have a pragamatic approach, and don't invite the Moderator to remove you from the Group, since that is not our Group motive.
There are some positive feedback from Sarbajit sir on your issue and you can work upon that. your motive is now to win the case since the order of the CIC is illegal.It is good that you have shown your bonafide interest in filing these application and Appeals. please pursue the matter till you get logical conclusion on your matter.
I personally feel that issue raised by you is affecting the larger public interest since finally it is the Money and influence that help parents to get admission to their Ward. If that is so, why can't you approach the matter by filing Public Interest Litigation(PIL) so that such corrupt practcies by the Private School can be removed.
Secondly we can't bring the pressure on CIC i.e. SG to get orders in our favour. The only way is to challeng the order in hon'ble High Court. I too feel that the order of the CIC is illegal and the points/Grounds urged by you are not considered by CIC and hence you have right to approahc the High Court by making the prayers to interpret section 2(f) of the Act in your context.
The suggestion made by our Group Member shri Manoj Kamra also can be explored. please try from this angle too.
with regards.
Umapathi.s
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 1:23 PM, Mohit Goel <mr_mohitg@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear Sir
Thanks for below. Be assured that i am not the one whom you keep referring in
most of your mails. I am just a ordinary citizen who have so far filled 2-3
RTI's in last few years.of its inception
I work as Asst Vice President - Marketing in one reputed companies so by no
means there could be wrong intentions of be a part of so called " Harami"
class.
I have taken course of RTI when last years i have seen parents running from post
to pillars in getting admissions of their ward, all ministers, Media, Deptt
education kept on harping that they will control these schools but when process
was over it was only money/approach that worked for most of parents.
It would been great if society/media/you or others would have fought for the
cause and would have strongly opposed what Mr SG has done on section 2(f)
but you prefer to agonised a person who is wandering in dark for directions and
came to such forums for help. Its is not good of person like you to address and
show such ruthlessness. . If i would have got information through section 2(f)
then i would not have spend my time in writing such mails to you and bothering
you to type such miffed words.
i am not sure what circumstances have lead you to lookout bad in every person
who approaches the forum.
If you still have doubt on my intension you are most welcome to remove me from
the group
thanks and regards
Mohit
To: "RTI India : Right to Information, CIC" <rti_india@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wed, 6 October, 2010 12:57:24 PM
Subject: [RTI INDIA] Re: " section 2(h)" substantial , IC want it to be
specified
Dear Mohit
The trouble people who do "cherry picking" from various
judgments is that they get stunned when the other side
(and the judge) start cherry picking AGAINST them.
Let me also say that you are comparing apples to oranges. For
eg. Sanskriti School is not comparable with say a "Little Hearts
Convent for Boys".
Finally, if we consider a case of a private school on private land
bought at market rate with 9 funding from Govt, you (and Col Kurup)
will continue to insist that Govt "controls" this school because there
are 2 directors on its board of trustees.
You are all living under a delusion, read judgments like "T.M.Pai
foundation" (11 SC judges), Islamic Acamdey (9 judges) to know
where you are wrong. Finally read PoornaPraja School decision
carefully (all the issues you are raising are dealt with) , you have
nothing to lose and everything to gain if you insist on 2F (unless
of course you are a 'harami').
Sarbajit
On Oct 6, 11:21 am, Mohit Goel <mr_moh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dear Mr. Karira
>
> thanks for below. I have read all those HC rulings and even quoted in my
>written
> argument but IC wants me to derive value of subsidy which is really confusing
> and could be counter productive as IC may say that figure which i have arrived
> on apprx amount can be termed a meager where as High court rullings specially
> in
> 1. IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI Indian Olympic
Association,
> Sanskriti School v. Veeresh Malik [judgment dated 7th January 2010 ,
>court
> observed
> This court therefore, concludes that what amounts to "substantial" financing
> cannot be straight-jacketed into rigid formulae, of universal application. Of
> necessity, each case would have to be examined on its own facts. That the
> percentage of funding is not "majority" financing, or that the body is an
> impermanent one, are not material. Equally, that the institution or
>organization
> is not controlled, and is autonomous is irrelevant; indeed, the concept of
non-
> government organization means that it is independent of any manner of
>government
> control in its establishment, or management. That the organization does not
> perform or pre-dominantly perform "public" duties too, may not be material, as
> long as the object for funding is achieving a felt need of a section of the
> public, or to secure larger societal goals. To the extent of such funding,
> indeed, the organization may be a tool, or vehicle for the executive
>governments
> policy fulfillment plan."
>
> please advise what course of action shall i follow
>
> regards
> mohit
>
> ________________________________
> From: C J Karira <cjkar...@gmail.com>
> To: rti_india@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Wed, 6 October, 2010 11:41:05 AM
> Subject: RE: [RTI INDIA] Re: " section 2(h)" substantial , IC want it to be
> specified
>
> Just keeping the relevant parts of the earlier email and deleting
> the rest.
>
> Subsidies, Tax Conscessions, Tax exemptions, etc. do
> constitute "indirect" financing and are covered under
> 2(h)(d)(ii):
>
> d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate
> Government, and includes any—
> 1 body owned, controlled or substantially financed;
> 2 non-Government organization substantially financed,
> directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate
> Government;
>
> This has already been interpreted by various HC's , including
> the Kerala HC, Madras HC ( Madurai Bench) and Punjab & Haryana HC
>
> The other contention, regarding 2(f) should only be used
> by the applicant after carefully reading various powers of the DEO
> under other Acts or Laws currently in force.
>
> C J Karira
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rti_india@googlegroups.com [mailto:rti_india@googlegroups.com] On Behalf
>
> Of sroy1947
> Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 11:01 AM
> To: RTI India : Right to Information, CIC
> Subject: [RTI INDIA ] Re: " section 2(h)" substantial , IC want it to be
> specified
>
> > 2) If NO, then you must show that school is a "non-governmental
> > organisation"
> > substantially financed, owned or controlled by appropriate Govt. The
> > evidences
> > you are putting up "land at Rs 10", "2 govt nominees" etc do not fall
> > under these
> > provisos to 2.h.d. The first is a SUBSIDY (as distinguished from
> > "finance").
> > The second one is meaningless. because as per the DSEAR there is a
> > separation
> > between the Society and the school's management.
>
> > Sarbajit.
No comments:
Post a Comment