Re: [HumJanenge] Centre must add purpose clause to RTI Act

There are just too many of them. You might recall the case  No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00040 dated 27th March 2006 which you had assisted with applicant Mujibur Rehman  V/s South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Chattisgarh. Was not the requested information ".....should be common knowledge and is suitable for suo moto disclosure u/s 4 (1) of the Act." as observed by the CIC in this decision? With CPIOs denying information falling Under Section 4, the applicants were forced to approach the CIC or High Courts as the case may be, arriving to the point where, like described by you in your previous post. " Architect Mr Sudhir Vohra has won a case in High Court to get blueprints of Delhi Metro Rail's structures. Why cannot a terrorist or their proxy apply for the same in RTI ". Manoj --- On Mon, 2/28/11, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote: I'm baffled. HOW have PIOs who use Section 8 more liberally than implementation of  proactive disclosure under Section 4. made us arrive to this stage where such sensitive information could fall in the hands of terrorists and endanger our lives and that of our families/friends. ??? Sarbajit