Monday, July 23, 2012

[HumJanenge] Re: Another blunder of Anita Gupta

Dear Friend

You have made a few mistakes in your FAA / RTI request

1) You have repeatedly used the abbreviation "CIC". You have not
previously defined what you mean by it - do you mean "Central
Information Commission", "Chief Information Commissioner" or something

2) You have apparently agreed to a telephone hearing. This is a very
old trick FAAs like AG and Anuradha Chagti use. Never agree to it.

3) The key word is "not maintained". The information may exist, it is
"not maintained". This is a code word given by the CPIO in his reply.
You apparently failed to appeal this ground properly. You lost this
round when you admitted you weren't sure what CPIO wanted to convey
and that he was misguiding you. Had you assailed this ground properly
the case would have been different. Unfortunately many RTI activists
don't understand "babu English" well enough or know the RTI Act well

4) Since this group exists to help unfortunate persons to improve
themselves, I shall assist you.

"Not Maintained" means that
a) the information sought probably exists, but
i) does not constitute a "record" of the public authority , OR
ii) Is not systematically "indexed" / "catalogued" in a manner and
form to facilitate the CPIO to access it to provide the applicant.

This is a code word to be used as defence by CPIO against eventual
penalty proceedings against the CPIO. The CPIO will claim that it is
not his job to do the indexing and cataloging. Nobody will take
responsibility for it. Ultimately it is the responsibility of either
the Chief Information Commissioner *u/s 12(4)* or the Secretary/CIC -
both of whom are senior to CPIO / FAA.

So you must attack both the Chief Info Commissioner AND the Secretary/
CIC on this point in your 2nd Appeal.

Also kindly request the CIC to inquire into status of detailed First
Appeal Order of Secretary /CIC Mr Haleem Khan on this very issue in
case of Mr. Ravinder Balwani versus CPIO/CIC in CIC/AA/A/2008/188
dated 19.1.2009 - the copy of which has been mischievously removed
from CIC website.


On 23 July, 21:49, Girish Mittal <> wrote:
> The great Indian blunder story of Anita Gupta/PKP Shreyaskar continues...
> They say that the information asked is not maintained with CIC, while we
> have all have seen the information exists for so many cases, and also
> specifically for the case mentioned in
> Can they lie so blatantly?
> Girish Mittal
>  AA CIC 19052012.PDF
> 1332KViewDownload

No comments:

Post a Comment