Thursday, December 30, 2010

[HumJanenge] Re: APPOINTMENT OF CCIC

Dear Guptaji

From where did you form the opinion (or receive information) that the committee of 12(3) is a SELECTION committee.

Your entire request is founded on the false premise that it is a selection committee.

Sarbajit


On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 4:14 PM, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

For context, copy of RTI application (I have deleted my Residential address and phone number). 

 

The Central Public Information Officer,

C/o. Secretary,

Deptt. of Personal and Training,

New Delhi.

6.10.2010.

Sub: Information under RTI Act, 2005 – Selection of Chief Information Commissioner.

 

Respected Sir,

 

Kindly provide the following information on the selection of Chief Information Commissioner under RTI Act, 2005:

1.                 Names of the members who attended the meeting of the Selection Committee.

2.                 Date, time and venue of the meeting.

3.                 Names of the short-listed candidates considered for the post.

4.                 Whether the short listing and selection criteria would be made public by putting the same on the Deptt. website or by any other means.

5.                 Kindly provide a copy of the proceedings/minutes of the Selection Committee   Meeting.

B.       If some part of the solicited information does not belong to your Department, I request you to transfer that part to the concerned Public Authority u.s. 6(3) of the Act.

C.       I am enclosing a postal order for Rs. 10/- numbering 88E 389218 dated 30.9.2010 issued from the Dwarka Post Office.

Yours faithfully,

 

 

(Mahendra Kumar Gupta)

 

 




From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, 30 December, 2010 8:39:33 AM

Subject: Re: [rti4empowerment] APPOINTMENT OF CCIC

Dear WEDS

1) The specific point you are making is?
2) In what context ?

Sarbajit

PS: So far none of what you have said can be applied to Mr Gupta's case.

On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 3:59 AM, DSouza Wilberious Evanglist <wilevades@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Dear M.K.Gupta & others,
 
Please read section 4(c&d) of RTI Act 2005.
 

(c)

 publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies or announcing the decisions which affect public;

(d)

provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.

& remember,
 

PREFACE

 

Constitution is a living document, an instrument which makes the government system work
Premble,

WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly

resolved to constitute India into a 1[SOVEREIGN

SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC] and

to secure to all its citizens:

JUSTICE, social, economic and political;

LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and

worship;

EQUALITY of status and of opportunity;

and to promote among them all

FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual

and the 2[unity and integrity of the Nation];

IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twentysixth

day of November, 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT,

ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS

CONSTITUTION.

 

RTI Act 2005, Section 8(i), ultimate line reads as follows:

 

Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.

 

1.    From this you would agree that the People of India have installed the Constitution of India & the Government therewithin to themselves & to govern them. Hence, in Democracy, the Government is defined as A GOVERNMENT BY A PEOPLE; OF THE PEOPLE & FOR THE PEOPLE.

 

2.    Hence, the Government & all its functionaries are accountable & answerable to the People of India. Hence, the People of India have a right to question the Government that they have installed within the framework of the Constitution on its acts & omissions. This is otherwise known as the Right to Information.

 

3.    This Right to Information of the People of India is inalienable, axiomatic, fundamental as well as human right . This has been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court of India as a fundamental right forming a facet of Art. 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Read 6 above.

 

4.    To access, seek, receive & impart information is a Human Right (HR), as per Article 19 of The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) that was adopted by the General Assembly of The United Nations on the 16th December 1966, as cardinal principles of Human Right, embodied in The Protection of Human Rights Act 1993 section 2(d) & (f) forming a facet of Art. 21 Part III, Fundamental Right (FR) i.e. Right to life & Liberty, of the Constitution of India.

5.    Freedom of Information lies at the root of the rights discourse. Failure of the State to provide access to information or State suppression of information can lead to the most egregious forms of human rights violations. The Right to Information (RTI) is fundamental to the realisation of rights as well as effective democracy, which requires informed participation by all.

 

 

Regards,

WEDS



From: M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in>
To: rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, 29 December, 2010 13:23:21
Subject: [rti4empowerment] APPOINTMENT OF CCIC

By filing an RTI, I asked from the DoPT names of short-listed candidates considered for the post of Chief Information Commissioner and whether the short listing and selection criteria would be made public.

 

On filing the first appeal, Shri Anuradha S. Chagti, Dy. Secy. & First Appellate Authority has informed that no documents are available on these points and an appeal against this order of FAA can be made to the CIC.

 

It seems that only one name was considered at the time of appointing Shri A N Tiwari as CCIC or the DoPT has taken a decision to appoint the Senior Most IC as CIC and / or only one name was considered.

 

What next?  Views of activists are request whether second appeal is desirable on the two aforesaid issues.







Re: [HumJanenge] reg sedition

I could not but agree with you that "Transparency International" is a most corrupt institution.

best wishes

Sarbajit

On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 10:06 PM, K N Jagadesh kumar <jkgroup999@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear sarbjit Roy
The below statement is 100%
"Transparency International the police and judiciary are the most corrupt institutions in this country which in turn is one of the most corrupt in the whole world. "
Now
"its shame to talk-Crime to express"
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Dwarakanath /group

I dont know in what context this definition has been uploaded, perhaps it refers to PMK's warnings in Binayak' Sens' discussions

I surmise that PMK is concerned about members like Major Ravi who were similarly jailed for their utterances and now go about posting pro-Maoist comments on various unmoderated blogs and RTI groups purporting to be written to Constitutional Officers. To illustrate such utterances
http://iesmorg.blogspot.com/2010/06/views-of-maj-pm-ravindran.html

"This letter is a deliberate effort in that direction. The only other option available to me is to pray that the naxalites and maoists chose their targets correctly whenever they decide to strike because the other options- approaching the police or the judiciary- is beyond the pale of ordinary mortals in this country. It is pertinent to recall that as per the survey results of Transparency International the police and judiciary are the most corrupt institutions in this country which in turn is one of the most corrupt in the whole world. "

We don't need a police officer like Amitabh Thakur, IPS to see that such statements would otherwise directly fall under definition of sedition you have uploaded except for the fig-leaf of its purportedly being written to a Chief Minister,

Sarbajit


On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 6:42 AM, Dwarakanath <dwarakanathdm@gmail.com> wrote:
Friends, I reproduce below the definition of 'sedition' under the Indian Penal Code. for information:
  124-A:   Sedition – whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government established by law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment for Life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.  [explanation-1- The expression "disaffection" includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity, Explanation 2- Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures   of the Government with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means, without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.  Explanation 3- Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.




--
K N Jagadesh Kumar
9845500932
jkgroup999@gmail.com


Re: [HumJanenge] Fw: Rx for “Lost file” excuse by Government departments: Public Records Act

Dear Victor

1) Kindly do not cross-post messages. After 24 hours the group management will be terminating members who cross post.

2) Krishnaraj Rao does not possess a true copy of the PR Act. The "real" version can be found here (published by the National Archives u/s 4)
http://nationalarchives.nic.in/writereaddata/html_en_files/html/public_records93.html

3) Section 9 of the Act in this version (not 10 as he claims) reads as follows:

"Whoever contravenes any of the provisions of section 4 or section 8 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees or with both. "

Section 4 deals with taking records out of India without permission
Section 8 deals with destruction or disposal of records.
(Rule 9(4) specifies that destruction is to take place by burning / shredding in the presence of the records office,  "disposal" has not been prescribed)
www.sdobishnupur.in/Acts%20and%20Rules/Dictionery/1654.pdf

The case of "lost" records is therefore not covered under this penal clause at all.
Furthermore nowhere in the Act is it specified that the offences are "cognisable" and that a FIR can be registered or how/who has to register it.

Lastly I may mention, that this scheme of FIR under Public Records Act was repeatedly used by a corrupt IC, but on my formal complaint to the CCIC (not Mr Habibullah) the corrupt practice of issuing FIRs for cash seems to have stopped.

THE MORE RTI EGROUPS LIKE OURS ARE ALLOWED TO BE MISUSED BY THE LIKES OF KRISHNARAJ RAO, THE MORE THE CORRUPT ICS WILL BE EMBOLDENED TO PERPETUATE THEIR CORRUPTION.

Sarbajit


On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 2:42 AM, Victor Cooper <victor99cooper@yahoo.com> wrote:


--- On Thu, 12/30/10, Krishnaraj Rao <sahasipadyatri@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Krishnaraj Rao <sahasipadyatri@gmail.com>
Subject: [rti4empowerment] "Lost file" excuse? Get FIR against Records Officer using these sections of Public Records Act
To: rti-forum-for-instant-information-@googlegroups.com, rti4empowerment@yahoogroups.com, rtikerala@yahoogroups.co.in, "Dr Mohd Naved Khan RTIgroup" <mohdnavedkhan@gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, December 30, 2010, 1:34 AM

 

Dear RTI activists,

 

Just as we have the Public Information Officer (PIO) in every public authority, there is a Records Officer (RO) in almost every government department who can be fined Rs 10,000 or imprisoned for five years if documents are lost or tampered.

 

FOR CENTRAL GOVT DOCUMENTS, read Sec 10 of "Public Records Act 1993": http://tinyurl.com/PublicRecords1

 

FOR MAHARASHTRA GOVT DOCUMENTS, read Sec 9 of "Maharashtra Act No 4 of 2006": http://tinyurl.com/PublicRecords3

 

Quite often, we are denied information due to our own ignorance of these laws. No government employee can blandly say, "File lost" to an information seeker. There are clear-cut laws providing for who is to be held responsible and what is to be done in case documents or files are lost, misplaced or stolen. Therefore, under RTI, "File lost" can only be given as a reason for DELAY in providing information, but not as a reason for DENIAL of information.

 

If a file is lost, there is a clear-cut procedure that the officer designated as "Records Officer" has to follow. This may be summarized as "SRF" i.e.

a) SEARCH

b) RECONSTRUCT the file

c) Register FIR.

 

UNDERSTAND THESE KEY SECTIONS OF PUBLIC RECORDS ACT 1993:

SECTION 6:

  1. Every records creating agency shall nominate one of its officers as records officer to discharge the functions under this Act.

 

  1. Every records creating agency may set up such number of record rooms in such places as it deems fit and shall place each record room under the charge of a records officer.

 

SECTION 8:

  1. The records officer shall, in the event of any unauthorised removal, destruction, defacement or alteration of any public records under his charge, forthwith take appropriate action for the recovery or restoration of such public records.

 

  1. The records officer shall submit a report in writing to the Director General or as the case may be, the head of the Archives without any delay on any information about any unauthorised removal, destruction, defacement or alteration of any public record under his charge and about the action initiated by him and shall take action as he may deem necessary, subject to the directions, if any, given by Director General or, as the case may be, head of the Archives.

 

  1. The records officer may seek assistance from any government officer or any other person for the purpose of recovery or restoration of public records and such officer or person shall render all assistance to the records officer.

 

SECTION 10: Whoever contravenes any of the provisions of section 4 or section 8 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees or with both.

 

MAHARASHTRA ACTIVISTS: The corresponding sections of the State Act are 5, 7 & 9.

 

Exactly how, when and where must public records be classified, preserved, withdrawn or destroyed? Study Public Records RULES 1997: http://tinyurl.com/PublicRecords2

(These rules apply to Central Govt documents, but there must be similar rules for State Govt.)

 

Especially read the forms given at the bottom of the Rules, particularly Form 8, which enables citizens to enroll as "Research Scholars" and study the documents at National Archives of India. Many hidden treasures may lie in these archives, waiting to be discovered by you!

 

Warm Regards,

Krish

98215 88114

__._

[HumJanenge] Fw: Rx for “Lost file” excuse by Government departments: Public Records Act



--- On Thu, 12/30/10, Krishnaraj Rao <sahasipadyatri@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Krishnaraj Rao <sahasipadyatri@gmail.com>
Subject: [rti4empowerment] "Lost file" excuse? Get FIR against Records Officer using these sections of Public Records Act
To: rti-forum-for-instant-information-@googlegroups.com, rti4empowerment@yahoogroups.com, rtikerala@yahoogroups.co.in, "Dr Mohd Naved Khan RTIgroup" <mohdnavedkhan@gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, December 30, 2010, 1:34 AM

 

Dear RTI activists,

 

Just as we have the Public Information Officer (PIO) in every public authority, there is a Records Officer (RO) in almost every government department who can be fined Rs 10,000 or imprisoned for five years if documents are lost or tampered.

 

FOR CENTRAL GOVT DOCUMENTS, read Sec 10 of "Public Records Act 1993": http://tinyurl.com/PublicRecords1

 

FOR MAHARASHTRA GOVT DOCUMENTS, read Sec 9 of "Maharashtra Act No 4 of 2006": http://tinyurl.com/PublicRecords3

 

Quite often, we are denied information due to our own ignorance of these laws. No government employee can blandly say, "File lost" to an information seeker. There are clear-cut laws providing for who is to be held responsible and what is to be done in case documents or files are lost, misplaced or stolen. Therefore, under RTI, "File lost" can only be given as a reason for DELAY in providing information, but not as a reason for DENIAL of information.

 

If a file is lost, there is a clear-cut procedure that the officer designated as "Records Officer" has to follow. This may be summarized as "SRF" i.e.

a) SEARCH

b) RECONSTRUCT the file

c) Register FIR.

 

UNDERSTAND THESE KEY SECTIONS OF PUBLIC RECORDS ACT 1993:

SECTION 6:

  1. Every records creating agency shall nominate one of its officers as records officer to discharge the functions under this Act.

 

  1. Every records creating agency may set up such number of record rooms in such places as it deems fit and shall place each record room under the charge of a records officer.

 

SECTION 8:

  1. The records officer shall, in the event of any unauthorised removal, destruction, defacement or alteration of any public records under his charge, forthwith take appropriate action for the recovery or restoration of such public records.

 

  1. The records officer shall submit a report in writing to the Director General or as the case may be, the head of the Archives without any delay on any information about any unauthorised removal, destruction, defacement or alteration of any public record under his charge and about the action initiated by him and shall take action as he may deem necessary, subject to the directions, if any, given by Director General or, as the case may be, head of the Archives.

 

  1. The records officer may seek assistance from any government officer or any other person for the purpose of recovery or restoration of public records and such officer or person shall render all assistance to the records officer.

 

SECTION 10: Whoever contravenes any of the provisions of section 4 or section 8 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees or with both.

 

MAHARASHTRA ACTIVISTS: The corresponding sections of the State Act are 5, 7 & 9.

 

Exactly how, when and where must public records be classified, preserved, withdrawn or destroyed? Study Public Records RULES 1997: http://tinyurl.com/PublicRecords2

(These rules apply to Central Govt documents, but there must be similar rules for State Govt.)

 

Especially read the forms given at the bottom of the Rules, particularly Form 8, which enables citizens to enroll as "Research Scholars" and study the documents at National Archives of India. Many hidden treasures may lie in these archives, waiting to be discovered by you!

 

Warm Regards,

Krish

98215 88114

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

Re: [HumJanenge] reg sedition

Dear sarbjit Roy
The below statement is 100%
"Transparency International the police and judiciary are the most corrupt institutions in this country which in turn is one of the most corrupt in the whole world. "
Now
"its shame to talk-Crime to express"
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Dwarakanath /group

I dont know in what context this definition has been uploaded, perhaps it refers to PMK's warnings in Binayak' Sens' discussions

I surmise that PMK is concerned about members like Major Ravi who were similarly jailed for their utterances and now go about posting pro-Maoist comments on various unmoderated blogs and RTI groups purporting to be written to Constitutional Officers. To illustrate such utterances
http://iesmorg.blogspot.com/2010/06/views-of-maj-pm-ravindran.html

"This letter is a deliberate effort in that direction. The only other option available to me is to pray that the naxalites and maoists chose their targets correctly whenever they decide to strike because the other options- approaching the police or the judiciary- is beyond the pale of ordinary mortals in this country. It is pertinent to recall that as per the survey results of Transparency International the police and judiciary are the most corrupt institutions in this country which in turn is one of the most corrupt in the whole world. "

We don't need a police officer like Amitabh Thakur, IPS to see that such statements would otherwise directly fall under definition of sedition you have uploaded except for the fig-leaf of its purportedly being written to a Chief Minister,

Sarbajit


On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 6:42 AM, Dwarakanath <dwarakanathdm@gmail.com> wrote:
Friends, I reproduce below the definition of 'sedition' under the Indian Penal Code. for information:
  124-A:   Sedition – whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government established by law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment for Life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.  [explanation-1- The expression "disaffection" includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity, Explanation 2- Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures   of the Government with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means, without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.  Explanation 3- Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.




--
K N Jagadesh Kumar
9845500932
jkgroup999@gmail.com

Re: [HumJanenge] reg sedition

friends, I do understand that there are a lot of its and buts in the country as far as honesty or integrity or lawfulness or compliance with laws are concerned.  I am a born Indian and will be for ever. But being an Indian, it is my fundamental duty, irrespective of what others do, to abide by the Constitution and strive to improve, educate the masses about their rights, liberties and duty (under Article 51-A). I have to honestly  put my effort to bring peace and tranquility to the extent possible.   I believe in the mass understanding the law of the country and do their bit to not only abide by it but also take corrective peaceful action wherever it is necessary.  The country belongs to all of us  and not a private property of any individuals or any political parties.   I do not intend or attempt to gain any name, fame or  rewards in this venture.  If my writings offend any of the groups or anybody else, they have the privilege either to ignore or to block the display of write ups.Regards, dwarakanathdm,nbca

On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Dwarakanath /group

I dont know in what context this definition has been uploaded, perhaps it refers to PMK's warnings in Binayak' Sens' discussions

I surmise that PMK is concerned about members like Major Ravi who were similarly jailed for their utterances and now go about posting pro-Maoist comments on various unmoderated blogs and RTI groups purporting to be written to Constitutional Officers. To illustrate such utterances
http://iesmorg.blogspot.com/2010/06/views-of-maj-pm-ravindran.html

"This letter is a deliberate effort in that direction. The only other option available to me is to pray that the naxalites and maoists chose their targets correctly whenever they decide to strike because the other options- approaching the police or the judiciary- is beyond the pale of ordinary mortals in this country. It is pertinent to recall that as per the survey results of Transparency International the police and judiciary are the most corrupt institutions in this country which in turn is one of the most corrupt in the whole world. "

We don't need a police officer like Amitabh Thakur, IPS to see that such statements would otherwise directly fall under definition of sedition you have uploaded except for the fig-leaf of its purportedly being written to a Chief Minister,

Sarbajit


On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 6:42 AM, Dwarakanath <dwarakanathdm@gmail.com> wrote:
Friends, I reproduce below the definition of 'sedition' under the Indian Penal Code. for information:
  124-A:   Sedition – whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government established by law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment for Life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.  [explanation-1- The expression "disaffection" includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity, Explanation 2- Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures   of the Government with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means, without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.  Explanation 3- Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.


Re: [HumJanenge] Re: [rti4empowerment] APPOINTMENT OF CCIC


Dear Gupta ji;

Be assured that Whatever they may plan, nothing is going to work in
their favor anymore except that the cleverly woven schemes would
merely defer the Truths Emerging just to a few more weeks later !    

Ashok

Reach out and touch someone with your Love & Gratitude.

~Ashok



--- On Thu, 30/12/10, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

From: M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: [rti4empowerment] APPOINTMENT OF CCIC
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Thursday, 30 December, 2010, 4:10 PM

An strange decision. Recently, the CIC ordered that the assessts of the Judges of even SC,  Ministers should be declared and put on the websites.  This decision was confirmed by the single bench and bench of multiple judges of the Delhi High Court.
 
For former CICs and others, the same parametres are not adopted. 
 
I wish to agree with your comments that it may be useless going to the "convention of cannibles and preaching vegetarian".  But, if Mr. Dhurve had not gone in appeal before the CIC, such things must have not come to the light.  Likewise, if I go in appeal, the picture will be made clear. 



From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: rti4empowerment <rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com>; humjanenge <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>; vihardurve@gmail.com
Sent: Thu, 30 December, 2010 9:28:25 AM
Subject: [HumJanenge] Re: [rti4empowerment] APPOINTMENT OF CCIC

Dear Guptaji

Please read this recent CIC decision
http://rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_WB_A_2009_000862_M_48366.pdf
"Vihar Durve versus CPIO/DoPT"

Do you think that any IC will give an order which affects him also ?

Notwithstanding this, it is quite surprising that such an experienced person like Vihar Durve could not argue his case properly and get his submissions / legal arguments properly recorded in the order.

This is an extremely poor quality decision by IC-Deepak Sandhu, even the FAA's order in this case was better reasoned. There are technical reasons why this order must be reheard, and I hope that Mr Vihar Durve pursues his further remedies within the CIC.

Sarbajit

On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 6:39 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
A English proverb sprang to mind when I read your post, (please don't mind my saying this).

"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread".

Sarbajit


On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 6:33 PM, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
At the most, CIC will reject the appeal and it has no more power.
In that case, I will have an option to go to Delhi High Court.

Sent: Wed, 29 December, 2010 6:22:28 PM

Subject: Re: [rti4empowerment] APPOINTMENT OF CCIC

Dear Guptaji

1) I cannot (regretably) reply properly without compromising some other action we are on.

2) Please read the following very carefully and act accordingly.

"In my view it would be very unwise to go to CIC with DoPT as the Respondent".

3) You might get a favorable order but the chances are against it. Going to CIC on this matter is like going to a convention of cannibals and preaching vegeterianism.

Sarbajit

On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 6:12 PM, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Dear Roy,
 
Reproducing below the information sought at point 3 and 4:
 
3.    "Names of the short-listed candidates considered for the post."
4.    "Whether the short listing and selection criteria would be made public by putting the names on the Deptt. website or by any other means." 
 
I think on these two issue, going to CIC in appeal would be appropriate.
Your views.
 

 


From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com; humjanenge <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wed, 29 December, 2010 3:58:49 PM
Subject: Re: [rti4empowerment] APPOINTMENT OF CCIC

Dear Guptaji

Did you use the word "short list" in your RTI request ? If there was no short list then there are no documents for her to give. You must read section 12, 13 etc. of the RTI Act very carefully and frame your request strictly in terms of the Act. When the Act does not speak of short list you can hardly expect DoPT to admit that there is any such list or need for a list.

The position in law is that a COMMITTEE of 3 members of Parliament recommends name/names to the President for appointment. The terms of ref of this Committee are already laid out in the Act. Till such time as additional rules to regulate the functioning / procedure to be followed by the Committee does not exist they can do anything within the limits of the Act. 100s of pages of documents procured under  RTI Act on this show that the Committee is continuously changing its procedure and methods.

Sarbajit

On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 1:23 PM, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

By filing an RTI, I asked from the DoPT names of short-listed candidates considered for the post of Chief Information Commissioner and whether the short listing and selection criteria would be made public.

 

On filing the first appeal, Shri Anuradha S. Chagti, Dy. Secy. & First Appellate Authority has informed that no documents are available on these points and an appeal against this order of FAA can be made to the CIC.

 

It seems that only one name was considered at the time of appointing Shri A N Tiwari as CCIC or the DoPT has taken a decision to appoint the Senior Most IC as CIC and / or only one name was considered.

 

What next?  Views of activists are request whether second appeal is desirable on the two aforesaid issues.