Point wise
a) The applicant had suppressed that he was an employee of Oracle which was also a participant in the tender process. The applicant was not a candidate in the CAT 2009 nor was any of his family. It was therefore a perfectly reasonable ground for the PIO to take that the appellant was interested to get the information for commercial / IPR reasons on behalf of his employer. The RTI Act does not prohibit a PIO from attributing motives to an applicant, what the Act says is that the applicant shall not be required to disclose his irrelevant personal details. Since "public interest" was the issue the PIO has every reason to claim that the applicant has no public interest but is acting at the behest of his interested employer for commercial reasons. So that is why I asked - and which you could not answer - what is applicant's locus ?
b) Does the Act say that CIC has to go through each and every document which is to be given to applicant - and personally verify that complete information is given? Where does it say that CIC will personally get involved in 10(2) ? If we support such a stand - will it not slow down the information flow to a crawl ? Is it not a fact that numerous hearings were afforded to parties in this matter - thereby denying others in the queue an early hearing. I strongly feel that there should be a limit frivolous and busybody "RTI taxis" who file RTIs and appeals as a commercial business. Why the f*** should I (or you) have to wait 4 years to get an appeal decided in my favour by the CIC / SIC?
c) Since neither CIC nor any of the parties / cause of action are based in territorial jurisdiction of Jharkhand High Court, the CIC had no business considering the decision of the Jharkhand High Court or citing it in the order. This is a clear example of incompetence of the Information Commissioners concerned.
In passing, I may mention that while this kind of blind support (blind leading the blind) for appellants / applicant (while holding that the CIC / SIC are fools /corrupt) is par for the course at groups at rtiindia.org / HJ, and the other Yahoo groups - at RTI_India we shall always encourage a complete debate on the merits of each and every such assertion - and this is our USP.
Sarbajit
--- In rti_india@yahoogrou
>
> a) The application is made in his personal capacity. The address is for communication purposes only. The applicant has filed several applications in the last 4 years - all give the same address for communication. In any case, it is not upto the PIO to attribute any motives to the applicant, based on the address he gives. This was strongly opposed by the applicant at the time of hearing, but was reiterated once again by the PA.Considering the fracas during CAT2009 and the subsequent doubts raised by applicants, public interest is involved.
> b) CIC called for the documents but did not go through them at all. They just went by the PIO's offer to apply severability and provide the rest of information. Having got the documents, they should have at least seen that whether 8(1)(d) is applicable to all the pages that are being severed.Sec 10(2) was never followed. CIC also never heard the third party/ies. CIC did not hear the appellant or call him for any subsequent hearing, when the offer for severed information was made.
> c) The Jharkhand HC judgment was cited since the exemption sought therein was exactly the same - Sec 8(1)(d) and the HC ruled that once the tendering process is over, all documents are disclosable under RTI.
>
>
> RTIwanted.
>
>
> --- On Sun, 5/9/10, sarbajitr <sroy1947@..
>
> From: sarbajitr <sroy1947@..
> Subject: [rti_india] Re: IIMA and Prometric - Online CAT 2009 tender
> To: rti_india@yahoogrou
> Date: Sunday, May 9, 2010, 4:00 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 1) What the locus of Applicant to file this request is not clear ? Considering that he works for a competitor - 8(1)(d) is prima facie applicable.
>
>
>
> 2) Which procedures followed by CIC violate provisions of the RTI *Act* ???
>
>
>
> 3) Why does the CIC take notice of a decision of Jharkhand High Court ??
>
>
>
> Sarbajit
>
>
>
> --- In rti_india@yahoogrou ps.com, C K Jam <rtiwanted@ ..> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Another (in a long list) order favoring IIMA.
>
> >
>
> > IC SG "reserved" his orders after the first hearing.
>
> >
>
> > Then the matter was sent to a division bench of the CIC consisting of IC SG and CIC WH.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The order is finally out and is attached to this post.
>
> > It is still not available on the CIC website.
>
> >
>
> > The
>
> > appellant has now sought a review on various grounds since the procedure
>
> > followed by the CIC
>
> > violates various provisions of the RTI Act itself.
>
> >
>
> > RTIwanted
>
> >
>
No comments:
Post a Comment