1) The locus is needed because P/A has invoked 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(j). The term "larger public interest" does not mean that any busybody / interloper can agitate the matter (well settled case law - what is the cause of action ?) - he must have a well defined locus standi considering that only the "competent authority" (which is NOT the CIC) can rule on the public interest involved. The applicant gave an address which turned out to be that of one the participants in the tender.
2) 10(2) is meant to be followed when the CPIO is framing his section 7 computation of fees. In the present case only after the FAA and 2nd Appellate "assisted" him did PIO voluntarily make an offer of 10(2) out of the goodness of his heart to settle the matter finally. Kindly note that by 10(1) the PIO is NOT *required* to sever the information, but he "may" sever information. The fact that PIO subsequently offers severed info during appeal proceedings means that he is NOT bound to follow the section 10(2) procedure but submits to the CIC's directions.
3) The papers were called for to *generally* see if the PIO had grounds to invoke 8(1)(d). The CIC is not supposed to go into each and every bit of information especially in lengthy and vexatious RTIs like this one :-)
4) So the ICs can be so easily persuaded by illegalities ?
5) The USP of this group (not selling anything) is the acknowledgement that the applicants are not always correct, the PIOs are not always "bad guys" and the CICs/ SICs sometimes do pass good orders. Notwithstanding that, "RTI activists" are ALWAYS WRONG here !!! The aim of this group, is to make sure that applicants know as much RTI as the PIOs (and vice-versa) while avoiding getting brainwashed / misled by NGO /activist disinformation.
Sarbajit
--- In rti_india@yahoogrou
>
> 1. Why do you (or for that matter PIO/FAA/IC) want to know applicants
> locus ? Where does the RTI Act say that a locus is is needed to file RTI
> applications ?
>
> The address of the applicant cannot be a basis of attributing locus or
> anything else.
>
> The address needs to be given for communication purposes - that's it.
>
>
>
> 2. Read my reply. I said the Sec 10(2) was not followed. The CPIO is supposed to follow Sec 10(2) if "severed" information is to be provided. Otherwise why is that section there in the Act ?
>
> If the CIC does not want to go through the documents to see if Sec 8(1)(d) is indeed applicable or not, why does it call for those papers...is there any shortage of toilet paper in A K Bhawan / old JNU campus ?
>
> Whether such matters go upto the CIC or not and how many hearings are held, will not make even a iota of difference in expediting hearings for you, me or a majority of others - unless of course you have also started a KGB/CIA/BOSS/
>
> c) Decisions of HC or other CIC/SIC are added for "persuasive" value only.
>
> d) Cannot figure out why you refer to USP of this group. What are you trying to sell ? Something was posted here in this group, and a discussion is taking place here. Period.
>
> RTIwanted
>
>
>
> --- On Mon, 5/10/10, sarbajitr <sroy1947@..
>
> From: sarbajitr <sroy1947@..
> Subject: [rti_india] Re: IIMA and Prometric - Online CAT 2009 tender
> To: rti_india@yahoogrou
> Date: Monday, May 10, 2010, 2:46 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> .
>
No comments:
Post a Comment