Dear Bhaskar
The reason I number my paras is so that you can reply comprehensively and avoid wasting the valuable time of others. To reply "parawise" you are required to do ALL of the following 3 things.
1) Generally deny the para. If you fail to generally deny each para it will be taken to be admitted by you. The usual way to do so is to say "Para #1 is wrong and denied".
2) You must specifically \precisely deny each and every fact or submission in the para which you dont agree with. You can do this by saying "it is incorrect to say that ....".
3) You must THEN say what, as per you, is the correct position \ truth. (ie. your counter-claim)
It is only when all 3 of the above conditions are satisfied that the truth will emerge.You may kindly refer to Order VII Rule 3 (Denial to be specific), Rule 4 (Evasive denial) and Rule 5 (Specific denial) of the Code of Civil Procedure
Furthermore, "cherry picking" ie, selective extracts of law which suit your case, is bad form. Before you try to teach us the RTI law please make sure that you possess a complete copy of the RTI Act. All this may work in Maharashtra or in closed communities of RTI activists, but we dont tolerate such dubious practices on this group. When we enforce such practices, which BTW are equally applicable to everyone without exception, professional haramis, who are so used to speaking in their little ponds without fear of contradiction, cant stand the heat here and slink away quietly.
Sarbajit
--- In rti_india@yahoogroups.com, Bhaskar Prabhu <mahitiadhikarmanch@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Sarbajit,
>
> Section 4 " Title itself says "Obligations of Public authorities". So they
> need to do this if they are not doing it then they need to be pestered. It
> has various words, maintain, facilitate, reasonable time, computerised,
> connected through network, different systems.
> If public authority does this, then people need not go for RTI for all
> records. Section 4(2) expects " It *shall* be a constant endeavour of every
> public authority to take steps........., so that the public have minimum
> resort to the use of this Act to obtain information.
>
> So if Public Authority does not take such steps then we need your defined
> type of haramis to make *non working Babus* to work.
>
> I can use any type of information seeking which ever is benificial to
> pocket. It is left to me which tea I should drink of 5 star or of Dhaba,
> which ever is feasible to my pocket. That is why RTI has made different
> types payment for getting Information. Let Public Authrity Change.
>
> Yours in service for RTI
> Bhaskar Prabhu
>
> On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 9:05 AM, sarbajitr <sroy1947@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Dear Bhaskar
> >
> > 1) Section 4(1)(a) does not make it obligatory for P/As to computerise the
> > records. It enables them to do so if they are so inclined.
> >
> > 2) You can "request" information in form of diskettes only when it is
> > stored on a computer or other device - not because the information is
> > voluminous and would pinch your pocket.
> >
> > Sarbajit
> >
> >
> > --- In rti_india@yahoogroups.com <rti_india%40yahoogroups.com>, Bhaskar
> > Prabhu <mahitiadhikarmanch@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Sarbajit,
> > > I donot think Mr. Shekar Singh is unjust in asking in CD. In Section4(1)a
> > it
> > > is obligatory for them to computarise the records, we also demand records
> > in
> > > CD if it voluminous.
> > > Bhaskar
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
No comments:
Post a Comment