Dear Sarabjit
Many thanks for your intervention. The reason why these NGO types MUST be
expelled from the group is that they believe they can out shout everybody and
play to the gallery by using arguments that appeal to emotion and not to reason.
I agree that we should also insist on a parawise / point wise reply during such
debates so as to ensure that "NGO-speak" (NGO-shout ?) does not work here.
Leaving all my previous arguments aside for the moment, I would ask M/s Naik
and/or Jam to respond to one point.
A) In the Telecom Regulatory Act section 14A(3) describes the rule making power
of the Central Government for appeals to the Telecom Appellate Tribunal.
"(3) Every appeal under sub-section (2) shall be preferred within a
period of thirty
days from the date on which a copy of the direction or order or decision made by
the Authority is received by the Central Government or the State Government or
the local authority or the aggrieved person and it shall be in such
form, verified in
such manner and be accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed:"
In the case of DoPT / Orissa Govt who have prescribed by Rules the
form of appeal,
the verification of the appeal, and fees for appeal (without any
equivalent /explicit
enabling clause in RTI Act) why do you activists only focus on the fee
aspect and not
also challenge their requirements of form for appeal, the verification
of appeal etc ?
In passing, it is good to see that the Orissa Soochna Commission has prescribed
fees for both the 1st as well as 2nd appeals and directed that it be
in the form of
court fee stamps; exactly as I had recommended in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd edns. of
my tiny (and best selling) RTI textbook :-)
Ashish
>Dear Group,
>
>I think it is very unfortunate that the discussion going on here is not
conducive to conducting a "debate". Instead all participants are trying to score
points off each other and evading the central issues.
>
>The brief facts are
>
>1) That Venkatesh advised Rajesh Darak on Hum Janenge that the decision of some
states to impose a fee for 2nd appeals had no basis in law. He claimed that
section 28 in particular does not provide for this.
>
>2) After a few days Ashish cited this post as an example of why NCPRI members
should be booted off this group (RTI_India) for deceiving the citizens etc. As
per Ashish section 27 clearly allows fees /costs to be charged for 2nd appeals.
Ashish distinguished section 27 from section 28 highlighting that section
27(2)(e) allows the govt to frame rules for "appeal procedures" which includes
the "(court) fees" to be affixed to the prescribed index (and service of process
on parties also being prescribed to be incumbent upon the CIC/SIC).
>
>3) Whereupon Venkatesh ridiculed ("laughable") Ashish's logic but did completely
evaded addressing Ashish's argument at all. Unfortuantely the argument had got
confused with certain allegations that Venkatesh was "anti-national". At this
point Karira (Jam) intervened and segregated out the "fees for 1st/2nd appeals"
arguments.
>
>4) Ashish now provides a detailed (but not "long') analysis of why the CICX
(being a "court" for purposes of evidence only ..) the "Court Fee Act of 1870"
can be additionally relied upon to justify the collection of fees at the 1st/2nd
appellate stage by virtue of 19(5) of RTI Act.
Importantly he provides the complete citation for the Law Commission's report on
Fees / Costs.
>
>5) Regrettably, and I say this only to focus the future debate here, Venkatesh
ignores almost completely the substance of Ashish's points and meanders into a
"long" analysis of his own as to why fees cannot be charged (which IMHO is long
on rhetoric and short on substance).
>
>I therefore request Venkatesh and Karira to specifically address /counter
Ashish's arguments as to why, as per him, fees can be charged. This is the best
way for the debate to conclude, especially as having previously thrashed this
out with Ashish, I know he has lots of 'khuraak' held back in reserve :-).
>
>It would be helpful, to use provide a para-wise reply, clearly indicating
whether you agree or not with the Ashish's careful drafting, and if not BRIEFLY
why not.
>
>Sarbajit
No comments:
Post a Comment