Dear Sarabjit
What is the moderator position on blacklisting NCPRI and other
ngos from this group ? Unable to locate the "Chandra Kumar 1997" citation.
Rgds,
Ashish
--- In rti_india@yahoogrou
>
> Dear Ashish
>
> 1) The "new" moderation policy is not the cause
> for the reduction in postings to the group. The
> fact is that the RTI scene is dead / dull /
> exhausted.
>
> 2) Insofar as Venkatesh's plagiarism is concerned,
> I think you may have gotten hold of the wrong
> end of the stick. The one thing that the NCPRI does
> not want at the present time is amendments to the
> RTI Act. The Delhi High Court judgment has altered
> the game in favour of Act amendment. For how long
> can Mr Habibullah continue to stand in contempt
> of the judgement by functioning in Benches ?
> Prospective SLPs and single judge decisions from
> other High Courts where CIC was not a contesting
> party do not allow him to continue his willful
> disobedience to Delhi HC's directions at all. Now
> hat the Court has decided that 12(4) does not give
> him the power, Mr Habibullah should publicly state
> which other clause of RTI Act gives him powers.
>
> 3) I actually think that the opinion circulated by
> Mr Akash Deep was drafted by the NCPRI gang. It is
> legally weak, for instance the case law is full of
> cherry picking - L Chandra Kumar (1997) is actually
> very damaging to CIC's cause. The 2 single HC
> decisions are not relevant - but actually work against
> the CIC too. Venkatesh has reached an absurd conclusion
> when he states that the Delhi HC decision is "per incuram"
> on "benches". This is similar to his previous claim that
> the HC decision was only "obiter", which was subsequently
> propogated by Mr Habibullah and Shailesh Gandhi in the
> CIC meeting and loudly rejected by all the other
> Commissioners present.
>
> 4) It would be very very unwise if the CIC now embarks
> on SLP adventurism in the SC to enable Mr Habibullah to
> wriggle out of a tight corner. In the HC they had to face
> DDA, in the SC they will have to face me. It is far far
> better that the RTI Act be amended or the DoPT be
> persuaded to amend the Rules.
>
> 5) Insofar as Plagiarism is concerned, the NCPRI
> is notorious for stealing other peoples works,
> RTI is now an additional tool to steal the labours of
> others). I shall post on this with examples when I
> get some time.
>
> 6) I now agree that the RTI Act contains provisions
> to allow the competent authority to fix fees for
> appeals also.
>
> Sarbajit
>
> --- In rti_india@yahoogrou
> >
> > Dear group moderators
> >
> > I am pleased that the new moderation policy is
> > evidently quite successful in arresting the menace of
> > frivolous postings to the group.
> >
> > Another development is that the NCPRI members
> > here now appear reluctant to post on a public frequency
> > where their puerile logic and "ngo-speak" will
> > be exposed by the many RTI "experts" here.
> >
> > For instance Mr Venkatesh Naik is now posting
> > on Hum Janenge. Of his 2 recent posts, the first
> > on the DDA HC decision is plagiarized from the
> > private legal opinion A.K.Chakravarthy of the C.I.C
> > put up to the Information Commissioners for
> > their fortnightly meeting. Somehow NCPRI has
> > obtained a copy of this (Gandhi-giri :-)) and Mr Naik
> > has the gall to palm off this work as his own
> > research (right down to the case law). The second post
> > of Mr Naik's claims that there is no basis in RTI Act 2005 for the
> > competent authority to prescribe fees for 2nd appeals.
> > This betrays a complete disregard (or perhaps ignorance)
> > for the letter of the law, and I am strongly inclined
> > towards seconding Sharma's suggestion to expel
> > NCPRI (and other NGOs) from this group so that our
> > group members are not deceived..
> >
> > Ashish
> >
>
No comments:
Post a Comment