Dear Venkatesh
1) I am not "the" moderator but "a" moderator.
2) Technically we have no "moderator" since this group is "essentially unmoderated / uncensored".
3) I can only "do little" in the matter as emails to this group are normally posted in "real-time", with zero moderator intervention.
4) As you know the text of this group's home-page well, let me quote from it
"DISCLAIMER: Being "essentially uncensored", legal liability (if any) for posts to this mailing list rests with the individual members in their territorial jurisdictions /laws."
In any event and since we don't have libel laws in India, you can proceed against me for defamation. The last time I was sued for defamation (in a small causes court in Mumbai in ca. 2005) the very solid party dropped his suit when I filed my counter and took a Rs 200 crore loss in the process.
5) I did not endorse the allegation of plagiarism against you. To the contrary I advised
Ashish and our other members of another possibility, namely that what Mr Akashdeep
and Mr Nigam were circulating as legal opinion for the CIC meeting to the ICs originated from you or NCPRI - which is far more reprehensible conduct.
Sarbajit
--- In rti_india@yahoogrou
>
> Dear Sarbajit,
> As the moderator of this group you have done little to give me an
> opportunity to respond to the allegation of plagiarism before allowing the
> posting of that allegation. In this email of yours you have endorsed this
> allegation. I request you to prove that I as a member of NCPRI have
> plagiarised from any source. I reserve my right to take legal action for
> libel against you as moderator of this group.
> Thanks
> Venkatesh Nayak
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: rti_india@yahoogrou
> Of sarbajitr
> Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 7:34 AM
> To: rti_india@yahoogrou
> Subject: [rti_india] Re: Proposal to blacklist NCPRI members from RTI_India
>
>
>
>
> 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
> ashish kr1965 ashishkr1965@ wrote:
> >
> > 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