Re: [rti_india] CIC overules Rule 20(a)(v) of Allahabad High Court (RTI Rules 2006)

Monday, August 16, 2010

Re: [rti_india] CIC overules Rule 20(a)(v) of Allahabad High Court (RTI Rules 2006)

Dear Sarbajit,

I am not sitting in a arm chair and only watching website -:). But these are information given by the Informatin Commission and this exercise is done every month by the I.Commission. Up Loading of decision is not done by other ICs of other divisions except Mumbai, which is what we are insisting to be done by other commissioners of state. Keeping of records of our state Information Commission is much better than others and these also was possible after lot of perusal by not using words like harami ,OH !! and also by lot of persuasion by your termed harami NGOs or by public spirited persons. I and some of our collegues have been following up ICommission on pendency by different ways and means of monitoring, and are able to push slowly and studily to get result from I.Com by dialogues.

Your are also one of guruji to me, but i take what is good in you excluding harami-pan, but it is natural to have a pickle in thali other wise food is never tasty -:)

There is no necesary to follow foot steps other information commissioners by any information commissioner. Courts are the easiest way get stay.

In-service for RTI

Bhaskar Prabhu

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Bhaskar your information seems to be incorrect.

Only 1 SIC decision for Nasik is uploaded on SIC website
http://sic.maharashtra.gov.in/files/upload/nashik/ANSARI%20EJAJ%20AHMED-19-06-2009.pdf

The ratio of which is as follows (quoting WP(C) 5294/2008):

""If any person interested in the information of the trust, he can
definitely apply to the Charity Commissioner under the provisions of
the Public Trust Act. to have such information, which the Charity
Commissioner may deem fit to be provided. But as far as Right to
Information Act is concerned, there is no need for any public trust to
appoint any Information Officer and to entertain any such application
under the Right to Information Act. In the circumstances, the petition
has to be allowed. Order passed by both the authorities are set aside
and
quashed. Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute"

And yet your guruji IC(SG) seems to be blissfully unaware of all this
in Maharashtra when he repeatedly passes orders in case of the Trust
managing Bombay properties of Indian Institute of Science to disclose
information and appoint PIOs. This decision has also been stayed by
Mumbai High Court.

Sarbajit

On 8/16/10, Bhaskar Prabhu <mahitiadhikarmanch@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear friends,
>
> I had sent the detail of disposals in earlier mail for Jan to May 2010 below
> satement to be corrected from 18189 to 8077 average per month by commission
> is to corrected from 1515 to 1615 and average per commissioner per month of
> commission is to be corrected from 216 to 230.
>
> Thanks
> Inservice for RTI
> Bhaskar Prabhu
> Mumbai
>
>
>>
>> Total actual disposal of appeals and complaints for Jan to May 2010 by the
>> commission is 18189 average per month byn commission is 1515 and per
>> average
>> per commissioner of the commission is 216.
>>
>>
>>
>> Total appeals returned by commission due to technical for Jan to May 2010
>> reasons 1377.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>