Dear Kamal
You are on the right track. Now how will you close your argument (in terms of
contravention of RTI Act) ??
Sarbajit
On 8/19/10, Kamal Anand <peoplefortransparency@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dear sroy
>
> thanks for y r advice on subject,
>
> i was present for every hearing, i made my best, he/she Ms did not argue the
> case, i did to best of my knowledge of RTI law.
>
> could this decision may be challaned in Court at this stage,
>
>
>
>
> some excerpts of judgement
>
> 18. The Commission has carefully considered the whole issue. It is certainly
> within the domain of the concerned Public Authority, which is the agency
> competent to do so having been thus authorised, to decide and determine as
> to whether disclosure would adversely affect the economic interest of the
> State or not. The Commission can only look into as to whether the
> determination by the Department about the probable effect of a particular
> policy disclosure is based on objective criteria or not or as to whether the
> Department has arrived at a particular conclusion in a reasoned, or in a
> mechanical or arbitrary manner. Here is a case where a Public Authority at
> the highest level has analyzed the whole issue at our behest and has given
> its considered opinion to this Commission about the possible effect of the
> disclosure on economic interest of the State. We must conclude that the
> implications of disclosure have been put to the closest scrutiny.
>
>
> if every public authority is competent to decide whether information should
> be disclosed or not ( i.e. has discretion to decide whether dissemination
> of information prejudicely effect the ecnomic interest, safey of state
> or impede the process of investigateion etc) , Then what Commission is
> suppose to do,
>
>
> regards,
>
> Kamal Anand
>
>
> --- On Wed, 8/18/10, sarbajitr <sroy1947@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> From: sarbajitr <sroy1947@yahoo.com>
> Subject: [rti_india] Re: expert advice of rti activits/users
> To: rti_india@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, August 18, 2010, 2:12 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi
>
> Once again this was Mr Tiwari's case which he put up to a
> Full Bench for complete consideration on your issues.
>
> You have not argued your case properly. I think it was
> something to do with the fact that the person representing
> you "Ms. Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar" was confused between her
> sexuality.
>
> PS: The link is in correct, here is the correct one
> http://rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/Decision_11022008_11.pdf
>
> Sarbajit
>
> --- In rti_india@yahoogroups.com, Kamal Anand <peoplefortransparency@...>
> wrote:
>>
>> http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_11022008_11.pdf
>>
>> i had filed second appeal with Central Information Commission, i am of the
>> view that CIC skiped from deciding the issue, member of the group have
>> expertize on the subject hence advice of my learned friends on the issue
>> sought.
>>
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> Kamal Anand
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
No comments:
Post a Comment