Dear Satishji
1) We have previously discussed your cases. For eg.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rti_india/message/597
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rti_india/message/607
quote:
"My ourbrust is due to false statement by CPIO of SEBI
that he offered me to inspect file. Mr Tiwari without
reading or checking papers produced to him by both
parties, repeated that CPIO had offered appellant to
inspect file."
:
"In another case with Police, although DCP-legal upheld
my arguments of giving information and said that this
falls under RTI act, DCP-EOW who was representing PIO
inspite of DCP-legal arguments, asked by Mr Tiwari to
tell why he does not want to give information, he
again and again asked to quote any rule under which
information can be refused. This clearly speaks of
malafides of Mr Tiwari. Had he been honest, he should
have given decision on this point and proceeded
further. He instead of giving any ruling, sent the
application back to AA."
2) Here is what ANT wrote in your first case CIC/AT/A/2006/00575
http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/Decision_21022007_16.pdf
"The respondents have urged, that on the basis of the appellant's query, it was not possible to identify and locate any information. He has given a certain description of a hypothetical situation and wants the public authority to locate the "circular", "advice", "section of act/rule", corresponding to that, which is not possible, as no such circulars, etc., could be located on the basis of what the appellant has stated.
DECISION
The contention of the AA is upheld. The appellant's right to receive information has to be determined in the context of what is stated in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. It is not open to him to send the public authority on a wild goose chase on the basis of hypothetical scenarios conjured up by him. The SEBI Act, Rules, all its instructions are
properly in the public domain already, which the appellant can easily access by putting up little bit of extra effort. Far from it, he wishes to treat the public authority as his Consultants who should enable him to locate provisions of Acts & Rules at public cost.
This is not what the RTI Act is all about. In view of the above, there shall be no disclosure obligation regarding this item of information."
3) If we read another decision of yours from ANT,
http://rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/AT-31072008-10.pdf
We read
"It is noted that the queries of the appellant are based on the presumption that SEBI had carried out an investigation based on his complaint. However, in view of the submissions by the respondents as above, that no such investigation has been carried out by SEBI, the queries of the appellant do not hold."
ANT is repeatedly stressing that you are asking for hypothetical information based on certain scenarios from your imagination.
I hope you re-read what our co-moderator IPS had written here
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rti_india/message/602
Sarbajit
--- In rti_india@yahoogroups.com, Satish Kumar Kapoor <kapoorsatish@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Sarbajit Roy,
>
> I strongly differ with you regarding MR ANT. In my two cases of complaint
> against CPIO-SEBI for providing incorrect information, although I had given him
> evidence, he just dismissed by writing that my complaint is false. I was going
> to USA, so did not move to High Court.
>
> I asked him after receiving copy of orders, which of my allegations are false,
> but I never received any reply.
>
> I asked by RTI application the same question, in reply I was offered that I can
> inspect the file, in which I could not find out any thing, which suggests that
> my allegations were false.
>
> This is just one example, I have so many examples in cases of other persons.
>
> S.K.Kapoor
>
>
>
No comments:
Post a Comment