To,
All.
My new ID details as follows : rarrd27854@yahoo.co.in kindly send your
correspondence to the above ID henceforth.
Regards,
Das
9324719306
> All who had been till now drum beating about ANT's right morals beat this.
> More than shocked am amazed that CIC has attached posting on this group. I
> think this what they call 'Kuladi pe paav marna'.
> Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "umapathi" <umi_sbs@yahoo.com>
> Sender: rti_india@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 09:41:14
> To: <rti_india@yahoogroups.com>
> Reply-To: rti_india@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [rti_india] Re: Complaint of misbehaviour against cic
> inforamation commissioner AN TIWARI [2
>
> Dear All, the issue has taken new dimension. CIC has now issued me a
> notice of "Contempt proceddings" for posting the matter on this site. I
> have started a new Thread on this today. please let us know wheteher CIC
> can initiate such actions? should we post only the positive aspects of IC
> performance ? can our Fundamental right of speach and expression be
> curtailed by CIC ? PL ADVISE. regards
> --- In rti_india@yahoogroups.com, VB Singh <vijay_bsingh@...> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for enlightening.
>>
>> VB Singh
>> “The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but
>> because of those who look on and do nothing.†- Albert Einstein
>>
>>
>> --- On Fri, 20/8/10, sarbajitr <sroy1947@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>> From: sarbajitr <sroy1947@...>
>> Subject: [rti_india] Re: Complaint of misbehaviour against cic
>> inforamation commissioner AN TIWARI [2
>> To: rti_india@yahoogroups.com
>> Date: Friday, 20 August, 2010, 5:33 PM
>>
>>
>> Â
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Vijay
>>
>> 1) High Courts / SC are "courts of record". Hence their decisions may be
>> "reported" after specific permission is given by the bench concerned.
>> The CIC is decidedly not a court of record, and its decisions have no
>> precedentary value legally speaking - and so PIOs / FAAs are not bound
>> by them. For eg. IC(MLS) has now openly started disagreeing with Mr
>> Habibullah's decisions and specifies "*this* Commission ...."
>>
>> 2) The RTI Act says things like 4(1)(d) "provide reasons for its
>> administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.". By
>> this only the affected persons are entitled to copy of the CIC
>> decisions. 4(1)(c) "publish all relevant facts while formulating
>> important policies or announcing the decisions which affect public;"
>> does not help us because CIC decisions do not affect the "PUBLIC".
>> Similarly 4(1)(a) clearly specifies that records of CIC (which includes
>> its decisions) are to be connected over a network throughout India ...
>> (which excludes internet), So taking all this into consideration certain
>> ICs in their infinite wisdom have virtually stopped posting decisions
>> online NOW THAT THE CIC MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS 2007 ARE STRUCK DOWN.
>>
>> 3) Certainly as an affected person you are entitled to receive a copy of
>> ANT's decisions in your matters. The way to get info about CIC decisions
>> involving other people is to file an RTI request u/s 6.
>>
>> 4) Except for Shailesh Gandhi hardly any other IC is levying penalty. So
>> this is not unique to IC ANT. A very strong case can be made out for not
>> levying penalty indiscriminately. Read IC ANT's decision in that LIC
>> Chennai lift matter to note how penalties should be levied.
>>
>> 5) Look, despite what you believe or have been led to believe, the RTI
>> Act is not about exposing corruption or redressing one's grievances. If
>> you insist on using it for that purpose, you must be prepared for the
>> consequences and stone-walling that follows.
>>
>> Sarbajit
>>
>> --- In rti_india@yahoogroups.com, VB Singh <vijay_bsingh@> wrote:
>> >
>> > Dear Sarbajitji,
>> > Â
>> > I am confused by the last para of your mail "where is it written in
>> RTI Act that decisions of the CIC are to be published on the internet
>> (computer network) so that the whole world can read them ?."
>> > Â
>> > Do you mean that we are not entitled to decisions delivered by
>> Information Commissioners and if that is so, why the judgements of
>> High Courts and Apex Court are uploaded? RTI Act is intended to
>> facilitate information which were / are under cover and if the
>> decisions of Information commissioners, are kept under cover andÂ
>> not uploaded as it is not in the statute, then how we are going to
>> get information about descisions delivered by Information
>> Commissioner.
>> > Â
>> > The decisions delivered by Shri AN Tiwari in my cases have not been
>> uploaded and link can't be provided. It is observed that decisions
>> regarding others have also not been uploaded. I have filed more than
>> 50 application under RTI since then, but CPIO and or FAA deny the
>> information ignoring judgement BUT, it is a fact that the CPIOs and
>> FAAs of department deny information under Section 8 without giving
>> reasons and in appeals FAAs confirm the decision of CPIOs. This is
>> delibereately done as they know that no penal action under Section 20
>> (1) is going to be taken against them by ANT.
>> > Â
>> > Whistleblowers like me who have faced a lot including murder of own
>> brothers, feel dejected by the attitude of ANT, when he pounce on us
>> during video conferencing and threaten us. Is he empowered to
>> threwten us who are victim of corrupts in the department and want to
>> use RTI to expose them and thus redress our grieavances? Â
>> > Â
>> > With warm regards
>> > VB Singh
>> > â€Å"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do
>> evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.� -
>> Albert Einstein
>> >
>> >
>> > --- On Fri, 20/8/10, sarbajitr <sroy1947@> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > From: sarbajitr <sroy1947@>
>> > Subject: [rti_india] Re: Complaint of misbehaviour against cic
>> inforamation commissioner AN TIWARI [2
>> > To: rti_india@yahoogroups.com
>> > Date: Friday, 20 August, 2010, 4:02 PM
>> >
>> >
>> > Â
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Dear Vijay
>> >
>> > My intentions insofar as the RTI_India e-group is concerned are
>> > publicly accessible.
>> > http://old.nabble.com/Important-Announcement-to29279795.html#a29279795
>> >
>> > quote:
>> >
>> > "primary purpose of this group is to facilitate information exchange
>> between the stakeholders in RTI process, so that responsible citizen
>> users get maximum information in RTI without delay, and that PIOs and
>> FAAs deny maximum information to irresponsible applicants / appellants
>> without fear of penalty.
>> >
>> > The secondary (but equally important) purpose is to expose all the
>> > 'harami' RTI activists, and Information Commissioners who are killing
>> > the RTI movement to the detriment of responsible RTI users."
>> >
>> > PS: If you have specific problems with orders of Mr Tiwari in your
>> cases, please post the links, so that we can analyse the problem.
>> >
>> > Sarbajit
>> >
>> > --- In rti_india@yahoogroups.com, VB Singh <vijay_bsingh@> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > It is not understood� what are the intentions of� Sarbajit
>> > >
>> > > VB Singh
>> > > â€Å"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do
>> evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.� -
>> Albert Einstein
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --- On Thu, 19/8/10, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@>
>> > > Subject: Re: [rti_india] Re: Complaint of misbehaviour against cic
>> inforamation commissioner AN TIWARI [2
>> > > To: rti_india@yahoogroups.com
>> > > Date: Thursday, 19 August, 2010, 10:21 PM
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > �
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Dear Satishji
>> > >
>> > > 1) The very fact that you are a member of this group means that you
>> are not a common information seeker. Conversely if after so many
>> years here you still feel that you are a common information seeker
>> then obviously we have failed.
>> > >
>> > > 2) Common information seekers will have no problems using RTI Act if
>> they ask for common (ordinary) information, in fact ICs go out of
>> their way to assist such people - as one IC says "aapko aam khaana
>> hain ya gutli ginna hain" going out of their way to use the moral
>> power of their office to help ordinary people to achieve results
>> even if it means going beyond RTI� .The problems start when
>> so-called common information seekers start using RTI to settle
>> scores, rake up dead personal issues, to "fight" corruption, to do
>> low intensity social reform, to blackmail etc etc. The Information
>> Commissioners are not fools and identify� such people within a
>> minute. In such situations, the ICs must assist the P/A (PIOs) to
>> ensure that the letter and spirit of the RTI Act is adhered to
>> insofar as exempted information is not given to undeserving (not
>> acting in larger public interest) applicants.
>> > >
>> > > 3) IC ANT is actually one of the most honest ICs, and this is what
>> makes him so universally (un)appreciated. Many people would be very
>> happy if he was not there so that corrupt, legally bankrupt and
>> dishonest decisions are given (as some of the other ICs are doing).
>> and the institution of the CIC is thereby weakened. Privately even
>> Mr Habibullah's staff who have been with him for many years admit
>> that Mr H is not a patch on Mr Tiwari insofar as procedure and
>> respect is concerned.
>> > >
>> > > 4) Lastly, where is it written in RTI Act that decisions of the CIC
>> are to be published on the internet (computer network) so that the
>> whole world can read them ?. (Read this statement carefully). Our
>> other star finalist in the poll IC(MLS) has also started pulling his
>> decisions off the CIC website. This is also proving to be a blessing
>> to citizens who are getting fed up with receiving huge quantities of
>> SPAM from foreign financed spies.
>> > >
>> > > Sarbajit
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>
No comments:
Post a Comment