[HumJanenge] Re: What is happening to the IC voted as the "best" by this group ?

This decision shows WHY IC(MLS) was voted the best by ANOTHER RTI
group.

Once again MLS shows how to kill the snake (vexatious applicant
misusing RTI) without breaking the RTI stick.

10 out of 10 from me.

Sarbajit

On Nov 24, 4:50 pm, C K Jam <rtiwan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> What is happening to the IC voted as the "best" by this group ?
>
> http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_LS_A_2011_002094_M_7085...
>
> This matter was originally scheduled for hearing for today dated 22.11.2011.
> However, the Registery of the Commission had adjourned this matter to 26.12.2011 due
> to administrative reasons.  It appears that notice to this effect did not reach the Public
> Authority on account of which Capt. Amit Mohan and Advocate B.K. Saini have
> appeared before the Commission today.  As Capt. Amit Mohan has travelled all the way
> from Suratgarh(Rajasthan) and requests for the hearing today so that he does not have to
> appear before the Commission again at considerable Government cost and as the Counsel
> appearing for the Public Authority is also present before the Commission, I have decided
> to hear this matter today itself and dispose it of as per law.
>
> What happened to Item 7 of the Appeal Procedure Rules  ?
> What happened to Principles of Natural Justice ?
> How many times any appellants have been heard by IC MLS in the absence of "respondents" and orders passed based on record ?
>
> Seems that IC MLS was in a hurry - he gives no reasons for denial of information for items 1, 4 and 5.
>
> The first appeal was against the decision of CPIO for payment of additional fees (appellant invoked 7(6)).
>
> So, CPIO agrees to give all information, FAA denies and CIC overturns FAA'S orders and does not give any reasons for only allowing part disclosure.
>
> Also note that FAA has denied information on Sec 4(1)(b) citing Sec 7(9) and no commets from IC MLS regarding this.
>
> RTIwanted