Re: [HumJanenge] Satyanand Mishra equates penalty under RTI Act to dealth penalty

This is sarbarjit roy janata hai mail list and not the humjanenge group mail list so his opinion is what we are hoping to hear.

Regards,

Hemant

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 8:23 AM, capt beniwal <trident142@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

Roy sir, your views and advise please.  rgds.   --- On Wed, 15/8/12, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote: From: M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Satyanand Mishra equates penalty under RTI Act to dealth penalty To: "humjanenge@googlegroups.com" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com> Date: Wednesday, 15 August, 2012, 12:38 PM All are bent upon to Paralyze the RTI Act. In the Act, the word shall impose penalty or like has been used which means no discretion of the Information Commissioner.  With such approach, now, very few PIOs are afraid of the RTI Act and they are getting bold every day in ducking the RTI application.  One the one side, govt. takes credit to introduce the RTI Act, on the other side, it is on the forefront to blunt it.  From: capt beniwal <trident142@yahoo.co.in> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, 15 August 2012 8:50 AM Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Satyanand Mishra equates penalty under RTI Act to dealth penalty sir, (1) if the delay in days  is proved then does the  RTI Act gives CIC/IC  discretion  NOT to impose penalty for the duration(days) of the delay ?  days are days as per calender counting. (2) Does the CIC has another calender then the national calender published by government of India to calculate the days (day/date the application received by PIO and day/date  information was given by PIO).  rgds. beniwal   --- On Mon, 13/8/12, Girish Mittal <rtng.mittal@gmail.com> wrote: From: Girish Mittal <rtng.mittal@gmail.com> Subject: [HumJanenge] Satyanand Mishra equates penalty under RTI Act to dealth penalty To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com Date: Monday, 13 August, 2012, 11:15 AM It seems that Mr. Mishra believes that penalty should be imposed only on rarest of rare cases as is evident from the attached decision note. He has observed that the information has been provided during hearing, but has made no note of the fact of delay inspite of the show cause notice and the information was provided only during show cause hearing... I am not guessing what defence Mr. Roy on this?? Girish Mittal