[HumJanenge] Re: Power of Information Commission to reconsider its decision

Dear Sir

I am referring to group rules which must be adhered to. At RTI_India I
could have expelled Mr Amitabh (but havent) and chose to again remind
him of the rules. Incidentally it is not the first time he has been so
reminded, and he continues to be a scoff-law.

If you (or anyone else) want to read his messages, there are many
other groups he posts to and you can reply over there.

This incidentally is India's largest RTI mailing list, and I hope the
list owner and his 7 moderators shall take all steps to ensure the
quality and quantity of messages delivered to members inboxes is
maintained by strictly implementing group regulations. I am pleased to
see that despite all these interruptions, the number of members is
increasing steadily and is now at about the 2,600+ mark.

The question of apologizing does not arise. Amitabh is at fault, not
me.

Sarbajit

On Dec 13, 2:58 pm, "Rajnish Kumar" <rajnisha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Sarbjit,
> You are talking like an autocrate and not like a moderator. Are you personaly agrieved with respected Amitabh Thakur ? You should know that many of group members like me are here to read him. Say sorry to him.
> Rajnish.
> Sent from my BlackBerry Mobile.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sroy 1947
> Sent: 13/12/2010 2:03:29 pm
> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Power of Information Commission to reconsider its decision
>
> Dear Amitabh
>
> I am replying here in 2 capacities.
> a) As Moderator/owner of rti_india@googlegroups.
> b) Member of hj@googoglegroups.
>
> 1) You have previously cross-posted this same message to several RTI groups.
> This in itself is grounds for expulsion from our fraternity. You should be
> careful to respect any rules / regulations made for benefit of our members.
>
> 2) It is open to any quasi-judicial body to review its decision, on basis of
> new facts or to ensure natural justice. This is true even in the absence of
> any specific provision(s) in law for the same and "review" is well covered
> in the CPC. This addresses the question of law you have raised.
>
> 3) You are not agitating any question of law for aid from our members, but
> agitating facts such as dates, periods. These groups are not meant for this,
> and in any case National RTI Forum does not have shortage of "eminent"
> people who can assist you.
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Amitabh Thakur <amitab...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
> > Friends,
>
> > As we all know Section 20(1) of the RTI Act says that where the
> > Information Commission, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is
> > of the opinion that the PIO has, without any reasonable cause, refused to
> > receive an application for information or has not furnished information
> > within the specified time or malafidely denied the request for information
> > or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information etc., it
> > shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till
> > application is received with a maximum penalty of Rs 25,000. It has a
> > proviso that says that the PIO shall be given a reasonable opportunity of
> > being heard before any penalty is imposed on him.
>
> > In a particular case in which I was a complainant before the UP State
> > Information Commission (SIC), the SIC had said in its order dated
> > 22/06/2010-
> > On the last date, the PIO Mr X was asked to provide the information or make
> > it clear if the info cannot be given. Today the PIO did not appear nor did
> > he inform of his reason for absence. Hence a fine under section 20 is being
> > imposed with effect from the last date, 31/05/2010.
>
> > The fine never got imposed and meanwhile the PIO presented dome
> > representation seeking reprieve from the penalty. I also resented facts
> > before the SIC saying that section 20 of the RTI Act does not seem to have a
> > provision for reconsideration by the Information Commission. But on
> > 19/11/2010, the SIC waived off its fine saying-
>
> > "PIO says that at that time, B's case was pending in the Central
> > Administrative Tribunal. Hence there was some delay in providing
> > information. Moreover the PIO was also on Earned Leave between 26/05/2010
> > and 13/06/2010. The PIO assures on not repeating this in future.
> > The Commission is of the view that if a fine has been imposed on a PIO
> > without his/her fault and if these facts come in the notice of the
> > Commission, then the Principle of Natural Justice says that an innocent
> > person shall not be unnecessarily punished.
> > In this case the information has been provided and the PIO has not
> > intentionally made any mistake. Hence the fine imposed previously is waived
> > off."
>
> > There are a few factual mistakes in the order including the facts like-
> > 1. Very huge delays were made in providing the information. The letter was
> > sent to PIO on 29/05/2009 and then to the Appellate Authority on 05/10/2009.
> > The information was finally given on 02/08/2010 after the fine was imposed
> > 2. On the date on which fine was imposed, the PIO was not on leave but had
> > already come back
>
> > Then there is also a question of law. When the SIC made an order on
> > 22/06/2010, it must have been made taking into considerations all the facts
> > and circumstances. Can the SIC/CIC reconsider their own decisions? In what
> > ways and circumstances? What does law say on this?
>
> > I place all these facts before you to kindly guide me on this vital issue,
> > based on your knowledge of law, so that I might proceed accordingly.
>
> >http://nspindia.com/amitabh%20essays.htm
>
> > Amitabh Thakur
> > Currently at IIM Lucknow
> > # 94155-34526
> >www.nationalrtiforum.org