Re: [HumJanenge] Re: DISCLOSING LEGAL ADVICE RECEIVED BY CIC

To IC(AD) defense, I found her order under reference fair enough. Unlike MC Guptaji's claim, she came down heavily on the respondents. Maybe she did not penalize the erring CPIO, who had by then retired. Had Guptaji done his home work properly and able to establish that the CPIO was habitual in dely / denial of information to other applicants as well, perhaps the story would have been different. A single case of delay is usually treated as a solitary case. Next time when one goes for the hearing, it could help if the applicant could examine before hand, all RTI Applications that have been disposed of by the CPIO in question.

Manoj Pai

--- On Fri, 4/15/11, sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:

> That's quite OK, we dont want to be
> referred to / described as "angrez
> ke poonch".
>
> For Guptaji's benefit I will explain the idiom as 
> "What is the use of
> locking the safe door ('tijori') after all the money has
> been
> stolen ?". I was using it to describe IC(AD)'s order to the
> PA after
> the CPIO has left, and NOT to Guptajis subsequent actions.
>
> Sarbajit