Use of Unparliamentary language in e-mails/Re: [HumJanenge] DoPT concedes on RTI Rules

My humble request not to use parliamentary language in mails meant for group circulation e.g. use of words like 'gharelu kutta' and h****is in the below mail. Emotions understood.

Thanks & Regards

---

From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, 2 April, 2011 6:13:41 PM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] DoPT concedes on RTI Rules

Dear Karira

After reading the DoPT circular I referred to, how did you come to the
conclusion that I am the one behind getting penalties imposed on
frivolous applicants by the CIC.

To the contrary, all the matter in the public domain makes it clear

1) That CIC wants powers to to penalise / imprison frivolous
applicants / appellants

2) That NCPRI founders are running dogs of the imperialist CIC and
that Mr Shailesh Gandhi (ex NCPRI convenor) is now elevated to the
exalted status of  'gharelu kutta'.

3) That the DoPT circular clearly mentions that Aruna Roy, Shekar
Singh, Nikhil De etc participated in CIC's meeting where this
outrageous demand was taken up for consideration and there is not a
whimper of disagreement from them recorded..

Is it not curious that when we are the only citizens who seek to
defend the RTI movement against such h****is, there is a cacophony of
orchestrated protest which seeks to question our motives and impugn
our bonafides. This actually shows that we are on the right track.

Sarbajit

On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 7:24 PM, C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Mr. Sarbajit,
> Let the CIC first do its defined job properly !
> Let it first tell us how many show cause notices issued by ICs
> How many show cause notices were responded to ?
> How many penalties levied ?
> How many penalties contested in Courts ?
> How many penalties actually paid ?
> They don't even do that properly.
> Why do you want to burden these poor senior citizens with more decision
> making and more work ?
> Leave them alone.
> RTIwanted
> ________________________________
> From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Friday, April 1, 2011 10:35 AM
> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] DoPT concedes on RTI Rules
>
> And tomorrow is 2nd April !!
>
> No doubt the Govt has powers to set fees and recover costs for
> enabling RTI provisions. Each of the fees and costs they have now
> agreed to levy can be justified under RTI Act. As such we do not want
> to appeal these.
>
> The one we plan to file a 2nd appeal to CIC is to be informed on the
> specific provisions of  RTI Act which enable a penalty to be levied on
> frivolous / vexatious APPELLANTS. (please note this is not levied on
> frivolous APPLICANTS) and the reasoning on how this forms part of
> Appeal Procedure.
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 10:31 AM, C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Members, please remember that today is 1st April !
>> ________________________________
>> From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
>> To: humjanenge <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
>> Sent: Friday, April 1, 2011 12:05 AM
>> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] DoPT concedes on RTI Rules
>>
>> Summary of latest status on DoPT's RTI Rules in reply to 3 RTIs and
>> after 1 decided first appeal.
>>
>> FEES:
>> 1) No change in RTI Application fee. It stays at Rs.10
>> 2) First Appeal fees fixed at Rs 25 or Court Fee in concerned State
>> under Court Fee Act, whichever is higher.
>> 3) Second Appeal fee to CIC fixed at Rs 250
>> NB: Third parties have been exempted from paying appeal fees.
>>
>> COSTS:
>> 1) Costs on hire of machinery, is prescribed for color photocopy
>> (Rs.20 per A3/A4 page) and scanning of documents (Rs. 5 per A3/A4
>> page)
>> 2) Forwarding Cost u/s 6(3) is fixed at Rs.50 per transfer
>> 3) Cost of issuing Third Party notice u/s 11 is fixed at Rs. 50 per
>> notice.
>>
>> FINES:
>> The CIC is being given powers to levy fines upto Rs. 10,000 on  /
>> vexatious appellants as part of appeal procedure. It is not clear
>> which provision / section of RTI Act the DoPT intends to use to
>> justify this. We are planning to file 2nd appeal to CIC.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>