Hum Janenge: 12/11/11

Saturday, December 17, 2011

Re: [HumJanenge] Re: SC rules that Info Commission cannot order disclosure of information under Sec 18

Respected Sarabajit Singh,

I agree with comments of Shri M.K. Gupta. My sincere appeal to you being a highly learned, elderly citizen and doing yeoman services to society, please respects others' feelings too and don't hurt others by avoidable words, statements etc. It is not befitting to your status surely (not very particularly herein matter). Who knows even if Jam is selected (may be with some limitations or not matching your standards) might do better than many past/ present CICs/ SICs. It is indisputable fact that in-spite of 6 years what is the fate of real implementation of RTI Act all over India. You nicely talk about GIta, Upnishads etc but I wonder why you have to knowingly or unknowingly hurt others feeling at any time.Please do not take this my suggestion as personal or with any hard feelings but it is due to my respect for you.

Thanks & Best Regards,

Mukund Parikh /Mumbai

-- On Tue, 13/12/11, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

From: M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: SC rules that Info Commission cannot order disclosure of information under Sec 18
To: "humjanenge@googlegroups.com" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
Date: Tuesday, 13 December, 2011, 9:38 PM
Dear Sarab,

I understand that you have no right to comment like this on the capability of a person and should not discourage any aspirant like this.

This job will be done by the Selection Committee for ICs. The integrity, sincerity and bonafides also count and members have no doubt about these virtues in Jam. I Do not know about their views on you.

Whether I am wrong or right can be decided on the reactions of the members on my aforesaid comments.
From: sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: "HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005" <HumJanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 13 December 2011 7:08 PM
Subject: [HumJanenge] Re: SC rules that Info Commission cannot order disclosure of information under Sec 18

Dear Mr Jam

I am given to understand that you have applied for post of Central
Information Commissioner.
The applicants are expected to be persons of eminence in fields like
law. If you cannot answer your own question, then I suggest you
withdraw from the field <wink> <wink>

PS: The SC has answered your query. The CIC sits in section 18 to levy
penalty u/s 20.
Sarbajit

On Dec 13, 9:15 am, C K Jam <rtiwan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In a recent judgment, the Apex Court has ruled that the SIC/CIC cannot order disclosure of information while decising Complaints under Sec 18 of the RTI Act.
>> The full judgment is attached.
>> The whole purpose of the RTI Act is to disseminate information. What is the big point in the Commission hearing Complaints under Sec 18, if the information cannot be disclosed ?
>> Beats me completely.
>> RTIwanted.
>> Commission cannot order disclosure of information while heairng complaint under Sec 18.pdf > 231KViewDownload

Thursday, December 15, 2011

RE: [HumJanenge] HC notice to Centre on vacant IC posts at CIC

Thanks for the Mail & information about High Court Order on PIL for filling up vacancies of Information Commissioners at the Centre. We are considering to file a PIL in respect of Information Commissioners in U.P; we may even challenge some appointments already made in violation of Section 12(5) of RTI Act. I request you to keep us updated on the Delhi High Court case. In particular we wish to have a copy of the PIL if you can provide.

With renewed thanks,

From the Desk of :

Justice Kamleshwar Nath

Retd.

Up-Lokayukta ( Karnataka ),

Vice Chairman – C.A.T ( Allahabad ),

Judge – High Court ( Lucknow & Allahabad )

Address

`Gunjan', C - 105, Niralanagar, Lucknow : 226 020. Uttar Pradesh, India

Phone(s)

+91-522-2789033 & +91-522-4016459. Mobile : +91-9415010746

From: humjanenge@googlegroups.com [mailto:humjanenge@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of M.K. Gupta
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 4:26 PM
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Subject: [HumJanenge] HC notice to Centre on vacant IC posts at CIC

HC notice to Centre on vacant IC posts at CIC

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued notice to the Centre on a PIL seeking filling up of vacant posts of Information Commissioners at the Central Information Commission as it has led to massive backlog of cases filed under the transparency law.

A bench of Acting Chief Justice A K Sikri and Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw asked the Centre to file its response, detailing the status of appointment process and fixed the matter for further hearing on February 15.

The court's notice was issued on the PIL filed by RTI activists R K Jain and Amit Shanker, alleging that no action has been taken on the issue despite two "distress" letters written by the Central Information Commissioner to the Prime Minister's Office (PMO).

The PIL, filed through lawyers Prashant Bhushan and Pranav Sachdeva, sought filling of posts of Information Commissioners (ICs) and subordinate staff including Secretarial Staff within time-bound frame.

It also said, "There should not be gap between retirement and appointment of Information Commissioner. Further, there should be some time line for disposal of complaints and appeal by the Information Commissioners."

The panel, which was earlier having one CIC and nine ICs, has at present "five vacant posts of ICs", it said, adding "At present more than 20,000 appeals and complaints are pending before the Central Information Commission for disposal and with the growing awareness among public more and more matters are piling up before the CIC.

"Direct the Centre to prepare a list of candidates for the posts of ICs in transparent manner on the basis of rational criteria from diverse backgrounds as envisaged under the Right to Information Act... and put the list before the high-powered selection committee."

Courtesy- Shri Krishna Rao.

Re: [HumJanenge] Re: SC rules that Info Commission cannot order disclosure of information under Sec 18

Dear sir,
Let me explain:
lets us suppose you filed an RTI application, the PIO did not reply.
YOu file a complaint to the commission. The commission cannot order
PIO to supply information. The commission has powers to impose penalty
or recommend disciplinary action only on complaint.
Now your question may be as to how to get information then.
YOu need to file first appeal against the PIO. The appellate authority
will get you information. Now if you are not satisfied with the AA or
you do not get any reply to first appeal, move the commission for
second appeal. Then the commission can get you information and can
also impose penalty/recommend disciplinary action.
Please call me (if you wish) if i am unable to make you understand.
regards
sandeep

On 12/15/11, capt beniwal <trident142@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> Can some one explain in simple language without using legal words and
> jargon, what the SC order/judgement means to a common person. thanks.
> rgds.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com>
> To: "humjanenge@googlegroups.com" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, 14 December 2011 6:08 PM
> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: SC rules that Info Commission cannot order
> disclosure of information under Sec 18
>
>
> I always "Act", never "React".
>
> RTIwanted
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in>
> To: "humjanenge@googlegroups.com" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 3:43 PM
> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: SC rules that Info Commission cannot order
> disclosure of information under Sec 18
>
>
> Dear Roy,
>
> When your mail was addressed to Shri Jam, why this was sent to all other
> members?
> It should have been sent to him directly. He (Jam) has behaved in a
> dignified manner by not reacting to your mail so far.
>
> From: sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
> To: "HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005"
> <HumJanenge@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, 14 December 2011 12:19 PM
> Subject: [HumJanenge] Re: SC rules that Info Commission cannot order
> disclosure of information under Sec 18
>
> Dear MK
>
> Since my email was addressed to Jam, it is better that he comments.
> I have no illusions about my own popularity in this
> group.
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On Dec 13, 9:08 pm, "M.K. Gupta" <mkgupta...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
>> Dear Sarab,
>>
>> I understand that you have no right to comment like this on the capability
>> of a person and should not discourage any aspirant like this.
>>
>> This job will be done by the Selection Committee for ICs. The integrity,
>> sincerity and bonafides also count and members have no doubt about these
>> virtues in Jam. I Do not know about their views on you.
>>
>> Whether I am wrong or right can be decided on the reactions of the members
>> on my aforesaid comments.
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: sarbajit roy <sroy...@gmail.com>
>> To:
> "HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act
> 2005" <HumJanenge@googlegroups.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, 13 December 2011 7:08 PM
>> Subject: [HumJanenge] Re: SC rules that Info Commission cannot order
>> disclosure of information under Sec 18
>>
>> Dear Mr Jam
>>
>> I am given to understand that you have applied for post of Central
>> Information Commissioner.
>> The applicants are expected to be persons of eminence in fields like
>> law. If you cannot answer your own question, then I suggest you
>> withdraw from the field <wink> <wink>
>>
>> PS: The SC has answered your query. The CIC sits in section 18 to levy
>> penalty u/s 20.
>>
>> Sarbajit
>>
>> On Dec 13, 9:15 am, C K Jam <rtiwan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > In a recent judgment, the Apex Court has ruled that the SIC/CIC cannot
>> > order disclosure of information while decising Complaints under Sec 18
>> > of the RTI Act.
>>
>> > The full judgment is attached.
>>
>> > The whole purpose of the RTI Act is to disseminate information. What is
>> > the big point in the Commission hearing Complaints under Sec 18, if the
>> > information cannot be disclosed ?
>>
>> > Beats me completely.
>>
>> > RTIwanted.
>>
>> > Commission cannot order disclosure of information while heairng
>> > complaint under Sec 18.pdf
>> > 231KViewDownload

--
Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
989, Sector 15-A, Opposite bishnoi Colony, Hisar-125001, INDIA
Phone: 91-99929-31181

Re: [HumJanenge] Re: SC rules that Info Commission cannot order disclosure of information under Sec 18

Can some one explain in simple language without using legal words and jargon, what the SC order/judgement means to a common person. thanks. rgds.

From: C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com>
To: "humjanenge@googlegroups.com" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 14 December 2011 6:08 PM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: SC rules that Info Commission cannot order disclosure of information under Sec 18

I always "Act", never "React".

RTIwanted

From: M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in>
To: "humjanenge@googlegroups.com" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 3:43 PM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: SC rules that Info Commission cannot order disclosure of information under Sec 18

Dear Roy,

When your mail was addressed to Shri Jam, why this was sent to all other members?

It should have been sent to him directly. He (Jam) has behaved in a dignified manner by not reacting to your mail so far.

From: sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: "HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005" <HumJanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 14 December 2011 12:19 PM
Subject: [HumJanenge] Re: SC rules that Info Commission cannot order disclosure of information under Sec 18

Dear MK

Since my email was addressed to Jam, it is better that he comments.
I have no illusions about my own popularity in this group.

Sarbajit

On Dec 13, 9:08 pm, "M.K. Gupta" <mkgupta...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> Dear Sarab,
>
> I understand that you have no right to comment like this on the capability of a person and should not discourage any aspirant like this.
>
> This job will be done by the Selection Committee for ICs. The integrity, sincerity and bonafides also count and members have no doubt about these virtues in Jam. I Do not know about their views on you.
>
> Whether I am wrong or right can be decided on the reactions of the members on my aforesaid comments.
>
> ________________________________
> From: sarbajit roy <sroy...@gmail.com>
> To: "HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005" <HumJanenge@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, 13 December 2011 7:08 PM
> Subject: [HumJanenge] Re: SC rules that Info Commission cannot order disclosure of information under Sec 18
>
> Dear Mr Jam
>
> I am given to understand that you have applied for post of Central
> Information Commissioner.
> The applicants are expected to be persons of eminence in fields like
> law. If you cannot answer your own question, then I suggest you
> withdraw from the field <wink> <wink>
>
> PS: The SC has answered your query. The CIC sits in section 18 to levy
> penalty u/s 20.
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On Dec 13, 9:15 am, C K Jam <rtiwan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In a recent judgment, the Apex Court has ruled that the SIC/CIC cannot order disclosure of information while decising Complaints under Sec 18 of the RTI Act.
>
> > The full judgment is attached.
>
> > The whole purpose of the RTI Act is to disseminate information. What is the big point in the Commission hearing Complaints under Sec 18, if the information cannot be disclosed ?
>
> > Beats me completely.
>
> > RTIwanted.
>
> > Commission cannot order disclosure of information while heairng complaint under Sec 18.pdf
> > 231KViewDownload

[HumJanenge] HC notice to Centre on vacant IC posts at CIC

Courtesy- Shri Krishna Rao.

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Re: [HumJanenge] Re: SC rules that Info Commission cannot order disclosure of information under Sec 18

Why should we assume that the SICs / CIC is expected to defend their orders.
Already the Delhi High Court has held that they are to be exempted
from being named as parties in such Writs.

It is only your presumption that the CIC can order disclosure of
information in complaint case. If that be so then where is the need
for appeal ? Please don't trivialise the complaint powers of the CIC
and bring it down to the level of appeals. You are being very foolish
through your ignorance and misleading group members on this vital
point.

Sarbajit

On 12/15/11, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> In this case the appellant to SC was Manipur State Information Commission
> (er) and naturally the govt. advocate must have fought the case. Such
> lapses, if our presumption is correct, like brining full facts to the
> knowledge of SC like provisions of section 18 that information should also
> be provided under this section, are not abnormal
>
> Without bringing the errors in the judgment to the knowlege of SC, how these
> error can be plugged? In such circumstances, such errors will become rules
> and every public authority will refuse to give information if complaint is
> filed.
>
>
> However, filing complaint cum appeal may be a via-media as suggested by one
> enlightened member.
>
>
>
> Sent: Wednesday, 14 December 2011 9:54 PM
> Subject: [HumJanenge] Re: SC rules that Info Commission cannot order
> disclosure of information under Sec 18
>
> Dear MK
>
> 1) The right course is to do nothing. The judgment is perfectly sound
> and should be appreciated.
>
> 2) The wrong course.is to file a curative petition.
>
> 3) The perfect course is to assail the bloody Union of CICs+SICs. The
> way they work is that CIC and a few SICs like Karnataka, AP, P&H etc
> have "federated" to muck up the RTI Act. The CIC doesn't show its hand
> because most of their cases get appealed to Delhi High Court & SC with
> strong opponents (like immodest me) who don't allow them to get away.
> But, if some poor appellant from Manipur who cant afford a senior
> advocate in SC or come in person for every hearing is the opponent,
> then the RTI movement / Act gets screwed.
>
> Unfortunately, we (the opponents) never unite, so "they" keep on
> getting gift horses like this from the SC.
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On Dec 14, 6:20 pm, "M.K. Gupta" <mkgupta...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
>> U have not minced words while giving your reaction. Every body does not
>> possess that courage. This does not mean that every body feels that it is
>> a shocking nonsense but if some body else feels like that, may not gather
>> courage to display his feelings.
>>
>> The right course will be to go to the SC again in review etc. on the
>> ground of error of facts and law.
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: jaiprakash narain <col...@yahoo.co.in>
>> To: "humjanenge@googlegroups.com" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, 13 December 2011 7:49 PM
>> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] SC rules that Info Commission cannot order
>> disclosure of information under Sec 18
>>
>> It is shocking nonsense.
>>
> ----- Original Message -----
>

Re: [HumJanenge] Re: SC rules that Info Commission cannot order disclosure of information under Sec 18

In this case the appellant to SC was Manipur State Information Commission (er) and naturally the govt. advocate must have fought the case. Such lapses, if our presumption is correct, like brining full facts to the knowledge of SC like provisions of section 18 that information should also be provided under this section, are not abnormal

Without bringing the errors in the judgment to the knowlege of SC, how these error can be plugged? In such circumstances, such errors will become rules and every public authority will refuse to give information if complaint is filed.

However, filing complaint cum appeal may be a via-media as suggested by one enlightened member.

Sent: Wednesday, 14 December 2011 9:54 PM
Subject: [HumJanenge] Re: SC rules that Info Commission cannot order disclosure of information under Sec 18

Dear MK

1) The right course is to do nothing. The judgment is perfectly sound
and should be appreciated.

2) The wrong course.is to file a curative petition.

3) The perfect course is to assail the bloody Union of CICs+SICs. The
way they work is that CIC and a few SICs like Karnataka, AP, P&H etc
have "federated" to muck up the RTI Act. The CIC doesn't show its hand
because most of their cases get appealed to Delhi High Court & SC with
strong opponents (like immodest me) who don't allow them to get away.
But, if some poor appellant from Manipur who cant afford a senior
advocate in SC or come in person for every hearing is the opponent,
then the RTI movement / Act gets screwed.

Unfortunately, we (the opponents) never unite, so "they" keep on
getting gift horses like this from the SC.

Sarbajit

On Dec 14, 6:20 pm, "M.K. Gupta" <mkgupta...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> U have not minced words while giving your reaction. Every body does not possess that courage. This does not mean that every body feels that it is a shocking nonsense but if some body else feels like that, may not gather courage to display his feelings.
>
> The right course will be to go to the SC again in review etc. on the ground of error of facts and law.
>
> ________________________________
> From: jaiprakash narain <col...@yahoo.co.in>
> To: "humjanenge@googlegroups.com" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, 13 December 2011 7:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] SC rules that Info Commission cannot order disclosure of information under Sec 18
>
> It is shocking nonsense.
>

----- Original Message -----

[HumJanenge] Re: SC rules that Info Commission cannot order disclosure of information under Sec 18

Dear MK

1) The right course is to do nothing. The judgment is perfectly sound
and should be appreciated.

2) The wrong course.is to file a curative petition.

3) The perfect course is to assail the bloody Union of CICs+SICs. The
way they work is that CIC and a few SICs like Karnataka, AP, P&H etc
have "federated" to muck up the RTI Act. The CIC doesn't show its hand
because most of their cases get appealed to Delhi High Court & SC with
strong opponents (like immodest me) who don't allow them to get away.
But, if some poor appellant from Manipur who cant afford a senior
advocate in SC or come in person for every hearing is the opponent,
then the RTI movement / Act gets screwed.

Unfortunately, we (the opponents) never unite, so "they" keep on
getting gift horses like this from the SC.

Sarbajit

On Dec 14, 6:20 pm, "M.K. Gupta" <mkgupta...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> U have not minced words while giving your reaction. Every body does not possess that courage. This does not mean that every body feels that it is a shocking nonsense but if some body else feels like that, may not gather courage to display his feelings.
>
> The right course will be to go to the SC again in review etc. on the ground of error of facts and law.
>
> ________________________________
> From: jaiprakash narain <col...@yahoo.co.in>
> To: "humjanenge@googlegroups.com" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, 13 December 2011 7:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] SC rules that Info Commission cannot order disclosure of information under Sec 18
>
> It is shocking nonsense.
>

Re: [HumJanenge] SC rules that Info Commission cannot order disclosure of information under Sec 18

U have not minced words while giving your reaction. Every body does not possess that courage. This does not mean that every body feels that it is a shocking nonsense but if some body else feels like that, may not gather courage to display his feelings.

The right course will be to go to the SC again in review etc. on the ground of error of facts and law.

From: jaiprakash narain <coljpn@yahoo.co.in>
To: "humjanenge@googlegroups.com" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 13 December 2011 7:49 PM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] SC rules that Info Commission cannot order disclosure of information under Sec 18

It is shocking nonsense.

From: C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com>
To: "humjanenge@googlegroups.com" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 13 December 2011 9:45 AM
Subject: [HumJanenge] SC rules that Info Commission cannot order disclosure of information under Sec 18

In a recent judgment, the Apex Court has ruled that the SIC/CIC cannot order disclosure of information while decising Complaints under Sec 18 of the RTI Act.

The full judgment is attached.

The whole purpose of the RTI Act is to disseminate information. What is the big point in the Commission hearing Complaints under Sec 18, if the information cannot be disclosed ?

Beats me completely.

RTIwanted.

Re: [HumJanenge] Re: SC rules that Info Commission cannot order disclosure of information under Sec 18

I always "Act", never "React".

RTIwanted

Dear Roy,

When your mail was addressed to Shri Jam, why this was sent to all other members?

It should have been sent to him directly. He (Jam) has behaved in a dignified manner by not reacting to your mail so far.

Re: [HumJanenge] SC rules that Info Commission cannot order disclosure of information under Sec 18

The apex court in its Judgement of 12 Dec 2011 on the case [CIVIL APPEAL NOs.10787-10788 OF 2011

(Arising out of S.L.P(C) No.32768-32769/2010) in the matter of Chief Information Commr. and Another ...Appellant(s) - Versus - State of Manipur and Another ...Respondent(s)] has committed errors in fact and judgement as well.

First, as regards the factual error. The para 35 in the Judgement reads, "The procedure for hearing the appeals have been framed in exercise of power under clauses (e) and (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 27 of the Act. They are called the Central Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2005". As a matter of fact, the State of Manipur or for that matter Manipur Information Commission is not guided by Central Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules, but by THE MANIPUR INFORMATION COMMISSION (APPEAL AND PROCEDURE) RULES 2006 notified
28th December, 2006 (http://maninfocom.nic.in/notice_rules.html ), where there is provision for both 'appellant or complainant, as the case may be'.

Second, as regards the judgmental error. Para 37 of the Judgement reads, "We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two

different remedies. One cannot be a substitute for the other". But a careful reading of Section 19 (8) which has been quoted at length in the Judgement at Para-34 would reveal that the said Section has also talked about 'complainant' (Section 19-8b) meaning a person who has made a 'complaint' under Section 18. Moreover, Section 19(9) also refers to 'complainant'. Repeated use of the word 'complainant' in Section-19 implies that the Commission would 'in its decision' do similar kind of justice to an Appellant of Section 19 or Complainant of Section 18 including 'providing access to information' (Section 19-8a-i).

Besides, Section 20(1) and (2) which deals with 'Penalties' entrusts the Commission with the power to impose penalty on the Public Information Officer 'at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal'. If we are to assume as the apex Court does, that 'The nature of the power under Section 18 is supervisory in character whereas the procedure under Section 19 is an appellate procedure", the question arises, can the Commission impose any 'penalty' in the case of a 'complaint' without following any appellate procedure (notice to and hearing of parties etc.)? Certainly not. The above judgement is a case of oversight by the apex court, no more and no less.

Chitta Behera

From: RAKESH GUPTA <snehcs@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 14 December 2011 7:47 AM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] SC rules that Info Commission cannot order disclosure of information under Sec 18

dear sirs,

this decision is based on basis that CIC appeal rules( para 35 the Central Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2005 )are still valid.

however, this facts is wrong.

It is better, to file complaint cum appeal with the commission.

with regards

rakesh gupta

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:45 AM, C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> wrote:

In a recent judgment, the Apex Court has ruled that the SIC/CIC cannot order disclosure of information while decising Complaints under Sec 18 of the RTI Act.

The full judgment is attached.

The whole purpose of the RTI Act is to disseminate information. What is the big point in the Commission hearing Complaints under Sec 18, if the information cannot be disclosed ?

Beats me completely.

RTIwanted.

Re: [HumJanenge] SC rules that Info Commission cannot order disclosure of information under Sec 18

You are right in quoting the relevant extract to prove that the apex court should have noted the word 'complaint' mentioned alongside of 'appeal'. But you have inadvertently mentioned Section 18(1), in place of Section 20(1). Thanks for the quotation.

Chitta Behera

From: sandeep kumar <drsandgupta@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 13 December 2011 7:18 PM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] SC rules that Info Commission cannot order disclosure of information under Sec 18

I may be wrong but I firmly believe that the case was not pursued
properly by the lawyers of the commission.
Read section 18(1):
Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information
Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint
or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information
Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be,
has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application
for information or has not furnished information within the time
specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the
request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or
misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject
of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the
information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees
each day till application is received or information is furnished, so
however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five
thousand rupees:

It clearly says that the commission while hearing complaint/appeal
shall impose penalty till information is furnished.

Please comment whether I am wrong or right.

On 12/13/11, C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In a recent judgment, the Apex Court has ruled that the SIC/CIC cannot order
> disclosure of information while decising Complaints under Sec 18 of the RTI
> Act.
>
> The full judgment is attached.
>
> The whole purpose of the RTI Act is to disseminate information. What is the
> big point in the Commission hearing Complaints under Sec 18, if the
> information cannot be disclosed ?
>
> Beats me completely.
>
> RTIwanted.

--
Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
989, Sector 15-A, Opposite bishnoi Colony, Hisar-125001, INDIA
Phone: 91-99929-31181

Re: [HumJanenge] Re: SC rules that Info Commission cannot order disclosure of information under Sec 18

Dear Roy,

When your mail was addressed to Shri Jam, why this was sent to all other members?

It should have been sent to him directly. He (Jam) has behaved in a dignified manner by not reacting to your mail so far.

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

[HumJanenge] Re: SC rules that Info Commission cannot order disclosure of information under Sec 18

Re: not furnishing information.

When the PIO issues a further fee computation AND the applicant
deposits the further fees and THEN if the PIO does not provide the
information within the time calculated under section 7 factoring in
all the PROVISOS which stop the 30 days clock ONLY THEN is information
said to be "not furnished".

In the SC case, the PIs did not reply. So the only course in terms of
Act is section 19 first appeal.

Sarbajit

On Dec 13, 6:48 pm, sandeep kumar <drsandgu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I may be wrong but I firmly believe that the case was not pursued
> properly by the lawyers of the commission.
> Read section 18(1):
> Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information
> Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint
> or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information
> Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be,
> has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application
> for information or has not furnished information within the time
> specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the
> request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or
> misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject
> of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the
> information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees
> each day till application is received or information is furnished, so
> however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five
> thousand rupees:
>
> It clearly says that the commission while hearing complaint/appeal
> shall impose penalty till information is furnished.
>
> Please comment whether I am wrong or right.
>
> On 12/13/11, C K Jam <rtiwan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > In a recent judgment, the Apex Court has ruled that the SIC/CIC cannot order
> > disclosure of information while decising Complaints under Sec 18 of the RTI
> > Act.
>
> > The full judgment is attached.
>
> > The whole purpose of the RTI Act is to disseminate information. What is the
> > big point in the Commission hearing Complaints under Sec 18, if the
> > information cannot be disclosed ?
>
> > Beats me completely.
>
> > RTIwanted.
>
> --
> Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
> 989, Sector 15-A, Opposite bishnoi Colony, Hisar-125001, INDIA
> Phone: 91-99929-31181

[HumJanenge] Re: SC rules that Info Commission cannot order disclosure of information under Sec 18

Dear MK

Since my email was addressed to Jam, it is better that he comments.
I have no illusions about my own popularity in this group.

Sarbajit

On Dec 13, 9:08 pm, "M.K. Gupta" <mkgupta...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> Dear Sarab,
>
> I understand that you have no right to comment like this on the capability of a person and should not discourage any aspirant like this.
>
> This job will be done by the Selection Committee for ICs. The integrity, sincerity and bonafides also count and members have no doubt about these virtues in Jam. I Do not know about their views on you.
>
> Whether I am wrong or right can be decided on the reactions of the members on my aforesaid comments.
>
> ________________________________
> From: sarbajit roy <sroy...@gmail.com>
> To: "HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005" <HumJanenge@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, 13 December 2011 7:08 PM
> Subject: [HumJanenge] Re: SC rules that Info Commission cannot order disclosure of information under Sec 18
>
> Dear Mr Jam
>
> I am given to understand that you have applied for post of Central
> Information Commissioner.
> The applicants are expected to be persons of eminence in fields like
> law. If you cannot answer your own question, then I suggest you
> withdraw from the field <wink> <wink>
>
> PS: The SC has answered your query. The CIC sits in section 18 to levy
> penalty u/s 20.
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On Dec 13, 9:15 am, C K Jam <rtiwan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In a recent judgment, the Apex Court has ruled that the SIC/CIC cannot order disclosure of information while decising Complaints under Sec 18 of the RTI Act.
>
> > The full judgment is attached.
>
> > The whole purpose of the RTI Act is to disseminate information. What is the big point in the Commission hearing Complaints under Sec 18, if the information cannot be disclosed ?
>
> > Beats me completely.
>
> > RTIwanted.
>
> > Commission cannot order disclosure of information while heairng complaint under Sec 18.pdf
> > 231KViewDownload

[HumJanenge] Re: SC rules that Info Commission cannot order disclosure of information under Sec 18

Mr Jam,

The Apex Court has only pointed out that Section 18 can't be evoked to
order disclosure of information. This does not mean the information
can't be disclosed under the RTI Act.

As the judgment reads: "The nature of the power under Section 18 is
supervisory in character whereas the procedure under Section 19 is an
appellate procedure and a person who is aggrieved by refusal in
receiving the information which he has sought for can only seek
redress in the manner provided in the statute, namely, by following
the procedure under Section 19."

Regards,
Manu

On Dec 13, 9:15 am, C K Jam <rtiwan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In a recent judgment, the Apex Court has ruled that the SIC/CIC cannot order disclosure of information while decising Complaints under Sec 18 of the RTI Act.
>
> The full judgment is attached.
>
> The whole purpose of the RTI Act is to disseminate information. What is the big point in the Commission hearing Complaints under Sec 18, if the information cannot be disclosed ?
>
> Beats me completely.
>
> RTIwanted.
>
> Commission cannot order disclosure of information while heairng complaint under Sec 18.pdf
> 231KViewDownload

Re: [HumJanenge] SC rules that Info Commission cannot order disclosure of information under Sec 18

dear sirs,

this decision is based on basis that CIC appeal rules( para 35 the Central Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2005 )are still valid.

however, this facts is wrong.

It is better, to file complaint cum appeal with the commission.

with regards

rakesh gupta

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:45 AM, C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> wrote:

In a recent judgment, the Apex Court has ruled that the SIC/CIC cannot order disclosure of information while decising Complaints under Sec 18 of the RTI Act.

The full judgment is attached.

The whole purpose of the RTI Act is to disseminate information. What is the big point in the Commission hearing Complaints under Sec 18, if the information cannot be disclosed ?

Beats me completely.

RTIwanted.

Re: [HumJanenge] Transparency in Public Private Partnership Projects in India- Calling the Planning Commission's Bluff- Part 2

Has the PIO used sec 11?

From: jaiprakash narain <coljpn@yahoo.co.in>
To: "humjanenge@googlegroups.com" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, 10 December 2011 3:41 PM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Transparency in Public Private Partnership Projects in India- Calling the Planning Commission's Bluff- Part 2

They can't give u this information since their is nothing like private public in these contracts except the corruption part.The complete finances are public arranged privately n pocketed jointly. Such coys arrange their part of finances through equity n banks, the rest is from the govt. Land is allotted almost free hence, where is the private money n the complete benefit goes to the private payers,so the janta is thoroughly cheated and why so because the bureaucrats n politicians at all level get their share of benefit.

From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>; venkatesh@humanrightsinitiative.org
Sent: Saturday, 10 December 2011 7:29 AM
Subject: [HumJanenge] Transparency in Public Private Partnership Projects in India- Calling the Planning Commission's Bluff- Part 2

Dear Venkatesh

If the agreement for a commercial PPP contains a "confidentiality
clause" then exemption u/s 8(1)(d) squarely awaits to be invoked by a
PIO. The only strategy you have now is "larger public interest" and it
is a little too late to invoke it at CIC level

It is another thing entirely that Mr.Montek Singh can say anything he
wishes to say.

Sarbajit
(via HJ-GG)

On 12/9/11, Venkatesh <venkatesh@humanrightsinitiative.org> wrote:
> Dear all,
> Last month I had circulated an email alert relating to our efforts of
> testing the claim of the Deputy Chairperson of the Planning Commission of
> India that any person can get a certified copy of the consession agreement
> relating to a public private partnership (PPP) project if the model
> concession agreement is followed. We had filed a test information request
> under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) with the Department of
> Ports, Government of Puducherry for the Puducherry Port PPP project. As no
> response was received for 30 days we filed a first appeal with the
> Department. The Department responded stating that a 'confidentiality
> agreement' in the concession agreement required them to consult with the
> third party, a private company based in Delhi. We now have a final decision
> in this matter.
>
> The First Appellate Authority has rejected our appeal stating as follows:
>
> "With reference to your appeal under Right to Information Act 2005 cited
> second above, I am to inform you that your request is not acceded as per
> Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act 2005" (scanned copy of the rejection order is
> attached).
>
> The Planning Commission's bluff stands exposed. Despite the claim made by
> their Deputy Chairperson in his reply to the Chief Information Commissioner,
> Central Information Commission. that any person can get a certified copy of
> the concession agreement from the department responsible for the PPP, this
> does not seem to be true in actual practice.
>
> What is wrong with the first appellate authority's order?
> The first appellate authority has mechanically rejected the appeal without
> giving any detailed reasons. He has not given a speaking order as is the
> requirement under the RTI Act. A speaking order contains detailed reasons
> for the final decision made along with a weighing of the pros and cons in
> favour of and against disclosure. The first appellate authority has failed
> to mention any specific objections raised by the third party despite that
> procedure having been initiated. Even stranger is the absence of any date on
> the order of the appellate authority. Only the envelope containing the order
> sent to me mentions the date as 16/11/2011 along with the number of the
> letter. So the order is also invalid as it was issued 60 days after the
> submission of the appeal. Under Section 19(6) of the RTI Act the first
> appellate authority is obligated to give a decision on a first appeal within
> 30 days. However the appellate authority may taken 15 more days but resons
> have to be recorded in the decision explaining the cause of delay. Even this
> requirement has not been complied with.
>
> So the Department of Ports, Puducherry has delivered a double whammy. It has
> not only falsified the claim of the Planning Commission's Deputy
> Chairperson, it has also flouted the provisions of the RTI Act without any
> compunction.
>
> We will file a second appeal with the Central Information Commission soon.
>
> I request all readers to similarly test transparency in PPPs in their own
> States.

Re: [HumJanenge] Re: SC rules that Info Commission cannot order disclosure of information under Sec 18

Dear Sarab,

I understand that you have no right to comment like this on the capability of a person and should not discourage any aspirant like this.

This job will be done by the Selection Committee for ICs. The integrity, sincerity and bonafides also count and members have no doubt about these virtues in Jam. I Do not know about their views on you.

Whether I am wrong or right can be decided on the reactions of the members on my aforesaid comments.

From: sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: "HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005" <HumJanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 13 December 2011 7:08 PM
Subject: [HumJanenge] Re: SC rules that Info Commission cannot order disclosure of information under Sec 18

Dear Mr Jam

I am given to understand that you have applied for post of Central
Information Commissioner.
The applicants are expected to be persons of eminence in fields like
law. If you cannot answer your own question, then I suggest you
withdraw from the field <wink> <wink>

PS: The SC has answered your query. The CIC sits in section 18 to levy
penalty u/s 20.

Sarbajit

On Dec 13, 9:15 am, C K Jam <rtiwan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In a recent judgment, the Apex Court has ruled that the SIC/CIC cannot order disclosure of information while decising Complaints under Sec 18 of the RTI Act.
>
> The full judgment is attached.
>
> The whole purpose of the RTI Act is to disseminate information. What is the big point in the Commission hearing Complaints under Sec 18, if the information cannot be disclosed ?
>
> Beats me completely.
>
> RTIwanted.
>
> Commission cannot order disclosure of information while heairng complaint under Sec 18.pdf
> 231KViewDownload

Re: [HumJanenge] SC rules that Info Commission cannot order disclosure of information under Sec 18

The decision of the Hon'ble Court is not clear on the use of Section 18 of the RTI if appeal is filed in pursuance of section 7(2) on the failure of the PIO to give decision on the request for information. The decision has failed to clarify whether both the options can be exercised simultaneously or only one can opt for one option either u.s. 18 (Complaint) or 19 (Appeal). If that is so, one will have to to choose between punative action on the PIO or getting the information from the public authority.

However, good decision has been made in para 45 which says that organizations cannot be exempted retrospectively. (from back date.)

In a recent judgment, the Apex Court has ruled that the SIC/CIC cannot order disclosure of information while decising Complaints under Sec 18 of the RTI Act.

The full judgment is attached.

The whole purpose of the RTI Act is to disseminate information. What is the big point in the Commission hearing Complaints under Sec 18, if the information cannot be disclosed ?

Beats me completely.

RTIwanted.

Re: [HumJanenge] SC rules that Info Commission cannot order disclosure of information under Sec 18

It is shocking nonsense.

In a recent judgment, the Apex Court has ruled that the SIC/CIC cannot order disclosure of information while decising Complaints under Sec 18 of the RTI Act.

The full judgment is attached.

The whole purpose of the RTI Act is to disseminate information. What is the big point in the Commission hearing Complaints under Sec 18, if the information cannot be disclosed ?

Beats me completely.

RTIwanted.

Re: [HumJanenge] SC rules that Info Commission cannot order disclosure of information under Sec 18

I may be wrong but I firmly believe that the case was not pursued
properly by the lawyers of the commission.
Read section 18(1):
Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information
Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint
or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information
Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be,
has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application
for information or has not furnished information within the time
specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the
request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or
misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject
of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the
information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees
each day till application is received or information is furnished, so
however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five
thousand rupees:

It clearly says that the commission while hearing complaint/appeal
shall impose penalty till information is furnished.

Please comment whether I am wrong or right.

On 12/13/11, C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In a recent judgment, the Apex Court has ruled that the SIC/CIC cannot order
> disclosure of information while decising Complaints under Sec 18 of the RTI
> Act.
>
> The full judgment is attached.
>
> The whole purpose of the RTI Act is to disseminate information. What is the
> big point in the Commission hearing Complaints under Sec 18, if the
> information cannot be disclosed ?
>
> Beats me completely.
>
> RTIwanted.

--
Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
989, Sector 15-A, Opposite bishnoi Colony, Hisar-125001, INDIA
Phone: 91-99929-31181

[HumJanenge] Re: SC rules that Info Commission cannot order disclosure of information under Sec 18

Dear Mr Jam

I am given to understand that you have applied for post of Central
Information Commissioner.
The applicants are expected to be persons of eminence in fields like
law. If you cannot answer your own question, then I suggest you
withdraw from the field <wink> <wink>

PS: The SC has answered your query. The CIC sits in section 18 to levy
penalty u/s 20.

Sarbajit

[HumJanenge] Re: query on unscrupulous builders converting tenanted property into a trust

Which State is the property located in.

I also siggest that you inform the builder that you are all SCs and
would utilise the special laws for protection of SCs. In case of need
you can all become Adi-Dharmis under the certificates issued by the
Adi Dharm HQ..

Sarbajit

On Dec 12, 9:31 am, Shiv Kumar <journos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> We are a group of tenants living in a building purchased by a
> developer some years ago. There is a dispute on between the tenants
> and the builder over redeveloping the property.
>
> Suddenly, the builder has sent an intermediary asking us to settle the
> matter for cash - at a price far below the market price instead of
> giving the tenants permanent alternate accommodation.
>
> The intermediary has warned us that the builder could transfer part of
> the premises to a trust and under laws applicable to the trust evict
> the tenants on the grounds that the trust requires the property for
> own use.
>
> Please tell me under what sections of law would this work?
>
> shiv kumar

Monday, December 12, 2011

[HumJanenge] SC rules that Info Commission cannot order disclosure of information under Sec 18

In a recent judgment, the Apex Court has ruled that the SIC/CIC cannot order disclosure of information while decising Complaints under Sec 18 of the RTI Act.

The full judgment is attached.

The whole purpose of the RTI Act is to disseminate information. What is the big point in the Commission hearing Complaints under Sec 18, if the information cannot be disclosed ?

Beats me completely.

RTIwanted.

Sunday, December 11, 2011

[HumJanenge] query on unscrupulous builders converting tenanted property into a trust

Dear all,

We are a group of tenants living in a building purchased by a
developer some years ago. There is a dispute on between the tenants
and the builder over redeveloping the property.

Suddenly, the builder has sent an intermediary asking us to settle the
matter for cash - at a price far below the market price instead of
giving the tenants permanent alternate accommodation.

The intermediary has warned us that the builder could transfer part of
the premises to a trust and under laws applicable to the trust evict
the tenants on the grounds that the trust requires the property for
own use.

Please tell me under what sections of law would this work?

shiv kumar