[HumJanenge] Re: Report which can undergo changes is not "information"

Dear Mr Singh

Please use Capital letters sparingly and/or for EMPHASIS.

Is the report a "record" ? NO !!
Is the report an "official" document ? NO !!!

So how is it disclosable information within the meaning of 2(f) and
2(i) read together ?

Sarbajit

On Apr 5, 8:11 pm, Vijendra Singh <vijendra5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE IS DEFINITELY A INFORMATION. THE IC CERTAINLY
> COMMITTED WRONG BY DECIDING THAT THE REPORT IS PREMATURE AND THEREFORE DID
> NOT COME IN DEFINITION OF INFORMATION.
> ANY ORDINARY LITERATE PERSON CAN VERY WELL TELL THAT ANY WRITTEN PAPER
> CONSTITUTES THE INFORMATION.
> I DO NOT KNOW WHY AND HOW THE IC IS DELIVERING SUCH ABSURD DECISIONS? AND
> WHY THE GOI. IS PAYING  HANDSOME SALARIES ,PERQUISITES  ETC TO SUCH
>  FOOLISH  IC?
> VIJENDRA SINGH, MEERUT
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yes, in particular YOU should read the defn of "right to information".
> > Is the information "held by" or is it "under the control of" the PA ?
>
> > Sarbajit
>
> > On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 2:00 PM, C K Jam <rtiwan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> Mr Sarbajit,
>
> >> Your "seasoned and experienced" ex bureaucrat and now IC in the CIC,
> >> needs to read the definitions in Sec 2 of the RTI Act !
>
> >>http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SS_A_2011_001885_M_7986...
>
> >> *The appellant had filed an application dated 22.9.2010 under the RTI Act
> >> *
> >> *seeking copy of the report on integration of UD and PD – issues
> >> relating to interse seniority in Managerial Technical Cadre – with refer
> >> No. CM (HR) C-T-1160*
> >> *dated 14.12.09. The CPIO vide his letter dated 7.10.2010 informed the
> >> appellant*
> >> *that the matter is being examined by the management. It has not been
> >> accepted*
> >> *by the Company till date. Since the report is not accepted by the
> >> Company, it is*
> >> *not an official document of the company. Therefore the report is not
> >> 'information'*
> >> *under section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005.
> >> .
> >> .
> >> .
> >> .
> >> .
> >> .
> >> **During the hearing the respondent submits that the Management of FACT*
> >> *constituted a Committee of senior officials to examine and make*
> >> *recommendations for solving the inter-se seniority problems in the
> >> technical*
> >> *cadre in the proposed Udyogmandal Complex set up. The integration of the
> >> *
> >> *Udyogmandal Division and Petrochemical Division is not yet completed.
> >> The*
> >> *recommendation/report of the Committee has not yet been accepted by the*
> >> *Management. It is subject to various changes based on the discussion
> >> with the*
> >> *Unions. The issue of inter-se seniority in the technical cadre is being
> >> discussed*
> >> *with the Unions. The purpose of the report of the Committee of senior
> >> officials is*
> >> *only to conduct negotiation with the Unions to sort out the issue of
> >> inter-se*
> >> *seniority. In other words, it is a management tool for discussion with
> >> Unions. It*
> >> *the report is released to the Unions, the very purpose of constituting
> >> the*
> >> *Committee is defeated.
>
> >> **Having considered the submissions of the parties the Commission is of*
> >> *the view that the information sought for by the appellant does not fall
> >> within the*
> >> *meaning of 'information' as contained u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 as
> >> the abovesaid report is subject to various changes based on the discussions
> >> with the*
> >> *Unions. The requisite information permissible under the RTI Act has been
> >> *
> >> *provided to the appellant by the respondent.
> >> *
> >> *
> >> *
> >> RTIwanted
>
> --
> Vijendra Singh
> E-19, Janakpuri,
> Ajanta Colony, garh road,
> Meerut-250004
> UP