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
> Commission cannot order disclosure of information while heairng complaint under Sec 18.pdf
> 231KViewDownload
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.
--
Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
989, Sector 15-A, Opposite bishnoi Colony, Hisar-125001, INDIA
Phone: 91-99929-31181
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:
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>
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.
>
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.
>
> ________________________________
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
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 <mkgup...@yahoo.co.in> wrote: |
Visit
https://groups.google.com/group/HumJanenge/browse_thread/thread/b65bed30b3b425b4
Goto the very first post in this thread (by C.K.Jam)
Download the file from the last line in that post
Sarbajit
On Dec 20, 4:45 pm, robby sharma <sharmaro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Sir I have not received the Supreme Court Judgment regarding Section-18 please send to me
>