Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 9 to 16 of 20
  1. #9
    Posts
    29
    Name:
    Tara Shankar
    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Re: FOR HEARING AT CIC SCHEDULED ON 21ST APRIL-08. and clarification on sec 8(1)(g)


    Dear Sharma OP ji !
    I have not given any examples of my own creations , rather the postulations on law are given by the masterpieces of law on this earth and the contentions well accepted by our hon'ble Supreme Court,the apex court , whose decisions are bound by law to be accepted by the sub-ordinate courts including the comissions.


    › Find content similar to: FOR HEARING AT CIC SCHEDULED ON 21ST APRIL-08. and clarification on sec 8(1)(g)



  2. #10
    Posts
    521
    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Re: FOR HEARING AT CIC SCHEDULED ON 21ST APRIL-08. and clarification on sec 8(1)(g)


    Mr Behera,my sincere regrets if my remarks touched your sensibilities.As I understand,aim of discussions is to maximise relevant points/arguements/literature/existing decisions,to help out the information seeker.context and relevance are the operating words.
    thanks.

  3. #11
    Posts
    15,537
    Name:
    J.P. SHAH
    Blog Entries
    82
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    9 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    62 Post(s)

    Re: FOR HEARING AT CIC SCHEDULED ON 21ST APRIL-08. and clarification on sec 8(1)(g)


    CIC as under:
    A Through this Order the Commission now wants to send the message loud and clear that quoting provisions of Section 8 of the RTI Act ad libitum to deny the information requested for, by CPIOs/Appellate Authorities without giving any justification or grounds as to how these provisions are applicable is simply unacceptable and clearly amounts to malafide denial of legitimate information attracting penalties under section 20.1 of the Act CIC/OK/A/2006/00163 dtd <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com</st1:date>7 July 2006
    B Reasons for rejection of requests
    The PIO has to give the reasons for rejection of the request for information as required under Section 7(8)(i). Merely quoting the bare clause of the Act does not imply that the
    reasons have been given. The PIO should have intimated as to how he had come to the conclusion that rule 8(1)(j) was applicable in this case CIC/OK/C/2006/00010 – <st1:date Month="7" Day="7" Year="2006">7 July 2006</st1:date>.
    Section 8.1.d relates only about such matters of commercial confidence in possession of public authority obtained from third party, the revelation of which would harm that third party. This section does not provide protection to public authority. It provides protection to third party only.
    Judgement of HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF <st1:City>DELHI </st1:City>in WP(C) No. 3114/2007 decided on 03.12.2007 :
    …As is reflected in its preambular paragraphs, the enactment seeks to promote transparency, arrest corruption and to hold the Government and its instrumentalities accountable to the governed. This spirit of the Act must be borne in mind while construing the provisions contained therein.
    Access to information under Section 3 of the Act, is the rule and exemptions under Section 8, the exception. Section 8 being a restriction on this fundamental right, must therefore is to be strictly construed. It should not be interpreted in manner as to shadow the very right itself
    It takes each of us to make difference for all of us.

  4. #12
    Posts
    541
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    3 Post(s)

    Re: FOR HEARING AT CIC SCHEDULED ON 21ST APRIL-08. and clarification on sec 8(1)(g)



    thanks to JPS50 for the relevent points and decisions of CIC. These points may help me during hearing. regards (Umapathi.s)

  5. #13
    Posts
    43,873
    Name:
    C J Karira
    Blog Entries
    9
    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    14 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    168 Post(s)

    Re: FOR HEARING AT CIC SCHEDULED ON 21ST APRIL-08. and clarification on sec 8(1)(g)


    Umapathi.S,

    Congratulations !
    You really prepared your self very well.....

    Most of the points raised by you in your Second Appeal and Complaints have been ruled in your favour by CIC.

    Please see:

    http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/PB-23042008-04.pdf
    http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/PB-23042008-05.pdf

    I have just one doubt about File No. 1234, where CIC has ruled:

    File No.1234: In this appeal the appellant is aggrieved that the information which he has received has not been certified. However, during the hearing, it was clarified that whenever the documents are enclosed along with a covering letter on the letter pad, the enclosures are deemed to have been certified.

    Can any member with legal background and knowledge clarify if this position is correct ?

    Umapathi.s, with your experience of a CIC hearing under the belt and well thought out arguments, I request you to visit this forum often and help many others.
    Twitter: @cjkarira

  6. #14
    Posts
    541
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    3 Post(s)

    Re: FOR HEARING AT CIC SCHEDULED ON 21ST APRIL-08. and clarification on sec 8(1)(g)


    yes sir, you are right in asking the clarification about the certified copies of the documents. generally whenever the citizen ask the documents, it should be certified by the CPIO as "true copy" with his seal and signatures.I have been requesting the same in application, and appeals. but, I still feel that the decision of the cic is wrong. though covering letter of the CPIO bears his signatures, the documens accompanying the same are not certified and hence I insisted that these documetns shuld be certified so that the geniueness of the documets can be assured.in other cases, like in the case of "central Vigilance Commission and RBI the documents of every page is certifed by the official as "true copy". but in this case despite my specific request the CIC brushed aside my request. can you through some light how to overcome this confusion ?.

    Regards

  7. #15
    Posts
    154
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Re: FOR HEARING AT CIC SCHEDULED ON 21ST APRIL-08. and clarification on sec 8(1)(g)


    should we not file a review petition with CIC?

  8. #16
    Posts
    43,873
    Name:
    C J Karira
    Blog Entries
    9
    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    14 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    168 Post(s)

    Re: FOR HEARING AT CIC SCHEDULED ON 21ST APRIL-08. and clarification on sec 8(1)(g)


    Quote Originally Posted by slchowdhary View Post
    should we not file a review petition with CIC?
    But what is the legal position ?
    It is better to file a review petition with complete facts and well thought of arguments. This is because as per CIC (Management) rules, a review can be granted based on the discretion of the CIC. Therefore reasons for review have to be watertight in order to avoid disappointment.
    Twitter: @cjkarira

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Tags for this Thread



About RTI INDIA

    RTI INDIA: Invoking Your Rights. We provide easy ways to request, analyze & share Government documents by use of Right to Information and by way of community support.

Follow us on

Twitter Facebook youtube Tumblr RTI Microblog RSS Feed Apple App Store Google Play for Android