Dear Arun, Re: "Joker", That was not stated as my "opinion", but stated as a "fact". A fact which I backed up with sufficient citation admissible under the Evidence Act, namely a law of Parliament which is being breached.
Insofar as the "single PIO" concept is concerned this has been adequately disposed of in my "famous" case against DDA of 2006 .... 'DDA being a single public authority ..." http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/CIC_Order_Dtd_25022006.pdf The receiving PIO is to deal with the RTI request - all PIOs are equal with equal access to a P/A's information and they may "assist" each other. Re: "> I had also urged that the PIOs had stated that they did not have the > required information, but had asked me to come and collect the > information by myself by inspecting hundreds of files ." Obviously IC(SG) is a double joker, because he does not know the concerned section of RTI Act which deals with this issue ... namely 4(1)(a). Concerning why IC(SG) is such a fast worker, his garbage orders speak for themselves. Sarbajit On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Arun Agrawal <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I do not share the opinion that IC(SG) is a joker . This would > tantamount to abusing his Office publicly . He is a very knowledgeable > person on RTI issues and is disposing off appeals pretty fast . > > Although in one of my 2nd Appeals, he did do a great deal of injustice > to me . I had proposed that the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, > Delhi appoint a single point CPIO in terms of DoPT directions, instead > of me chasing and getting varying response on the same RTI application > from a dozen PIOs . That was not considered worthy of being taken note > of. > > I had also urged that the PIOs had stated that they did not have the > required information, but had asked me to come and collect the > information by myself by inspecting hundreds of files . > > He took no note of that either, refusing to take my argument as to how I > was to know which PIO had responded and which one had not , and that the > response was evasive. > > Another IC , Ms Annapurna Dixit on 16.6.2009 dealt with a similar case , > Bimal Khemani v/s BSNL in a different manner . She directed that BSNL > collate the information asked for by the appellant from different > Circles/Training Centres and then forward it to the appellant in one go > instead of asking the Training Centres/Circles to provide the > information to Mr Khemani directly . > > Dr Arun Agrawal >
