There was a hearing in Central Information Commission
on 23.12.05 on the RTI complaint of Sarabjit Roy
against DDA Principal Commissioner cum Secretary, VM
Bansal. This was the first hearing by CIC (and perhaps
also first complaint). NDTV had a report at night. ToI
had a front-page top story in the morning:
http://www1.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1343014.cms
The previous week CIC had visited DDA and, wrt that
and my letter/note of 25/26.10.05 about RTI in DDA, I
had written on 20.12.05 to LG about holding s.6 in
abeyance in DDA till full implementation of s.4. I had
taken this to CIC with further request to be allowed
to attend proceedings arising from s.6 in matters in
which I have pending s.4 requests and met officials
and a Commissioner about this. In this context I
showed up in CIC before the hearing and sought and got
permission to attend. (The hearing was open and I
could have also gone with Sarabjit Roy or with some of
the DDA officers).
At the end of the hearing the Complainant suggested
and the Commission was inclined to allow that I make a
submission, but the Respondent, Mr Bansal, objected
and said I could file a separate petition. I have
dispatched a letter to him for some clarifications to
be able to do that. This is posted at:
http://plan.architexturez.org/site/anomie/RTI/dda
I have also sent it to LG and CIC and it is copied
(with this post) to DDA PIOs/AAs with request to
forward to other PIOs/AAs and Mr Bansal if needed.
I think this case, especially the hearing, raises
serious structural issues about both RTI Act and DDA.
Please see.
- gita
__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com
on 23.12.05 on the RTI complaint of Sarabjit Roy
against DDA Principal Commissioner cum Secretary, VM
Bansal. This was the first hearing by CIC (and perhaps
also first complaint). NDTV had a report at night. ToI
had a front-page top story in the morning:
http://www1.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1343014.cms
The previous week CIC had visited DDA and, wrt that
and my letter/note of 25/26.10.05 about RTI in DDA, I
had written on 20.12.05 to LG about holding s.6 in
abeyance in DDA till full implementation of s.4. I had
taken this to CIC with further request to be allowed
to attend proceedings arising from s.6 in matters in
which I have pending s.4 requests and met officials
and a Commissioner about this. In this context I
showed up in CIC before the hearing and sought and got
permission to attend. (The hearing was open and I
could have also gone with Sarabjit Roy or with some of
the DDA officers).
At the end of the hearing the Complainant suggested
and the Commission was inclined to allow that I make a
submission, but the Respondent, Mr Bansal, objected
and said I could file a separate petition. I have
dispatched a letter to him for some clarifications to
be able to do that. This is posted at:
http://plan.architexturez.org/site/anomie/RTI/dda
I have also sent it to LG and CIC and it is copied
(with this post) to DDA PIOs/AAs with request to
forward to other PIOs/AAs and Mr Bansal if needed.
I think this case, especially the hearing, raises
serious structural issues about both RTI Act and DDA.
Please see.
- gita
__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com