Mr Sudhakar Dalela
Deputy Secretary & CPIO(TPD), DoC
Dear Mr Dalela,
Wish you a happy new year and thank you for your eml
dated 29.12.05 (included). The phone number you have
mentioned in it seems not to work / exist. Hence this
eml.
You have replied to my eml of 15.12.05, the last of my
emls since October to DoC (through all PIOs/AAs) in
ambit on s.4 of RTI Act, in continuation of letters
about GATS to Mr R Gopalan in 2003 and about GATS
revised offer to Mr R Gopalan on 15.08.05 and to Shri
Kamal Nath on 18.09.05. All my communications raised
specific concerns and attendant queries on which DoC
could have either refused or provided information /
consultation opportunity, before proceeding with GATS
negotiations. DoC refused. Now, after the Hong Kong
Ministerial, you thank me for drawing attention to
s.4(1)(a) (even as I have done no such thing, s.4(1)(b
and s.4(1)(c) being the sub-sections relevant to my
requests), ask me to note the "considerable
information" and "constant endeavour to post
appropriate information" on DoC website (even as what
I had requested be published on it is not on DoC
website) and say that DoC "would be happy to provide"
me relevant information in accordance with RTI Act and
DoC procedures and offer to meet me for this (without
disclosing procedures for s.4, including for
determining what is "considerable" and "appropriate"
and "relevant", ie, procedures by which my requests
were rejected).
Frankly, I am baffled. In my view, s.4 does not
require / allow thousands like me wanting to know
about what you identify as my key areas of interest,
viz, "planning as also the consultative process" in
respect of the GATS offer to individually take your
time. Moreover, information-sharing and discussion
with me was, I think, warranted on GATS by my letter
of September 2003 to Mr R Gopalan (very likely among
the last received by DoC from the planning fraternity
in course of its consultations then) and on GATS offer
by my letters of 15.08.05 to Mr R Gopalan and 18.09.05
to Shri Kamal Nath (very likely among the first
received by DoC about the offer). From GATS offer
submission in August to Ministerial in December I made
sustained requests for information with reference to
specific concerns that DoC did not find worthy of
response to or discussion with me (though it did hold
GATS consultations) or dissemination under RTI Act
(although the GATS offer was perhaps the most
significant decision taken shortly after s.4 of RTI
had come into force). I wonder what information DoC is
now happy to offer me and why at a meeting under RTI
Act.
In view of your insistence on RTI Act and procedures,
I am constrained to point out that your reply does not
answer my eml of 15.12.05 in which I had sought to
know only two things: (a) how what was published on
DoC website about the GATS offer was adequate in terms
of s.4, ie, s.4(1)(b) and s.4(1)(c), and (b) if and
how concerns raised in my requests were addressed. I
now reiterate the contents of my eml of 15.12.05 and
the requests therein, now under s.4(1)(d) (as
affected-person in view of my unanswered requests),
whereby I seek also the following:
(a) status and outcome of consideration of my
above-mentioned prior communications to Mr R Gopalan
and Shri Kamal Nath
(b) particulars of those whom DoC offered / agreed to
meet to share information / discuss the GATS offer
after 15.08.05 (when I wrote to Mr R Gopalan)
(c) particulars of individuals to whom DoC has
provided under s.6 or otherwise the information that
it has refused to publish under s.4 on my requests
I reiterate that I am not resorting to s.6 of RTI Act
and am addressing DoC through you. I also wish to
clarify that I was resorting to RTI Act not for any
NGO-style adversarial RTI or WTO activism but in the
belief that I could contribute expertise to several
sector-specific details in the GATS offer that, as
stated in my letter to Shri Kamal Nath, reads like
vague EoI fraught with inconsistencies and, as stated
in my letter to Mr R Gopalan, presumes certain
enactments. If Shri Kamal Nath and Mr R Gopalan are
unwilling to consult qualified professionals like me,
I have no issues. I simply need to know whom I can
communicate my concerns and suggestions through and if
any aspects of them have already been reasonably
rejected. I understand that the Hong Kong Ministerial
has concluded with decision to pursue bilateral
negotiations on GATS till mid-year. Accordingly, I
request DoC to most expeditiously either refuse or
provide to me the requested information.
With best regards,
Gita Dewan Verma, Planner
--- Sudhakar Dalela <sudhakar.dalela@xxxxxx> wrote:
> Dear Ms Geeta Dewan Verma,
>
>
>
> Thank you very much for your e-mails drawing our
> attention to Section
> 4(1)(a) of the Rights to Information Act 2005 which
> notes that, "every
> public authority shall maintain all its records duly
> catalogued and indexed
> in a manner and the form which facilitates the right
> to information under
> this Act and ensure that all records that are
> appropriate to be computerized
> are, within reasonable time and subject to
> availability of resources,
> computerized and connected through a network all
> over the country on
> different systems so that access to such information
> is facilitated".
>
>
>
> You may please note that considerable information
> including various India's
> submissions to ongoing WTO negotiations in the
> Services area are available
> on the website of the Department of Commerce. It is
> our constant endeavour
> to post appropriate information pertaining to the
> WTO negotiations on the
> web page of this Department.
>
>
>
> I understand your key area of interest is urban
> planning as also
> consultation process leading to formulation of
> India's revised offer
> submitted earlier this year. This Department would
> be happy to provide you
> relevant information in accordance with Right to
> Information Act and
> procedures developed by the Department under it.
>
>
>
> I would also be happy to meet you if you so wish and
> see how best we could
> provide you relevant information in accordance with
> RTI Act 2005.
>
>
>
> With best wishes,
>
>
>
> Sudhakar Dalela
>
> Deputy Secretary and CPIO(TPD)
>
> Department of Commerce
>
> T.No. 23062592
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gita Dewan Verma" <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: <sudhakar.dalela@xxxxxx>
> Cc: <shailagarwal@xxxxxx>; <moc_epagri@xxxxxx>;
> <ppsingh@xxxxxx>;
> <rkhullar@xxxxxx>; <adrout@xxxxxx>;
> <pvsivaraman@xxxxxx>;
> <asengupta@xxxxxx>; <moc_antidump@xxxxxx>;
> <m_srao@xxxxxx>; <kcrout@xxxxxx>;
> <sthampi@xxxxxx>; <rmitter@xxxxxx>; <kapoor@xxxxxx>;
> <sktuli@xxxxxx>;
> <moc_admin@xxxxxx>; <jsraman@xxxxxx>;
> <rgopalan@xxxxxx>; <moc_epmp@xxxxxx>;
> <mvpcs@xxxxxx>; <rajeev.k@xxxxxx>;
> <ssasikumar@xxxxxx>; <d.prasad@xxxxxx>;
> <mshankar@xxxxxx>; <vinita@xxxxxx>;
> <mp.singh@xxxxxx>;
> <vramakrishna@xxxxxx>; <goyal@xxxxxx>;
> <jschadha@xxxxxx>; <vkgauba@xxxxxx>;
> <christy.f@xxxxxx>; <moc_ftmo@xxxxxx>;
> <shefalishah@xxxxxx>;
> <krishnamurthy@xxxxxx>; <aswarup@xxxxxx>;
> <moc_ftam@xxxxxx>;
> <jdasgupta@xxxxxx>; <anju.sharma@xxxxxx>;
> <isingh@xxxxxx>;
> <nilotpal@xxxxxx>; <asfa_com@xxxxxx>;
> <mpisgmedia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 2:44 PM
> Subject: RTI request re GATS (Planning law and
> profession / release in US on
> 12.12.05)
>
http://mail.architexturez.net/+/MPISG-Media/archive/msg00723.shtml
__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com
Deputy Secretary & CPIO(TPD), DoC
Dear Mr Dalela,
Wish you a happy new year and thank you for your eml
dated 29.12.05 (included). The phone number you have
mentioned in it seems not to work / exist. Hence this
eml.
You have replied to my eml of 15.12.05, the last of my
emls since October to DoC (through all PIOs/AAs) in
ambit on s.4 of RTI Act, in continuation of letters
about GATS to Mr R Gopalan in 2003 and about GATS
revised offer to Mr R Gopalan on 15.08.05 and to Shri
Kamal Nath on 18.09.05. All my communications raised
specific concerns and attendant queries on which DoC
could have either refused or provided information /
consultation opportunity, before proceeding with GATS
negotiations. DoC refused. Now, after the Hong Kong
Ministerial, you thank me for drawing attention to
s.4(1)(a) (even as I have done no such thing, s.4(1)(b
and s.4(1)(c) being the sub-sections relevant to my
requests), ask me to note the "considerable
information" and "constant endeavour to post
appropriate information" on DoC website (even as what
I had requested be published on it is not on DoC
website) and say that DoC "would be happy to provide"
me relevant information in accordance with RTI Act and
DoC procedures and offer to meet me for this (without
disclosing procedures for s.4, including for
determining what is "considerable" and "appropriate"
and "relevant", ie, procedures by which my requests
were rejected).
Frankly, I am baffled. In my view, s.4 does not
require / allow thousands like me wanting to know
about what you identify as my key areas of interest,
viz, "planning as also the consultative process" in
respect of the GATS offer to individually take your
time. Moreover, information-sharing and discussion
with me was, I think, warranted on GATS by my letter
of September 2003 to Mr R Gopalan (very likely among
the last received by DoC from the planning fraternity
in course of its consultations then) and on GATS offer
by my letters of 15.08.05 to Mr R Gopalan and 18.09.05
to Shri Kamal Nath (very likely among the first
received by DoC about the offer). From GATS offer
submission in August to Ministerial in December I made
sustained requests for information with reference to
specific concerns that DoC did not find worthy of
response to or discussion with me (though it did hold
GATS consultations) or dissemination under RTI Act
(although the GATS offer was perhaps the most
significant decision taken shortly after s.4 of RTI
had come into force). I wonder what information DoC is
now happy to offer me and why at a meeting under RTI
Act.
In view of your insistence on RTI Act and procedures,
I am constrained to point out that your reply does not
answer my eml of 15.12.05 in which I had sought to
know only two things: (a) how what was published on
DoC website about the GATS offer was adequate in terms
of s.4, ie, s.4(1)(b) and s.4(1)(c), and (b) if and
how concerns raised in my requests were addressed. I
now reiterate the contents of my eml of 15.12.05 and
the requests therein, now under s.4(1)(d) (as
affected-person in view of my unanswered requests),
whereby I seek also the following:
(a) status and outcome of consideration of my
above-mentioned prior communications to Mr R Gopalan
and Shri Kamal Nath
(b) particulars of those whom DoC offered / agreed to
meet to share information / discuss the GATS offer
after 15.08.05 (when I wrote to Mr R Gopalan)
(c) particulars of individuals to whom DoC has
provided under s.6 or otherwise the information that
it has refused to publish under s.4 on my requests
I reiterate that I am not resorting to s.6 of RTI Act
and am addressing DoC through you. I also wish to
clarify that I was resorting to RTI Act not for any
NGO-style adversarial RTI or WTO activism but in the
belief that I could contribute expertise to several
sector-specific details in the GATS offer that, as
stated in my letter to Shri Kamal Nath, reads like
vague EoI fraught with inconsistencies and, as stated
in my letter to Mr R Gopalan, presumes certain
enactments. If Shri Kamal Nath and Mr R Gopalan are
unwilling to consult qualified professionals like me,
I have no issues. I simply need to know whom I can
communicate my concerns and suggestions through and if
any aspects of them have already been reasonably
rejected. I understand that the Hong Kong Ministerial
has concluded with decision to pursue bilateral
negotiations on GATS till mid-year. Accordingly, I
request DoC to most expeditiously either refuse or
provide to me the requested information.
With best regards,
Gita Dewan Verma, Planner
--- Sudhakar Dalela <sudhakar.dalela@xxxxxx> wrote:
> Dear Ms Geeta Dewan Verma,
>
>
>
> Thank you very much for your e-mails drawing our
> attention to Section
> 4(1)(a) of the Rights to Information Act 2005 which
> notes that, "every
> public authority shall maintain all its records duly
> catalogued and indexed
> in a manner and the form which facilitates the right
> to information under
> this Act and ensure that all records that are
> appropriate to be computerized
> are, within reasonable time and subject to
> availability of resources,
> computerized and connected through a network all
> over the country on
> different systems so that access to such information
> is facilitated".
>
>
>
> You may please note that considerable information
> including various India's
> submissions to ongoing WTO negotiations in the
> Services area are available
> on the website of the Department of Commerce. It is
> our constant endeavour
> to post appropriate information pertaining to the
> WTO negotiations on the
> web page of this Department.
>
>
>
> I understand your key area of interest is urban
> planning as also
> consultation process leading to formulation of
> India's revised offer
> submitted earlier this year. This Department would
> be happy to provide you
> relevant information in accordance with Right to
> Information Act and
> procedures developed by the Department under it.
>
>
>
> I would also be happy to meet you if you so wish and
> see how best we could
> provide you relevant information in accordance with
> RTI Act 2005.
>
>
>
> With best wishes,
>
>
>
> Sudhakar Dalela
>
> Deputy Secretary and CPIO(TPD)
>
> Department of Commerce
>
> T.No. 23062592
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gita Dewan Verma" <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: <sudhakar.dalela@xxxxxx>
> Cc: <shailagarwal@xxxxxx>; <moc_epagri@xxxxxx>;
> <ppsingh@xxxxxx>;
> <rkhullar@xxxxxx>; <adrout@xxxxxx>;
> <pvsivaraman@xxxxxx>;
> <asengupta@xxxxxx>; <moc_antidump@xxxxxx>;
> <m_srao@xxxxxx>; <kcrout@xxxxxx>;
> <sthampi@xxxxxx>; <rmitter@xxxxxx>; <kapoor@xxxxxx>;
> <sktuli@xxxxxx>;
> <moc_admin@xxxxxx>; <jsraman@xxxxxx>;
> <rgopalan@xxxxxx>; <moc_epmp@xxxxxx>;
> <mvpcs@xxxxxx>; <rajeev.k@xxxxxx>;
> <ssasikumar@xxxxxx>; <d.prasad@xxxxxx>;
> <mshankar@xxxxxx>; <vinita@xxxxxx>;
> <mp.singh@xxxxxx>;
> <vramakrishna@xxxxxx>; <goyal@xxxxxx>;
> <jschadha@xxxxxx>; <vkgauba@xxxxxx>;
> <christy.f@xxxxxx>; <moc_ftmo@xxxxxx>;
> <shefalishah@xxxxxx>;
> <krishnamurthy@xxxxxx>; <aswarup@xxxxxx>;
> <moc_ftam@xxxxxx>;
> <jdasgupta@xxxxxx>; <anju.sharma@xxxxxx>;
> <isingh@xxxxxx>;
> <nilotpal@xxxxxx>; <asfa_com@xxxxxx>;
> <mpisgmedia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 2:44 PM
> Subject: RTI request re GATS (Planning law and
> profession / release in US on
> 12.12.05)
>
http://mail.architexturez.net/+/MPISG-Media/archive/msg00723.shtml
__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com