So parallel lines are converging!
Section 4(1)(b)(xiii) particulars of recipients of
concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it;
of the RTI ACT includes this already ... just have to
fight.
Otherwise the RT ACT 2005 is a horribly bad piece of
legislation rammed through by the idiots at the NAC
who will no doubt be suitably rewarded for having sold
out by being appointed Chief or Information
Commissioners.
The Delhi RTI Act is so much better, and i am informed
that the Maharashtra one was quite effective too.
Sarbajit
--- Gita Dewan Verma <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> --- sarbajit roy <sroy1947@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Just as a student ought not to crib that he is
> > required to "book" a reference journal from his
> > library, similarly a normal waiting period of 15
> > days
> > is not too bad for any formal process.
>
> > Insofar as students are concerned, I think
> > concessional photocopying charges could be
> > considered
>
> ---------
> Prashant, Subhadeep, others at SPA
>
> do persuade SPA authorities to raise such points.
> unless all types of info-users raise their issues,
> normative principles for RTI for different purposes
> will not evolve.
>
> gita
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
>
http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> mpisgmedia mailing list
> mpisgmedia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
http://mail.architexturez.net/mailman/listinfo/mpisgmedia
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com