Re: [rti4empowerment] Section 4. (1) (d) Every public authority shall provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.

Mr Vaghela,

 also ,

Dear Mr. Gupta
CPIO CVC is wrong, In any democracy right of the people to question acts omissions of government is axiomatic, inalienable, fundamental & human.

 

The words opinion & advices in section 2(f)  & 2(i)of RTI Act 2005 (what information that cannot be denied to parliament or state legislature cannot be denied to an individual)covers your query.

 

WEDS

---

From: Vaghela B D <vaghelabd@yahoo.com>
To: rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com
Cc: M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in>; Ashok Chaitanya <ashok_chaitanya@yahoo.co.in>
Sent: Thu, 23 December, 2010 18:28:30
Subject: [rti4empowerment] Section 4. (1) (d) Every public authority shall provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.

Sir, RTI provision: Section 4. (1) (d) Every public authority shall provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons. DELAY ASPECT is covered in this clause & ONLY the affected person is ENTITLED to know about reasons for delay. Regards, --  (Babubhai Vaghela) C 202, Shrinandnagar V, Makarba Road Vejalpur, Ahmedabad - 380051 M -  94276 08632 http://twitter.com/BabubhaiVaghela About me in Annexure at - http://bit.ly/9xsHFj http://www.youtube.com/user/vaghelabd (Administrator - Google Group - Right to Information Act 2005) http://groups.google.com/group/Right-to-Information-Act-2005/about?hl=en --- On Thu, 12/23/10, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote: From: M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> Subject: [rti4empowerment] FOR GUIDANCE To: rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com, "Ashok Chaitanya" <ashok_chaitanya@yahoo.co.in> Date: Thursday, December 23, 2010, 4:32 PM FOR GUIDANCE   On the query for informing the reasons for inordinate delay in concluding the investigation in complaint number 1337/08/8 against the Delhi Development Authority, the CPIO, Central Vigilance Commission has informed that this does not amount to seeking information as defined in section 2(f) of the RTI Act.   I want to know from the enlightened members if the reply is in accordance to RTI Act and if not, further course of action, appeal to FAA/ or complaint to CIC or ???????.