As Veeresh has already mentioned this is connected with
a *Central* financing scheme to local bodies under JNURM.
Therefore it is perfectly OK for the Governor (as representing
the Central Govt) in his capacity as "competent authority"
to put in place ADDITIONAL and PROACTIVE disclosure norms.
This does not in anyway detarct from power of citizens to apply
u/s 6 NOW to the Central Ministry of Urban Development'
any information which will be disclosed after 1 year th the local level.
Sarbajit
--- In rti_india@yahoogrou
>
> Dear Sarbajit,
> This is the main point I was trying to make. Government depts. cannot afford to follow Jesus's advice in the Bible: "Do not let the left hand know what the right hand gives". On every issue that goes to Cabinet concerned Depts. muct coordinate. This is a minimum requirement under the Transaction of Business Rules. No proposal should go to the Cabinet unless okayed by the committee of secretaries. I do not know if this procedure is followed in Karnataka.
> The RTI Act sets up a general regime of transparency. Minimum commonsense requires that the administrative department be consulted on matters falling within its jurisdiction. If it is true that the DPAR has not been consulted as Veeresh alleges then something is not right with the administration of RTI in that state. The original RTI rules were issued under section 27 and subsequently amended in 2006 and in 2008 when the 150 word limit was brought in - all done under section 27. Now why this sudden attraction for powers under section 28? Of course we do not know who all were involved in the decision-making process. The minimum courtesy which Karnataka normally follows- placing the draft Rule in the public domain for comments was also not done in this case. So questions must be raised regards propriety of procedure as it sets bad precedents. However I agree with you that there is no problem with the content of the Rule istelf, except for a typographical error.
> Thanks
> Venkat
>
No comments:
Post a Comment