The reasoning IC(SM) has given for this may not go down
well with our members. Here is a link to the order.
http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SM_A_2009_000990,.pdf
"Since there is a provision for disclosure of information under the law governing the DRT, the Appellant should access that information
by following the procedure laid down under that law and not seek the
information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
As Section 22 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act clearly states, it would have overriding effect on other laws only if there is any inconsistency between such laws and the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Since the regulations framed under the law establishing the DRT allows for disclosure of information, there is no inconsistency between those regulations and the provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
And, therefore, there is no need for us to interfere in this case. We advise the Appellant to approach the DRT for the desired information by following the regulations laid down by them."
My remarks - I dare say that other members will comment also, is this the babu who headed the DopT where every "i" is doted and "t" is crossed. What is it about the word "notwithstanding" which IC(SM) does not understand ?
"22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act."
Sarbajit
--- In rti_india@yahoogroups.com, sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Raj,
>
> Not true. Yours is a very common mistake.
>
> The Indian Evidence Act only applies to judicial proceedings in a court or
> other body/person which is legally authorised to take evidence (and does not
> apply to arbitration proceedings).
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 11:38 PM, Raj <chi_international@...> wrote:
>
> > If that is the case then Indian Evidence act provides that every public
> > officer holding a public document shall give a certified copy to any
> > applicant. Every public officer can now ask the rti applicant to apply under
> > this alternate procedure and RTI power will be reduced.
> >
> > BE AWAKE
> >
> > --- In rti_india@yahoogroups.com <rti_india%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > "sarbajitr" <sroy1947@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > http://www.ptinews.com/news/663161_-Don-t-use-RTI-if-other-means-of-getting-info-open-
> > >
> > > 'Don't use RTI if other means of getting info open'
> > >
> > > New Delhi, May 21 (PTI) The Central Information Commission has said RTI
> > Act should not be used if an alternative process of obtaining information is
> > available.
> > >
> >
> >
>
No comments:
Post a Comment