Dear Sunil,
Your reasoning is fallacious. Such posts also tend to obfuscate the debate and confuse our members. Please reply para-wise or not at all.
1) The High Court remarked that the CIC is not a Court. Even for section 18 and 19 the CIC is not a Court. The CIC is however deemed to be a court for the restricted purposes of evidence / Indian Evidence Act 1872. The Court Fee Act 1870 requires court fee to be affixed on appeals filed before even Commissioners or other public servants. Because RTI ACT does not say that Court Fee Act is not applicable to RTI Act appeals, the court fees must be paid. Section 22 of RTI Act does not stay operation of CF Act. In fact the drafting of the RTI act shows that the application fees / further fees are in ADDITION to the fees of Court Fee Act or any other law in force (such as Stamps Act) by which fees may be charged (see section 22).
2) Where has anyone said that a clause of TRA Act enables fees to be charged under RTI Act ? The clause was cited as an example of why "foolish little RTI activists there heads stuffed full of nonsense" (a copyrighted phrase of this group) are barking up the wrong tree. Such logic strengthens the hands of those who want RTI activists to be banned on this group.
3) Does a single one of the clauses of RTI Act you have dug out where the word fee is mentioned EMPOWER the collection of fee (other than 27(2), 28(2))?
4) Since you do not appear regularly in the superior courts, you would not know the significance of Law Commission reports or the credibility they enjoy. In any case nobody is saying that the reports of the Law Commission have force of law.
5) Lastly, the proposition before this assembly is whether NGOs and RTI activists should be restricted or banned on this group. NGOs because they indulge in POV (Point of view) / agenda "pushing" and RTI activists being (insert copyrighted phrase here). It is impossible to reach any conclusion or ensure high standard of debate if the members / participants argue from fixed positions, refuse to consider views of others, and are unable to argue BOTH the "pro" and "con" positions with equal facility.
Sarbajit
--- In rti_india@yahoogroups.com, Sunil Ahya <sunilahya@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Group,
>
> *1. Applicability of Court Fee Act of 1870 for charging fees under the RTI
> Act:*
>
> The recent High Court judgment has stated that the powers akin to civil
> court, acquired by an Information Commission by virtue of section 18 of the
> RTI Act is limited to what has been laid down under section 18 (3) (a) to
> (f) and therefore application of provisions of Court Fee Act of 1870 *would
> also be limited to section 18(3) (a) to (f).*
>
> [ application limited for powers but bountiful for other purposes :) ]
> *
> 2. Applicability of a provision of Telecom Regulatory Act for charging fees
> under the RTI Act:*
>
> a. RTI Act has explicitly used the word fee time and again in section 6(1),
> 7(1), 7(3), 7(5), 10(2), 18(1), 26(3), 27(2), 28(2):
>
> 6(1) fees to be accompanied with the request for information.
> 7(1) time limit for providing the information subject to payment of any
> fees.
> 7(3) intimation together with calculation of fees demanded towards cost of
> information
> 7(5) fees towards cost of providing information.
> 10(2) similar to 7(3) & (5) but towards severed and partial information.
> 18(1) provision to complain for demand of unreasonable fees.
> 26(3) notices relating to fees for access to information i.e. 6(1).
> 27(2) references to 6(1), 7(1) & (5) ( fees towards application and cost of
> information) (Appropriate Government)
> 28(2) same as 27(2) (Competent Authority).
>
> As one can see, that in the RTI Act, the explicit use of word fee has been
> made only in reference with:
>
> sec. 6(1) the fees to be accompanied along with the application
>
> sec. 7(1) fees towards the cost of information
>
> b. Please note that the section 14 (A) (3) of the Telecom Regulatory Act
> explicitly uses the word fee for the purpose of that particular section of
> the same Act.
>
> c. Now to draw a parallel from the explicit use of word fee in another Act
> for implicit inference of the same in RTI Act would be inapt, especially
> when the RTI Act has explicitly and specifically provided for fees towards
> making an initial application and further fees towards the cost of
> information.
>
> 3. Law Commission is an advisory body for recommending legislative reforms,
> it cannot assume the role of Legislature (to enact) or Judiciary (to
> interpret what has been enacted), unless empowered to do so. I would
> appreciate if one can provide a link or a soft copy of the relevant
> provisions of an Act which empowers the Law Commission to do so.
>
> 4. The purpose of participating in this debate is to share our point of
> views, and thereby mutually increasing our knowledge, respecting each
> individual member's point of view.
>
> Warm Regards,
>
> Sunil.
> --
> It is not always the same thing to be a good man and a good citizen -
> Aristotle
>
No comments:
Post a Comment