Re: [rti_india] Re: What have we done to deserve such dumb ICs in the CIC ?

Sunday, July 18, 2010

Re: [rti_india] Re: What have we done to deserve such dumb ICs in the CIC ?

Dear Ashish,

I would like to draw your attention to section 5(3) of the RTI Act:

Quote:

(3) Every Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall deal with requests from persons seeking information and render reasonable assistance to the persons seeking such information.

Unquote

Now if the query of the said RTI application lacked specific clarity, the PIO should have rendered reasonable assistance to the applicant to get the requisite clarity, and provided him/her with the requested information.

Your POV would be valid if the PIO can justify, that despite rendering reasonable assistance, it is still unclear as to what information is being sought in the said RTI application, which neither FAA could not decipher, nor the IC :).

Thanks,

Sunil.

On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 9:16 PM, ashish kr1965 <ashishkr1965@yahoo.com> wrote:

Dear Jam

If anyone is "dumb" it is the person who posted this message,

The CPIO's reply to query 1 was precise, as was the AA's.
Ms Singh in her capacity as second appellate has delivered an
unexceptionable decision upholding the department's view
(and highlighting the importance of precise.drafting by
RTI applicants).

Ashish

== In rti_india@yahoogroups.com <rtiwante..@..> wrote ==

http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SS_A_2009_000083_M_37650.pdf

Applicant asked for various information from BIS and the first one was:

Qus.1. Please send me your office newly published manual (17 points manual of booklet) belonging to the year 2008-09, according under section 4(1)(b) of the Right to Information Act. 2005.

To this, the PIO replied:

Ans. Your Query is not clear.

The First Appellate Authority (FAA)/Dy. Director General (South), Bureau of Indian
Standards (BIS) vide his order dated 16.10.2009 upheld the reply / decision of the CPIO.

And our IC SS in the CIC ruled:

During the hearing the Respondent submit, in respect to point no. 1 of the RTI
Application, that the Applicant has not mentioned the specific manual / booklet he is
referring to in his application. The BIS is using various manuals for the activities being
carried out and the manuals are already placed in Public Domain. The Commission
holds that since the Appellant not mentioned the specific information he has sought, the
Respondent have not been able to furnish the requisite documents to him.

=========

Any more vacancies available in the World Bank please ?

RTIwanted