Dear Shri Pai
The applicant asked for the 17 manuals "according under" section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act. The CPIO replied (properly) sating that the query was not clear.
It is only the RTI users who use the term 17 "manuals" of 4(1)(b). The RTI Act itself lays no requirement for the proactive disclosure to be in the form of "manuals"
Instead section 4(1)(b)(v) requires publication of
| v) | the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions; |
Obviously all the public servants (CPIO/AA/IC) must assume (in absence of applicant) that the "manuals" referred to in the request are for "some" ie "17" manuals used by the BIS to discharge its functions .. 4.1.b.v .. and which the appellant has failed to properly specify the particulars of the information sought as required by clause 6(1).
Mr Ahya's point concerning 5(3) is irrelevant, since the request was dismissed by a reasoned reply as inter-alia not complying with mandate ("shall") of 6(1).
Ashish
--- In rti_india@yahoogrou
>
> Ashish, the two mistakes that the applicant made was prefering an First Appeal U/s 19. He should have approached the CIC U/s 18. (This is applicable only for the 17 Manuals requested by him at Ques.1. of his original RTI Application.
> Â
> The second mistake is in not attending the CIC hearing or sending a representative. Its not possible that the applicant is not conversant with the RTI Act. From the information he has sought for, it is clear that he knows what he is / was seeking. Under such circumstances, he could have asked some of his or our friends to attend the hearing on his behalf. Or he could have even requested for an audio / video conference hearing.
> Â
> Further, you have missed the point on what RTI Wanted had posted in the begining of this thread. He is absolutely right. The IC has evaded the issue on the 17 Manuals as mandated U/s 4(1)(b). One does not need to me a rocket scientist to understand what the applicant was referring to. I have made similar requests with PA on post cards and hmanaged to get these manuals free of cost. We need to thank our moderator for an excellent decision he extracted from the CIC last year.
> Â
> It is needless to remind you that the RTI Act was not promulgated by the Parilament for highly literate people. It is for the benefit for "aam admi" or common man. One cannot expect a common man to be a expert on "precise drafting ". Besides your POV has already been addressed by Sunil Ahya.
> Â
> So instead of stating that the first post of RTI Wanted was "dumb" it would be better if you can ask Shri D P Kumar, Dy. Director & CPIO, Bureau of Indian Standards and his FAA if they know how read the RTI Act 2005 properly or not?
> Â
> Manoj Pai
> Â
> Â
>
>
> --- On Sun, 7/18/10, C K Jam <rtiwanted@..
>
>
> From: C K Jam <rtiwanted@..
> Subject: Re: [rti_india] Re: What have we done to deserve such dumb ICs in the CIC ?
> To: rti_india@yahoogrou
> Date: Sunday, July 18, 2010, 10:40 PM
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Mr Ashish,
>
> A majority of the RTI applicants in this country are not bureaucrats trained in precise drafting or from Oxbridge. Show it to your next door (hopefully non babu) neighbor. Even he/she will understand what the applicant has asked for.
>
> Maybe you might like to send the applicant to the World Bank too !
>
> PS: BTW, you might like to train some of the ICs in the CIC in precise drafting of their orders too.
>
> RTIwanted
>
> --- On Sun, 7/18/10, ashish kr1965 <ashishkr1965@ yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> From: ashish kr1965 <ashishkr1965@ yahoo.com>
> Subject: [rti_india] Re: What have we done to deserve such dumb ICs in the CIC ?
> To: rti_india@yahoogrou ps.com
> Date: Sunday, July 18, 2010, 3:46 PM
>
>
> Â
>
> 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@yahoogrou ps.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
>
__._,_.___
MARKETPLACE
.
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment