Re: [HumJanenge] DoPT concedes on RTI Rules

Scanned copies of replies from DoPT may clear the confusion. --- On Fri, 1/4/11, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote: From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] DoPT concedes on RTI Rules To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com Date: Friday, 1 April, 2011, 11:03 AM Dear Umapathy In reply to your observation that I have no credible source. Let me counter by saying that it is public knowledge on the most credible source (ie RTI section 4 disclosure of concerned public authority ) that Civil Society Organisations at the behest of CIC recently implored DoPT to consider imposing penalties on frivolous applicants by the CIC while hearing appeals. It is also public knowledge that these civil society organisations present included a) Ms. Aruna Roy b) Mr Shekar Singh c) Mr Nikhil Dey etc. and they did not raise even a whimper to oppose it, Sarbajit On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 10:50 AM, umapathy subramanyam <umapathi.s.rti@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Gupta Sir, I Feel what Mr. Roy is posting has no credible source.We are wasting our time and resource by replying to these messages. dont' forget, Mr. Roy is an "entertainer" as Mr. Wajhajat once rightly pointed out in our earlier postings. Further,Mr. Roy is defending these changes ( whether real or imaginary) by stating that  "Govt has powers to set fees and recover costs for enabling RTI provisions". everyone knows  whether such charging of fees really enables or disables provision of RTI Act but Roy's View is quite opposite as usual. regards. umapathi.s On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 9:41 AM, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote: The RTI Act has been enacted after it was passed by the Parliament, consent given by the Hon'ble President and after that it was duly notified.  Some rules like forwarding cost under 6(3) will change the basic structure of the Act.   The provision has been given in view of the large population residing in remote or far flung areas to submit the application in the designated post offices which they forward the same u.s. 6(3) of the Act while working as APIO.  With the introduction of this provision, maintaining the RTI fee at Rs. 10/- is meaningless in such cases as the total cost will be Rs. 60, in place of 10/-.  Already, some states like Haryana are charging Rs. 50 as RTI fee. Will the DoPT prevail upon such states to reduce the fee? There is no justification of Appeal fee, appeal is filed upon the act of omission of the PIO/ FAA and for their fault; applicant or complainant should not be penalized. What is the justification for charging the fee for issuing the notice to the third party?  Govt. intends to recover the postage charges + some expenses / profit from the RTI applicants. After the DoPT has reportedly dragged its feet on one subject, applications soliciting information on more than one subject may be termed as vexatious by misusing this provision.  Who will have the power to decide whether an application is vexatious? When the DoPT has given the information, on what ground the appellant is planning to knock the door of CIC.  I think that these rules can only be challenged in the High or Supreme Court, after they are enacted. In fact, this is the back door route to get rid of RTI or at least blunt it.  Govt. is already in the dock over the scams surfacing frequently and is peeved over on the frequent adverse remarks from the resurgent active judiciary in 2G, Has an Ali and other cases. --- On Fri, 1/4/11, Manoj Pai <manojpai@yahoo.com> wrote: From: Manoj Pai <manojpai@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] DoPT concedes on RTI Rules To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com Date: Friday, 1 April, 2011, 6:46 AM > 2) Forwarding Cost u/s 6(3) is fixed at Rs.50 per transfer > 3) Cost of issuing Third Party notice u/s 11 is fixed at > Rs. 50 per notice. This would be a wonderful tool for CPIO to delay / deny every legitimate information. Every voucher, bill, claim or file noting would be treated as third party. > FINES: > The CIC is being given powers to levy fines upto Rs. 10,000 > on  / > vexatious appellants as part of appeal procedure. It is not > clear > which provision / section of RTI Act the DoPT intends to > use to > justify this. We are planning to file 2nd appeal to CIC. > Before the year is out, these fines imposed on appellants, would outnumber the total penalties imposed on the CPIOs for last five years. Mera Bharat Mahan Manoj