In Such an Situation when One Has approached the Second Appeal Mechanism which is an Higher statutory Authority for One Relief can an Lower Authorirty be Approached For another relief . If so Can Lower Authority can it decvline On That grounds stating as The Case is already is pending Adjudication at an higher body , They will not intervene . then The Person seeking information will loose His /her right to Information . therefore IN KIC They are allowing both section 18 and sec 19.3 simoultaneosly
N vikramsimha , KRIA Katte , #12 Sumeru Sir M N Krishna Rao Road , Basvangudi < Bangalore 560004.
--- On Fri, 6/5/11, acfanand@gmail.com <acfanand@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: acfanand@gmail.com <acfanand@gmail.com>
> Subject: RE: [HumJanenge] Cabinet note not secret: Info panel
> To: "humjanenge@googlegroups.com" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
> Date: Friday, 6 May, 2011, 6:39 PM
> That is why in karnataka the
> commission considers all complaints and appeals as petitions
> and dispooses accordingly.
>
> Sent from my Nokia phone
> -----Original Message-----
> From: soumen kr Bhattacharjee
> Sent: 06/05/2011 12:14:12 pm
> Subject: Re: Re: [HumJanenge] Cabinet note not
> secret: Info panel
>
> Dear Ama ,
>
> I would like to advise you to go through the act. It is not
> lawful to move to a commission before approaching 1st
> appellate authority . It is nalso not legal for commission
> to admit a second appeal when ist appeal was not
> heard/disposed.Hope clarified.
>
>
> On Fri, 06 May 2011 06:01:01 +0530 wrote
> >Dear Ama
>
> The cost of RTI must be REASONABLE. At these highly
> subsidised prices/fees prescribed in the Central RTI Rules,
> the HONEST citizen who never/rarely uses RTI is SUBSIDISING
> the h****is who professionally misuse RTI on behalf of
> theior foreign spymasters and are handsomely recompensed for
> it.
>
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 8:26 AM, Baritlum Ama wrote:
>
> Its true that Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia never had
> raised this
>
> issue as it might be confined to some states only and at
> the same
>
> time citizens were not aware of it.
>
>
>
> Today we find that citizens are aware of it and try to
> exercise their
>
> fundamental rights.However these are some contraints which
> need to be
>
> addressed and resolved.
>
>
>
> ONE MORE POINTS I NEED THE CLARIFICATION FROM ALL PLEASE.
>
>
>
> 1) IS IT MANDATORY TO APPROACH THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY OR
> SENIOR IN
>
> RANK TO THE CPIO OR SPIO PRIOR TO APPROACHING CIC OR SIC?
>
>
>
> 2)AND IF THE CIC OR SIC ENTERTAINS THE APPELLANT BY
> BYPASSING THE
>
> SENIOR OFFICER I.E 2ND APPELLATE AUTHORITY AS PER
> CLUASE-19(1),THEN IS
>
> THE ACTION OF CIC OR SIC IN VIOLATION OF THE RTI ACT.
>
>
>
> WHERE THE CLUASE WHEREIN THE CIC OR SIC OR APPELLANT DEFEND
> THEMSELVES.
>
>
>
>
>
> On 5/5/11, Sarbajit Roy wrote:
>
> > Making the fees common across the country is
> UNREASONABLE.and also beyond
>
> > the power of Central Govt to legislate for States ---
> till such time as the
>
> > money collected does not go into the Central
> exchequer. If the money is
>
> > collected by and used by the State Govt to defray its
> costs then only the
>
> > State Govt can prescribe the fees.
>
> > .
>
> > FYI teh Allahabad High Court at one point was charging
> Rs.500 application
>
> > fee and Rs 50 as copying charge per page. Hapless
> applicants were getting
>
> > ZERO information out of the court despite paying such
> fees.
>
> >
>
> > On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 10:35 PM, SHASHI KUMAR.A.R.
> <
>
> > rudreshtechnology@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> The Central government should see that the fee
> charged per page should be
>
> >> uniform throughout the country including courts ,
> In karnataka Courts are
>
> >> charging Rs.3/- Per Page for A4 Size , But if a
> person applies under
>
> >> court
>
> >> rules the fee charged is Rs.1/- But in this case
> only litigants pertaining
>
> >> to a case only can obtain by paying Rs.1/- Per
> page , States area making
>
> >> several rules to make rti act useless and to
> discourage the applicants
>
> >>
>
> >> ARS KUMAR
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 9:53 PM, Sarbajit Roy
> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> Dear Guptaji
>
> >>>
>
> >>> 1) Haryana Govt charges Rs. 50 possibly
> because Delhi High Court (and
>
> >>> some
>
> >>> other High Courts) also charges Rs. 50 as
> application fee.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> 2) For many years since 2002 under Delhi RTI
> Act the application fee was
>
> >>> Rs.25 and Rs.5 per page was photocopying
> charge. Not a single RTI
>
> >>> activist
>
> >>> like Arvind Kejriwal , Manish Sisiodia etc who
> used DRTI extensively then
>
> >>> ever complained. Today after 9 years surely
> Rs. 50 and Rs.10
>
> >>> respectively
>
> >>> is justified by inflation even assuming a WPI
> of 6% each year.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Sarbajit
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 8:47 PM, M.K. Gupta
> wrote:
>
> >>>
>
> >>>> Here, Rs. 10/- per page for a
> photocopy is unreasonable. Every body
>
> >>>> will agree to this but what remedial steps
> should be taken. Haryana
>
> >>>> govt.
>
> >>>> takes Rs. 50/- are RTI fee. Some state
> charge fee even for first appeal.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> Apparently, these tacts have been employed
> to discourage the applicants.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> Sarbajit ji, let all of us mull over it
> and find out some way.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> --- On *Wed, 4/5/11, Sarbajit Roy *
> wrote:
>
> >>>> From: Sarbajit Roy
>
> >>>> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Cabinet note not
> secret: Info panel
>
> >>>> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
>
> >>>> Date: Wednesday, 4 May, 2011, 2:02 PM
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> States cannot amend the RTI Act - it is
> a Central Act of Parliament.
>
> >>>> The variation in fees for photocopying
> charges is by the provision that
>
> >>>> each State Govt can prescribe these fees.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> The CORE TEST (from the Act) is that these
> fees must be REASONABLE.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> Sarbajit
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 7:39 AM, Baritlum
> Ama
>
> >>>> >>> > wrote:
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> Since each state has got its own
> prerogative to amend the Act,so the
>
> >>>> government has increased the fee of the
> document from Rs,2/= to
>
> >>>> Rs.10/= per page.The exorbhitant increase
> in the price of the fee has
>
> >>>> deterred most of the activists in seeking
> the formation.Please guide
>
> >>>> us how to repeal the Notification of the
> Govt.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> Thanks
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> On 5/3/11, M.K. Gupta
>
> >>>>
>
>
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>> > Cabinet note not secret: Info panel
>
> >>>> > Maha Watchdog Overrules itself.
>
> >>>> >
>
> >>>> > MUMBAI: A cabinet note on the basis
> of which a council of minister
>
> >>>> takes a
>
> >>>> > decision and subsequently passes a
> government
>
> >>>> > resolution is not confidential and
> anyone can have access to a copy of
>
> >>>> it
>
> >>>> > under the RTI Act.
>
> >>>> > The verdict was passed on Friday by a
> full bench of the Maharashtra
>
> >>>> > information commission, presided over
> by chief information
>
> >>>> > commissioner
>
> >>>> > Vilas Patil. The new decree overrules
> Vikas Patil's predecessor Suresh
>
> >>>> > Joshi's ruling in 2006 that said a
> cabinet note was a confidential
>
> >>>> document
>
> >>>> > and a citizen could not get access to
> it by applying under the Right
>
> >>>> > To
>
> >>>> > Information Act.
>
> >>>> > The latest decision was arrived at
> after a much deliberation, with
>
> >>>> Vilas
>
> >>>> > Patil, his Aurungabad counterpart D B
> Deshpande, Amravati information
>
> >>>> > commissioner Bhaskar Patil and Nagpur
> information chief P W Patil
>
> >>>> > maintaining that the note should not
> be kept secret. However, Navi
>
> >>>> Mumbai
>
> >>>> > info chief Navinkumar and his Nashik
> counterpart M H Shah tried to
>
> >>>> argue it
>
> >>>> > should not be made public.
>
> >>>> > The view of the majority prevailed
> and it was decided that an RTI
>
> >>>> applicant
>
> >>>> > is eligible to obtain a copy of the
> cabinet note, an official told TOI
>
> >>>> on
>
> >>>> > Saturday.
>
> >>>> > The issue was raised after a
> resident, Archana Gawda, in 2007, filed a
>
> >>>> query
>
> >>>> > under the RTI Act, seeking a copy of
> the cabinet note of the repeal of
>
> >>>> the
>
> >>>> > Urban Land Ceiling Act and the states
> decision on the proposal. The
>
> >>>> general
>
> >>>> > administration department, however,
> refused to send her a copy saying,
>
> >>>> > according to the rules of business
> and provisions of the RTI Act, a
>
> >>>> cabinet
>
> >>>> > note was confidential and hence out
> of RTI purview.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
No comments:
Post a Comment