Re: [HumJanenge] PUBLIC GRIEVANCE: WRONG INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 6(3) OF THE RTI ACT 2005 IN THE CONTEXT OF SECTION 13 OF GENERAL CLAUSES ACT 1897

Let as many persons as possible file similar grievances.

On 6/3/11, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> This is farce played by the DoPT which is doing every thing possible to
> blunt the RTI Act though it the DoPT should be its custodian.  First, it
> tried to keep the file noting out of RTI perview, then one subject and word
> limit, now this direction.  Every body with some common knowledge that
> in law, singular person also include plural.  WHere the DoPT was for all
> these years?
>
> --- On Fri, 3/6/11, sandeep kumar <drsandgupta@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> From: sandeep kumar <drsandgupta@gmail.com>
> Subject: [HumJanenge] PUBLIC GRIEVANCE: WRONG INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 6(3)
> OF THE RTI ACT 2005 IN THE CONTEXT OF SECTION 13 OF GENERAL CLAUSES ACT 1897
> To: secy_mop@nic.in, jsata@nic.in, "humjanenge"
> <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
> Date: Friday, 3 June, 2011, 4:59 PM
>
>
> To:
> 1) Shri Rajeev Kapur/JS-ATA/DoPT (& webmaster)
> 2) Ms. Alka Sirohi/Secretary/DoPT
>
> Dear Sir / Madam
>
> BY EMAIL
>
> PUBLIC GRIEVANCE PETITION
>
> Sir,
> Please refer to Part IV, Section 5(3) of Guide to RTI Act 2005
> circulated by DoPT vide its Number No. 1/4/2009-IR dated 5.10.2009.
> It has been directed that under section 6(3) of the RTI act, the
> application under RTI is to be transferred to only one public
> authority. The justification has been given that sub-section (3)
> refers to 'another public authority' and not to 'other public
> authorities' and that use of singular form in the Act in this regard
> is important to note.
>
> In this regard it is submitted that the interpretation of the DoPT
> that the PIO is not required to transfer the under Section 6(3) of the
> RTI Act, 2005, if the information "which is held by another public
> authority; or  the subject matter of which is more closely connected
> with the functions of another public authority", is not as per the law
> of the land.
>
> The interpretation is 'misconceived', in the light of Section 13 of
> the General Clauses Act, 1897, which  refer to Gender and number and
> says "
>
> In all (Central Acts) and Regulations, unless there is anything
> repugnant in the subject or context.- Words importing the masculine
> gender shall be taken to include females, and words in the singular
> shall include the plural, and vice versa.".
>
> There is absolutely nothing in Section 6 of the RTI Act 2005 to
> indicate that the legislature intended that the request for
> information should confine to one subject or one public authority
> only."
>
> The only requirement of the Section is that the request shall be in
> writing and accompanied by prescribed fees and the particulars of the
> information sought by the applicant are specified. Contrary intention
> to exclude the operation of the rule that the singular includes the
> plural cannot be inferred merely because the relevant provision is
> drafted in the singular. The act has been enacted to promote
> transparency and accountability in the working of every public
> authority and casts responsibility on every public authority to
> provide information unless it is exempt under the act. The
> interpretation suggested by the department tends to defeat the very
> purpose of the act."
>
> Moreover, it is the settled law that the instruction, guidelines,
> directives, orders, rules and regulations must be in consonance with
> the law of the land (here Section 13 if the General Clauses Act, 1897)
> and does not have any overriding effect over and above the provisions
> of law of the land. Any such instruction, guidelines, directives,
> orders, rules and regulations are ultra-virus and null and void
> ab-nitio.
>
> The recent example in this case is the striking down of the Central
> RTI Regulations by the Delhi High Court, which were found to be having
> overriding effect over the basic law.
>
> DoPT has not learnt the lesson from it and has repeated the same
> mistake by an over enthusiastic officer of the DoPT who looked upon to
> find novel ways to suppress information or to put the information
> seekers to a greater difficulty.
>
> It is also pertinent to draw your kind attention that Section 218 of
> IPC invokes in this case, which reads as under:
>
> Section 218. Public servant framing incorrect record or writing with
> intent to save person from punishment or property from
> forfeiture.-Whoever, being a public servant, and being as such public
> servant, charged with the preparation of any record or other writing,
> frames that record or writing in a manner which he knows to be
> incorrect, with intent to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he
> will thereby cause, loss or injury to the public or to any person, or
> with intent thereby to save, or knowing it to be likely that he will
> thereby save, any person from legal punishment, or with intent to
> save, or knowing that he is likely thereby to save, any property from
> forfeiture or other charge to which it is liable by law, shall be
> punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
> extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. The reading of
> other provisions of IPC Section 181 to Section 221 are also very
> relevant in this case.
>
> In view of above, it is requested that the above erroneous instruction
> may please be withdrawn immediately from the retrospective date.
>
> Thanking you,
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
> 1778, Sector 14, Hisar-125001, INDIA
> Phone: 91-99929-31181
>

--
Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
989, Sector 15-A, Opposite bishnoi Colony, Hisar-125001, INDIA
Phone: 91-99929-31181