My dear Krishnamoorthi
Firstly, as a Moderator, I wish to deeply apologise that this forum was not conducive to conduct a civilised discussion from our valued members like yourself, Sidhartha , Babuhai Vaghela etc. for the past few months.
The DoPT circular is nothing new, and in fact your analysis is a precise analysis of the procedures of section 11. Which is also why we have been harping on "3rd party" since this group was founded (see message No.1 of this group). Also the actual times involved are much longer than you project - for example the 3rd party gets 10 days to reply AFTER RECEIPT of the notice.
The important points to understand are as follows:-
a) The PIO will issue notice only AFTER he decides that the information is disclosable. The Act, however, says that he is to issue such notice within 5 days of RECEIPT of the request. So what emerges (when read with the transfer clause of 6.3) is that the PIO is mandated to take a decision within 5 days of RECEIPT of the request and not 5 days after he decides on the 30th day that th information is disclosable. This is clearly impractical and contradictory and it is a wonder that it has not been challenged by any P/A so far.
b) Once a 3rd party notice is issued and the 3rd party responds, then the said 3rd party stands on an equal footing with the applicant and is entitled to all protections (even extending beyond the applicant's rights) under the law - and we should not have it any other way. This is a classic pincer movement from the State - the applicant is going to get pisoed (ground) between the 2 grinding chakkis of PIO and 3rd party.
c) The answer to your query is that , if at all, the appicant gets his info - it will take years.
NOW the CONTROVERSIAL BIT. The DoPT circular will actually reduce the time for applicant to get info by EXACTLY HALF than the present procedure .. so we must welcome it.
Sarbajit
--- In rti_india@yahoogrou
>
> Dear Members,
>
> I draw attention of the first portion of the said circular wherein the Third Party also approch to the FFA & CIC/SIC for their appeal. Thus the PIO shall furnish the information to the Information Seeker afet following this formalities.
>
> A sample case briefed as under:
>
> An applicant rquested some information ( on Day 1 )which invloves third party confidential information.
>
> The PIO shall write to the Third party within Day 5 for his concurrence.
>
> The Third Party submit his view with in 10 Days.
>
> PIO eigther decides to funish or deny the information. Before furnishing the information to the applicant, third party to be informed.
>
> The third part can go as per the precent circular to the FFA against the decision taken by the PIO.
>
> First appeal can be concluded within 30 or 45 days.
>
> The Third Party now again allowed to approach to CIC/SIC.
>
> How many months or years will take to decide by the CIC or SIC?
>
> There after only the information to be furnished to the applicant.
>
> This tends to motivate all the PIO to suggest to apply up to second appeal till such time PIO's will get time.
>
> So for only applicant can approach for FFA & CIC/SIC to get the desired information.
>
> Now as per the recent circular the Third Party can approach FFA & CIC/SIC for not giving the information.
>
> Is my understanding is correct regarding the recent circular?
>
> Krishnamoorthi
> Andaman
>
> --- In rti_india@yahoogrou
> >
> > Dear Sirs,
> >
> > There's nothing new in this circular apart from the fact that it has
> > great nuisance value and susceptible to abuse.
> >
> > Unless & until the Govt. comes clean about it's policy on
> > classification of records it will make a mockery of information
> > dissemination process.
> >
> > The said circular is OK if seen through the narrow confines of RTI
> > Act. But appears bad in the larger context.
> >
> > I also bring to the notice of members a similar decision in a case
> > decided by CIC in Venkatesh Nayak vs MHA and a related news item.
> >
> > http://bit.ly/
> >
> > http://cic.gov.
> >
> > On 7 May 2010 05:18, sarbajitr <sroy1947@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Motion for discussion / adoption:
> > >
> > > "RTI_India welcomes DoPT's clarification that when one Govt body ("Y") sends confidential information (say interdepartmental consultations) to another Govt body ("X"), the PIO of the receiving body X cannot disclose the information under RTI Act 2005 without issuing mandatory 3rd party notice to originating P/A Y."
> > >
> > > http://persmin.
> > >
> > > (Note: the logic of this statement may not easily understood by our members, so it would be good if queries / views are posted which I shall reply to / explain. Otherwise, the motion will deemed as adopted.)
> > >
> > > Sarbajit
> > > Moderator
> > >
> >
>
No comments:
Post a Comment