Our views are not important, it is the law - and settled interpretations - which are.
You and Venkatesh are missing my point. The fact that information has been placed in public domain does not preclude it from being provided under RTI Act. In fact there is the "double bench" decision in my case against DDA (where Venkatesh was also present) which reaffirmed that if information has been proactively published, the PIO is liable to provide it free of cost, immediately and without application, or else PIO is liable to penalty :-)
Sarbajit
--- In rti_india@yahoogroups.com, Sidharth Misra <sidharthbbsr@...> wrote:
>
> I find the views of Sh. Venkatesh amenable to my own views.
>
> On the contrary I would like to bring to your kind notice relevant
> portion of Orissa RTI Rule that says that if INFO is in public domain
> then it need not be supplied through 6(1) route and liable to be
> rejected outright.
>
> Orissa rules also prescribes a specific form for rejecting RTI
> Applications on this ground. See FORM C para (iv) & (viii).
>
> Sidharth Misra
>
> On 19 May 2010 09:49, Venkatesh Nayak
> <venkatesh@...> wrote:
> >
> .....
> At least one copy of the information placed in the public domain must
> be presumed to be available with the concerned public authority. So
> what is there in the law to prevent any citizen from seeking it under
> S. 6(1)? And where in S 7(1) or S* or S9 does it say that what is
> proactively disclosed under S. 4(1)(b) cannot be provided in response
> to an application under S6(1).
>
No comments:
Post a Comment