RTI for citizens Right to Information: [rti_india] Re: DoPT OM on the kinds of fee chargeable under Section 7(3) of the RTI Act in

Dear Bhaskar

I have only one thing to say -

1) Why have you filed 350 RTIs ?
2) Do you want to beat Shailesh Gandhi's 'record' of 800+ ?
3) Have you imagined the consequences if each and every Indian filed even 10 RTIs in a year.

It is because of 'harami's who misuse RTI that ordinary citizens are put off from filing RTIs. People like you are doing a wonderful job of blocking up the Information Commissions and First Appeal process so that citizens of India cannot be heard.

Th same citizens who are now forcefully demanding that applications from frivolous and vexatious applicants should not be processed.

Sarbajit

--- In rti_india@yahoogroups.com, Bhaskar Prabhu <mahitiadhikarmanch@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Sarbajit,
> Thanks for giving the copies of order, which I am aware off, but still i
> have argued my case well to the best of my knowledge giving various clauses
> of RTI where true spirit and intent of the act needs to expressed in any
> order by any commissioner. And was able to bring out a circular by PA giving
> relief to some extent. There was also argument on "attestation" "Certified"
> copies. Attestation and certifying was clarified as officers were not ready
> to sign document as they said then the applicant need to pay Rs.25 per page.
> But now it was agreed then by PA to stamp as information given under RTI
> with name and signature at rs.2. The Assessment dept were charging Rs.150/-
> for inspection and I was able to remove this charge though as per to there
> rule previously they had charges of Rs. 150/-.
>
> Let us all have patiance and I am waiting for the order now which I am
> persuading CSIC to give whatever he wants to give after meeting heim
> continuosly for various matter and talking about this. In my total 350
> applictions I have gone for APPEAL till Info Commission for two. Rest all I
> have recd information some late, some early, some in time, which were mostly
> forexposing the PA and later bringing systemic change.
>
> Thanks
>
> Thanks for your responce and for all increasing my knowledge
>
> Yous in service for RTI
> Bhaskar Prabhu
> Mahiti Adhikar Manch
> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 2:51 PM, sarbajitr <sroy1947@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > The problem with "NGO-speak" is that it involves deliberate suppression of
> > relevant facts to fool the audience.
> >
> > 1) The SCIC has no power to strike down duly notified rules. It is
> > important to say this directly rather than using NGO-speak.
> >
> > 2) In numerous cases (in English) the Maharashtra SIC has UPHELD the
> > charging of Rs.230 per First Assessment document.
> >
> > "2007/01/02"
> > http://sic.maharashtra.gov.in/files/pdf/hearings%20of%20april%202007.pdf
> >
> > "2008/3450/02"
> >
> > http://sic.maharashtra.gov.in/files/upload/brihanmumbai/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20Oct,%202009.pdf
> >
> > The rationale is that section 4 of the Maharastra RTI Rules specifies that
> > where any public authority has notified fees / charges prior to the coming
> > into force of RTI Act these shall continue.
> >
> > 3>
> > > _____
> > >
> > > From: rti_india@yahoogroups.com <rti_india%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:
> > rti_india@yahoogroups.com <rti_india%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf
> > > Of Bhaskar Prabhu
> > > Sent: Monday, May 31, 2010 10:23 AM
> > > To: rti_india@yahoogroups.com <rti_india%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Subject: Re: [rti_india] DoPT OM on the kinds of fee chargeable under
> > > Section 7(3) of the RTI Act in India
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Dear Venkatesh,
> > > I read the circular of DoPT. But if you see rules of Mahahrashtra it
> > > conflicting and in Mharashtra the local bodies i.e municipal authorityies
> > > and other are chargeing more than what is prescridbed under the guise of
> > > Section 41(A)a of Rules for eg assesment document Municipal Corp of
> > Mumbai
> > > they charge rs.230 per document. Our appeal with Dr.Joshi we had argued
> > opur
> > > case in public interest for one and half our order is still pernding more
> > > than i yr from March 2 2009. As all charges need to considered as per
> > > 4(1)(A) b.
> > >
> > > If you see newly Gujrat rulles it is draconion.
> > >
> > > What all we do about it.
> > >
> > > Bhaskar Prabhu
> > > Convenor
> > > Mahiti Adhikar Manch
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Venkatesh Nayak <venkatesh@humanrigh
> > > <mailto:venkatesh@> tsinitiative.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Attachment(s)
> > > <
> > http://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&view=js&name=js&ver=pd_Am7ltdRI.en.&am=
> > !Z
> > >
> > KLuV0Z3Ba-RZb2MUfUyelVd8zBbk3JAqVLR6jDN8hPEBblW&fri#128df1dd54104a7c_TopText
> > > > from Venkatesh Nayak included below]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Dear all,
> > > After a longish pause I am slipping back into my old habit of boring you
> > all
> > > with longish comments on matters and developments related to RTI in India
> > > and other countries. Some of you have inquired about the long pause. I
> > thank
> > > you all for your continued interest in our despatches. After recovering
> > from
> > > a bout of illness and catching up on pending work, I am back at my
> > keyboard
> > > with some good news.
> > >
> > > Readers will remember that RTI activists in India had made submissions to
> > > the Central Information Commission (CIC) on how to interpret Section 7(3)
> > of
> > > the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) relating to additional fees.
> > > Some public authorities were charging wages, collation and compilation
> > > charges for providing information to applicants and billing huge amounts
> > for
> > > meeting some information requests. Some Information Commissioners in the
> > CIC
> > > supported the collection of such charges while a few other Commissioners
> > > refused to accept that the RTI Act empowered public authorities to
> > collect
> > > such charges. This matter was heard by a full bench of the CIC in 2009.
> > The
> > > CIC's decision clearly stated that the public information officer may
> > charge
> > > only such fees as is mentioned in the RTI Fee and Costing Rules, 2005.
> > The
> > > RTI Rules allow the PIO to charge only reproduction costs and nothing
> > more.
> > > The CIC's decision is accessible at: http://www.humanrig
> > > <
> > http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/programs/ai/rti/india/national/2009/em
> > > ail_alerts/cic_fb_7%283%29_addl_fee_case_cct09.pdf>
> > >
> > htsinitiative.org/programs/ai/rti/india/national/2009/email_alerts/cic_fb_7%
> > > 283%29_addl_fee_case_cct09.pdf
> > >
> > > On 24th May, 2010 the Department of Personnel and Training
> > (administrative
> > > departmetn for RTI matters in the Union Government) has issued an Office
> > > Memorandum based on this decision of the CIC in the matter of K K Kishore
> > v
> > > Institute of Company Secretaries and Subodh Jain v Dy. Commissione of
> > > Police. The OM is attached to this email. It is also accessible at:
> > > http://persmin.
> > > <
> > http://persmin.gov.in/WriteData/CircularNotification/ScanDocument/RTI/12_9_
> > > 2009-IR.pdf>
> > > gov.in/WriteData/CircularNotification/ScanDocument/RTI/12_9_2009-IR.pdf
> > >
> > > This OM goes one step ahead and states that the PIO must not charge
> > postal
> > > charges from applicants as it is not mentioned in the Rules. So the
> > > principle that the PIO cannot demand any fees that is not mentioned in
> > the
> > > Rules continues to apply to this category of charegs as well. The State
> > > Government of Maharashtra for example, mentions in the Rules itself that
> > the
> > > applicant must pay postage charges also. In Mahrashtra if the State PIO
> > > charges postage then that is legal but nowhere else will it be legal in
> > the
> > > absence of such a Rule. However we must persuade all State Governments
> > that
> > > pass on the postal charges to the applicants to amend the Rules in light
> > of
> > > the Union Government's position. There is no reason why a citizen must be
> > > taxed twice. Postal charges incurred by a public authority are anyway
> > paid
> > > for through the budget which is based on the taxpayers' money.
> > >
> > > I also request all applicants to use this OM to challenge any PIO's
> > decision
> > > to charge fees other than what is mentioned in the Rules. I would like to
> > > congratulate all RTI users, supporters and watchers who sent submissions
> > to
> > > the CIC in this case and thank them for their sustained support. Your
> > hard
> > > work has resulted in the law being interpreted correctly. Now the DoPT
> > has
> > > issued general instructions based on the CIC's decision. This OM has been
> > > sent to the State Governments as well. So you now have the task of
> > > advocating with your State Governments to harmonise the fee rules in tune
> > > with the Central Rules.
> > >
> > > In Jammu and Kashmir the RTI Rules framed in 2009 allow the PIO the
> > > discretion to charge unspecified kinds of fees in addition to
> > reproduction
> > > costs. This Rule must now be deleted because the Rule expands upon
> > Section
> > > 7(3) in their Act. Section 7(3) of the J&K RTI Act is a mirror version of
> > > Section 73) in the Central RTI Act. Friends in J&K must now take up this
> > > initiative to get the Rules amended. <mailto:amended.it@>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > If you would like to congratulate the DoPT for issuing an OM on this
> > crucial
> > > matter please send your emails to:
> > >
> > >
> > > * Shri K G Verma, Director, DoPT at: <mailto:dirrti-dopt@>
> >
> > > dirrti-dopt@
> > >
> > > * Shri Rajeev Kapoor, Joint Secretary in charge of RTI at DoPT at:
> > > <mailto:jsata@> jsata@
> > >
> > > * Shri Shantanu Consul, Secretary, DoPT at: <mailto:secy_mop@>
> >
> > > secy_mop@
> > >
> > > In order to access our previous email alerts please click on:
> > > http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/programs/ai/rti/india/national.htmYou
> > > will find the links at the top of this web page. If you do not wish to
> > > receive email alerts please send an email to this address indicating your
> > > refusal to receive email alerts.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > Venkatesh Nayak
> > >
> > > Programme Coordinator
> > > Access to Information Programme
> > > Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative
> > > B-117, I Floor, Sarvodaya Enclave
> > > New Delhi- 110 017
> > > tel: 91-11- 2686 4678/ 2685 0523
> > > fax: 91-11- 2686 4688
> > > website: www.humanrightsinit <http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/>
> > > iative.org
> > > alternate email: <mailto:nayak.venkatesh@>
> > > nayak.venkatesh@
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>