RTI for citizens Right to Information: [rti_india] Re: What have we done to deserve such dumb ICs in the CIC ?

Dear Sh.Karira ji and Manoj Pai,

In Rajasthan, you will get extreme foolish rejection of complaint u/s 18 by SIC on section-4 matter (after filing first appeal,as our dumb SIC does not entertain direct complaint u/s 18 without first appeal).

I applied for proactive disclosures 4.1.b(i)to (xvii) to Director,local bodies.He demanded TWO LACS RUPEES.Then I filed first appeal to Pr.Sec.LSG who not disposed it after elapse of six months despite reminder (just to fulfil precondition of SIC).

Then I filed complaint u/s 18 to SIC which immediately rejected it due to very long time elasped in filing compliant as well as directing me to have filed first appeal within 90 days of filing first appeal.

Interestingly,complaint u/s18 is dealt with by a retired baboo on contract (by proxy i.e.decision signed by IC himself) whereas only second appeal is dealth with by IC himself.

Who is more dumb regarding section-4 compliance.

With regards
Manoj K.Kamra

--- In rti_india@yahoogroups.com, C K Jam <rtiwanted@...> wrote:
>
> http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SS_A_2009_000083_M_37650.pdf
>
> Applicant asked for various information from BIS and the first one was:
>
>
>
> Qus.1. Please send me your office newly published manual (17 points
> manual of booklet) belonging to the year 2008-09, according under
> section 4(1)(b) of the Right to Information Act. 2005.
>
>
> To this, the PIO
> replied:
>
>
> Ans. Your Query is not clear.
>
> The First Appellate
> Authority (FAA)/Dy. Director General (South), Bureau of Indian
>
> Standards (BIS) vide his order dated 16.10.2009 upheld the reply /
> decision of the CPIO.
>
>
> And our IC SS in the CIC
> ruled:
>
> During the hearing the Respondent submit, in respect
> to point no. 1 of the RTI
>
> Application, that the Applicant has not mentioned the specific manual /
> booklet he is
>
> referring to in his application. The BIS is using various manuals for
> the activities being
>
> carried out and the manuals are already placed in Public Domain. The Commission
>
> holds that since the Appellant not mentioned the specific information he
> has sought, the
>
> Respondent have not been able to furnish the requisite documents to him.
>
> =========
>
> Any more vacancies available in the World Bank please ?
>
> RTIwanted
>