Re: [HumJanenge] Cabinet note not secret: Info panel

Here, we are discussing the reasonable and unform fee structure and not finding fault with other activists. If I agree that some one has not done this and that, we may have to agree to the facts that we have not even done whatever others have done.   Why we expect that others should do all the think and we will watch them from the fence? We also have some obligations and duties.  Instead of wasting enerty in leg pulling, let us do something positive.   When we will learn to thank others for their work.  All will agree that it is the team Parivartan who has taken the RTI to the door of general public and is still doing that apart from fighting corruption.   How am I ungreatful if I shut my eyes to these glaring facts?.   u, 5/5/11, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote: From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Cabinet note not secret: Info panel To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com Date: Thursday, 5 May, 2011, 9:20 AM Dear Ama The cost  of RTI must be REASONABLE. At these highly subsidised prices/fees prescribed in the Central RTI Rules, the HONEST citizen who never/rarely uses RTI is SUBSIDISING the h****is who professionally misuse RTI on behalf of theior foreign spymasters and are handsomely recompensed for it. Sarbajit On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 8:26 AM, Baritlum Ama <baritlumama@gmail.com> wrote: Its true that Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia never had raised this issue as it might be  confined to some states only and at the same time citizens were not aware of it. Today we find that citizens are aware of it  and try to exercise their fundamental rights.However these are some contraints which need to be addressed and resolved. ONE MORE POINTS I NEED THE CLARIFICATION FROM ALL PLEASE. 1) IS IT MANDATORY TO APPROACH THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY OR SENIOR IN RANK TO THE CPIO OR SPIO PRIOR TO APPROACHING CIC OR SIC? 2)AND IF THE CIC OR SIC ENTERTAINS THE APPELLANT BY BYPASSING THE SENIOR OFFICER I.E 2ND APPELLATE AUTHORITY AS PER CLUASE-19(1),THEN IS THE ACTION OF CIC OR SIC IN VIOLATION OF THE RTI ACT. WHERE THE CLUASE WHEREIN THE CIC OR SIC OR APPELLANT DEFEND THEMSELVES. On 5/5/11, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote: > Making the fees common across the country is UNREASONABLE.and also beyond > the power of Central Govt to legislate for States --- till such time as the > money collected does not go into the Central exchequer. If the money is > collected by and used by the State Govt to defray its costs then only the > State Govt can prescribe the fees. > . > FYI teh Allahabad High Court at one point was charging Rs.500 application > fee and Rs 50 as copying charge per page. Hapless applicants were getting > ZERO information out of the court despite paying such fees. > > On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 10:35 PM, SHASHI KUMAR.A.R. < > rudreshtechnology@gmail.com> wrote: > >> The Central government should see that the  fee charged per page should be >> uniform throughout the country including courts , In karnataka Courts are >> charging Rs.3/- Per Page for A4 Size , But if  a person applies under >> court >> rules the fee charged is Rs.1/- But in this case only litigants pertaining >> to a case only can obtain by paying Rs.1/- Per page , States area making >> several rules to make rti act useless and to discourage the applicants >> >> ARS KUMAR >> >> >> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 9:53 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Dear Guptaji >>> >>> 1) Haryana Govt charges Rs. 50 possibly because Delhi High Court (and >>> some >>> other High Courts) also charges Rs. 50 as application fee. >>> >>> 2) For many years since 2002 under Delhi RTI Act the application fee was >>> Rs.25 and Rs.5 per page was photocopying charge. Not a single RTI >>> activist >>> like Arvind Kejriwal , Manish Sisiodia etc who used DRTI extensively then >>> ever complained. Today after 9 years surely  Rs. 50 and Rs.10 >>> respectively >>> is justified by inflation even assuming a WPI of 6% each year. >>> >>> Sarbajit >>> >>> >>> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 8:47 PM, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in>wrote: >>> >>>>    Here, Rs. 10/- per page for a photocopy is unreasonable.  Every body >>>> will agree to this but what remedial steps should be taken.   Haryana >>>> govt. >>>> takes Rs. 50/- are RTI fee. Some state charge fee even for first appeal. >>>> >>>> Apparently, these tacts have been employed to discourage the applicants. >>>> >>>> Sarbajit ji, let all of us mull over it and find out some way. >>>> >>>> --- On *Wed, 4/5/11, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>* wrote: >>>> From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> >>>> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Cabinet note not secret: Info panel >>>> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com >>>> Date: Wednesday, 4 May, 2011, 2:02 PM >>>> >>>>  States cannot amend the RTI Act - it is a Central Act of Parliament. >>>> The variation in fees for photocopying charges is by the provision that >>>> each State Govt can prescribe these fees. >>>> >>>> The CORE TEST (from the Act) is that these fees must be REASONABLE. >>>> >>>> Sarbajit >>>> >>>> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 7:39 AM, Baritlum Ama >>>> <baritlumama@gmail.com<http://in.mc946.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=baritlumama@gmail.com> >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Since each state has got its own prerogative to amend the Act,so the >>>> government has increased the fee of the document from Rs,2/= to >>>> Rs.10/= per page.The exorbhitant increase in the price of the fee has >>>> deterred most of the activists in seeking the formation.Please guide >>>> us how to repeal the Notification of the Govt. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> On 5/3/11, M.K. Gupta >>>> <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in<http://in.mc946.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in>> >>>> wrote: >>>> > Cabinet note not secret: Info panel >>>> > Maha Watchdog Overrules itself. >>>> > >>>> > MUMBAI: A cabinet note on the basis of which a council of minister >>>> takes a >>>> > decision and subsequently passes a government >>>> > resolution is not confidential and anyone can have access to a copy of >>>> it >>>> > under the RTI Act. >>>> > The verdict was passed on Friday by a full bench of the Maharashtra >>>> > information commission, presided over by chief information >>>> > commissioner >>>> > Vilas Patil. The new decree overrules Vikas Patil's predecessor Suresh >>>> > Joshi's ruling in 2006 that said a cabinet note was a confidential >>>> document >>>> > and a citizen could not get access to it by applying under the Right >>>> > To >>>> > Information Act. >>>> > The latest decision was arrived at after a much deliberation, with >>>> Vilas >>>> > Patil, his Aurungabad counterpart D B Deshpande, Amravati information >>>> > commissioner Bhaskar Patil and Nagpur information chief P W Patil >>>> > maintaining that the note should not be kept secret. However, Navi >>>> Mumbai >>>> > info chief Navinkumar and his Nashik counterpart M H Shah tried to >>>> argue it >>>> > should not be made public. >>>> > The view of the majority prevailed and it was decided that an RTI >>>> applicant >>>> > is eligible to obtain a copy of the cabinet note, an official told TOI >>>> on >>>> > Saturday. >>>> > The issue was raised after a resident, Archana Gawda, in 2007, filed a >>>> query >>>> > under the RTI Act, seeking a copy of the cabinet note of the repeal of >>>> the >>>> > Urban Land Ceiling Act and the states decision on the proposal. The >>>> general >>>> > administration department, however, refused to send her a copy saying, >>>> > according to the rules of business and provisions of the RTI Act, a >>>> cabinet >>>> > note was confidential and hence out of RTI purview. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >