Re: [HumJanenge] Re: UNJUST REJECTION OF RTI APPLICATION !

Mr Sarbajit,

1. The IPO is to be made out to "Accounts Officer, XXXXXXX"

(XXXXXXX stands for Name of Public Authority (PA))

Even if a PA does not have any officer by the designation of

"Accounts Officer", it must designate one ONLY for the purposes of 

receiving RTI Fees.

2. The PIO had no business to "reject" the "application".

He should have returned ONLY the IPO (not reject the application) 

and informed the applicant that information will be provided to him

on receipt of the prescribed fees by the approved mode of

payment.

3. The applicant had made clear his intention and willingness to pay the fees.

Sad that, even after 7 years, PIOs of well known PAs still ask 

for payees name, other than the one prescribed in the

RTI Rules.

This only reflects poor training, stubborn mentality and "care two hoots" attitude.

RTIwanted

---

From: sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: "HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005" <HumJanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 4, 2012 12:14 AM
Subject: [HumJanenge] Re: UNJUST REJECTION OF RTI APPLICATION !

The PIO's rejection is technically correct.

1) The prescribed application fee is Rs. 10. Had the applicant not
mentioned it was to cover (partially or otherwise) the further fees
also, a case could have been made out that since Rs.10 IPO was not
available Rs.20 was sent in its place (applicant shot himself in the
foot).

2) The IPO cannot be left blank. It is to be made out to the Pay &
Accounts officer of the P/A. The PIO cannot be expected to fill it in.
If some mistake is made by the PIO in filling in the payees name who
takes responsibility ??

Sarbajit

On Jul 3, 7:01 am, "M.K. Gupta" <mkgupta...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> UNJUST
> REJECTION OF RTI APPLICATION!
>
> An Appellant sent an RTI application to Deptt. of Excise, Delhi Govt. enclosing the postal order of Rs. 20/-
> instead of Rs. 10/- without filling the payee column.  Postal order of higher value was sent to
> cover the cost of photocopies of documents, if any, and this fact was mentined
> in the RTI application also.
>
> The PIO has rejected the application on the
> grounds of postal order of higher demonition and for leaving the payee column
> blank.
>
> Though a fresh RTI has been sent removing the aforesaid objections but I want to know if any
> appeal can be sent to FAA or CIC for rejecting the appln on the above grounds.