To:
The Government of India, by
Shri R.K.Girdhar
Under-Secretary/RTI
Department of Personnel and Training, North Block
New Delhi 110011
1) CONFIDENTIAL,
2) SECRET,
3) My Intellectual property,
4) Not to be disclosed to any unauthorised person,
5) Not to be disclosed to any private person whatsoever,
6) Not to be disclosed to Prime Minister or his office,
7) Not to be disclosed to National Advisory Council,
8) Not to be disclosed under Right to Information except to myself,
BY EMAIL:
Date: 21-December-2010
Your Ref: OM dated 10.12.2010 in File No.1/35/2008-IR (draft RTI Rules)
Our Ref: PN/DoPT/OM/2010/RTI/AAA-0000-014
Subject Objections and/or Suggestions to the amendments proposed
Sir,
I refer to the above citations and your subject OM. I am caused to submit the following objection(s) and/or suggestion(s) to the same.
This is separate, distinct and without prejudice to other objections I may submit from time to time within the period allowed..
http://persmin.gov.in/WriteReadData/RTI/RTI_rules_01122010-1.pdf
I OBJECT to the following proposed rules 8 and 9 for the following REASONS
2) BECAUSE I say that senior officer in DoPT has told me that these foolish draughtsmen are from the "Centre for Good Governance", Hyderabad, or suchlike which is an organisation set up and financed by a foreign intelligence agency of United Kingdom which I describe and specify as "DFID".
3) BECAUSE whoever has drafted these meaningless rules seems to be following the adage, "I am the parliamentary draftsman, I compose the country's laws, And of half the litigation, I am undoubtedly the cause"
4) BECAUSE these proposed rules are 'de-hors' the provisions of the parent Act.
5) BECAUSE the Act does not provide for any "Authority" or which is described as the "First Appellate Authority"
6) BECAUSE the Act merely provides that an Appeal may be preferred against the "decision" of the PIO. The PIO is not competent or enjoined to pass any "order" in terms of the Act.
7) BECAUSE the ACT permits the applicant to prefer an appeal to ANY "such" officer in the public authority senior to the PIO whom the PIO specifies in his reply. Upon the failure of PIO to reply, the appellant is allowed in law to prefer his appeal to the Head of the Authority, or to it's Secretary etc.
8) BECAUSE there is no provision in the Act for a "First Appeal".
9) BECAUSE there is no provision in the Act for a reply to be provided only be "the" CPIO. Usually the applicants receive mutiple replies from different CPIOs of the same public authority. In such cases I say the appeal lies to the Head of the Authority or it's Secretary.
10) BECAUSE the Act does not empower the Central Government to prescribe any procedure to disposal of "First" Appeals, such as by mandating forms for appeal. All that is required is that natural justice be ensured and this is evidently the spirit behind the law since the letter is silent.
11) BECAUSE the form specified in the Appendix is for 2nd Appeals and contains many inapplicable fields for "First Appeal".
12) BECAUSE the usage of the word "may" in the proposed Rule 7 is confusing. The Act already provides that an applicant may (ie. optionally) file appeal to such senior officer. It is open to interpretation if the usage of the proposed form is optional or mandatory. By the practice for interpretation of statutes it is clear that the form is optional, but this will only cause harassment for the citizens due to its misinterpretation.
13) BECAUSE the Act does not require or specify that documents any must accompany the appeal. It is pertinent that the "First" Appeal is a purely internal procedure of the Public Authority. All the documents specified by the rule are in any case available within the authority. This proposed rule 8 militates against efficiency.
14) BECAUSE the Act does not empower the Central Government to require that any documents should accompany the first appeal or that these should be authenticated or verified. Neither are these documents required or essential.
Accordingly I SUGGEST that these 2 proposed RTI rules for first appeals be deleted or completely redrafted to address all my concerns / grievances. As a public spirited citizen I am ever at your disposal to assist you on behalf of the demand side.
The Government of India, by
Shri R.K.Girdhar
Under-Secretary/RTI
Department of Personnel and Training, North Block
New Delhi 110011
1) CONFIDENTIAL,
2) SECRET,
3) My Intellectual property,
4) Not to be disclosed to any unauthorised person,
5) Not to be disclosed to any private person whatsoever,
6) Not to be disclosed to Prime Minister or his office,
7) Not to be disclosed to National Advisory Council,
8) Not to be disclosed under Right to Information except to myself,
BY EMAIL:
Date: 21-December-2010
Your Ref: OM dated 10.12.2010 in File No.1/35/2008-IR (draft RTI Rules)
Our Ref: PN/DoPT/OM/2010/RTI/AAA-0000-014
Subject Objections and/or Suggestions to the amendments proposed
Sir,
I refer to the above citations and your subject OM. I am caused to submit the following objection(s) and/or suggestion(s) to the same.
This is separate, distinct and without prejudice to other objections I may submit from time to time within the period allowed..
http://persmin.gov.in/WriteReadData/RTI/RTI_rules_01122010-1.pdf
I OBJECT to the following proposed rules 8 and 9 for the following REASONS
"7. Appeal to the first Appellate Authority: A person aggrieved by any order passed by the Central Public Information Officer or non-disposal of his application by the Central Public Information Officer within the prescribed time, may file an appeal to the first Appellate Authority in the format as given in the Appendix.
8. Documents to accompany first appeal to the first Appellate Authority: Every appeal made to the first Appellate Authority shall be accompanied by the following documents, duly authenticated and verified:
(i) Copy of the application submitted to the Central Public Information Officer;
(ii) Copy of the reply, if any, of the Central Public Information Officer."
1) BECAUSE, these 2 rules have been drafted by fools who seems to be ignorant of the specific provisions of the RTI Act 2005 in this behalf.8. Documents to accompany first appeal to the first Appellate Authority: Every appeal made to the first Appellate Authority shall be accompanied by the following documents, duly authenticated and verified:
(i) Copy of the application submitted to the Central Public Information Officer;
(ii) Copy of the reply, if any, of the Central Public Information Officer."
2) BECAUSE I say that senior officer in DoPT has told me that these foolish draughtsmen are from the "Centre for Good Governance", Hyderabad, or suchlike which is an organisation set up and financed by a foreign intelligence agency of United Kingdom which I describe and specify as "DFID".
3) BECAUSE whoever has drafted these meaningless rules seems to be following the adage, "I am the parliamentary draftsman, I compose the country's laws, And of half the litigation, I am undoubtedly the cause"
4) BECAUSE these proposed rules are 'de-hors' the provisions of the parent Act.
5) BECAUSE the Act does not provide for any "Authority" or which is described as the "First Appellate Authority"
6) BECAUSE the Act merely provides that an Appeal may be preferred against the "decision" of the PIO. The PIO is not competent or enjoined to pass any "order" in terms of the Act.
7) BECAUSE the ACT permits the applicant to prefer an appeal to ANY "such" officer in the public authority senior to the PIO whom the PIO specifies in his reply. Upon the failure of PIO to reply, the appellant is allowed in law to prefer his appeal to the Head of the Authority, or to it's Secretary etc.
8) BECAUSE there is no provision in the Act for a "First Appeal".
9) BECAUSE there is no provision in the Act for a reply to be provided only be "the" CPIO. Usually the applicants receive mutiple replies from different CPIOs of the same public authority. In such cases I say the appeal lies to the Head of the Authority or it's Secretary.
10) BECAUSE the Act does not empower the Central Government to prescribe any procedure to disposal of "First" Appeals, such as by mandating forms for appeal. All that is required is that natural justice be ensured and this is evidently the spirit behind the law since the letter is silent.
11) BECAUSE the form specified in the Appendix is for 2nd Appeals and contains many inapplicable fields for "First Appeal".
12) BECAUSE the usage of the word "may" in the proposed Rule 7 is confusing. The Act already provides that an applicant may (ie. optionally) file appeal to such senior officer. It is open to interpretation if the usage of the proposed form is optional or mandatory. By the practice for interpretation of statutes it is clear that the form is optional, but this will only cause harassment for the citizens due to its misinterpretation.
13) BECAUSE the Act does not require or specify that documents any must accompany the appeal. It is pertinent that the "First" Appeal is a purely internal procedure of the Public Authority. All the documents specified by the rule are in any case available within the authority. This proposed rule 8 militates against efficiency.
14) BECAUSE the Act does not empower the Central Government to require that any documents should accompany the first appeal or that these should be authenticated or verified. Neither are these documents required or essential.
Accordingly I SUGGEST that these 2 proposed RTI rules for first appeals be deleted or completely redrafted to address all my concerns / grievances. As a public spirited citizen I am ever at your disposal to assist you on behalf of the demand side.
NB: As the legal questions involved for these Rules are complex, I am formally requesting an opportunity of personal hearing for this before the competent authority. I am also formally requesting that the opinion of the Law Department.Ministry be obtained on my various objections / suggestions.
Submitted in my individual capacity by
Er. Sarbajit Roy
B-59 Defence Colony
New Delhi 110024
Tel : 09311448069
email ID: "sroy.mb@gmail.com"
Chief Patron: "HumJanenge RTI group" mailing list of over 2,500 RTI stakeholders
Website: http://humjanenge.org.in
Mailing List : http://groups.google.com/group/humjanenge/
News Network : http://humjanenge.org.in/news/
CC: to: (for suitable action and direction)
presidentofindia@rb.nic.in
mos-pp@nic.in
secy_mop@nic.in
sarkardk@nic.in
jsata@nic.in
dirrti-dopt@nic.in
diradmn@nic.in
osdrti-dopt@nic.in
usrti-dopt@nic.in
sroy1947@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.