RE: [HumJanenge] Objections regarding changes in RTI rules

In my view, propsed amendment is right. It is due to the fact, that application should be  precise and to the point. Under RTI, you are getting information and not fighting a judicial case.
DR N C Jain
23-12-10
 
> Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 05:41:44 -0800
> Subject: [HumJanenge] Objections regarding changes in RTI rules
> From: rmadhok_pgm@bsnl.in
> To: HumJanenge@googlegroups.com
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: rajneesh madhok
> To: usrtidovt@nic.in
> Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 6:50 PM
> Subject: Objections regarding changes in RTI rules.
>
>
> Sir,
> 1. The proposed amendment to the limitation of 250 words and
> limitation to only one topic is against the purview of Right to
> information Act for the general public.
> 2. In other words we can say that such amendment will defeat the very
> purpose of enacting the landmark legislation for the benefit of
> general public.
> 3. The proposed amendment made by DOPT would take away the benefits
> provided to the general public as it is called the tools to seeks
> information by the villagers as well.
> 4. The charges proposed to be levied on RTI Applicants for money spent
> by Public authority on hiring a machine or any other equipment to
> supply information is against the facilities provided to the common
> citizens of India. The present modification in the rules of Fee and
> Cost is against the common citizen.
> 5. The comments have been invited by E-mail at usrtidovt@nic.in till
> December 27 is the step not in favour of common citizen as every
> citizen has not having access to internet.
> 6. The time period of two weeks to submit one's observations is very
> less.
> 7. The semi literate and illiterate people how can submit their views
> regarding amendments though they are the main users of RTI Act.
> 8. How illiterate people will precise its writing to the specific
> words. Whether they have to seek experts services for the law framed
> for the general public.
> 9. If the law had been framed then the PIO will reject most of the
> applications submitted to them.
> 10. The Govt. in one side promise to provide infrastructure for the
> common people and on the other hand creating hurdles for the general
> public.
> 11. I request department not to introduce the changes in the
> legislation as this act has been framed for the general public.
> 12. The department should provide adequate training to the staff and
> most of the information should be uploaded on the websites of the
> departments to avoid the use of unnecessary flow of applications
> regarding general informations.
> Regards,
> Rajneesh Madhok,
> B-xxx/63, Nehru Nagar,
> St. No. 2, Railway Road,
> Phagwara-144401 (Pb)
> Ph: 01824-262569 (O), 268210 (R), 094173-06415
> Tele-fax: 01824-262569, E-mail: rajneesh_madhok@yahoo.com;
> rmadhok_pgm@bsnl.in