Re: [rti4empowerment] PENDENCY AT CIC

My Dear Sarab and all other members,

 

I agree that RTI applications should not be filed for the sake of filing and only required information should be sought.  Unnessary and uncalled for information will delay the answer or not providing all the information as it increases work load on PIO.   This does not mean that I favour the proposed regulation but this should be done by self-regulation.

 

First Appellate Authority should also be responsible to an extent. If PIO does not provide information without any tangible reason and FAA confirms his decision mechanallcally, CIC should be empowered to ask for an explanation from the FAA his  decision.  Both, PIO and FAA should be given traning on RTI Act on priority basis.  In case of denial of information malafidely, even if it is available in government records, both PIO and FAA should be held respobsible and FAA should  share the penalty so that FAA should use his discreation independently.  He should also be given mild powers to grill PIO if he denies information in violation of RTIA.  Advocating mild powers only so that it may not become a tool to settle scores between the two officers of Public Authority.

---

From: sroy 1947 <sroy1947@gmail.com>
To: rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, 19 December, 2010 10:42:24 PM
Subject: Re: [rti4empowerment] PENDENCY AT CIC

Dear Guptaji

There is only 1 way to reduce pendencies. You know very well what it
is but cannot say so in public.

1) REDUCE the number of RTIs filed.
2) ENSURE that as much info is given by the PIOs at the first instance
without compromising the exemptions. (Do this by hammering the errant
PIOs).
3) ENSURE that FAAs do their job properly.(Do this by hammering the errant FAAs)
4) ENSURE that only genuine 2nd Appeals are filed at CIC (Do this by
hammering the undeserving appellants)

Unfortunately what is happening now is that with  1, 2 and 3 not
happening, only appellants are getting hammered at CIC in stage 4.

Sarbajit

On 12/19/10, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> If we want qualititive decisions, ICs should devote time to know the facts
> of
> the cases.  Decisions cannot be given in a casual manner to clear the
> pendency.
>
> Mr. Prabhu, please spell reason of your opposition to increase the number of
> ICs
> to the limit given in RTIA.
> I m really surprise to see such reaction to a serious matter by a 'devoted'
> RTI
> activit.
> Others r also requested to inform their opinion on the issue. How the
> pendency
> can be cleared.
> One other way is to impose more penalies, If penalty is imposed on one PIO,
> thne
> write message shall go to al least 10 other PIO/Public Authorities resulting
> lesser appeals and complaints.
> Those who disagree with me, are most welcome to write with reasons.