Re: [rti4empowerment] RTI queries on only 1 subject at a time: CIC, dated 9th Jan. 2011.

Dear Simha and Gupta ji.
This amendment is only for Karnataka & Chennai?
This is really very embrassing.
Kindly inform the action taken on it.
Dr JN Sharma

On 1/9/11, Vikram Simha <vikramsimha54@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> Dear Guptha ji ,
> Both Mr Venkatesh Nayak and sukumar have Certainly Expressed what is
> Required , In Our State having Already been Imposed this Rule (ofcourse in
> an Little different form) , The Entire Bureacracy in Upto the Neck to Use
> this Worst ammendement .
> There are Cases and Files With me where the answer is the Reply will be more
> than 150 words hence ammended rule Does not permit .
> Therefore the Bad , Bad , worst Experience of Karnataka has to Be streched
> to ensure the ammendements are Not Made .
> The Reporter of TOI , chennai must Carry on this including Filing Appeals
> and If possible Other cases in Other forums as derliction of Duty , wrong
> interpretation etc.,
>
> N vikramsimha ,Trustee RTI Study center & KRIA Katte , #12 Sumeru Sir M N
> Krishna Rao Road , Basvangudi < Bangalore 560004.
>
> --- On Sun, 9/1/11, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
>
>
> From: M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in>
> Subject: [rti4empowerment] RTI queries on only 1 subject at a time: CIC,
> dated 9th Jan. 2011.
> To: rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com
> Date: Sunday, 9 January, 2011, 3:55 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> FROM TOI, CHENNAI, DATED 9.1.2011.
>
> FROM TIMES OF INDIA, CHENNAI, BY JEEVA, REPORTERRTI queries on only 1
> subject at a time: CIC,
>
> CHENNAI: Even as the Centre is considering amendments to the Right To
> Information rules, seeking to restrict RTI applications to one subject at a
> time and to 250 words, the Central Information Commission (CIC) in New Delhi
> seems to have gone a step ahead by implementing the draft proposals.
>
> To an RTI application filed by this reporter on December 6, 2010, which
> raised 20 queries seeking details pertaining to follow-up of fines imposed
> against public authorities, court stay obtained by public information
> officers against commission's order, disposal of cases and pending final
> appeals, the CIC chose to reply to only to ten questions.
>
> The remaining ten questions, the commission said, were related to a
> different subject matter' and hence the applicant has to file another RTI
> application to get the information. "Your queries number 1 to 10 would
> qualify as one request' for which you have paid the application fee of Rs
> 10. You may therefore, send separate request and pay fee for your queries
> number one 11 to 20,'' the reply from the CIC, dated December 30, 2010,
> said.
>
> This reporter had sought to know the average number of appeals received
> daily and, number of cases in which fines were imposed, number of errant
> public information officers paid the fine and those who have not paid it,
> number of cases in which errant public authorities obtained court stay
> against commission's orders and whether the CIC is included as respondent in
> such cases.
>
> During early last month, department of personnel and training (DoPT),
> functioning under the Union ministry of personnel and public grievances,
> released the draft amendments and announced that public can send their views
> on or before December 27, 2010. While the DoPT has not yet announced the
> decision on the draft amendments, the CIC's reply, arbitrarily enforcing the
> draft rules, has agitated RTI activists and groups.
>
> "When rules are not yet amended and the amendment is only in the draft
> stage, the CIC should clarify that under which provisions of law and under
> what authority it has imposed the one-subject' restriction. In fact, this
> reply is a standing testimony as to why we oppose the draft amendments tooth
> and nail," said Venkatesh Nayak, a coordinator of Commonwealth Human Rights
> Initiative, a New Delhi-based NGO.
>
> A Sukumar, an RTI activist in Chennai, said, "We cannot accept this sort of
> reply from the CIC, which is supposed to safeguard the Act from being
> diluted by the bureaucracy. It would only mislead public authorities to
> discourage RTI applicants instead of encouraging them. This reply only shows
> that the DoPT should not give effect to the draft amendments.''
>
> jeeva.pugazvendan@timesgroup.com
>
>
>
>