Re: [rti4empowerment] First Appeal before FAA - DoPT

Less is said about the DoPT is better.  Smt. Anuradha S. Chagti, Dy. Sect (RTI) & First Appellate Authority on providing the information of short-listed candidates and the selection criteria for short listing the candidates for the post of Chief CIC at the time of appointing Shri A N Tiwari as CCIC has informed stating that there is no documents available on these points raised in the application.  Totally unbelievable that even the other names, if any, are not on the record.  FAA has not even transferred the application to any other concerned CPIO/PA but disposed of my appeal stating this.

 

 

2.       Smt. Anuradha S. Chagti, Dy. Secy (RTI)/First Appellate Authority has in her first appeal reply dated 22^nd December, 2010 informed that the appeal against the FAA order can be made to the CIC at August Kranti Bhavan, BK Place while in fact and as per CIC's website, the correct address is JNU.

 

3.       DoPT's PIO Shri R K Girdhar informed that my RTI application was received on 20.10.2010 while as per India Post website, the same, which was addressed as CPIO c/o. Secretary, Deptt. of Personal and Training, was delivered on 8.10.10. As per section 6(3) of the RTI Act, it should have been transferred to the CPIO by the Secy. within 5 days.  Also, as per DoPT own guidelines, application within the Department should be transferred within a day.  Though the date mentioned on the CPIO's reply is 11^th November but the stamp has a date stamp of 16.11.10 which was delivered to me on 20.11.10.  The same was also not sent by Speed Post but by ordinary post. 

 

4.       Also, the reply dated 22.12.10 of the first appeal was sent by ordinary post while on the top of the reply, it is mentioned "RTI MATTER/SPEED POST".  Apart from this, on the envelop, sender's post office stamp shows the date as 28.12.2011 which seems correct as it was delivered on 29.12.2010.

 

5.    And the DoPT is the nodal agency for the implemention of RTI Act. While, it is implementing it in faulty manner, how can it prevail upon other public authorities on the matter.

---

From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: Sunil Ahya <sunilahya@gmail.com>
Cc: rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, 28 March, 2011 2:50:55 AM
Subject: Re: [rti4empowerment] First Appeal before FAA - DoPT

The only simple fact (as per me) is that till now you have not shown
anything to prove that the 2005 RTI Rules were NOT laid before
Parliament. In the absence thereof you cannot assert with any
conviction that Rules were not laid.

This is not to say, however that the Rules WERE laid. You just have to
prove your proposition correctly. Incidentally all the information on
laying of rules is already viewable ONLINE in the normal course - so
why did you waste Rs. 10 (and the time of DoPT's "smart" & "sincere"
PIOs) ??.

Sarbajit

On 3/28/11, Sunil Ahya <sunilahya@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Sarbajit,
>
> Let us discuss facts and not extrapolations.
>
> Moreover, are you suggesting that DoPT PIOs are Smart as Averse to being
> Sincere.
>
> Looking forward to your response on the same ........
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Sunil.
>
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 12:02 AM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The problem with your "facts" is that they are actually your wild
>> extrapolations.
>>
>> Where have you got PROOF that the Rules were not "sent" to Parliament.??
>> C'mon out with it now !
>>
>> Anyway from the DoP'Ts reply I inferred that you STILL do not know how to
>> draft an RTI application to know if the 2005 Rules were tabled in
>> Parliament or not. Actually I would have taught you but you did not avail
>> my offer of training.
>>
>> Sarbajit
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 11:36 PM, Sunil Ahya <sunilahya@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Sarbajit,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your kind suggestion.
>>>
>>> Please refer to the said post again. I had put forward the facts, and
>>> suggested that the readers were free to infer ........
>>>
>>> It is you who has extrapolated ( to infer (an unknown) from something
>>> that is known; conjecture) [?]
>>>
>>> I can understand your anxiety [?]
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>>
>>> Sunil.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 8:40 AM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear Sunil,
>>>>
>>>> From another anguished post of yours (Secret way to amend RTI Act) I am
>>>> given to understand that DoPT informs you that "information requested is
>>>> not on file". You have (wrongly) interpreted this to mean that RTI Rules
>>>> of 2005 were not tabled in Parliament and extrapolated to a wild
>>>> degree..
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, DoPT's PIOs are very good. The fact is (and I am saying
>>>> this as your well wisher) that your RTI was very badly drafted and there
>>>> was no other reply for the PIO to give you (see my message of 6 days
>>>> back below) .  So please interpret properly what PIO has communicated to
>>>> you. I can understand your frustration, but it is your fault.
>>>>
>>>> NB: Had I drafted the RTI request for same info the concerned PIO  would
>>>> not have been able to evade giving me the information.
>>>>
>>>> Sarbajit
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 11:28 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Please read section 29 and compare it to your RTI request. If I was in
>>>>> the PIO's place I would inform you that the information you requested
>>>>> does not exist. DoPT's PIOs count the days in a way different from the
>>>>> way you do - so add upto 20 days extra.
>>>>>
>>>>> Savbajit
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Sunil Ahya <sunilahya@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Sarbajit,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for your response.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Section 28 confers the power to make rules and thereafter Section
>>>>>> 29(1) mandates immediate ratification by both the houses of Parliament
>>>>>> of every such rule made by the Central Government under the Act. I
>>>>>> have asked for a copy of the ratified rules (made way back in 2005)
>>>>>> and any inward and outward correspondence made with both the houses of
>>>>>> Parliament for obtaining such ratification.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you have a counter view, kindly elicit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In any case, the CPIO should have responded to the RTI application.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sunil.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 1:43 PM, sroy 1947 <sroy1947@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear Sunil
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Before filing RTIs or FAs kindly read the RTI Act and then see what
>>>>>>> you have applied for.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sarbajit
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 6:25 AM, Sunil Ahya <sunilahya@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dear Friends,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is to inform that the CPIO of Department of Personnel &
>>>>>>>> Training
>>>>>>>> (DoPT) has not responded to the RTI application for information
>>>>>>>> received by the department as on 09-02-11,hence a First Appeal has
>>>>>>>> been filed before the FAA requesting to direct the CPIO to provide
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> information forthwith.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Information Requested was as follows::
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (a) Subject matter of the Information:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Central Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2005,
>>>>>>>> published in the Official Gazette vide NOTIFICATION - F.No.
>>>>>>>> 1/4/2005-IR, dated:28th October, 2005 Gazette of India,
>>>>>>>> Extraordinary,
>>>>>>>> dated 28-10-2005 (hereinafter called "the said Gazetted Rules" for
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> sake of brevity)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (b) Description of the Information Required:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1.Inward & Outward correspondence carried out with Both the Houses
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> the Parliament of India for the purpose of seeking approval of the
>>>>>>>> said Gazetted Rules, in compliance with section 29(1) of the RTI
>>>>>>>> Act,
>>>>>>>> 2005.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2.Final approvals received from Both the Houses of the Parliament of
>>>>>>>> India in compliance with section 29(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sunil.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> __._,_.___
>>>>>> Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New
>>>>>> Topic
>>>>>> Messages in this topic (2)
>>>>>> Recent Activity:
>>>>>> New Members 2
>>>>>> Visit Your Group
>>>>>> [image: Yahoo! Groups]
>>>>>> Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
>>>>>> .
>>>>>>
>>>>>> __,_._,___
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>