RE: [HumJanenge] Cabinet note not secret: Info panel

 I totally agree that BPL free option is being misused but to charge
> fee is not an option. as per my opinion, a maximum number of pages (to
> be provided free) of information can be fixed above which the payments
> are to be made.
 
Dr N C Jain
6-5-11

> Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 10:31:41 +0530
> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Cabinet note not secret: Info panel
> From: drsandgupta@gmail.com
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
>
> Sir, it is wrong to say that by increasing the charges will lead to
> reasonable regime and ensure that information will reach deserving and
> will decrease the strain on system. Rather the increase in cost of
> information will give a very good excuse to the PIOs to not part with
> information.
> let me cite an example: If someone (let us take this person as a daily
> paid labour) had applied for ration card but it was not made in
> reasonable time and the citizen files application to know the status
> or action taken (which otherwise was to be intimated to him free by
> virtue of section 4(1)(d)) by paying Rs 50 plus postage charges plus
> stationary charges and then the PIO demands Rs 100 for 10 pages (out
> of which 7 pages have few words written on them and will not be of any
> help), how can it be expected that any ordinary citizen would dare to
> file application again. Now as the PIO has known that this person is
> not capable of paying additional fee, the department would not take
> any action on his application. In future, if he dares to file any
> application, the usual reply of PIO will be to quote exorbitant
> additional fee or to ask the citizen to first pay the additional fee
> for previous applications. How would the citizen get his ration card
> made? You may suggest that he should go to the ministry of personnel
> website to lodge his grievance but sir this is not possible for that
> person as he has not knowledge as to what and how to do. Increasing
> the fee is the best system to fail the RTI act.
> Every citizen demanding voluminous (it is a subjective term)
> information is not financed from outside. There is no specific
> definition of voluminous as implied in RTI act. Every PIO has his or
> her own perception of the term voluminous as per his convenience. In
> your own case, Appeal No. 10/1/2005-CIC, 25 February, 2006, the
> respondent termed the information as voluminous.
> Let us leave a group of people who misuse the rti act and think of the
> ordinary citizen who has to file RTI application for his subsistence.
> I totally agree that BPL free option is being misused but to charge
> fee is not an option. as per my opinion, a maximum number of pages (to
> be provided free) of information can be fixed above which the payments
> are to be made.
>
> On 5/5/11, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Dear Ama
> >
> > The cost of RTI must be REASONABLE. At these highly subsidised prices/fees
> > prescribed in the Central RTI Rules, the HONEST citizen who never/rarely
> > uses RTI is SUBSIDISING the h****is who professionally misuse RTI on behalf
> > of theior foreign spymasters and are handsomely recompensed for it.
> >
> > Sarbajit
> >
> > On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 8:26 AM, Baritlum Ama <baritlumama@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Its true that Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia never had raised this
> >> issue as it might be confined to some states only and at the same
> >> time citizens were not aware of it.
> >>
> >> Today we find that citizens are aware of it and try to exercise their
> >> fundamental rights.However these are some contraints which need to be
> >> addressed and resolved.
> >>
> >> ONE MORE POINTS I NEED THE CLARIFICATION FROM ALL PLEASE.
> >>
> >> 1) IS IT MANDATORY TO APPROACH THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY OR SENIOR IN
> >> RANK TO THE CPIO OR SPIO PRIOR TO APPROACHING CIC OR SIC?
> >>
> >> 2)AND IF THE CIC OR SIC ENTERTAINS THE APPELLANT BY BYPASSING THE
> >> SENIOR OFFICER I.E 2ND APPELLATE AUTHORITY AS PER CLUASE-19(1),THEN IS
> >> THE ACTION OF CIC OR SIC IN VIOLATION OF THE RTI ACT.
> >>
> >> WHERE THE CLUASE WHEREIN THE CIC OR SIC OR APPELLANT DEFEND THEMSELVES.
> >>
> >>
> >> On 5/5/11, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Making the fees common across the country is UNREASONABLE.and also
> >> > beyond
> >> > the power of Central Govt to legislate for States --- till such time as
> >> the
> >> > money collected does not go into the Central exchequer. If the money is
> >> > collected by and used by the State Govt to defray its costs then only
> >> > the
> >> > State Govt can prescribe the fees.
> >> > .
> >> > FYI teh Allahabad High Court at one point was charging Rs.500
> >> > application
> >> > fee and Rs 50 as copying charge per page. Hapless applicants were
> >> > getting
> >> > ZERO information out of the court despite paying such fees.
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 10:35 PM, SHASHI KUMAR.A.R. <
> >> > rudreshtechnology@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> The Central government should see that the fee charged per page should
> >> be
> >> >> uniform throughout the country including courts , In karnataka Courts
> >> are
> >> >> charging Rs.3/- Per Page for A4 Size , But if a person applies under
> >> >> court
> >> >> rules the fee charged is Rs.1/- But in this case only litigants
> >> pertaining
> >> >> to a case only can obtain by paying Rs.1/- Per page , States area
> >> >> making
> >> >> several rules to make rti act useless and to discourage the applicants
> >> >>
> >> >> ARS KUMAR
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 9:53 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> Dear Guptaji
> >> >>>
> >> >>> 1) Haryana Govt charges Rs. 50 possibly because Delhi High Court (and
> >> >>> some
> >> >>> other High Courts) also charges Rs. 50 as application fee.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> 2) For many years since 2002 under Delhi RTI Act the application fee
> >> was
> >> >>> Rs.25 and Rs.5 per page was photocopying charge. Not a single RTI
> >> >>> activist
> >> >>> like Arvind Kejriwal , Manish Sisiodia etc who used DRTI extensively
> >> then
> >> >>> ever complained. Today after 9 years surely Rs. 50 and Rs.10
> >> >>> respectively
> >> >>> is justified by inflation even assuming a WPI of 6% each year.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Sarbajit
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 8:47 PM, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in
> >> >wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> Here, Rs. 10/- per page for a photocopy is unreasonable. Every
> >> body
> >> >>>> will agree to this but what remedial steps should be taken. Haryana
> >> >>>> govt.
> >> >>>> takes Rs. 50/- are RTI fee. Some state charge fee even for first
> >> appeal.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Apparently, these tacts have been employed to discourage the
> >> applicants.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Sarbajit ji, let all of us mull over it and find out some way.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> --- On *Wed, 4/5/11, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>* wrote:
> >> >>>> From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
> >> >>>> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Cabinet note not secret: Info panel
> >> >>>> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> >> >>>> Date: Wednesday, 4 May, 2011, 2:02 PM
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> States cannot amend the RTI Act - it is a Central Act of Parliament.
> >> >>>> The variation in fees for photocopying charges is by the provision
> >> that
> >> >>>> each State Govt can prescribe these fees.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> The CORE TEST (from the Act) is that these fees must be REASONABLE.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Sarbajit
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 7:39 AM, Baritlum Ama
> >> >>>> <baritlumama@gmail.com<
> >> http://in.mc946.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=baritlumama@gmail.com>
> >> >>>> > wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Since each state has got its own prerogative to amend the Act,so the
> >> >>>> government has increased the fee of the document from Rs,2/= to
> >> >>>> Rs.10/= per page.The exorbhitant increase in the price of the fee has
> >> >>>> deterred most of the activists in seeking the formation.Please guide
> >> >>>> us how to repeal the Notification of the Govt.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Thanks
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> On 5/3/11, M.K. Gupta
> >> >>>> <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in<
> >> http://in.mc946.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in>>
> >> >>>> wrote:
> >> >>>> > Cabinet note not secret: Info panel
> >> >>>> > Maha Watchdog Overrules itself.
> >> >>>> >
> >> >>>> > MUMBAI: A cabinet note on the basis of which a council of minister
> >> >>>> takes a
> >> >>>> > decision and subsequently passes a government
> >> >>>> > resolution is not confidential and anyone can have access to a copy
> >> of
> >> >>>> it
> >> >>>> > under the RTI Act.
> >> >>>> > The verdict was passed on Friday by a full bench of the Maharashtra
> >> >>>> > information commission, presided over by chief information
> >> >>>> > commissioner
> >> >>>> > Vilas Patil. The new decree overrules Vikas Patil's predecessor
> >> Suresh
> >> >>>> > Joshi's ruling in 2006 that said a cabinet note was a confidential
> >> >>>> document
> >> >>>> > and a citizen could not get access to it by applying under the
> >> >>>> > Right
> >> >>>> > To
> >> >>>> > Information Act.
> >> >>>> > The latest decision was arrived at after a much deliberation, with
> >> >>>> Vilas
> >> >>>> > Patil, his Aurungabad counterpart D B Deshpande, Amravati
> >> information
> >> >>>> > commissioner Bhaskar Patil and Nagpur information chief P W Patil
> >> >>>> > maintaining that the note should not be kept secret. However, Navi
> >> >>>> Mumbai
> >> >>>> > info chief Navinkumar and his Nashik counterpart M H Shah tried to
> >> >>>> argue it
> >> >>>> > should not be made public.
> >> >>>> > The view of the majority prevailed and it was decided that an RTI
> >> >>>> applicant
> >> >>>> > is eligible to obtain a copy of the cabinet note, an official told
> >> TOI
> >> >>>> on
> >> >>>> > Saturday.
> >> >>>> > The issue was raised after a resident, Archana Gawda, in 2007,
> >> >>>> > filed
> >> a
> >> >>>> query
> >> >>>> > under the RTI Act, seeking a copy of the cabinet note of the repeal
> >> of
> >> >>>> the
> >> >>>> > Urban Land Ceiling Act and the states decision on the proposal. The
> >> >>>> general
> >> >>>> > administration department, however, refused to send her a copy
> >> saying,
> >> >>>> > according to the rules of business and provisions of the RTI Act, a
> >> >>>> cabinet
> >> >>>> > note was confidential and hence out of RTI purview.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >
>
>
> --
> Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
> 989, Sector 15-A, Opposite bishnoi Colony, Hisar-125001, INDIA
> Phone: 91-99929-31181