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

regarding the point 2, the cic or sic are not violating rti act by
entertaining the appellant directly.
related to defending in the commission, the rti act or rules do not
bar anybody from seeking the help of other persons (may be lawyer or
anybody) for pleading the case.
I most of times do not go to the commission but rather take help from
friends to plead my cases.
regarding point 1, i will get back to you shortly.
regards

On 5/5/11, Baritlum Ama <baritlumama@gmail.com> wrote:
> I NEED THE ANSWER FROM YOU 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.
>
> Thanks
>
>
> 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