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

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