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

With All dissussions From All eminent and learned freinds , I Have Read And with Me an Gujarath High Court order which Reads As " Power under Sec 18 is Limited to Hold enquiry into Complaint and If Necessary to Impose Penalty -- Information Commission has no Jursidiction to Pass order directing authority to part with information"
In Such an Situation when One Has approached the Second Appeal Mechanism which is an Higher statutory Authority for One Relief can an Lower Authorirty be Approached For another relief . If so Can Lower Authority can it decvline On That grounds stating as The Case is already is pending Adjudication at an higher body , They will not intervene . then The Person seeking information will loose His /her right to Information . therefore IN KIC They are allowing both section 18 and sec 19.3 simoultaneosly
N vikramsimha , KRIA Katte , #12 Sumeru Sir M N Krishna Rao Road , Basvangudi < Bangalore 560004.

--- On Fri, 6/5/11, acfanand@gmail.com <acfanand@gmail.com> wrote:

> From: acfanand@gmail.com <acfanand@gmail.com>
> Subject: RE: [HumJanenge] Cabinet note not secret: Info panel
> To: "humjanenge@googlegroups.com" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
> Date: Friday, 6 May, 2011, 6:39 PM
> That is why in karnataka the
> commission considers all complaints and appeals as petitions
> and dispooses accordingly.
>
> Sent from my Nokia phone
> -----Original Message-----
> From: soumen kr Bhattacharjee
> Sent:  06/05/2011 12:14:12 pm
> Subject:  Re: Re: [HumJanenge] Cabinet note not
> secret: Info panel
>
> Dear Ama ,
>
> I would like to advise you to go through the act. It is not
> lawful to move to a commission before approaching 1st
> appellate authority . It is nalso not legal for commission
> to admit a second appeal when ist appeal was not
> heard/disposed.Hope clarified.
>
>
> On Fri, 06 May 2011 06:01:01 +0530  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  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  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 
> 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
> 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 *
> wrote:
>
> >>>> From: Sarbajit Roy
>
> >>>> 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
>
> >>>> >>> > 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
>
> >>>>
>
>
> >>>> 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.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>