"Although Sec 18 does not carry a specific provision that the State
Information Commission can give direction for providing information,
it must be read along with Sec 20.
Sec 20 clearly says that penalty can be imposed at Rs 250 per day till
the information is given. So if penalty can be imposed for matters
relating to Sec 18, then it implies that information must be given and
the State Information Commission has the powers to direct to provide
such information. Otherwise how can one determine how much penalty, if
information is never given"
This part concludes with:
"So far the power to issue direction for receiving the application or
for supplying the information is concerned, it is for one and the same
purpose, i.e., for supplying the correct information to the applicant,
if it does not stand exempted under the Act. In this regard, there can
be no distinction, when the Commission enquires into a complaint or
hears an appeal under the aforesaid power."
"Any interpretation to any of the provisions of the Act, if leads to
absurdity or may lead to defeat the very purpose of the Act, has to be
avoided. There is no attempt to twist the words or the phraseology
used, but for correct interpretation of provision of
Section 18, it cannot be read in isolation, but has to be seen in the
light of the consequences of a complaint of Section 18, as given in
Section 20 of the Act, besides also the purpose and object of the Act
for which it has been enacted."
On 5/9/11, C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> wrote:
> As per the amended Citizenship Act, certain reasonable restrictions have
> been put on rights of OCIs
> Art. 19 is not on the list of restrictions.
> Since RTI Act is implicit in ones "right to freedom of speech", part of Art.
> 19, OCIs also should have the "Right to Information".
>
> RTIwanted
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
> To: humjanenge <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, May 8, 2011 4:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Cabinet note not secret: Info panel
>
>
> In short a citizen of India is an Indian by birth or naturalisation. A
> citizen of India cannot be a citizen of another country. OCIs (Overseas
> Citizens of India) are not citizens for purposes of RTI Act.
>
> The detailed provisions are in the Constition of India and the Citizenship
> Act.
>
> Sarbajit
>
>
> On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Rakshpal Abrol <rakshpal.abrol@yahoo.co.in>
> wrote:
>
> Dear Sarbjit Roy,
>>Please let us know the defintion of Word "Citizen of India"
>>The Right of Information Act,2005 (Act No. 22 of 2005) is only
>>applicable to the said person.
>>
>>
>>Warm regards,
>>
>>Rakshpal Abrol
>>Consumer Activist
>>9820203154
>>rakshpal.abrol@yahoo.co.in
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>________________________________
>>From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
>>To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
>>Sent: Sun, 8 May, 2011 8:42:07 AM
>>Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Cabinet note not secret: Info panel
>>
>>
>>Dear Surendra
>>
>>The practical definition of "expert" is anyone who knows a LITTLE more than
>> the AVERAGE IDIOT.
>>
>>I am glad that you agree with me that Complaints are discretionary.
>>
>>I disagree with you that the Complaint must be "well drafted" to achieve
>> results. What is more important is that the Complainant must know and
>> confine himself to the specific grounds under which a Complaint must be
>> filed, and approach the Commission without laches (delay). Thereafter the
>> Complainant is left to the vagaries of the Commissions and their
>> individual styles of functioning.
>>
>>Your calculation of time allowed to file a 2nd appeal (90 days after FA
>> gives decision) is completely off the mark. As per me the prospective
>> appellant must file his 2nd appeal within 90 days of the date the CPIO
>> gives his decision (or should have given his decision). [19(1) r/w 19(3)]
>>
>>Sarbajit
>>
>>
>>On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Surendera M. Bhanot
>> <surendera@avissoftware.com> wrote:
>>
>>The experts find a way from the narrow band too. So the matter that
>> Complaints is discretionary is no longer a myth. If one cannot file a
>> proper complaint, he cannot expect the desired results. The CIC/SIC has to
>> inquire into on receipt of a well drafted complaint. The calculations of
>> days are broadly correct and a knowledgable person will reckon the exact
>> days, when required. Act does not specify any time limit for filing the
>> complaint. However, courts had decided that the CIC/SIC has to decide the
>> same as expeditiously as possible.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 3:48 PM, sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>You have not calculated the dates / period for filing 2nd appeal
>>>>correctly
>>>>You have also not appreciated that complaint process is extremely
>>>>narrow
>>>>in scope and confined to a few technical grounds. Complaint process is
>>>>also a time-bound process for citizens to approach the CIC in..
>>>>
>>>>Sarbajit
>>>>
>>>>On May 7, 12:23 pm, "Surendera M. Bhanot" <surend...@avissoftware.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In fact there is difference between the "Appeal" and "Complaint".
>>>>>
>>>>> *Appeal - *you file it when you find that the process of law has been
>>>>> followed but the information has not been given. You file an appeal to
>>>>> get
>>>>> the information. you have to go through the process as per Section 19
>>>>> of the
>>>>> Act.You have 30 days to file first appeal and 90 days thereafter (after
>>>>> the
>>>>> expiry of the 30 days of the first appeal) for second appeal. PIO has
>>>>> no
>>>>> right to appeal, but PA has.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Complaint - * You file it under Section 18 of the Act where the
>>>>> process of
>>>>> law has been abused in any manner. It is independent of Section 19.
>>>>> There is
>>>>> no time limit and complaint can be filed any time on any issue of
>>>>> infringement of law and your rights. Neither PIO nor PA can complain.
>>>>> Rather
>>>>> the onus of proof rest on the PIO.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 5:38 AM, sandeep kumar <drsandgu...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> > what i have done is that i filed complaint against the refusal of
>>>>> > information (as the pio did not give any grounds to refuse
>>>>> > information). after some days, I filed first appeal with AA. Now as
>>>>> > the first appeal has not been replied, i intend to filed second
>>>>> > appeal. can i do so?
>>>>> > I mean to ask as to whether commission can reject the complaint (for
>>>>> > filing it along with use of first appeal) or reject the appeal (for
>>>>> > filing a complaint and thus approaching the commission earlier also)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> > On 5/6/11, Sarbajit Roy <sroy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> > > 1) If the RTI request has been duly received with the fee and there
>>>>> > > is
>>>>> > proof
>>>>> > > of this, we always advise our members to file first appeal before
>>>>> > (wrongly)
>>>>> > > approaching the SIC/CIC (in complaint jurisdiction) or (rightly) in
>>>>> > > 2nd
>>>>> > > appeal jurisdiction thereafter.
>>>>> > > The reason for this is that
>>>>> > > a) first Appeal is a statutory time-bound process, whereas
>>>>> > > b) Complaint is a discretionary and open-ended process.
>>>>> > > c) Second appeal is a statutory but open-ended process
>>>>>
>>>>> > > So the answer to your query no.1 is that it is NOT mandatory to
>>>>> > > approach
>>>>> > FAA
>>>>> > > prior to approaching SIC/CIC, ... BUT First Appeal is TECHNICALLY
>>>>> > > the
>>>>> > BEST
>>>>> > > option in terms of RISK MANAGEMENT.
>>>>>
>>>>> > > 2) Your 2nd query is badly framed and factually incorrect. The CIC
>>>>> > > CANNOT
>>>>> > > entertain a 2nd appeal when no first apeal has been filed.
>>>>>
>>>>> > > Sarbajit
>>>>>
>>>>> > > On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Baritlum Ama
>>>>> > > <baritlum...@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
>>>>>
>>>>> > --
>>>>> > Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
>>>>> > 989, Sector 15-A, Opposite bishnoi Colony, Hisar-125001, INDIA
>>>>> > Phone:91-99929-31181begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 91-99929-31181 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> *"Our biggest competition is never with the others.
>>>>
>>>>> Instead, it is always within ourselves.
>>>>> It doesn't matter if where we end up - first or at last.
>>>>> If we do our best to do better than before, we've won"
>>>>> **
>>>>> Warm Regards**
>>>>>
>>>>> Surendera M. Bhanot*
>>>>> *- President, RTI Help <http://www.rtihelp.in> & Assistance Forum
>>>>> Chandigarh
>>>>>
>>>>> - Youth for Human Rights International YHRI
>>>>> <http://yhrisouthasia.ning.com/>-
>>>>> South Asia
>>>>> - CEO, Avis Software <http://www.avissoftware.com>, Chandigarh
>>>>
>>>>> - Convener & Life Member, Consumers Association Chandigarh
>>>>> - Jt. Secretary, Amateur Judo Association of Chandigarh
>>>>> - Member, SPACE <http://www.thespace.org.in>- Society for Promotion and
>>>>
>>>>> Conservation of Environment, Chandigarh
>>>>> - Member, RTI Activist Federation, Punjab, Chandigarh*
>>>>> *No. 3758, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh-160022
>>>>> Mob:+91-9888-810-811begin_of_the_skype_highlighting +91-9888-810-811 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
>>>>> PHONE:+91-172-2780838begin_of_the_skype_highlighting +91-172-2780838 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
>>>>> FAX: 0871 266 8523 ***
>>>>> Mail Me <surend...@avissoftware.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> *DISCLAIMER*: You have received this email because you any one time
>>>>
>>>>> contacted me through mail or otherwise gave your mail-id. This e-mail
>>>>> is
>>>>> intended to be sent to the persons on my regular mail-list. In case you
>>>>> think this mail infringes your privacy or otherwise you do not want to
>>>>> receive this mail anymore, please reply with the word* 'UNSUBSCRIBE"*
>>>>> in the
>>>>> body of the mail. *Please do not** disturb the Subject line*. I am
>>>>> sorry to
>>>>> see you go. But please mention the reason why you want to go. It will
>>>>> help
>>>>> me improve my services in future. Thanks
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>
>>>"Our biggest competition is never with the others.
>>>Instead, it is always within ourselves.
>>>It doesn't matter if where we end up - first or at last.
>>>If we do our best to do better than before, we've won"
>>>
>>>Warm Regards
>>>
>>>Surendera M. Bhanot
>>>- President, RTI Help & Assistance Forum Chandigarh
>>>- Youth for Human Rights International YHRI - South Asia
>>>- CEO, Avis Software, Chandigarh
>>>
>>>- Convener & Life Member, Consumers Association Chandigarh
>>>- Jt. Secretary, Amateur Judo Association of Chandigarh
>>>- Member, SPACE - Society for Promotion and Conservation of Environment,
>>> Chandigarh
>>>
>>>- Member, RTI Activist Federation, Punjab, Chandigarh
>>>No. 3758, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh-160022
>>>
>>>Mob: +91-9888-810-811
>>>PHONE: +91-172-2780838
>>>FAX: 0871 266 8523
>>>Mail Me
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>DISCLAIMER: You have received this email because you any one time
>>> contacted me through
> mail or otherwise gave your mail-id. This e-mail is intended to be sent
> to the persons on my regular mail-list. In case you think this mail
> infringes your privacy or otherwise you do not want to receive this mail
> anymore, please reply with the word'UNSUBSCRIBE" in the body of the mail.
> Please do notdisturb the Subject line. I am sorry to see you go. But please
> mention the reason why you want to go. It will help me improve my services
> in future. Thanks
>>>
>>>
>>
--
Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
989, Sector 15-A, Opposite bishnoi Colony, Hisar-125001, INDIA
Phone: 91-99929-31181
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.