Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Reality check on SC pronouncement

"5(1) Every public authority shall, within one hundred days of the
enactment of this Act, designate as many officers as the Central
Public Information Officers or State Public Information Officers, as
the case may be, in all administrative units or offices under it as
may be necessary to provide information to persons requesting for the
information under this Act.

r/w

5(3) Every Central Public Information Officer or State Public
Information Officer, as the case may be, shall deal with requests from
persons seeking information and render reasonable assistance to the
persons seeking such information."

in 5(4) the Act also says that CPIO can "seek assistance" of any
"other officer" to discharge his duties.

Sarbajit

On Feb 11, 8:39 am, "M.K. Gupta" <mkgupta...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> Sararbji ji,
>
> I request to inform the section of the RTI Act which states that only a designated PIO can "deal with" an information request.  This information is required because many times, we receive reply from other officers though we address application to the PIO.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy...@gmail.com>
> To: Ravindran Major <majorr...@gmail.com>; humjanenge <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, 10 February 2012 6:52 PM
> Subject: Re: [.RTI.] [HumJanenge] Re: Reality check on SC pronouncement
>
> Dear Major Ravi
>
> Under the RTI Act only "officers" can be designated as PIOs.
> Under the RTI Act only a designated PIO can "deal with" an information requests.
>
> If somebody is not following the law laid down it does not mean that
> the law itself is bad. This is exactly the sort of specious logic you
> and the IC concerned habitually indulge in.
>
> Using KGB as an example is yet another (bad) instance of specious
> logic. Either we scrap the Constitution, or we put up with the
> occasional aberrations. Frankly I cant recall the last honest AND
> competent CJI we had - hope somebody can assist me out here [and its
> not this man. ...http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/8-chief-justices-of-india-corrupt-s...
> ]
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On 2/10/12, Ravindran Major <majorr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I am sorry Mr Roy, Mr Shailesh Gandhi is on more firm grounds. Just because
> > a person is designated as Public Information Officer it does not mean all
> > the persons handling RTI applications are 'officers'. In smaller offices we
> > have even head clerks doing the job of PIOs. In the o/o the District
> > Colelctor here all junior superintendents (head clerks!) of various
> > sections are PIOs! Then again the PIO doesn't have to run around collecting
> > info- the person who is holding the info-usually the dealing clerk- is also
> > the deemed PIO!
>
> > And there is nothing to go ga-ga about taking on the supreme court. They
> > are not infallible at all and just look at K G Balakrishnan's case- pure
> > abuse of office and treason at that!
>
> > ravi
>
> > On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 9:26 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Dear Members
>
> >> A sitting Central Information Commissioner (whose legal knowledge is
> >> legendary .. he is also an "eminent person" ) has seen fit to take on
> >> the Supreme Court.
>
> >> As usual this extremely confused individual applies his fallacious
> >> logic (the same logic we see in his confused orders) to arrive at the
> >> conclusion that only 0.208% of time is spent by Govt "employees" for
> >> responding to RTI applications.
>
> >> The Ld. IC has missed that the SC order refers to "staff" spending
> >> their time in RTI and not "employees". He also fails to realise that
> >> only "officers" are supposed to be attending to RTI work (as per the
> >> Act). I wonder if.the Ld. IC can rework his calculations (and dubious
> >> assumptions) to incorporate my points.
>
> >> Sarbajit
>
> >> > from:  shailesh gandhi shailesh...@gmail.com
> >> > date:  Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 6:49 PM
> >> > subject:      Reality check on SC pronouncement
>
> >> > The Supreme Court in a RTI judgement* on August 9, 2011 made an
> >> observation
> >> > which is affecting the minds of many Ministers and senior officials. The
> >> > observation was, "The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the
> >> staff
> >> > of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and
> >> furnishing
> >> > information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties.
> >> The
> >> > threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the
> >> > authorities
> >> > under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities
> >> > prioritising information furnishing, at the cost of their normal and
> >> regular
> >> > duties."
>
> >> > If 75% staff spend 75% of their time, it would mean 56% (0.75x0.75) of
> >> the
> >> > total time would be spent on giving information. If this possibility
> >> > ever
> >> > comes about it would be scary and undesirable.
>
> >> > I decided to do a reality check.
>
> >> > According to the most optimistic estimate not more than 1 crore RTI
> >> > applications are likely to be received in 2012 in all the public
> >> authorities
> >> > in the States and Central Government together.
>
> >> > The average time to attend each RTI application would be less than 3
> >> hours.
>
> >> > This means no more than 3 crore hours spent by all officers.
>
> >> > If we assume that an average government employee works for just 6 hours
> >> > a
> >> > day for 200 days a year, it would mean he would work for a total of 1200
> >> > hours in a year.
>
> >> > 3 crore hours divided by 1200 hours is 25000 which means 25000 employees
> >> > would be required full time.
>
> >> > The Central Government and all State Governments have about 1.2 crore
> >> > employees totally. This means that the total time spent by Government
> >> > employees would be 0.208%.
> >> > (25000 divided by 12000000=0.208%).
>
> >> > To put this in the idiom of the Supreme Court's observation, no more
> >> > than
> >> > 4.6% officials are spending 4.6% of their time presently on giving
> >> > information. The Supreme Court's observation has no connection with
> >> reality.
>
> >> > *  Civil Appeal No.6454 of 2011 CBSE vs. ADITYA BANDOPADHYAY & ORS.
>
> > --
> >  Veteran Major P M Ravindran
> >http://raviforjustice.blogspot.com
>
> > You may also like to visit:
> > 'Judiciary Watch' atwww.vigilonline.com
> >http://www.judicialreforms.org/
> >http://www.roguepolice.com
> >http://milapchoraria.tripod.com
> >  <http://raviforjustice.blogspot.com/>