[HumJanenge] Re: UNJUST REJECTION OF RTI APPLICATION !

Derar Sandeep

I am not siding with teh PIO, I am siding with the RTI Act (and
Rules).

1) If 3 (or even 3,000) P/As do not accept IPOs made out to Pay &
Accounts Officer, then that does not mean the Rules are wrong, it
means the PIOs are wrong and it is grounds for a complaint u/s 18.
This is exactly one of those specific cases where section 18 comes
into play.

2) If a State Govt P/A does not accept IPO made out to P&A officer,
you will have to check the concerned State Govt's RTI Rules. These may
differ from Central Rules which do not extend to State P/As.

Furthermore, If a Central Govt Officer (like your 3 cases) does not
follow Rules, he is liable for disciplinary action under his service
Rules. What I really want to know is what action the PIOs took when
you informed them about the Rule specifying that IPOs / DDs etc are to
be made to "P&A" Officer.

Sarbajit

On Jul 4, 9:41 am, Sandeep gupta <drsandgu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sarbajit Sir,
> You are unnecessarily and illogically siding with the PIO.
> 1. Agricultural Scientists Recruitment Board does not accept IPO drawn
> in favour of Pay and Accounts officer of the P/O. The PIO will reject
> the application saying that the application fee should be drawn in
> favour of Secretary. From where the hell will the applicant know (if
> it is not published) the details of the payee name?
> 2. CBDT does not accept application fee in favour of accounts officer
> or Pay and Accounts officer. YOu have to pay to Zonal accounts
> officer.
> 3. My application to bsnl mumbai were rejected adding that payment is
> to be made to Accounts officer, civil division.
> 4. In the state governments (at least in punjab), there is no post as
> pay and accounts officer or accounts officer. thus rti application are
> not accepted in case payment is made towards these officers.
>
> On 7/4/12, sarbajit roy <sroy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The PIO's rejection is technically correct.
>
> > 1) The prescribed application fee is Rs. 10. Had the applicant not
> > mentioned it was to cover (partially or otherwise) the further fees
> > also, a case could have been made out that since Rs.10 IPO was not
> > available Rs.20 was sent in its place (applicant shot himself in the
> > foot).
>
> > 2) The IPO cannot be left blank. It is to be made out to the Pay &
> > Accounts officer of the P/A. The PIO cannot be expected to fill it in.
> > If some mistake is made by the PIO in filling in the payees name who
> > takes responsibility ??
>
> > Sarbajit
>
> > On Jul 3, 7:01 am, "M.K. Gupta" <mkgupta...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> >> UNJUST
> >> REJECTION OF RTI APPLICATION!
>
> >> An Appellant sent an RTI application to Deptt. of Excise, Delhi Govt.
> >> enclosing the postal order of Rs. 20/-
> >> instead of Rs. 10/- without filling the payee column.  Postal order of
> >> higher value was sent to
> >> cover the cost of photocopies of documents, if any, and this fact was
> >> mentined
> >> in the RTI application also.
>
> >> The PIO has rejected the application on the
> >> grounds of postal order of higher demonition and for leaving the payee
> >> column
> >> blank.
>
> >> Though a fresh RTI has been sent removing the aforesaid objections but I
> >> want to know if any
> >> appeal can be sent to FAA or CIC for rejecting the appln on the above
> >> grounds.
>
> --
> Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
> 1722, Sector 14, Hisar-125001, INDIA
> Phone: 91-99929-31181