RE: [HumJanenge] Re: UNJUST REJECTION OF RTI APPLICATION !

For the information of all the activists,
 
Yes, I agree with Dr. Sandeep Gupta. Even Securities and Exchnage Board of India (SEBI) a Finance Ministry funded
public organisation does not accept RTI application fee is paid if the IPO is addressed to "Pay and Accounts Officer, SEBI".
 
2.   I received a letter from Mr. Aman Jain, Office of the Central Assistant Public Information Officer dated February  15, 2012  
      that said:
 
     "You may note that the fee of rs. 10/- deposited by you vide IPO No. 92E 315050 is not in order as the same has to be drawn
       in favour of "Securities & Exchange Board of India". The IPO No. 92E 315050 is accordingly being returmned."
 
There are many such examples. So Mr. Sarabjit may like to add to his knowledge.  
 
Hari Goyal
011-25082239
 
   
 

> Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 10:11:00 +0530
> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: UNJUST REJECTION OF RTI APPLICATION !
> From: drsandgupta@gmail.com
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
>
> 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.mb@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