Re: [HumJanenge] Re: New 500 words Rule

Dear Vikru

1) It seems by your "Basic Logics" it is more important to know the
Law Minister than to know the Law. .. getting knowledge straight from
the horses's ass in a manner of speaking.

2) The Law/Rule is not going to change because of what I think or
write. You -- the people of Karnataka -- gave yourself this wonderful
rule.

3) The language of your rule is as clear as the language of the
Central Rule. Particulars of applicant and the PIO will also be
counted within the word limit. If you don't like my telegram analogy,
think of word counting for placing a classified advertisement.

4) I do not have the Karnataka Rules amendment in full, I based my
opinion on what you gave me. If you don't like my opinion, then you
can take the (unreasoned) opinion of Urvashi Sharma (on HJ-YG) which
is 180 degrees opposite to mine.

5) Unlike HJ-YG this group (HJ-GG) has some unique advantages. What we
say today becomes settled law tomorrow

Sarbajit.

On 10/30/12, Vikram Simha <vikramsimha54@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> Dear Er.Sarabajit
> I fully Contest and disagree with you on your Presumed and Thought Idea of
> Counting the words . This is not a telegram and Nor GOK is P&T dept . nor a
> Part of GOI nor it is explicit;y stated as you constrye in the Rule . Tule
> making power is left to state Govt . added to this on Basic Logics If you
> count the Adress of the Sender & Recepient , your Fees is not tagged to it,
> If you Read the entire ammendement in full , A request in writting for
> Information are the words used and shall relate IN (please note this word )
> subject matter . There fore Until & unless your Contention becomes settled
> Law by Challenges in various Judicial Forums upon hierarcy , our Arguments
> have been Accepted , We also donot want rake up an argument on par with your
> Presumptions,
> However as Rightly said by you in point b and further it is Beneficial to
> Both supply & demand side and in Effect curtailed Many applications without
> any Road Map or what can be called Fishing Applications .
> I can supplu you all file Notings both at KIC and GOVT side in this Matter
> and assure you that i had a very detailed Discussion with the LAW minister
> Himself (my old freind) on several lines on this matter . The Law minister
> is himself a Advocate and had assumed office at the time of this amendement
>
> N vikramsimha , KRIA Katte , #12 Sumeru Sir M N Krishna Rao Road ,
> Basvangudi < Bangalore 560004.
>
>
> --- On Tue, 30/10/12, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: New 500 words Rule
>> To: HumJanenge@googlegroups.com
>> Date: Tuesday, 30 October, 2012, 8:19 PM
>> The clear reading of this rule is as
>> follows:-
>>
>> a) 150 words will be counted like a "telegram", ie. name,
>> address of
>> applicant and receiver are both included.
>>
>> b) Applicant can ask several queries but confined to 1
>> subject.
>>
>> Actually, if used correctly this will benefit both the
>> applicant as
>> well as the Public Authority.
>>
>> Say.
>>
>> 15 words each for name & Address of applicant + PIO = 30
>> words
>> 20 words for subject matter
>> 100 words for say 5 queries (@ 20 words each)
>>
>> It will also trim out many of the people who use RTI for
>> their
>> grievance / service matters.
>>
>> Sarbajit
>>
>> On 10/30/12, Vikram Simha <vikramsimha54@yahoo.co.in>
>> wrote:
>> > Dear Er. Sarbajit,
>> > Reproduced the Inserted Rule 14 in our State
>> > 14 REQUEST RELATE ONLY TO SINGLE SUBJECT MATTER
>> >
>> > A request in writing for information under section 6 of
>> the Act shall relate
>> > in subject matter and it shall not ordinarily exceed
>> one hundred and fifty
>> > words . If an applicant wishes to seek information on
>> more than one subject
>> > matter , he shall make seprate applications.
>> > Provided that in case, the request made relates to more
>> than one subject
>> > matter ,the PIO may respond to the relating to the
>> first subject matter only
>> > and may advise the applicant to make seprate
>> application for each of the
>> > other subject matters.*
>> > * Inserted by Karnataka Right to information
>> (amendement)rules 2007 vide
>> > Notification No DPAR 2 RTI 2007 dated 13/02.2007
>> >
>> > N vikramsimha , KRIA Katte , #12 Sumeru Sir M N Krishna
>> Rao Road ,
>> > Basvangudi < Bangalore 560004.
>> >
>> >
>> > --- On Mon, 29/10/12, sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> From: sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
>> >> Subject: [HumJanenge] Re: New 500 words Rule
>> >> To: "HumJanenge Forum People's Right to
>> Information, RTI Act 2005"
>> >> <HumJanenge@googlegroups.com>
>> >> Date: Monday, 29 October, 2012, 7:30 PM
>> >> Hi Vikram
>> >>
>> >> I dont have the wording of the Karnataka RTI Rule
>> before me.
>> >> Was it
>> >> 150 words ?
>> >> Under new Central DoPT Rules, address of applicant
>> and PIO
>> >> is counted
>> >> in 500 words.
>> >>
>> >> Sarbajit
>> >>
>> >> On Oct 29, 6:25 pm, Vikram Simha <vikramsimh...@yahoo.co.in>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > Elaborate Point no 2 . In oyr state we have
>> Argued
>> >> before KIC that Address do not Form part ihe Body
>> Seeking
>> >> Information
>> >> > N vikramsimha , KRIA Katte , #12 Sumeru Sir M
>> N Krishna
>> >> Rao Road , Basvangudi < Bangalore 560004.
>> >> >
>> >> > --- On Mon, 29/10/12, Sarbajit Roy <sroy...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > > From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy...@gmail.com>
>> >> > > Subject: [HumJanenge] Re: New 500 words
>> Rule
>> >> > > To: "humjanenge" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>,
>> >> tnkeea...@yahoo.co.in
>> >> > > Date: Monday, 29 October, 2012, 5:48 AM
>> >> > > Dear Krish
>> >> >
>> >> > > 1) The RTI application cannot be
>> "rejected" ONLY
>> >> on the
>> >> > > ground that it
>> >> > > contains more than 500 words. So the
>> answer to
>> >> your question
>> >> > > is YES, a
>> >> > > CPIO can reject it along with another
>> reason IF
>> >> (and only
>> >> > > if) that
>> >> > > other reason is a valid reason for
>> rejection (like
>> >> new Rule
>> >> > > 9,
>> >> > > insufficient / excess fee etc).
>> >> >
>> >> > > 2) The answer to your question is YES. An
>> RTI
>> >> application
>> >> > > must
>> >> > > ORDINARILY be within 500 words (which
>> INCLUDES the
>> >> name and
>> >> > > address of
>> >> > > CPIO and applicant). So for a RTI
>> containing 1375
>> >> words the
>> >> > > PIO can
>> >> > > demand Rs 30 as application fee by
>> treating it as
>> >> 3
>> >> > > applications. Note
>> >> > > that he is not "rejecting it"
>> >> >
>> >> > > 3) The FAA ought not to reject it. OTH
>> the CIC can
>> >> do
>> >> > > anything
>> >> > > (including reject it if they feel the
>> application
>> >> was
>> >> > > frivolous,
>> >> > > vexatious, etc etc)
>> >> >
>> >> > > Sarbajit
>> >> >
>> >> > > On 10/28/12, TNK <tnkeea...@yahoo.co.in>
>> >> > > wrote:
>> >> > > > The recent rule dated 31st July
>> 2012
>> >> restrict
>> >> > > applications with 500 words.
>> >> >
>> >> > > > In the same rule says that no
>> application to
>> >> be
>> >> > > rejected only on the ground
>> >> > > > that it exceeds 500 words.
>> >> >
>> >> > > > My doubts:-
>> >> >
>> >> > > > 1. Can PIO rejects the application
>> with some
>> >> other
>> >> > > reason along with the
>> >> > > > reason of "more than 500 words"?
>> >> >
>> >> > > > 2. Theses restriction included in
>> the heading
>> >> of
>> >> > > Application fee. Can PIO
>> >> > > > demand more fee as the application
>> is more
>> >> than 500
>> >> > > words.
>> >> >
>> >> > > > 3. Application not to be rejected by
>> PIO on
>> >> this 500
>> >> > > words ground. Thus FAA
>> >> > > > or CIC can reject on this ground?
>> >> >
>> >> > > > Andaman Krish
>> >>
>> >
>>
>