At times C/PIO does not release information, even when first appellate authority decides and orders supply of information. Applicant should file second appeal/complaint to CIC/SIC. Additionally Applicant can invoke Consumer Protection Act 1986 and also section 80 of CPC. These are time consuming recourse. I suggest that a letter as per following draft should be tried first. Threat of departmental action against C/PIO may sensitize him for supply of information.
============================================================
From:
Address:
Cell No.
Date: ________ By regd ad post and email
To, [mention name if know to you]
____________ [Designation] &
First Appellate Authority under RTI Act
Name of public authority ____________
Address: _____________________
Email ID [if any]
Dear Sir,
Subject: First Appeal dated _______--Non compliance by C/PIO
I thank you for your decision No. ________ dated ______[copy enclosed] on my captioned appeal relating to my RTI application dated _______, ordering release of information by C/PIO.
2. I regret to inform you that concerned C/PIO [mention name if you know it] has not yet complied with your orders and continue to evade supply of information. This act of omission and commission by C/PIO amounts to gross misconduct under service rules of your organization, in addition to transgression of duties enjoined on CPIO under RTI Act 2005. It also violates my rights as consumer under The Consumer Protection Act 1986.
3. I therefore humbly request you to kindly:
a. Use your authority to ensure that your lawful and reasonable orders are sincerely and faithfully obeyed by C/PIO.
b. Initiate or recommend departmental / disciplinary action against C/PIO for flouting your orders as senior officer to C/PIO.
c. Ensure that requested information is supplied by C/PIO immediately.
4. I am sure C/PIO and you will not compel me to invoke The Consumer Protection Act 1986. I may add that I am a consumer under this act as decided by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi on 28-05-2009 in Revision Petition Nr. 1975 OF 2005. Dist. Consumer Fora at Nagpur, Vijaynagaram and Coimbatore have ordered release of information and compensation to RTI applicants under said act. Guntur A.P. Dist Consumer Forum ordered release of information and granted compensation and expenses on 07-01-2011 and when PIO and FAA did not comply with its orders Forum issued warrants to arrest two senior officers of State Govt. [one of director rank].
Yours faithfully,
_________________
Encl: 1
Copies to:
1. CPIO,
2. Head of public authority– for necessary administrative action please.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Monday, April 25, 2011
Lokpal Bill-Suggestion
Suggestion for Jan Lokpal Bill Date: 25-04-2011
Existing rule that anonymous complaints should not be entertained by CVC/SVC/Lokayukta/other govt. offices is one of the biggest facilitator of corruption and misdeeds in govt. offices. This clause guarantees safety to wrong doers, at the cost of life of whistle blowers who state their true name and address in complaints. It would be interesting to find out how name and address of complainant will make any difference to gravity and veracity of contents of complaint. There is no justification on the part of govt. to risk life of whistle blowers by knowing their names and addresses. Govt. should be more concerned about contents of complaint.
If anonymous complaints are also being looked into by Govt., it will act as a deterrent to corrupt officers/politicians and other wrong doers, to some extent. Public has wealth of information which can be developed to contain corruption. Common man has first hand experience of corruption in govt. offices. However they do not want to share at the cost of harassment or life from politicians and high ranking officers of govt.
If there is some substance indicative of corruption or wrong doings, a full fledged investigation may be ordered. Normally citizens will try to anonymously supply more proofs to substantiate complaint. He would be tracking progress of investigation through his channels in office. Resources which will be used for ensuring safety of whistle blowers, can be better utilized for preliminary enquiries of anonymous complaints. This system will encourage more whistle blowers to ‘shout’ silently, for containing corruption and wrongs in governance. He will himself guarantee his safety through anonymity of his identity, while helping the country in exposing misdeeds of govt. offices.
I therefore suggest that proposed bill should provide for inquiry of anonymous complaints by Lokpal, provided reasonable information is available in the complaint pointing towards corruption.
Existing rule that anonymous complaints should not be entertained by CVC/SVC/Lokayukta/other govt. offices is one of the biggest facilitator of corruption and misdeeds in govt. offices. This clause guarantees safety to wrong doers, at the cost of life of whistle blowers who state their true name and address in complaints. It would be interesting to find out how name and address of complainant will make any difference to gravity and veracity of contents of complaint. There is no justification on the part of govt. to risk life of whistle blowers by knowing their names and addresses. Govt. should be more concerned about contents of complaint.
If anonymous complaints are also being looked into by Govt., it will act as a deterrent to corrupt officers/politicians and other wrong doers, to some extent. Public has wealth of information which can be developed to contain corruption. Common man has first hand experience of corruption in govt. offices. However they do not want to share at the cost of harassment or life from politicians and high ranking officers of govt.
If there is some substance indicative of corruption or wrong doings, a full fledged investigation may be ordered. Normally citizens will try to anonymously supply more proofs to substantiate complaint. He would be tracking progress of investigation through his channels in office. Resources which will be used for ensuring safety of whistle blowers, can be better utilized for preliminary enquiries of anonymous complaints. This system will encourage more whistle blowers to ‘shout’ silently, for containing corruption and wrongs in governance. He will himself guarantee his safety through anonymity of his identity, while helping the country in exposing misdeeds of govt. offices.
I therefore suggest that proposed bill should provide for inquiry of anonymous complaints by Lokpal, provided reasonable information is available in the complaint pointing towards corruption.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Details of Recruitment through RTI Act 2005
Of late, large number of youths are facing problem of accessing marks, answer sheets and details of recruitment etc from Govt. Depts/organizations/undertakings. I append below RTI application and guidelines for accessing all relevant information of recruitment through RTI Act 2005.
These guidelines and format are for recruitments by all departments, undertakings and organizations of Central Govt. [including Delhi Govt. and Union Territories]
In case of recruitment by State Govt. departments, state undertakings or organizations, you will have to follow RTI Rules of concerned State for format and fee payment. These details are available at www.rti.gov.in or http://www.rtiindia.org/guide/centrestate-rti-rules-and-fees-3/. You may retain “Particulars of information required” as stated in this RTI application format as stated at column No. 3, in application for State Govt. recruitment. In case of State Govt. please address application to “State Public Information Officer” instead of “Central Public Information Officer”[CPIO].
In case if any State Govt. has not prescribed format for RTI application, you may use annexed format meant for Central Govt. with changes as above. In this case also follow fee payment rules as stated in RTI rules of that State and accordingly amend column No. 4. If stamps are affixed as prescribed in State rules, amend column as “ I have affixed on top of this application relevant stamp for Rs. ___”
You may also visit: http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/blogs/jps50/331-how-apply-if-format-not-prescribed-state-rti-rules.html
Details of payment of RTI application filing fee of few states are as under:
Gujarat: Rs.20 by affixing court fee stamps or non-judicial stamp paper [including franking at selected banks].
Maharashtra, West Bengal : Rs. 10 by affixing court fee stamp.
Karnataka, Kerala : Rs.10/- by postal order in favour of “State Public Information Officer” payable at the place where application is being sent.
Tamil Nadu: Rs.10/- by non-judicial court fee stamp.
Rajasthan & U. P.: Rs.10/- by postal order [refer-point no. 3 of short guidelines.
Short guidelines:
1. Locate exact CPIO and his address of concerned Govt. office by visiting website of relevant ministry/dept/undertaking etc [called Public Authority i.e. PA] or by visiting/contacting on phone local office of PA.
2. If you cannot get it as above, address application to CPIO of Head Office/ministry to whom the information may pertain. He will mail to correct CPIO within five days of receipt of your application.
3. Attach crossed postal order of Rs.10/-. It is available in post offices. Mention your name and address in it and leave other items blank
4. Attach self-attested photocopies of hall ticket for written test and call letter for interview [if you attended interview].
5. Retain photocopy of entire set including postal order etc.
6. Mail by speed/regd. AD post. Avoid courier/hand delivery.
7. Carefully retain postal proof of mailing, AD and official acknowledgement if any received.
8. If you do not receive reply within 40 days of mailing by you, file first appeal. You have 30 days time from the date when information should have reached you, for first appeal. For first appeal please refer RTI link of
http://www.rtiindia.org/guide/how-to-use-your-right-to-information-4/how-to-write-first-appeal-under-rti-2/
9. If you receive reply and are not satisfied with it, then within 30 days of receipt of reply by you, you should file first appeal as above.
10. It is advisable to consult local RTI NGO/activists for first and second appeals for better results. Consultation is normally free as a social service.
All the best.
Format for RTI Application for Central Govt Recruitment:
THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005
APPLICATION FOR OBTAINING INFORMATION __________________________________________________________
Date: _______ By Regd Ad post
To,
Central Public Information Officer
Name of recruiting dept/organization________________
Address: _____________
_______________________
1. Name of the Applicant: ____________
2. Full Address: _____________
Mobile No: ___________________
3. Particulars of information required:
I had appeared in written test for recruitment for the post of ______ conducted in the month of _______, as per enclosed photocopy of hall ticket dated __________ . My roll No. was ________.
And/Or
I appeared for interview at ________ place on _______ as per enclosed copy of call letter dated _________@
In this connection please provide me following papers and information:
3.1 Paper-wise marks obtained by me in written test.
3.2 Certified copies of evaluated answer sheets.
3.3 Cut of marks in written test up to which candidates were called for interview.
3.4 Details of marks obtained in interview by me.@
3.5 Cut off total marks [written test + interview] obtained by the last candidate who is declared successful.@
3.6 Certified copy of merit list prepared for appointment.
3.7 Serial number in merit list up to which candidates have been actually appointed.
3.8 Number of candidates who have joined as on date of this application.
3.9 Certified extract from service rules which provide for action and punishment to your employees for defying rules and laws enacted by Parliament/State assembly.
[@delete if not called for interview ]
4. Payment of filing fee:
Postal Order No. _____________for Rs.10/- is enclosed. Since I could not locate exact name of payee etc I am enclosing blank postal order with a request to fill in the details u/s 5.3 of RTI Act 2005.
5. Please rush the information to me by speed/registered post. I am an Indian citizen. Please reply in English.
6. Please refer relevant decisions No. CIC/SM/A/2009/001877AT dated 18-11-2010 [against SBI], No. CIC/SM/A/2009/001342 dated 30-06-2010, CIC/SM/A/2010/000903 dated 08-04-2011 and No. CIC/AD/C/2010/001216 dated 27-01-2011 of Central Information Commission New Delhi. Please also refer judgement dated 30-08-2010 of Hon’ble HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM in WP(C).No. 6532 of 2006(C).
Signature of Applicant: _____________
Encl: a/a
These guidelines and format are for recruitments by all departments, undertakings and organizations of Central Govt. [including Delhi Govt. and Union Territories]
In case of recruitment by State Govt. departments, state undertakings or organizations, you will have to follow RTI Rules of concerned State for format and fee payment. These details are available at www.rti.gov.in or http://www.rtiindia.org/guide/centrestate-rti-rules-and-fees-3/. You may retain “Particulars of information required” as stated in this RTI application format as stated at column No. 3, in application for State Govt. recruitment. In case of State Govt. please address application to “State Public Information Officer” instead of “Central Public Information Officer”[CPIO].
In case if any State Govt. has not prescribed format for RTI application, you may use annexed format meant for Central Govt. with changes as above. In this case also follow fee payment rules as stated in RTI rules of that State and accordingly amend column No. 4. If stamps are affixed as prescribed in State rules, amend column as “ I have affixed on top of this application relevant stamp for Rs. ___”
You may also visit: http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/blogs/jps50/331-how-apply-if-format-not-prescribed-state-rti-rules.html
Details of payment of RTI application filing fee of few states are as under:
Gujarat: Rs.20 by affixing court fee stamps or non-judicial stamp paper [including franking at selected banks].
Maharashtra, West Bengal : Rs. 10 by affixing court fee stamp.
Karnataka, Kerala : Rs.10/- by postal order in favour of “State Public Information Officer” payable at the place where application is being sent.
Tamil Nadu: Rs.10/- by non-judicial court fee stamp.
Rajasthan & U. P.: Rs.10/- by postal order [refer-point no. 3 of short guidelines.
Short guidelines:
1. Locate exact CPIO and his address of concerned Govt. office by visiting website of relevant ministry/dept/undertaking etc [called Public Authority i.e. PA] or by visiting/contacting on phone local office of PA.
2. If you cannot get it as above, address application to CPIO of Head Office/ministry to whom the information may pertain. He will mail to correct CPIO within five days of receipt of your application.
3. Attach crossed postal order of Rs.10/-. It is available in post offices. Mention your name and address in it and leave other items blank
4. Attach self-attested photocopies of hall ticket for written test and call letter for interview [if you attended interview].
5. Retain photocopy of entire set including postal order etc.
6. Mail by speed/regd. AD post. Avoid courier/hand delivery.
7. Carefully retain postal proof of mailing, AD and official acknowledgement if any received.
8. If you do not receive reply within 40 days of mailing by you, file first appeal. You have 30 days time from the date when information should have reached you, for first appeal. For first appeal please refer RTI link of
http://www.rtiindia.org/guide/how-to-use-your-right-to-information-4/how-to-write-first-appeal-under-rti-2/
9. If you receive reply and are not satisfied with it, then within 30 days of receipt of reply by you, you should file first appeal as above.
10. It is advisable to consult local RTI NGO/activists for first and second appeals for better results. Consultation is normally free as a social service.
All the best.
Format for RTI Application for Central Govt Recruitment:
THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005
APPLICATION FOR OBTAINING INFORMATION __________________________________________________________
Date: _______ By Regd Ad post
To,
Central Public Information Officer
Name of recruiting dept/organization________________
Address: _____________
_______________________
1. Name of the Applicant: ____________
2. Full Address: _____________
Mobile No: ___________________
3. Particulars of information required:
I had appeared in written test for recruitment for the post of ______ conducted in the month of _______, as per enclosed photocopy of hall ticket dated __________ . My roll No. was ________.
And/Or
I appeared for interview at ________ place on _______ as per enclosed copy of call letter dated _________@
In this connection please provide me following papers and information:
3.1 Paper-wise marks obtained by me in written test.
3.2 Certified copies of evaluated answer sheets.
3.3 Cut of marks in written test up to which candidates were called for interview.
3.4 Details of marks obtained in interview by me.@
3.5 Cut off total marks [written test + interview] obtained by the last candidate who is declared successful.@
3.6 Certified copy of merit list prepared for appointment.
3.7 Serial number in merit list up to which candidates have been actually appointed.
3.8 Number of candidates who have joined as on date of this application.
3.9 Certified extract from service rules which provide for action and punishment to your employees for defying rules and laws enacted by Parliament/State assembly.
[@delete if not called for interview ]
4. Payment of filing fee:
Postal Order No. _____________for Rs.10/- is enclosed. Since I could not locate exact name of payee etc I am enclosing blank postal order with a request to fill in the details u/s 5.3 of RTI Act 2005.
5. Please rush the information to me by speed/registered post. I am an Indian citizen. Please reply in English.
6. Please refer relevant decisions No. CIC/SM/A/2009/001877AT dated 18-11-2010 [against SBI], No. CIC/SM/A/2009/001342 dated 30-06-2010, CIC/SM/A/2010/000903 dated 08-04-2011 and No. CIC/AD/C/2010/001216 dated 27-01-2011 of Central Information Commission New Delhi. Please also refer judgement dated 30-08-2010 of Hon’ble HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM in WP(C).No. 6532 of 2006(C).
Signature of Applicant: _____________
Encl: a/a
Thursday, December 16, 2010
SUGGESTIONS ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CENTRAL RTI RULES
Date: 15-12-2010 by email
To,
Shri R.K. Girdhar
Under Secretary [RTI]
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions
Department of Personnel Training
Government of India
North Block, New Delhi-110001
Email ID usrti-dopt@nic.in
Dear Sir,
Subject: Amendment to Central Govt. RTI Rules.
This bears reference to OM Nr. 113512008-IR dated 10-12-2010. I thank you for inviting suggestion from stake holders on proposed amendment to Central Govt. RTI Rules.
It appears to me that Central Govt. is trying to puncture RTI Act through procedural hurdles and complications in RTI rules, as some state govts have done by clandestinely weakening SICs. While I object to proposed changes, I humbly append below my suggestions for kind consideration, if at all Govt. is bent upon to amend the rules:
01. Ceiling of 250 words should be limited to “Particulars of Information required” part of application [as provided in Karnataka RTI Rules as amended on 17-03-2008 for 150 words], because applicant is at times required to mention back ground or references so that it is easy for CPIO to locate information. In addition applicant has to mention date, details of payment of application fee and enclosures etc. He has to declare citizenship and also mode of mailing information to him by CPIO. He has also to mention that this application is under RTI Act 2005.
02. It is also suggested that if limit of 250 words exceeds, CPIO should reply queries up to first 250 words rather than rejecting application for this reason.
03. I suggest that if application seeks information on more than one subject, CPIO should reply for first subject mentioned instead of rejecting application for multi-subjects. There could be dispute about whether subject matter is one or more between CPIO and applicant.
04. Gujarat Govt. has provided for payment of application fee by revenue stamps [in addition to court fee stamps, non-judicial stamps, IPO etc] vide its notification dated 22-03-2010. I suggest that revenue stamps should be made one of the modes for payment of application fee in central rules. This will solve problem of name of payee of DD or IPO etc also.
05. You have suggested format for first appeal in rule 7. However it should also be provided that “for the purpose of removing any doubt it is hereby clarified that the 'forms', as prescribed under these rules, need not be in authorized pre-printed stationery, but any format neatly typed, handwritten or in electronic form which covers essential details described in the form shall be valid.” as stated in aforesaid Gujarat RTI rules of 22-03-2010.
06. Rule 5f [postal charges] should be deleted, since it will create large number of operational problems for public authorities and RTI users and will prove expensive for both as even for petty amount, CPIO will require payment. A speed post or registered envelope requires minimum Rs.25/- and hence if reply is required by speed or registered post, for each application, applicant will be required to pay Rs.15/- for which he will incur Rs.25/- on postage plus bank charges. In addition CPIO will expend Rs.25/- to intimate additional postal charges. This will amount to penny wise, pound foolish. It will also delay supply of information.
07. Rule 5g [Machine Hiring Charges] should be deleted, as this rule will also open Pandora box and CPIOs and applicants will be busy in sorting out exact amount, wasting good public money on trivial issues. It is difficult to calculate hiring charges. This can be misused by CPIO to dodge information or over burden applicants. The rule is patently absurd and anti-citizen aimed at complicating the matter.
08. There is need to fix time limit on CIC to decide appeals and complaints. It could be ideally 90 or 120 days. Delay beyond this period should entitle appellant compensation of Rs.50/- per day. This will be a step towards concept of Govt. Service Guarantee Act as introduced by Delhi and M.P States and is being actively considered by Bihar Govt.
09. In rule 8 and 10 self attested copies of documents should be prescribed instead of ‘duly authenticated and verified’. FAA and CIC can always get authenticated copies from CPIO during hearing.
10. Rule 5 [a] it should be A-4 size instead of A-3. Normally A-4 size is used.
11. A limit of 50 free pages for BPL applicants should be prescribed under rule 5. More than 50 pages should attract normal charges prescribed in rule 5. There are reports that provision of free supply of information to BPL applicants is being misused.
12. Money order in favour of CPIO should be approved as mode of payment for other charges and application fee under rule 6, since demand drafts for exact amount of other charges are costly. At times IPOs are not available for exact amount of charges.
13. Words ‘Central Public Information Officer’ should be included in rule 6 [a], otherwise CPIO may not accept cash. All public authorities do not have ACPIO in all their offices.
14. ‘Banker’s Cheque’ word in rule 6[b] is causing confusion and applicants are sending their own cheques drawn on banks. It should be replaced with “ pay order, local cheque issued by banks”
15. It should be made mandatory for first appellate authority to inform to appellant along with his decision, reasons for delaying decision by extra 15 days beyond 30 days, which he is presently required to record in writing as per section 19.6 of RTI Act.
16. In rules 14 [1] period should be 15 days, as 7 days are too short to prepare and travel.
17. It should be also provided that CPIO may waive application fee in his discretion, since recovery of application fee of Rs.10/- will require more than Rs.100/- by way of postal charges, man hours and cost of stationery. DoPT has reportedly advised recently on this score to all public authorities.
18. It should also be provided in rule 5 that fees for providing information [other charges] exceeding Rs.50/- should only be recovered from applicant. Usually Govt. expends Rs.100/- by way of postal charges, man hours and stationery for obtaining petty amount of say Rs.10 or Rs.20 or Rs.50. In addition applicant incurs another Rs.50/- for paying small amount towards postal charges, bank commission, visits to post office and banks etc. This process also causes delay in supply of information. This is more than justified when Govt. is wasting huge sums of good public money in scams, frauds, committees, and huge avoidable wasteful expenses. Let Govt. waive petty amount for benefit of common men and his fundamental rights Govt. will in turn save double the amount used for recovery of small charges. Some banks and few Gujarat offices follow this practice of not insisting for petty amount for supply of information.
19. Audio/video recording of proceedings at FAA and CIC should be permitted at appellant’s cost and request.
20. To avoid filing of writs in High Court against decisions of CIC and to avoid congestion in courts as per National Litigation Policy of Govt. of India, there should be provision of review of decisions of single Information Commissioner by larger or full bench of CIC.
I quote: The State is not only under an obligation to respect rights of the citizen, but is equally under an obligation to ensure conditions under which rights can be meaningfully and effectively enjoyed by one and all.
Yours faithfully,
J. P. Shah
To,
Shri R.K. Girdhar
Under Secretary [RTI]
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions
Department of Personnel Training
Government of India
North Block, New Delhi-110001
Email ID usrti-dopt@nic.in
Dear Sir,
Subject: Amendment to Central Govt. RTI Rules.
This bears reference to OM Nr. 113512008-IR dated 10-12-2010. I thank you for inviting suggestion from stake holders on proposed amendment to Central Govt. RTI Rules.
It appears to me that Central Govt. is trying to puncture RTI Act through procedural hurdles and complications in RTI rules, as some state govts have done by clandestinely weakening SICs. While I object to proposed changes, I humbly append below my suggestions for kind consideration, if at all Govt. is bent upon to amend the rules:
01. Ceiling of 250 words should be limited to “Particulars of Information required” part of application [as provided in Karnataka RTI Rules as amended on 17-03-2008 for 150 words], because applicant is at times required to mention back ground or references so that it is easy for CPIO to locate information. In addition applicant has to mention date, details of payment of application fee and enclosures etc. He has to declare citizenship and also mode of mailing information to him by CPIO. He has also to mention that this application is under RTI Act 2005.
02. It is also suggested that if limit of 250 words exceeds, CPIO should reply queries up to first 250 words rather than rejecting application for this reason.
03. I suggest that if application seeks information on more than one subject, CPIO should reply for first subject mentioned instead of rejecting application for multi-subjects. There could be dispute about whether subject matter is one or more between CPIO and applicant.
04. Gujarat Govt. has provided for payment of application fee by revenue stamps [in addition to court fee stamps, non-judicial stamps, IPO etc] vide its notification dated 22-03-2010. I suggest that revenue stamps should be made one of the modes for payment of application fee in central rules. This will solve problem of name of payee of DD or IPO etc also.
05. You have suggested format for first appeal in rule 7. However it should also be provided that “for the purpose of removing any doubt it is hereby clarified that the 'forms', as prescribed under these rules, need not be in authorized pre-printed stationery, but any format neatly typed, handwritten or in electronic form which covers essential details described in the form shall be valid.” as stated in aforesaid Gujarat RTI rules of 22-03-2010.
06. Rule 5f [postal charges] should be deleted, since it will create large number of operational problems for public authorities and RTI users and will prove expensive for both as even for petty amount, CPIO will require payment. A speed post or registered envelope requires minimum Rs.25/- and hence if reply is required by speed or registered post, for each application, applicant will be required to pay Rs.15/- for which he will incur Rs.25/- on postage plus bank charges. In addition CPIO will expend Rs.25/- to intimate additional postal charges. This will amount to penny wise, pound foolish. It will also delay supply of information.
07. Rule 5g [Machine Hiring Charges] should be deleted, as this rule will also open Pandora box and CPIOs and applicants will be busy in sorting out exact amount, wasting good public money on trivial issues. It is difficult to calculate hiring charges. This can be misused by CPIO to dodge information or over burden applicants. The rule is patently absurd and anti-citizen aimed at complicating the matter.
08. There is need to fix time limit on CIC to decide appeals and complaints. It could be ideally 90 or 120 days. Delay beyond this period should entitle appellant compensation of Rs.50/- per day. This will be a step towards concept of Govt. Service Guarantee Act as introduced by Delhi and M.P States and is being actively considered by Bihar Govt.
09. In rule 8 and 10 self attested copies of documents should be prescribed instead of ‘duly authenticated and verified’. FAA and CIC can always get authenticated copies from CPIO during hearing.
10. Rule 5 [a] it should be A-4 size instead of A-3. Normally A-4 size is used.
11. A limit of 50 free pages for BPL applicants should be prescribed under rule 5. More than 50 pages should attract normal charges prescribed in rule 5. There are reports that provision of free supply of information to BPL applicants is being misused.
12. Money order in favour of CPIO should be approved as mode of payment for other charges and application fee under rule 6, since demand drafts for exact amount of other charges are costly. At times IPOs are not available for exact amount of charges.
13. Words ‘Central Public Information Officer’ should be included in rule 6 [a], otherwise CPIO may not accept cash. All public authorities do not have ACPIO in all their offices.
14. ‘Banker’s Cheque’ word in rule 6[b] is causing confusion and applicants are sending their own cheques drawn on banks. It should be replaced with “ pay order, local cheque issued by banks”
15. It should be made mandatory for first appellate authority to inform to appellant along with his decision, reasons for delaying decision by extra 15 days beyond 30 days, which he is presently required to record in writing as per section 19.6 of RTI Act.
16. In rules 14 [1] period should be 15 days, as 7 days are too short to prepare and travel.
17. It should be also provided that CPIO may waive application fee in his discretion, since recovery of application fee of Rs.10/- will require more than Rs.100/- by way of postal charges, man hours and cost of stationery. DoPT has reportedly advised recently on this score to all public authorities.
18. It should also be provided in rule 5 that fees for providing information [other charges] exceeding Rs.50/- should only be recovered from applicant. Usually Govt. expends Rs.100/- by way of postal charges, man hours and stationery for obtaining petty amount of say Rs.10 or Rs.20 or Rs.50. In addition applicant incurs another Rs.50/- for paying small amount towards postal charges, bank commission, visits to post office and banks etc. This process also causes delay in supply of information. This is more than justified when Govt. is wasting huge sums of good public money in scams, frauds, committees, and huge avoidable wasteful expenses. Let Govt. waive petty amount for benefit of common men and his fundamental rights Govt. will in turn save double the amount used for recovery of small charges. Some banks and few Gujarat offices follow this practice of not insisting for petty amount for supply of information.
19. Audio/video recording of proceedings at FAA and CIC should be permitted at appellant’s cost and request.
20. To avoid filing of writs in High Court against decisions of CIC and to avoid congestion in courts as per National Litigation Policy of Govt. of India, there should be provision of review of decisions of single Information Commissioner by larger or full bench of CIC.
I quote: The State is not only under an obligation to respect rights of the citizen, but is equally under an obligation to ensure conditions under which rights can be meaningfully and effectively enjoyed by one and all.
Yours faithfully,
J. P. Shah
Friday, December 10, 2010
JUDGEMENTS & DECISIONS WHICH HAVE PERMITTED DISCLOSURE OF EVALUATED ANSWER SHEETS UNDER RTI.
JUDGEMENTS & DECISIONS WHICH HAVE PERMITTED DISCLOSURE OF EVALUATED ANSWER SHEETS UNDER RTI.
i]. University Exams: 49 page judgement dated 05-02-2009 of divisional bench of Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta headed by Chief Justice in M.A.T. No. 275 of 2008-University of Calcutta & ors. Vs Pritam Rooj. This is judgement of divisional bench of a High Court headed by Chief Justice and is available on website of High Court of Calcutta.
ii]Departmental Promotion Exams: High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in WP(C).No. 6532 of 2006(C) Treesa Irish Vs CPIO Dept of Post, Govt. of India and others dated 30-08-2010 [27 pages]
...
iii] Public Service Com Exam: In CWJC NO. 160665 of 2008 (Bihar Public Service Commission Vs. State Information Commission and others) decided on 11.12.2008, the High Court of Judicature at Patna upheld the order passed by the State Information Commission directing supply of photocopy of the answer books of two papers to the information seeker, of an examination conducted by Bihar Public Service Commission. The Hon’ble High Court directed that, “…..the BPSC shall supply a certified copy of the answer books demanded by the petitioner, as undertaken by the learned Advocate General on its behalf, within a period of three weeks from today.”
iv] Professional Exams: High Court of Delhi on 30.04.2009 in W.P.(C) 8529/2009 Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, v/s. Central Information Commission, New Delhi.
v] Departmental Exams: WP (C) No.30963 of 2006 (J), (V.B.Santosh vs. CPIO o/o the Post Master General, Kerala Circle) of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala vide order dated 29.2.2008.
vi] University Exams: W.P.(MD)NO.4815 of 2008 of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court on 13/09/2010 - R.Ramasamy v/s 1.The Secretary, Ministry of Higher Education, Chennai, 2.The Registrar, T.N. Dr. Ambedkar Law University, Chennai and others.
vii] All types of answer sheets: STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB, Chandigadh .dated 27-05-2010 CC No. 3033 of 2009:Sh. Surinder Kumar Vs Public Information Officer, O/o Commissioner, Excise & Taxation Punjab, [IMPORTANT].
Note: High Court of Gujarat in its judgement dated 29-06-2009 in SCA No. 5178 of 2008 has decided that answer sheets are not records as per RTI Act. This is available at
http://gujarathc-casestatus.nic.in/gujarathc/showoj.jsp?side=C&casetype=SCA&caseno=5178&caseyr=2008&orddate=29/06/2009&ordno=3&incrno=3&findcatg=ordnSearch&h=asda#238#901dsdsa
Please also visit:
HOW TO ACCESS EVALUATED ANSWER SHEETS:
http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/blogs/jps50/481-how-access-exam-answer-sheets.html
_______________________________________________________
Compiled by J P Shah, Junagadh Cell 9924106490
i]. University Exams: 49 page judgement dated 05-02-2009 of divisional bench of Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta headed by Chief Justice in M.A.T. No. 275 of 2008-University of Calcutta & ors. Vs Pritam Rooj. This is judgement of divisional bench of a High Court headed by Chief Justice and is available on website of High Court of Calcutta.
ii]Departmental Promotion Exams: High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in WP(C).No. 6532 of 2006(C) Treesa Irish Vs CPIO Dept of Post, Govt. of India and others dated 30-08-2010 [27 pages]
...
iii] Public Service Com Exam: In CWJC NO. 160665 of 2008 (Bihar Public Service Commission Vs. State Information Commission and others) decided on 11.12.2008, the High Court of Judicature at Patna upheld the order passed by the State Information Commission directing supply of photocopy of the answer books of two papers to the information seeker, of an examination conducted by Bihar Public Service Commission. The Hon’ble High Court directed that, “…..the BPSC shall supply a certified copy of the answer books demanded by the petitioner, as undertaken by the learned Advocate General on its behalf, within a period of three weeks from today.”
iv] Professional Exams: High Court of Delhi on 30.04.2009 in W.P.(C) 8529/2009 Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, v/s. Central Information Commission, New Delhi.
v] Departmental Exams: WP (C) No.30963 of 2006 (J), (V.B.Santosh vs. CPIO o/o the Post Master General, Kerala Circle) of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala vide order dated 29.2.2008.
vi] University Exams: W.P.(MD)NO.4815 of 2008 of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court on 13/09/2010 - R.Ramasamy v/s 1.The Secretary, Ministry of Higher Education, Chennai, 2.The Registrar, T.N. Dr. Ambedkar Law University, Chennai and others.
vii] All types of answer sheets: STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB, Chandigadh .dated 27-05-2010 CC No. 3033 of 2009:Sh. Surinder Kumar Vs Public Information Officer, O/o Commissioner, Excise & Taxation Punjab, [IMPORTANT].
Note: High Court of Gujarat in its judgement dated 29-06-2009 in SCA No. 5178 of 2008 has decided that answer sheets are not records as per RTI Act. This is available at
http://gujarathc-casestatus.nic.in/gujarathc/showoj.jsp?side=C&casetype=SCA&caseno=5178&caseyr=2008&orddate=29/06/2009&ordno=3&incrno=3&findcatg=ordnSearch&h=asda#238#901dsdsa
Please also visit:
HOW TO ACCESS EVALUATED ANSWER SHEETS:
http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/blogs/jps50/481-how-access-exam-answer-sheets.html
_______________________________________________________
Compiled by J P Shah, Junagadh Cell 9924106490
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)