The term " MIS-USE OF RTI ACT" newly coined by the CIC and some of the SICs is a hoax. How can anyone misuse it ? According to this new school, asking any information inconvenient to the officials or an information which if provided can disclose corruption threatening the existance of some of the corrupt officials is "Misue". If an appellant press for such information it will defenitly harass. We cannot allow the thiefs and murderers let loos just because punishment will harass them. Cityzens cannot live for the pleasure of corrupt officials. Sri. V V Giry, the IC, SIC Kerala during his powerpoint presentation during CIC's conference has stated that resistance of public authorities to provide information concerning illegal practices is one of the problems faced by them. I just could not understand as to how can this become a problem for SIC. An appellant approaches SIC only when such information is denied by PIO and AA. What stop the SIC or CIC from ordering to give the information ? Why should the SIC/CIC go into the merrit of the case ? Why should they bother the purpose for which the information is asked ? If the information asked fall within the defenition of the term" INFORMATION " held by the PA and does not fall under any of the exemptions given in the Act,and does not dispropotionaltly divert their resources, there is no reason other than corruption or vested interest for denial of such information. I personally feel that we should ask for maximum such information to make the PAs aware that their corruption is liable for disclusure and naturally forced to stop it. We should never allow the CIC/SICs to get away with the hoax of "MISUSE"
--- In [email protected], "Manoj K. Kamra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dear Sarbajit Royji, > > Thanks for raising this issue.On one hand,cic decides without > calling appellants like me whereas others(real misusers)have been > invited again and again. > Take specifically one case in the court room of IC(OK) of Mr.Faqir > chand(Retd.Rly employee).He has been declared misuser during hearing > by Hon'ble IC(OK).After that same matter has been heard two times > without taking notice of his stand to restrain such misusers. > > Remark of faqir chand in the decision-The Commission asked the > Appellant if this was so. He did not deny this saying that he would > continue to ask for information and if in the process,the Department > was harassed, well so, be it.-------12. The Commission has taken a > very serious view of this application. After all, the RTI Act, 2005 > is meant for genuine information seekers to fulfil the objectives > set out in the preamble of the Act and not to settle scores either > with other individuals or with the Department where the Applicant > has worked earlier. The Applicant, on being told this, apologized > and promised that he would not do so in future. > > Despite it,commission considered same fresh second appeals on the > same matter of scooter loan which was disposed in cic.gov.in/CIC- > Orders/Decision_15122006_5.pdf > > cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_28092007_05.pdf > cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_21052007_29.pdf > cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_05032007_25.pdf > > Repeated hearings on same matter can also be one of the reasons for > occupying 85% capacity of commission. > > regards > Manoj K.Kamra > > --- In [email protected], "sroy1947" <sroy1947@> wrote: > > > > It is a matter of grave concern that 85% of recent CIC decisions > (as > > per CIC website) are limited to 2 Ministries - Banks and Railways, > are > > almost exclusively on service matters. > > >
