Hi Anurag, Your query seems to be "Is the practice of appointment of APIOs and PIOs under the same roof a deliberate attempt by P/A to gain 5 days extra?"
Actually, (and this is where I differ with many other RTI "experts") I opine: 1) There should be many more APIOs than PIOs. The P/A is required to have APIOs at every sub-divisional / sub-district level These APIOs are only to act as Post Office for receiving and conveying the RTI requests to the CONCERNED PIO. This is the most CRITICAL step in the RTI process - because in a P/A with multiple PIOs SOMEBODY must be accountable to ensure that the RTI request is processed properly WITHIN the P/A. If there are 5 days extra allowed - these 5 days are WELL SPENT if the APIO forwards it to the right PIO(s) dealing with the subject (ie. the APIO discharges his duties properly). If there is any problem with the application fee or IPO then the APIO should be doing "the needful" and not the PIO. 2) As per me, PIOs should not be receiving RTIs. PIO should be giving information or applying their minds to exemptions (ie "dealing with" RTI requests). 3) If the APIO /PIO is within the same premises (in many cases they share a common wall) then it is silly to add 5 days extra. However, the CIC has been allowing 5 days extra in such cases also. (I recall some matter of Gita Verma's on his point) Unfortunately the APIOs /PIOs are not working this way. There is some vague drafting on the RTI Act in section 5(1) / 5(2). RTI'ers who follow our Responsible RTI Code will not face such problems - because they would have checked out the P/A's website in advance and framed / filed their requests accordingly.. Sarbajit --- In [email protected], anurag prasad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi. > > > Most of the goverment of india and state goverments hosting a lot of infomration under RTI. I have browsed all most 90% of them. It is observed, that majority of the public authorities have AA, PIO and APIO. It is also observed that most of the APIOs and PIOs are under the same roof. Is it clear violation of the act???????. Or is it deliberate attempt of the public authorities to gain time of another five days???????? or the drafting of the circulars by DOPT is in poor shape?????????. Can any throw light on these . > > > > --------------------------------- > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
