Dear Freinds ,
In an very early Case coming up To hearing with Karnataka Information
Commission , The PIO Ms Kathyaini (PRO also) Took a stand that She should have
the Advantage of the 5 days to receive the RTI Application from APIO in the
same building /same campus , as such her reply made after 30days was in order .
Our arguments were that since the APIO & PIO work in one Building/campus the
argument that it takes 5 days to move within the campus is illogical, untenable
and further APIO posts should be in places where PIO is not located and every
PIO should necessarly be Custodian of Documents and not merely an officer who
process or answers replies ( In this case PRO is not the custodian of Town
planning sketches & Plans , Like wise PIO in Law Department of Canara Bank is
not custodian papers deposited as Deposit of title deeds with an intention to
create mortagage (Legally Known as Equitable mortagage)
Hence the reply sent after 30 days is not valid as there is already an Refusal
which has been deemed at the Time of lapse of 30 days , the reply now becomes
infructous as we had made our complaint on the 31st day .
Karnataka Information commission found our arguments in order but ordered
setting up of an RTI Cell exclusively to process RTI pleas under Clause
19(8)(a)(iv)
Hence it is clear violation of the Act
N vikramsimha , KRIA Katte & Trustee RTI Study Centre, #12 Sumeru Sir M N
Krishna Rao Road , Basvangudi < Bangalore 560004
Save all your chat conversations. Find them online at
http://in.messenger.yahoo.com/webmessengerpromo.php
