Hi Vikram, Some of the arguments are fallacious:
1) The Act specifically provides that 5 days extra is allowed when RTI request is received by the APIO. So technically Ms. Kathayaini is / was correct. If any change is required it is to be made in the RTI Act. 2) I am shocked that your SIC has apparently ordering RTI cells to be formed by virtue of 19(8)(a)(iv). It reads as "(iv) by making necessary changes to its practices in relation to the maintenance, management and destruction of records;" What correlation does this have with RTI cells / PIO practices? None. But perhaps the facts and circumstances of the individual case may have some bearing. 3) It is not required that designated PIO must be custodian of documents OR vice-versa. By virtue of 5(4) r/w 5(5) any PIO can seek any assistance from any "officer" - ie. clerks / peons / drivers etc are excluded. So the PIO of Law department (if he is receiving PIO) is required (and also empowered) to collect the information from his Titles Dept to give to applicant INSTEAD of transferring it u/s 6(3) to the PIO of his Titles Dept. I am increasingly getting the feeling (if what you say is true) that there is complete anarchy at the Karnataka SIC - which is functioning in a high handed fashion. Sarbajit --- In [email protected], Vikram Simha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 >
