Its no point trying to counter the PIOs stand, line by
line. A view from the third angle is required here.
Have and open mind, when ever the respondents put up
their defence. After all they are trying to save their
skin.
One has to examine how the APIO was appointed. Was it
by the Public Authority, Under Section 4(1)(b)(xvi) or
by the head of office under section 5(2)?
If the former is true, the APIO can enjoy the grace of
5 days like elaborated by Sarbajit. For the latter,
Section 5(4) & 5(5) will come into play and going by
the CIC's decision where the moderator of the list was
the appellant, I guess, five days benefit cannot be
allowed. I know many in this list would raise the
contents of second para of 5(2) but we have several
CIC decisions stating otherwise.
May I ask what is the main object of the RTI
Applicant. While we file applications to access
information on public interest, we do not focus on the
penalty provision for the APIO/PIOs etc. I generally
give the APIOs at least ten days of doubt and never go
for a complain until and unless the malafide grounds
can be proven or there is gross and deliberate delay
on the part of the PIO.
I dont buy your story on the "custodian" theory you
prayed before the SIC. Though Sarbajit has already
explained, let me inform, if I were the SIC, I would
have turned down your arguments on the grounds that
you were actually referring to the Manual of Office
Procedure and not the RTI Act. This Manual of DoP&T
will not necessarily apply here. Thanks to one of the
earlier decisions by IC(PB).
Yes, maybe the SIC has erred in the interpretation of
19(8)(a)(iv). But then the SIC is still the boss and
empowered to do so under various provision in the act.
Maybe you could have pressed for the lack of
implementation of Section 4(1)(b) by the Public
Authority instead. Especially 4(1)(b)(iv), (v) & (vi).
You would have checkmated the Public Authority by
quoting from their own manuals, just like IC Prof.
Ansari did in the Pyarelal case full bench decision
concering file notings. He used the definations from
the DoP&T's own Manual of Office procedure.
Its over two years since the RTI Act was implemented.
Every time I find more and more RTI Applicants, NGOs,
Activists etc. seem to focus exclusively on Sections 5
to 20. Just why do you folks skip Section 2 & 4. The
real gold mine lies in these two sections. Its barely
three pages long. Print them out in large letters and
read them as many times as possible.
Best wishes
Manoj Pai
Ahmedabad
--- sroy1947 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
>
>
> Sarbajit
>
> 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
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
