To me,the cream of the Act is Section 4(1)(d). Often I wonder why we overlook this wonderful provision. Kindly make maximum use of it Many of the normal defences of the PIOs can be beaten by Section 4(1) (d)
--- In [email protected], Manoj Pai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 >
