We at NyayaBhoomi use 4(1)(d) day in and day out (since recently), and have sent a dozen complaints to CIC reporting its violation. In all of them, we have made the heads of public authorities one of the Respondents so that they know personally what is happening.
In addition, we also send notices under section 166 IPC. First complaint in the court will go out this week. Rakesh Agarwal From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of colnrkurup Sent: 03 March 2008 07:56 To: [email protected] Subject: [rti_india] Re:clarity required on APIOs 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] <mailto:rti_india%40yahoogroups.com> , 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 > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
