Dear Sirs,
The Comments and clarifications on APIO are really good and gave chance to
explore further. After going throguh these comments, I have come to a
conclusion that :
1. Under same roof APIOs can exist and period to be treated as 30 days
2. APIOs are only the helping hands for PIO for making records/upkeep of
records/returns for the benefit of PA, PIO, AA and CIC. APIOs are appointed
for mere benefit of these people. Any way for the benefit of public , the
postal department already created a battery of APIOs across the country.
3. PA can have as many PIOs and have only one APIO in the case of all PIOs
exist under one roof.
4. PA can have both PIOs and APIOs at own discreation.
5. PIO is only the legitimate authority under the act to provide information.
AA can only direct to provide inforamtion .
sroy1947 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dear Vikram,
Actually this decision (although it has taken an interesting approach
to 5(2) concerning sub-district/sub-divisional appointments of APIO)
conveniently fails to consider 5(1) and the first phrase of 5(2)
"Without prejudice to 5(1)".
On the other hand the K-SIC's interpretation can be used to force P/As
like RBI and NHAI which have Centralised PIOs to appoint "as many
PIOs" as required at all offices and administrative units. Hopefully
someone else can expand on this better.
Sarbajit
--- In [email protected], Vikram Simha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Dear Freinds ,
> herewith Produced the Exact wordings of Case Quoted by me , I now
Hope the Issue has been Clarified
>
> N vikramsimha , KRIA Katte & Trustee RTI Study Centre, #12 Sumeru
Sir M N Krishna Rao Road , Basvangudi < Bangalore 560004.
>
> --- On Mon, 3/3/08, Anil kumar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The KIC's decision on 17.05.2006 between Sri. C.N. Kumar Vs
Bangalore Development Authority(BDA) is reproduced below regarding
APIO's appointment in the same office for the benefit of HJ members:-
> 2. It is admitted by both parties that response was made to the
complainant after a period of 30 days. Additional period of 5 days is
permossible under section 5(2) only where the application has been
submitted through the APIO. It is learnt BDA, which is a single public
Authority, has appointed 6 APIOs in its central Office. In addition
there are 4 PIOs and 8 APIOs in its other offices outside the central
office.
> 3. The Commission noted that under section 5(2) a public authority
has to appoint APIO only at each sub-divisional level or other
sub-district level. Hence the APIOs are to be appointed only outside
the Central office and not witnin the Central office itself.
Appointment of APIOs in the Central office is not permissible and does
not serve any purpose.
> 4. It is also seen that the application for information was
addressed by the complainant to the PIO and was sent to the Central
office of BDA by courier. once it is received in the Central Office,
it cannot be argued that it was received by APIO when PIO is also
located in the Cental Office itself.
> 5. Under the circumstances the Commissioner, BDA is directed to
discontinue the appointments of APIOs in the Central Office, which may
really not be necessary and is also not in accordance with the
provision of the RTI Act.
> 6. As regards this particular case additional time of five days
claimed by the BDA is not permissible and hence the information sought
for by the complainant shall be provided to him free of cost within
seven days of the date of this order.
>
> Sd/- K.A. THIPPESWAMY SIC sd/- K.K. MISRA SCIC
> ---
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Now you can chat without downloading messenger. Go to
http://in.messenger.yahoo.com/webmessengerpromo.php
>
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
