Thank you very much. Do you know for what ? You are the one and only person who is now agreeing with my naming last years's "Information Commissioner's Conference " as a " Conference for collective bargaining " You have now used a better term - " Trade Union Conference"
Col NR Kurup (Retd) --- In [email protected], "Bimal Khemani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thanks for your mail, and would be excused for my comments > but I do not think I tried to misguide my fellow member > > > On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 sroy1947 wrote : > >Dear Gentleman (Bimal), > > > >Welcome to [RTI_India]. This group is not to be confused with > >[Indiarti], [Hum Janenge], and some other groups. Here *I* am the > >Moderator and my Co-Moderator (although sleeping) is not inferior to > >Kumbhakarna for new members when he awakes. > > > >In this group we do not deal in "suppositions" but in "facts". We aim > >to provide perfectly authentic information and guidance to our members > >so that they can achieve TRUTH and PURPOSE in life. > > > >The real problem which Avinash (we are all on first name basis here) > >faces is connected with a warped interpretation of 7(3)(a) by certain > >Information Commissions (and which was worked out by I.C A.N.Tewari of > >CIC and circulated at their Trade Union Conference last year). These > >f***ers (sorry I am still in Sackhim mode) can get away with it > >because of their Mir Jafars in RTI movement aka Shekhar Singh, Aruna > >Roy etc who tampered with the wording of this section (this is a > >matter of public record) to the detriment of RTI cause. > > > >Sarbajit > >Moderator > > > >--- In [email protected], "Bimal Khemani" <bimal.khemani@> > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > Gentleman, > > > Kindly refer to section 7 (6) which clearly states > > > > > > "Notwithstanding anything contained in sub section (5), > > > the person making request for the information shall be > > > provided the information free of charge where a public > > > authority fails to comply with the time limits specified > > > in sub-section (1). > > > > > > and I suppose ur case comes in this category, so tell the > > > FAA to direct the PIO to provide the information free of > > > any charge. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 Avinash Murkute wrote : > > > >Dear All, > > > > > > > >In recent appeal with AA Panchayat Samiti Cum BDO Hingna Nagpur > > > >followings were discussed. PIO failed to give the details of further > > > >fees representing the cost of providing the information as > > > >determined by him, together with the calculations made to arrive at > > > >the amount in accordance with fee prescribed. (Please refer earlier > > > >post RTI at Village level) > > > > > > > >PIO was required to carry all the information pertaining to the > > > >case, as mentioned in the notice issued by AA, but PIO was unable to > > > >provide the same during appeal proceeding. Ultimately he called > > > >employees during appeal proceeding who carried few information, but > > > >still couldn't submit the calculations. What should be cost of > > > >information, what is the size of paper, what is per page cost > > > >couldn't be ascertained. PIO demanded Rs 266O for approximately 600 > > > >pages which included search fee and postage. > > > > > > > >PIO was of the opinion that he has powers to charge @ Rs. 5 per page > > > >information and RTI act allows him to decide the cost of > > > >information. Copies of resolutions by Gram Panchayat and date of > > > >such resolution couldn't be ascertained as PIO failed to carry this > > > >information. AA was of the opinion that A4 page will cost Rs. 2 > > > >only. > > > > > > > >Order was not pronounced in appeal proceeding and order is awaited. > > > >Appellant prayed that since PIO failed to carry information and > > > >based on the documents available on record, PIO failed to provide > > > >calculations, information may please be supplied free of cost. Order > > > >is awaited! > > > > > > > >-------------------------------------- > > > >Dear All, > > > > > > > >RTI act 2005 has section 27 (appropriate Government) and section 28 > > > >(competent Authority). Definition of competent authority excludes > > > >PIO and Gram Sachiva of Gram Panchayat. If at all section 27 which > > > >relates to power to make rules by appropriate Government has to be > > > >considered my queries are. > > > > > > > >1) Who can prescribe the fee payable under sub-section (1) of > > > >section 6 and the fee payable under sub-section (1) and (5) of > > > >section (7) > > > >2) The appropriate Government may, by notification in the > > > >Official Gazette, make rules to carry out the provisions of this > > > >Act. How rules are notified in Official Gazette? > > > >3) Can PIO of GP make the rules as described above? > > > >4) Can PIO of GP apply two different fees to two different > > > >applicants? > > > > > > > >-------------------------------------- > > > >Humbly requesting valuable inputs with case studies which will help > > > >me obtain information and/ or file further appeal with IC. > > > > > > > >Regards, > > > >Avinash Murkute > > > > > > > > > > > > > BIMAL KUMAR KHEMANI > > > Saha-Prant Sangathan Mantri, > > > AKHIL BHARATIYA GRAHAK PANCHAYAT BRAJ PRANT, > > > 2/40D, Janakpuri, Marrish Road, > > > ALIGARH-202001. INDIA > > > Phone:0571-2401557, MOB:-093597BIMAL > > > e.mail: bimal.khemani@ > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > BIMAL KUMAR KHEMANI > Saha-Prant Sangathan Mantri, > AKHIL BHARATIYA GRAHAK PANCHAYAT BRAJ PRANT, > 2/40D, Janakpuri, Marrish Road, > ALIGARH-202001. INDIA > Phone:0571-2401557, MOB:-093597BIMAL > e.mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
