Dear Mr Sarabjit,

Please do not misunderstand my earlier post.
I am nobody to decide what is to be posted and what is not.

Since I joined voluntarily (after your acceptance of my request) there is no 
question of my being troubled by what is being posted. I just read  the posts 
in the last few days and was wondering - where have I landed up  ?

Well, I sincerely hope that it will be a enriching experience for me and I can 
contribute something positive. I will just have to get used to ignoring all non 
RTI related posts.

Now to your surprise quiz question:

For example YOU could explain why information is
 ordinarily to be given by the department which "generates" it.

The department which "generates" the information is the "custodian" of that 
information. Therefore, under Section 6(1), an applicant should ordinarily make 
a request for information to the PIO of the PA (Public Authority) which is 
custodian of the information. Explaining at a more basic level, there is no 
point in applying to the PIO of the Regional Passport Office and asking how 
many Industrial Power connections have been given in a particular area over the 
last 6 months !

However, sometimes, the drafters of laws and acts in India shower some tender 
mercies on us poor citizens. Either by design or by intent or by oversight, 
they have incorporated Sec 6(3) into the RTI Act, under which it is obligatory 
for the recipient PIO to transfer either the full or a part of the application, 
which covers a subject which pertains to another public authority. This has to 
be done within 5 days of receiving the application and under intimation to the 
applicant.

Sir, pass or fail ? Please tell me the grade. I am eagerly waiting because the 
last time I received a grade card was 28 years ago ! Really miss that suspense 
and excitement.

===========

Now, back to the question of the office of the Finance Minister in Kerala.

RTI Act 2005 covers "Public Authorities" as defined in Sec 2(h) of the Act. 

Sec 2(h)(a) states:

h)"public authority" means any authority or body or institution of self- 
government established or constituted— a)by or under the Constitution;
The office of the Minister has been established under the constitution so it 
squarely falls under Sec 2(h)(a) quoted above. It is immaterial for the 
purposes of the RTI Act, whether that Public Authority generates information or 
keeps records. That issue will only be addressed when a application is made and 
the PIO can then very well say that either he does not have the information and 
is transferring under Sec 6(3) or is using Sec 5(4) and 5(5) to secure the 
information requested form some other officer in the PA.

For a moment let us agree with the stand taken by the KIC that the office of 
the Minister does not generate any information or keep any records. Then, can I 
ask what are all those dozens of officers and staff doing in that office ? I 
suppose they are reading the Bhagwad Gita in the office, just like the Jt. 
Commissioner of Income Tax whom I have to visit very so often (yes, strange but 
true !). Nothing wrong with the reading the Bhagwad Gita, but please do not do 
it on tax payers money and time.

Doesn't that office of the Minister have at least a attendance register ? 
Doesn't it have a appointments diary  for the Minister ? Doesn't it have a 
inward and outward register ? Doesn't it have the log book of the Minister's 
official car ? All those are "records" as defined in the RTI Act and any 
citizen can ask for those records under the RTI Act.

Please do not give me any benefit of doubt and treat me as a novice or still 
better a RTI idiot (wow, a new term). Maybe whatever I said before is all 
bullshit. But what about the following argument :

Let's agree with KIC that the Finance department PIO can be requested for 
information pertaining to the Minister's office. That means KIC agrees that at 
least the Finance Department is a PA. Then, under Sec 5(1), the Finance 
Department is supposed to appoint PIO's in ALL administrative offices or units 
under it. So, since the office of the Minister is a unit of the original PA, it 
should have a PIO or at least a APIO. 

Lastly, I wish to draw your attention to the attached order of the CIC. Order 
in Appeal Nr. CIC/WB/C/2006/00167. If the offices of the CM and Ministers of 
Delhi can be considered to be PA's by CIC and ordered to appoint PIO's and 
AA's, then what is so different with the office of the Finance Minister of 
Kerala ? After all the RTI Act is same all over India (except J & K).

As you can see, the CIC order is dated 15 September 2006, but the website of 
Delhi Government ( http://www.delhigovt.nic.in/rti/search_pio.asp ) still shows 
a PIO/AA only in the office of the CM and no information is available regarding 
PIO/AA in the office of other Ministers. Speaks volumes of respecting and 
obeying decisions of a "quasi-judicial" authority. As you probably know, we 
Indians (including you and me) suffer from a strange disease called " diarrhea 
of words and constipation of action".

Quiz on the "bounce" (by a RTI idiot)

Can Property Returns filed by "Government servants" be disclosed under RTI ?

Regards,
RTIWanted





sroy1947 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:                             Hi Mr.Jam,
 
 This is your Moderator speaking. I sincerely regret that you are
 troubled by the messages posted at RTI_India - India's most notorious
 RTI Yahoo group.
 
 Firstly, as per the Rules of this group - self publicity (especially
 by advocates) is not allowed. Some of the old members like Ashish are
 alert and vocal about such things. Previously they used to email me
 privately and sound off, nowadays these things are coming out in the
 open. Anticipating our senior members, I had myself drawn attention
 (subtly I thought  - to the Parivartan tag in DJJ's post) but I was
 proved wrong.
 
 Secondly, I dont unlist anyone from the group - this is the age of
 self service, you can easily do so yourself (search the old messages
 of our group to find out how).
 
 Thirdly, our RTI group is meant for ordinary citizens. We are unique
 insofar as having many PIOs and FAAs (like Ashish) here to assist you.
 Stick around, maybe you could enjoy yourself and contribute for
 everyone's benefit. For example YOU could explain why information is
 ordinarily to be given by the department which "generates" it.
 
 Sarbajit
 
 --- In [email protected], C K Jam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 >
 > Moderator/Owner,
 > 
 > Is this group about RTI or about Parivartan (I do not even know who
 they are) ?
 > 
 > I am a ordinary citizen and just joined two days ago after the
 moderator approved my request for membership.
 > 
 > All I have seen till now are postings about Parivartan, Foreign
 Funding and snide remarks directed at each other.
 > 
 > I am sorry, but I joined to learn more about RTI, not about
 Parivartan, the funding by CIA and KGB and MI6 !
 > 
 > Moderator, I request you to please delist me from this group for the
 above mentioned reason.
 > 
 > Thanks & Best Wishes
 > RTIWanted
 > 
 > 
 > ashish kr1965 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:                            
 This is a curious statement by Parivartan's advocate.
 >  
 >  > ". I would also like to inform you that Parivartan does not take
 >  > any foreign funding as a matter of policy. Human Rights Law
 >  > Network also does not give any funds to Parivartan."
 >  
 >  Parivartan by their own admission and accounts accepts foreign funds.
 >  
 >  Mr. Arvind Kejriwal contributes US$200 on 13.11.2006.
 >  In the same year US residents send over US$1000.
 >  
 >  Mr. Arvind Kejriwal regularly finances the organisation to tune of
 lakhs
 >  of rupees - his full sources of finance are not in public domain.
 He also
 >  publicly accepts foreign funds from MI-6 and CIA front organisations
 >  like bogus DFID, Asoka awards and Magsaysay awards - all in Foreign
 exchange.
 >  
 >  Previously funds to Parivartan were audited (as it was a registered
 Society),
 >  ever since Mr.Kejriwal got famous, the funds are his (and Manish's)
 alone to
 >  control and all the honest and dedicated workers from old days have
 >  abandoned these two.
 >  
 >  This message is on the basis of unrebutted information in the
 public domain.
 >  Perhaps the Parivartan advocate and members of this group would
 care to clarify.
 >  
 >  Ashish
 >  
 >      
 >                                        
 > 
 >        
 > ---------------------------------
 > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. 
 Try it now.
 > 
 > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
 >
 
 
     
                                       

       
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Reply via email to