Hi If I had to grade you, probably a B- (about 60%)
RTI_India is just a sarai to refresh travelers on their weary journey. The key aspect Of DJJ's original message was actually about K-SIC's view that he who generates the information shall dispense it. This is FURTHER AFFIRMED by 6(3)- which IMO is not at all a beneficial provision SINCE the "public authority" is to do the transfer. Non-compliance of 6(3) is not enforceable - so it is in the citizen's best interest to apply to the concerned P/A and not rely on on 6(3). All this is amply clarified in the RTI Act by its language using terms for defining information like "records" "documents" etc. which are well established in law for say Indian Penal Code. RTI Activists no doubt will refer me to the words - "including" or "includes" which the RTI Act is replete with. IMO these are comfort words for foolish RTI Activists and not enforceable. Neither is the "Minister" established by the "Constitution" nor is his "Office". The case of PM and CM is different- for these offices are indeed mentioned in the Constitution. The CJI is recently expressing his own view of RTI Act's application to "Constitutional authorities" like himself. His views are identical with those of senior members of this group searchable on our old records. I think it is unlikely that you will get "property returns" of "governent servants" from an experienced / knowledgeable PIO via RTI Act. Sarbajit --- In [email protected], C K Jam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 >
