Dear Mr.Jam request = request "accompanied by" prescribed APPLICATION fee. Information to be given on payment of prescribed FURTHER fee.
BSNL is a PSU and corporate body notwithstanding that they are also P/A under RTI Act. As such orders of DoPT are not binding on them. CIC is not a court of record, hence their precedents have no force. Sarbajit --- In [email protected], C K Jam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dear Sarabjit, > > But, Sec 7(1) says: > > "......................and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed............" > > I would interpret it as the 30 day clock starts ticking from the day the application is filed BUT the information will only be given on payment of the prescribed fee. > > There are some decisions of the CIC to support this. > > Regarding the blank IPO, if the Public Servant can be liable under Sec 409 of the IPC, then what is the liability of the PIO or the Public Authority for not informing the public as to the payees name on the IPO/BC/DD ? No such information is ever provided on the board or on the web or in any media. How will the applicant know ? There is a DoPT circular that all PIO's should accept the IPO/BC/DD in the name of "Accounts Officer" but even that is not done under the guise "that we are a small administrative unit of the Public Authority and do not have someone called "Accounts Officer"". Rules also specify that application fee can be paid in cash (this would eliminate the problem of not knowing the payee) but when I go to some departments (like Commercial Taxes) I am told that "we do not accept cash because it is against department policy for officers to accept cash". > > What is the solution ? > > RTIWanted > > > > sroy1947 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dear Manoj, > > For Case 1, the 30 days starts ticking after "receipt" of request for > information "accompanied" by the "prescribed fee". Since the > application is not accompanied by "prescribed fee" in his case, 30 > days IMHO starts ticking only when the "prescribed fee" is > accompanied. So Case 1 is not the proper thing for PIO to do, but Case > 2, ie. return in original, is proper. > > A blank IPO cannot be construed as being "prescribed fee". No Public > Servant shall enter the payees details, since in event of mistake, he > has deprived the State of revenue rendering him liable to section 409 IPC. > > Sarbajit > > --- In [email protected], Manoj Pai <manojpai@> wrote: > > > > You havent stated whether, your original RTI > > Application was also returned to you or not. > > > > > > Case 1. If the PIO has retained the application with > > him/her, then what he has done is in order. > > > > Most PIOs accept such IPO, with the name left blank, > > in good faith. As long as the IPO is crossed and the > > from address is duly filled in by the applicant. Looks > > like the PIO of BSNL wanted to play by the rule book. > > So to some extent he is right. Please note, that the > > 30 days period would start ticking from the date of > > the receipt of the original RTI Application in the > > office of the PIO. But then, your IPO should also > > reach them before that. > > > > End of case 1. > > > > Case 2. If the PIO has returned the original RTI > > Application, back to along with the IPO, then he is > > wrong and you have a valid reason, to file a complain > > U/s 18 directly with the CIC. You can also insist on > > penalty and that the information may be provided to > > you free. > > > > End of case 2. > > > > Since you have not mentioned which city, you reside, I > > can recommend that here in after, file the RTI > > Application with the local BSNL office. Pay cash. The > > PIO would promptly get the information for you and > > provided it to you within 30 days. > > > > Best wishes > > > > Manoj Pai > > Ahmedabad > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
