Hi Manoj(K), When IC Ansari mentions "There is no denial of information to applicant, complainant is advised to seek inspection" you have to understand what he is *actually* saying.
Case 1) The PIO has not cited / relied upon any exemptions of section 8 to *deny* information, hence the applicant is *entitled* to seek inspection and take copies of whatever he finds useful. Case 2) The PIO has replied properly to the applicant, if the (bloody fool) applicant is still not satisfied, then he should seek an inspection of the records, so that the PIO can convince him that the information is not in his records. Case 1 is applicant friendly, Case 2 is PIO friendly. That Ansari can get away with using this line in most of his orders is actually a shocking X-ray of the poor state of RTI users in the country (Case-2). So, How to counter such tactics by IC's? 1) Dont ask questions, INSTEAD ask for documents - which you must specify sufficiently. 2) Frame the "requests" after thorough study of the P/A's website and AFTER talking to the PIO or some knowledgeable person in the department. You must speak to them first, try the "I dont want to file an RTI if you just give me what I want under section 4" tactic. 3) Always keep in mind that getting information via RTI takes at least 1 year nowadays. Proper drafting of your RTI request is crucial, otherwise 1 year's time is lost. After drafting your RTI, wait for 2 - 3 days, then think "how would a PIO reply to my RTI?". Then plug those loopholes before submitting your RTI request. 4) Ignore what the RTI activists are saying. (BTW: discussion on Sackhim group is going the Hum Jananege way). In your own matter, send a telegram to the CIC that you will be present for the show cause hearing on 24.July.2008. There is now immense corruption at CIC, and 1 or 2 IC's appear to be supplementing their generous salaries to let PIO's off the penalty hook. Finally, Inspection of information, allows you to find a FRESH round of Appeals. Read section 19 carefully. This is why it is even more important that the original RTI request is very well drafted. Finally, Finally, Nowadays my drafting is so good - last year I filed only 2 RTIs (unlike Rakesh Agrawal's 700), both of them are still unreplied after 6 months. 1 PIO has put me on VIP list (for traffic challans). Sarbajit --- In [email protected], "Manoj K. Kamra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dear Sarbajit Royji and all members, > > If we search cic website for no denial of information,we get 620 > results and 95% belong to Dr.Ansari. > > These have been outrightly rejected appeals/complaints with > realization of justice done to applicants by giving him opportunity > to inspect the files(or with partial exemption). > > In every decision,"As there is no denial of information, complainant > is advised to seek inspection" has been repeated. > > Ironically,this does not ensure providing desired information held > by public authority.Neither by inspection of making files available > at his office nor merely replying to RTI application does not ensure > desired information. > > Recently, two decisions have been made by him on my second > appeals.One for AICTE, which is not in his jurisdiction secondly > giving notice to him for late reply rather than ensuring desired > information. > ------------------------------------------- > Decision No. 2710/IC(A)/2008 > F. No. CIC/MA/A/2008/00647 > Dated, the 30th June, 2008 > Name of the Appellant : Shri Manoj Kumar Kamra > Name of the Public Authority : A.I.C.T.E. > Facts: > 1. The appellant did not avail of the opportunity of personal > hearing on 27.06.2008. The appeal is therefore examined on merit. > 2. On perusal of the documents submitted by the appellant, the > following is observed: > The CPIO has not replied to application for information within the > stipulated period of 30 days and that he has not furnished a point- > wise response with respect to each point of information asked for. > The Appellate Authority has also not bothered to supply the > information. > Hence, this appeal before the Commission. > Decision: > 3. The CPIO is held responsible for violation of section 7(1) of the > Act as he has not replied to the application for information dated > 14.01.2008 (received on 22.01.2008) within 30 days. The application > was replied on 28.03.2008. He is 1 > therefore directed to explain as to why penalty of Rs. 8,250/- (Rs. > 250/- per day, w.e.f. 23.2.08 to 27.3.08, a delay of 33 days) should > not be imposed on him. He should submit his explanation at the > earliest and also appear for a personal hearing on July 24, 2008 at > 11.00 A.M., failing which penalty would be imposed. > 4. The appeal is thus disposed of. > Sd/- > (Prof. M.M. Ansari) > Central Information Commissioner > Authenticated true copy: > (M.C. Sharma) > Assistant Registrar > Name and address of parties: > 1. Shri Manoj K. Kamra, 7B37, Near Church, JNV Nagar, Bikaner, > Rajasthan. > 2. Dr. Narendra Dev, Dy. Director & CPIO, All India Council For > Technical Education, 7th Floor, Chandralok Building, Janpath, New > Delhi-110001. (Ref. No.AICTE/RTI Cell/2008/47 Dt. 28.03.08). > --------------------------------------------------------- > Please suggest how to get desired information rather than being > happy over his socalled delay notice. > > Regards > Manoj K.Kamra >
