This is a blatant example of violating the letter and spirit of RTI Act - by the applicant. The order of APSIC is the sort of order we "responsible RTIers" expect from Information Commissions. What is even more encouraging is that APSIC has disposed of the 2nd appeal in a reasonable time.
--- In [email protected], C K Jam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > At least in this case the PIO is the same for all applications. > > Look at what happened at the APSIC. > Applicant sent RTI applications to 12 different PIO's of the Endowment Department based in different districts of AP. The content of all applications was same. > > http://www.apic.gov.in/QRTRLY/ASR/2008/III/1903-2008.pdf > > Appeal No: 1896 to 1903/SIC-ASR/2008. > Date.31-07-2008. > > A.P. INFORMATION COMMISSION > (Under Right to Information Act, 2005) > HACA Bhavan, Opp: Public Gardens, Hyderabad-4 > Phone Nos. 23230245 / 246 (o), 23230592 (f) > > Appeal No: 1896 to 1903/SIC-ASR/2008. > Date.31-07-2008. > > Name & address of appellant : > Sri Medara Veeraiah, > Srinivasapuram (Village), > Lingagiri (Post), > Huzur Nagar (Mandalam), > Nalgonda District-508 204. > > Name & address of public authority : > 1) Asst. Commissioner/ > Public Information Officer under the RTI Act, 2005, > Endowments Department, > Nalgonda. > > 2) Dy. Commissioner (H)/ > Appellate Authority under the RTI Act, 2005, > Endowments Department, > Boggulakunta, Tilak Road, > Hyderabad. > > 3) Asst. Commissioner/ > Public Information Officer under the RTI Act, 2005, > Endowments Department, > Khammam. > > 4) Asst. Commissioner/ > Public Information Officer under the RTI Act, 2005, > Endowments Department, > Warangal. > > 5) Dy. Commissioner/ > Appellate Authority under the RTI Act, 2005, > Endowments Department, > Warangal. > > 6) Asst. Commissioner/ > Public Information Officer under the RTI Act, 2005, > Endowments Department, > Karimnagar. > > 7) Asst. Commissioner/ > Public Information Officer under the RTI Act, 2005, > Endowments Department, > Adilabad. > > 8) Asst. Commissioner/ > Public Information Officer under the RTI Act, 2005, > Endowments Department, > Mahaboobnagar. > > 9) Asst. Commissioner/ > Public Information Officer under the RTI Act, 2005, > Endowments Department, > Vijayawada. > > 10) Dy. Commissioner/ > Appellate Authority under the RTI Act, 2005, > Endowments Department, > Kakinada, > East Godavari District. > > 11) Asst. Commissioner/ > Public Information Officer under the RTI Act, 2005, > Endowments Department, > Guntur. > > 12) Dy. Commissioner/ > Appellate Authority under the RTI Act, 2005, > Endowments Department, > Guntur. > > COMMON ORDER > > In all the appeals, Sri Medara Veeraiah is the appellant. The appellant filed applications before the District Collectors of eight districts namely Nalgonda, Khammam, Warangal, Karimnagar, Adilabad, Mahaboobnagar, Krishna and Guntur, seeking information about the details of endowment lands (i.e Devadaya Bhumulu) in the respective districts from the year 1987 to 2007, as mentioned below. > > 1. Total number of Mandalamâs (name wise) in your district. > 2. Total No. of acres of land in each Mandalam/Village under the name and brand of endowment. > 3. The name of organization/board/trust, the scheduled endowment land property is being maintained. > 4. The name and address of the chairman of the endowment land of each Village/Mandalam since 1987 to 2007 indicating his caste and sub-caste (if any). > 5. Presently, whether this land is maintained by Endowment Dept. or given to lease. In case if it is under lease, the details thereof. If the land is allotted to tenant/lease holder by court order/competent authority, the details thereof. > 6. The date and year the endowment land was given to lease holder indicating his name, caste/community etc. > 7. Whether the scheduled property is purely Govt. of AP or donated, the details of donors. > 8. Whether the endowment land given to lease from time to time, the mode of calling applications/person who interested to take endowment land on lease.. > 9. If the land was given to lease, since how many years. > 10. Whether the lease has been continued by the same person or to different people, the details thereof. > 11. Whether the endowment land auctioned for sale if so, the details thereof, if not auctioned, the reasons thereof. > 12. The mode of receiving lease amounts (Kaulu). > 13. Whether the lease amount can be deposited in govt. treasury or any Nationalized banks? > 14. Whether any separate âReceipt and issueâ section is in existence in endowment offices/Tahsil office since its inception? If so, the name and designation of the officer responsible for receiving that and issue acknowledgement for the same to the staff as well others not existing, the reasons, thereof. > 15. Complete name, address, telephone, fax and email address of appellate authority designated for RTI matters. > > The appellant had subsequently filed another set of applications before the same District Collectors except Krishna, requesting for certain additional information, as given below. > > (i) A copy of prescribed format designed for submitting application/appeal under RTI Act, if designed. > (ii) Indicate the name and designation and telephone number of officer and responsibility for supply of information and also from whom a penalty can be collected for non-supply of the information within the stipulated time. > (iii) The RTI act, 2005 came into force w.e.f. 15-06-05 and 12-10-07 respectively. All the information and also are to be disseminated/displayed within 120 days after the Act came into force as per Sec.4(1)(a), (b), (c), (d), (2) and (3) of the RTI Act, 2005. Now, it has already completed TWO YEARS FIVE MONTHS. Kindly furnish the present status on each âDevasthanam wiseâ/Mandal Revenue Office wise and website/Email ID etc. > (iv) Whether these offices are maintaining the (i) File Register & (ii) File movement register. > (v) Total revenue collected in the form of Kaulu (tax) from tenant/kauldhar from 1987 to 2007. Whether the said kaulu has been paid in the form of cash/DD or deposited in âTreasuryâ or in any Nationalized Banks. > (vi) What is the meaning of assignment land and endowment land? And the difference between these two lands. > > Whether the endowment organization has prepared any âUser Guideâ. If so, the same may kindly be provided. > > > All these applications are of the same date i.e. 16-11-2007. But, since this set of applications have been made without remitting the prescribed application fee, as required under Sec.6 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005, they do not fall under the provisions of the Act. > > Since the subject matter relates to the Endowments Dept., the first set of applications/appeals filed thereafter had to receive the attention of the respective ACs and DCs who have been designated as PIOs and AAs of the Endowments Department. > > Since the appellant and the public authority are one and the same, this Commission decided to club all these appeals and accordingly ordered notices to appear before this Commission on 24-07-08. But the appellant sent a fax message on 23-07-08, expressing inability to attend the hearing due to ill-health. However, all the respondents have appeared before this Commission on 24-07-08. > > Heard the respondents. > > All the respondents have submitted that the information sought is enormous and it would disproportionately divert their resources. > > The material papers filed by the appellant alongwith his appeal and the oral submissions of all the respondents have been examined. > > All the applications of the appellant are of the same date i.e. 22-10-07. The information sought in all the applications is the same but for the change of the district to which it was addressed. In each application the information was sought on 15 points for twenty years, starting from 1987 to 2007. In all the applications the appellant seeks voluminous information which would involve lot of extra work on the part of the designated PIOs. A routine application on the same date asking for information on various matters for a number of years which would be voluminous is nothing but a non-serious way of asking information and this is an example of callous way of invoking the RTI Act, 2005 and hence the appeals are liable to be dismissed. > > This Commission gives maximum support to individuals genuinely seeking to exercise their right to information. If any specific information is required, confined to a few points, the appellant may apply afresh to the concerned PIOs and the PIOs are directed to furnish the information thus sought within 30 days of the receipt of the application duly observing the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. > > Ordered accordingly. > > AMBATY SUBBA RAO > State Information Commissioner > > Authenticated copy: > (T.D. PRASADA RAO) > Asst. Registrar > > =============== > > How many can you "sack" ? > > RTIwanted > > --- On Mon, 11/10/08, sroy1947 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > From: sroy1947 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: [rti_india] Voluminous Information? Submit 1application. > > To: [email protected] > > Date: Monday, November 10, 2008, 11:36 AM > > Is this a speaking order? Is it clear therefrom if the > > applicant has > > asked for the identical information in each application? >
