A message from chi_international at <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> with contents as stated below.
Ramdom organisations with high sounding aims want personal details of people, ostensibly to tackle problems on a community / organisational basis. I wonder if this is required at all? RTI Act 2005 specifically empowers individuals who could best be left to themselves to sort individual issues and platforms such at Hum Janenge & [email protected] are doing commendable service in discussing issues, offering advice and suggesting solutions. As for ambitious aims stated by chi_international as reasons to ask personal details / address there seems to be no need to re-invent the wheel. Organisations with long standing reputation already exist to address specific issues outside the realm of RTI. Would it be pertinent at this time to ask the credentials of chi_international ? Regards / Anil Heble xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2008/11/13 chi_international <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > In order to make the implementation of law effective we need to > cordinate and share the responsibilities to follow up the matters. > Consumer , Human and Information rights are sought to be propogated > and practised through chi international initiative by registering > volunteers in every locality .A databse of Consumer , Human and > Information rights volunteers and activists around the globe is being > compiled. Those interested to keep their names in the database may > submit details as : > Name: > adress (optional): > STate: > Country: > Locality Pin /Postal Code: > Email adress: > Organisation if any: > Field of activity: > Any specialization: > contact Tel no.(optional): > > We believe that a grassroot coordination of volunteers can curb > corruption and make remarkable change to improve the life of common > man . The Public bodies are required to be made accountable by > continuous follow up . This requires planned and collective > approach . For this we are developing Admin Watch initiative where > every volunteer will take up the task of monitoring any one or more > department of government or local administration. For example I can > take the responisbility to watch education department of Local > Municipal administration and check the facility , use of funds , > reaching of benefit to students, school building maintenance , pass > out percentage of students , rate of drop in Municipal schools etc . > All are invited to come together. > > > > --- In [email protected], "sroy1947" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Dear Members > > > > One of the biggest stumbling blocks to RTI implementation is the > > non-levy of penalty on errant PIOs by the Information Commissions. > > > > These johnnies labour under the delusion that penalty is a > > discretionary option open to them in case of non-supply of > > information in the time prescribed u/s 7(1). > > > > Is there some problem in the wording of the clause? > > > > No, when a PIO fails to give in information in time he is to > > be penalised at the rate of Rs.250 per day. No IFS no BUTs. > > > > The relevant part of the clause would read as follows > > > > "Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information > > Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any > complaint > > or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information > > Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, > > has, without any reasonable cause, ... has not furnished information > > within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 ... it > > shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till > > application is received or information is furnished, so however, the > > total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand > > rupees:" > > > > The only defence a PIO has is PROVING there was "reasonable cause" > > > > So the next time any member want penalty imposed on a PIO > > > > 1) Insist on being present at the penalty hearing to "disprove" the > > "reasonable ground/s" of the PIO. Ask for copies of the proof in > advance. > > > > 2) Dispute with ICs like Habibullah and Tiwari who insist that > > "allegation of malafides" is an essential ingredient to levy > penalty. > > Insist they record your attendance and subimissions in their orders. > > Follow this up with a SPEEDPOST letter to them immediately after > they > > pass such biased orders demanding that they review their order > > immediately in light of the above - which as we all know they wont. > > > > 3) Then if you want to fight it out, email me , and we shall sort > them > > out. > > > > This link is an example of how the biggest sinners in awarding > > penalties (they were running a racket ripping off PIOs) later became > > saints (briefly) on the side of the angels after we took it up > > (discreetly). Of course since the GoI pays out-station ICs peanuts > > they are back to their little monkey tricks again. > > > > http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/OK-18072008-01.pdf > > > > Sarbajit > > > > Full text of section 20(1) > > > > "20(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State > > Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding > > any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public > > Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the > > case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive > an > > application for information or has not furnished information within > > the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely > > denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, > > incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which > > was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in > > furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred > > and fifty rupees each day till application is received or > information > > is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not > > exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: > > > > Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State > > Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a > > reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed > on > > him: > > > > Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably > > and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or > > the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be." > > > >
