Dear Kaza No contradiction /inconsistency:
Section 4(1)(b)(viii) Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act, a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public; This is an inclusive section for proactive public disclosure. It cannot (and does not) curtail RTI for a citizen desirous of seeking information. The key phrase here is "open to / accessible for public". However,when a desirous citizen applies u/s to inspect / be provide the minutes of such meetings, then the PIO is required to access such information to provide it to the applicant. Sub-section 4.1.b.viii does not restrict access of PIO to the information. Once an application u/s 6 is made by an interested citizen (who is immediately distinguished then from the "public at large") the procedure set down in the RTI Act commences from 7(1) where the PIO is essentially restricted to exemptions of section 8/9. Hope this was useful. Sarbajit --- In [email protected], kaza rajasekhar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Dear friends, >  > I have observed certain actions on a RTI petition by the CPIO of my company. An applicant had requested copies of certain documents which were correspondence between senior officials of the company and copies of certain files which included file notings too. > I have learnt that, in the RTI Act, there are provisions to provide such infomation which contains file notings, correspondence letters etc. > However, at the same time, i have also learnt that, under the RTI Act, every company is required to put on their websites certain information described in the Act. The companies / organisations are also required to clearly mention in their websites which information and how much information are allowed to be given to individuals under "proactive disclosure". > Now, in my company website, under this proactive disclosure, it has been clearly stated that all the minutes of board meetings or committees or reports of disciplinary committees, etc, nominated by the company for various reasons, will not be disclosed to the individuals. > Now, are these two not contradictory? On one hand, the RTI Act says provide every information including file notings and correspondence, and on the other hand, gives an organisation discretion to deny the information IF the same comes under "proactice disclosure" and if the company has already stated in their websites that it will not disclose those kinds of information. > In the above case, the company has refused information to be provided to the individual on the grounds that it has been clearly put on the website that such information cannot and will not be disclosed to anyone. This comes under some section 4 (2) viii or something, which deals with information to be put on the websites. I am not sure about the section but it is 4 (viii) or something. > My doubt is - Is the company right in refusing the information under this clause? If it is not clear, will provide more details. > Please clear my doubt. >  > Rajasekhar. > > > Kaza raja > > --- On Tue, 25/11/08, chi_international <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: chi_international <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [rti_india] Procedure cannot bloc justice.- technicalities cannot defeat tight to info > To: [email protected] > Date: Tuesday, 25 November, 2008, 9:00 PM > > > > > > > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED] ps.com, "sroy1947" <sroy1947@ .> wrote: > > > > 1) A PIO can only give copies / access to information which exists > in > > material form. > > > > 2) File a First Appeal within 30 days of receipt of PIO's reply. In > > this you may state as GROUND A that the information exists but is > > being suppressed by the PIO. GROUND B is that the information is > being > > supressed TO the PIO. GROUND C is that destruction or suppression of > > information which is subject of the request is liable to penalty > under > > RTI Act. In your FA dont agitate irrelevant things like corruption > and > > what the P/A actually did or should have done - ie. dont state your > > opinions / conjectures / presumptions / grievances as facts. > > > > Sarbajit > > > > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED] ps.com, Brando Conscience > > <brandoconscience@ > wrote: > > > > > > Sir > > > > > > I have been told by PIO that he is not able to trace information > > related to quasi judicial proceedings on a corrupt complaint made by > > me against a Govt officer. The Public Auth that time in 2003 who was > > suppose to attend my these corrupt complaints has moved on to > another > > Govt Org in transfer. It is obvious he did not do anything and > abetted > > in corrupt issues. > > > > > > What are the options for me. I have proof that he received those > > complaint letters but no reply in 2004 AND EVEN TODAY WHICH RESULTED > > IN THE CORRUPT OFFICER GETTING AWAY SCOT FREE. Though he > > was prosecuted later for similar issues, but my query is what the > > concerned supervising mechanisms did ? > > > > > > > > > The Public Auth obviously ignored these applications against the > > corrupt officer and today PIO is acting helplessly. > > > > > > What RTI act says about any official not producing information or > > any official not maintaining records of his decisions. > > > > > > Can they be dealt for suppressing information. > > > > > > Regards > > > BRANDOCONSCIENCE > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Did you know? You can CHAT without downloading messenger. Go to http://in.webmessenger.yahoo.com/ > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
