there is no losse end in the law at least on this point.It will be prove in the future as the order ICT in the Bhagat Singh was change in the Delhi High Court. These IC are in the habit of inventing excuses outside Section 8 and 9 and applying the same for denying the information. with regards rakesh gupta
--- On Sun, 30/11/08, sarbajit roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: From: sarbajit roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [rti_india] An analysis of why IC(T) is wrong. To: [email protected] Date: Sunday, 30 November, 2008, 11:51 AM Dear Rakesh While I concur with your conclusion, ie " Under lined portion clearly means fees should be as per Section 7(1) Further fee in the present subsection means additional fee to be paid in addition to fee already paid Rs 10/ Rs 50/ or any other fee at the time of RTI request as per the RTI Act." Your steps to reach there are not sufficiently rigorous to take on a master like IC(T).. IC(T)'s logic here goes something like this (NB: underlining / rich formatting is not allowed on this group - so use * or CAPITALS for emphasis). 1) 7(1) only deals with the prescribed fees for providing COPY of the information ie - xerox charges, floppy charges etc. 2) Section 7(3) operates INDEPENDENTLY of 7(1) AND IN ADDITION TO IT for the cases where there is a COST for PROVIDING the information TO BE DETERMINED BY THE PIO. In such case the CPIO is required to not only inform the Applicant of this COST but give a calculation TOGETHER WITH the prescribed fees for copying the information or providing an already printed / priced version. 3) Especially cases of 7(9) - disproportionately diverting resources of P/A they are entitle to demand these additional COSTS from the applicant. Like it or not, there is some loose drafting in the Act, when the letter is ambiguous what is the spirit of the law / intent of the legislature.? All members of the group should analyse this and post their comments for a thorough discussion. Where are the CIC decisions / SIC decisions which hold otherwise ? For example Rakesh Agrawal also had a 2nd appeal on this pending against Delhi Police - what happened? The answer also possibly lies in the Fee Cost Rules, and obligations of P/As under section 4 of the RTI Act. Group please research this fast. Sarbajit On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 11:04 AM, RAKESH GUPTA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Kindly see the section refered in the Judgement. > > 7 (3) Where a decision is taken to > provide the information on payment of any > further fee representing the cost of > providing the information, the Central Public > Information Officer or State Public > Information Officer, as the case may be, shall send > an intimation to the person making the > request, giving— > > (a) the details of further fees representing the cost of providing the > information as determined by him,together > with the calculations made > to arrive at the amount in accordance with > fee prescribed under subsection > (1), requesting him to deposit that > fees, and the period > intervening between the despatch of the said > intimation and payment of > fees shall be excluded for the purpose of > calculating the period of thirty > days referred to in that sub-section; > > Under lined portion clearly means fees should be as per Section 7(1) > Further fee in the present subsection means additional fee to be paid in > addition to fee already paid Rs 10/ Rs 50/ or any other fee at the time of > RTI request as per the RTI Act.. > > Now see Section 7(1) > > 7. (1) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of > section 5 or the proviso to subsection > (3) of section 6, the Central Public > Information Officer or State Public > Information Officer, as the case may be, on > receipt of a request undersection 6 shall, > as expeditiously as possible, 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 or reject the request for any of > the reasons > specified in sections 8 and 9: > > Provided that where the information sought > for concerns the life or liberty of a person, > the same shall be provided within forty-eight > hours of the receipt of the request. > The plain reading of above clear that interpreation by ICT is without > reading the whole provision. > with regards > rakesh gupta ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Go to http://messenger.yahoo.com/invite/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
