Can anybody please provide me the copy of the bemlow mentioned memorendum from ministry of personnel, public grievance and pensions? "The commission also cited a memorandum circulated by the ministry of personnel, public grievance and pensions to drive home its point. The memorandum says when a petitioner files an application before a public authority, seeking information that is available with more than one public authority, the public information officer (PIO) who receives the RTI application should give information relating to his department and advise the petitioner to make separate applications to other public authorities concerned for obtaining the balance information." RTI activist questions information panel order 2 Mar 2009, 0415 hrs IST, Jayaraj Sivan, TNN
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Cities/RTI-activist-questions-information-panel-order/articleshow/4209766.cms CHENNAI: The State Information Commission's strange interpretation of a key clause of the Right to Information (RTI) Act in a recent case, could pose new hurdles in the path of people seeking information from government agencies. The case relates to an RTI application filed by T Retna Pandian, general secretary of 5th Pillar India, an organisation fighting against corruption, on March 5, 2008, at the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) headquarters. He sought to know the role of field level officials of the board and as to how much movable and immovable assets they held. Among the barrage of queries, he also sought permission to inspect some of the registers maintained at the TNPCB office. Failing to get answers to most of the queries, he filed an appeal before the appellate authority at the TNPCB headquarters. Even the appeal served limited purpose only because the appellate authority chose to take cover under section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act and said asset details of officials need not be divulged as they fell under the exempted category. Not satisfied with the peace-meal delivery of information, Pandian approached the State Information Commission on appeal. Two commissioners, T R Ramasamy and R Perumalsamy, who heard his case on February 9, ordered TNPCB officials to provide all the information within 10 days. The order said, "Property statements are public documents and cannot be said to be attracting the exemption clause." But the order was not all that sweet for Pandian to digest because it also said the petitioner, seeking information from three district offices of TNPCB in this case Chennai, Tiruvallur and Kancheepuram - should have actually applied before the "three public authorities" instead of seeking to get all the information from the TNPCB headquarters. The commission also cited a memorandum circulated by the ministry of personnel, public grievance and pensions to drive home its point. The memorandum says when a petitioner files an application before a public authority, seeking information that is available with more than one public authority, the public information officer (PIO) who receives the RTI application should give information relating to his department and advise the petitioner to make separate applications to other public authorities concerned for obtaining the balance information. Pandian said, "First of all, under the RTI Act, even if the petitioner sends the application to the wrong department, it is the responsibility of the PIO in that department to forward the queries to the PIOs concerned. Next, the circular issued by a ministry is not binding on the State Information Commission. Third, in my case, treating three district offices of TNPCB as three public authorities is wrong interpretation of the RTI Act. The Act clearly says, public authority means any authority or body or institution of self-governance established or constituted by or under the constitution, law made by parliament, state legislature or through a notification issued by the appropriate government.' It includes government-controlled and funded - both directly and indirectly - organizations. Pandian said, "The Act also says, Every public authority shall designate as many officers as the Central Public Information Officers or State Public Information Officers, as the case may be." In the present case, the TNPCB is a public authority. But the district offices of TNPCB cannot be treated as separate public authorities. "The commissioners are mixing up between PIOs and public authorities," he pointed out. The fallout of the state information commission's order could be dangerous, feels Pandian. "Hereafter, all government departments will take a stand that their subordinate offices are separate public authorities and hence people seeking to know information from the subordinate offices should apply directly to those offices." Pandian said he would move the High Court on appeal against the state information commission order. Best Regards, http://sanesociety.wordpress.com Stand and die in your own strength; if there is any sin in the world, it is weakness; avoid all weakness, for weakness is sin, weakness is death. - Swami Vivekananda Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Go to http://messenger.yahoo.com/invite/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
