Hi I agree with Venkatesh that this situation of 7(3) misuse by PIOs arises primarily from misusers of the RTI Act. I supplement this by saying that such misuse is encouraged by irresponsible people primarily from the NGO sector.
On behalf of this group I had already presented / filed OUR viewpoints (ie. of RTI users as well as responsible PIOs) firmly opposing any so called "further fees of 7(3)". It was filed in the name and style of "Tatwasoochna Sabha" which is, however, NOT an NGO. That entire document is available here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rti_india/message/2724 I reiterated these submissions before the 3 member bench of CIC and the entire bench agreed with our submissions, that of CHRI (through Venkatesh) and Mr Rakesh Gupta. Their order was reserved. In the meantime one of the members of the bench was "fixed" and he began to agitate some new questions which were not covered in either CHRI's submisisons or ours. ie. the cost to provide information in "extra-ordinary" situations of 7(9), the cost of "providing" information by "SpeedPost" etc. etc. The CIC then decide to expand the 3 member bench to include also IC(Tiwari) and IC(Gandhi). It is pertinent that IC(Tiwari) declined /refused to sit on this bench and reportedly stated that irrespective of this Bench's decision he was not bound by its directions. A decision was also taken by Mr. Habibullah personally (behind our backs and in violation of Rules) to join in about 20 PSUs to this matter to plead for further fees by 7(3). He did this knowing very well that whilst striking down the 7(3) fees he would leave considerable scope for these PSUs and their corporate lawyers to get stay orders from the High Court. He also knew very well that ICSI (the actual Respondent) is not inclined to press this matter in the High Court - but PSUs like BSNL, ONGC, NTPC, Delhi Police etc are simply waiting for a chance which he is giving them on a golden pre-retirement platter. My first query to Mr Habibullah on 23-Sep-2009 was about the status of we 3 persons who had filed our comments to CIC's public notice, and why we were not formally impleaded (and especially since Appellant Mr K.K.Kishore had never entered appearance in CIC and matter was certain to be agitated further in High Court). Mr Habibullah said that we were only "assisting the Commission. This is damn funny - He has 8 ICs to assist him (see section 12(4)) all of whom get huge salaries, perks and cars with 'red lights' (enough to tell any intelligent person that it is a red light district) etc. To the contrary we as RTI users are not only "proper parties" but also "necessary parties" in this matter and we are doing it out for love and fresh air. Thereafter speaking on the 23-Sep-2009 for Mr Muzib-ur-Rehman (whose case on 7(3) is before IC)Tiwari) I agitated that the 4 member bench was unlawful and that in view of DoPT's public dissemination the CIC has no lawful power to appoint larger benches. I specifically drew the Bench's attention to section 12(4) where the CIC could only do such things autonomously which were not subject to direction by any other authority. I specifically drew the Bench's attention to the Karnataka (SIC) Appeal Procedure Rules whereby a power for Benches had been conferred on that SIC under section 19. I specifically drew Mr Habibullah's attention to sub-sections 19(9) and 19(10) wherein the DoPT(Cenral Govt) could notify Rules to constitute Benches as part of the appeal procedure (as in Karnataka's case), OR (and this is important) a larger Bench could be constituted IF the appellant/complainant approached for a further appeal (which was not true in K.K.Kishotre's case). However, Mr Habibullah (and the other ICs) seemed very disinclined to delve into the legality of their own actions considering that there is pressure from No.10 to have an "aam aadmi" RTI Act. I also advised Mr Habibullah that his "powers" are derived only from sections 18,19, 20 of the RTI Act and from other sections like section 12(4), I also impugned the legality of the so-called CIC Management Regulations (which are as yet un-notified and hence unlawful). I concluded my arguments by saying that for the case where information was supplied in either the "printed" or "electronic" forms, 7(5) mandated that only "prescribed" fees could be charged and which must be "reasonable". I am sure that not a whisper of these arguments will appear in the final order where RTI will be f***ed once again by the CIC (sorry ladies). Sarbajit --- In [email protected], MALLAPRAGADA RAMARAO <srammi...@...> wrote: > > the irresponsible use of rti act is a lesser evil we have to suffer. > >  however, such irresponsible use is not confined to information seekers > under rti act. >  the freedom of expression is often misused/abused by print > media/electronic > media. > > during the recent helicopter crash killing the then Chief Minister of Andhra > Pradesh, > on the night of September 2, when the search operation had actually stalled > because of bad weather and nightfall, > India TV declared unequivocally that the CM was alive and safe. It attributed > the information to a âhighly placed (uchch padast)â > source in the CMâs office. It didnât stop there. The same âhighly > placedâ source, the channel claimed, had personally spoken > .to the CM on mobile. Twelve hours later,  it became clear that YSR had died > 12 hours earlier. still we rightly hold freedom of > press as sacrosanct. same is the case with transparency in governance and > rti act which is one of the instruments to > achieve it. > > 2.it may be really not necessary, but i congratulate mr. nayak for cogently > presenting OUR case. > > m. rama rao > >
