With Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, the maximum inquiries of RTI are concerned with the LP numbers. Hence the Town Planning Department is planning to put all LP numbers in the web site. Anand S. Anti Corruption Form Bangalore 560 085 Cell No: +91-92410-12730 or +91-98450-39699
________________________________ From: Nicholas Santiago <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Mon, October 26, 2009 12:38:14 AM Subject: Re: [rti_india] Re: Voluntary Disclosure of Assets by the Lok Ayukta in Karnataka Hello I would like to contribute to this debate. My understanding of India's RTI Act is as follows:- 1) The Public Authorities publish as much as they care to (suo moto) so that the public does not have to apply for information, 2) The citizens then apply for any missing / unlocated information. In either case the Public Authority is not obliged to provide information which is exempted. As "cpiodelhi" has rightly observed, a) there is no reason /mandate for any public authority to publish under case-1 above or b) to supply it when applied for. As someone who has been pursuing FoI for quite some time, I suggest that activists should clearly distinguish the present reality and their "wish lists". Nick On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 12:18 PM, Venkatesh Nayak <venkat...@humanrigh tsinitiative. org> wrote: > > > > Dear Mr./Ms. CPIODelhi, > I have not claimed anywhere in my email that the RTI Act makes it mandatory > for public servants to disclose their assets. The purpose of the email was to > show that where a public servant occupying a position of command is > positively inclined towards disclosure of assets related information, such > ifnormation can be made publicly available even in the absence of a statutory > obligation. I think when information is publicly available and when one is > living within one's known sources of income, there need be no fear of the > consequences of such disclosure. To the best of my knowledge no busybody has > started any litigation against the officials of the Karnataka Lok Ayukta > using their assets-related information from the website. > However under the RTI Act the Central Information Commission has ruled > against the disclosure of such information. Some Information Commissions have > ruled on occasion that property statements of officers must be disclosed, but > these have been stayed by the respective High Courts. This is where the > matter stands I think. However readers may please correct me if I am wrong. > Thanks > Venkat > ____________ _________ _________ __
