Dear Mr Sarbajit and Mr Nangia,
Mr Sarabjit said in his earlier post:
The CIC can direct information to be given free of cost if the info was
supplied late.
In all other cases WHERE THERE IS EVIDENT HARM CAUSED TO THE APPLICANT the CIC
can use its powers of "compensation" to ensure that all (or some) of the info
is given free.
The CIC cannot order a PIO /PA to accept an application which is deficient in
terms of mandatories, EXCEPT where the information exclusively concerns section
4 disclosure.
If you have specific examples which violate my analysis please cite them.
Mr Nangia said in his earlier post:
.........In terms of provision of Sec 7(6), if the information is not provided
within the timeframe {30 days} specified under Sec 7(1), it would be provided
free of charge. In the situation described by you, IC ordering for information
to be provided free of charge is nothing great, it is the provision of Law
which even IC is also under a mandatory obligation to abide. SO THERE IS NO
NEED TO READ TOO MUCH INTO IC's ORDER FOR PROVIDING INFORMATION FREE OF CHARGE.
IC IS JUST ENFORCING THE PROVISION OF LAW ON THIS COUNT and IT IS JUST PLAINLY
SIMPLE.. IC HAS INDUCED CONFUSION BY USING HIGH SOUNDING WORDS '"PLENARY
AUTHORITY" IN HIS ORDER.
I once again request both of you to read all the citations/examples I have
given and judge for yourself whether the conditions stated in the earlier posts
(quoted above) are satisfied or not.
=========
Mr Sarbajit, you make it sound like we should all contribute towards IC MLS's
statue to be put up outside AK Bhawan ! But then, why does this IC forget "JUST
ENFORCING THE PROVISION OF LAW" when imposing penalty under Sec 20(1) ? Aren't
there any high sounding words like "plenary powers" to do that ?
(Now please do not make me work some more to provide you citations/examples for
this also).
RTIwanted
PS: The tail was too long , so I just deleted it.
