Dear Venkat
I agree with your opinion.It needs patience.
Bunch
________________________________
From: Venkatesh Nayak <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Mon, 31 May, 2010 1:38:31 PM
Subject: RE: [rti_india] DoPT OM on the kinds of fee chargeable under Section
7(3) of the RTI Act in India
Dear Bhaskar,
The SCIC may not strike down the Rules. It is better it
advocate with the Administrative Department first through letter petitions etc.
If that does not work then the right thing to do is to approach the High Court.
The recent RTI Rules in Gujarat have some bad provisions. We are workign on a
critique. It will be released shortly.
Thanks
Venkat
________________________________
From: rti_in...@yahoogrou ps.com
[mailto:rti_ in...@yahoogroup s.com] On Behalf Of Bhaskar
Prabhu
Sent: Monday, May 31, 2010 10:23 AM
To: rti_in...@yahoogrou ps.com
Subject: Re: [rti_india] DoPT OM on the
kinds of fee chargeable under Section 7(3) of the RTI Act in
India
Dear Venkatesh,
I read the circular of DoPT. But if you see rules of Mahahrashtra it
conflicting and in Mharashtra the local bodies i.e municipal authorityies and
other are chargeing more than what is prescridbed under the guise of Section
41(A)a of Rules for eg assesment document Municipal Corp of Mumbai they charge
rs.230 per document. Our appeal with Dr.Joshi we had argued opur case in public
interest for one and half our order is still pernding more than i yr from March
2 2009. As all charges need to considered as per 4(1)(A) b.
If you see newly Gujrat rulles it is draconion.
What all we do about it.
Bhaskar Prabhu
Convenor
Mahiti Adhikar Manch
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Venkatesh Nayak <venkat...@humanrigh
tsinitiative. org> wrote:
>[Attachment(s) > from Venkatesh Nayak included below]
>Dear all,
>After a longish pause I am slipping
> back into my old habit of boring you all with longish comments on matters
> and developments related to RTI in India and other countries. Some of you
> have
> inquired about the long pause. I thank you all for your continued interest
> in
> our despatches. After recovering from a bout of illness and catching up on
> pending work, I am back at my keyboard with some good
> news.
>
>Readers will remember that RTI activists in
> India had made submissions to the Central Information Commission (CIC) on
> how
> to interpret Section 7(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI
> Act) relating to additional fees. Some public authorities were charging
> wages,
> collation and compilation charges for providing information to applicants
> and
> billing huge amounts for meeting some information requests. Some
> Information Commissioners in the CIC supported the collection of such
> charges
> while a few other Commissioners refused to accept that the RTI Act empowered
> public authorities to collect such charges. This matter was heard by a full
> bench of the CIC in 2009. The CIC's decision clearly stated that the public
> information officer may charge only such fees as is mentioned in the RTI Fee
> and Costing Rules, 2005. The RTI Rules allow the PIO to charge only
> reproduction costs and nothing more. The CIC's decision is accessible at:
> http://www.humanrig htsinitiative. org/programs/ ai/rti/india/ national/
> 2009/email_ alerts/cic_ fb_7%283% 29_addl_fee_ case_cct09. pdf
>
>On 24th May, 2010 the Department of
> Personnel and Training (administrative departmetn for RTI matters in the
> Union
> Government) has issued an Office Memorandum based on this decision of the
> CIC
> in the matter of K K Kishore v Institute of Company Secretaries and
> Subodh Jain v Dy. Commissione of Police. The OM is attached
> to this email. It is also accessible at: http://persmin. gov.in/WriteData
> /CircularNotific ation/ScanDocume nt/RTI/12_ 9_2009-IR. pdf
>
>This OM goes one step ahead and states that
> the PIO must not charge postal charges from applicants as it is not
> mentioned
> in the Rules. So the principle that the PIO cannot demand any fees that is
> not
> mentioned in the Rules continues to apply to this category of charegs as
> well.
> The State Government of Maharashtra for example, mentions in the Rules
> itself
> that the applicant must pay postage charges also. In Mahrashtra if the State
> PIO charges postage then that is legal but nowhere else will it be legal in
> the absence of such a Rule. However we must persuade all State Governments
> that pass on the postal charges to the applicants to amend the Rules in
> light
> of the Union Government's position. There is no reason why a citizen must be
> taxed twice. Postal charges incurred by a public authority are anyway paid
> for
> through the budget which is based on the taxpayers' money.
>
>I also request all applicants to
> use this OM to challenge any PIO's decision to charge fees other than what
> is
> mentioned in the Rules. I would like to congratulate all RTI users,
> supporters and watchers who sent submissions to the CIC in this case and
> thank
> them for their sustained support. Your hard work has resulted in the law
> being
> interpreted correctly. Now the DoPT has issued general instructions based on
> the CIC's decision. This OM has been sent to the State Governments as
> well. So you now have the task of advocating with your State Governments to
> harmonise the fee rules in tune with the Central Rules.
>
>
>In Jammu and Kashmir the RTI Rules
> framed in 2009 allow the PIO the discretion to charge unspecified kinds
> of fees in addition to reproduction costs. This Rule must now be deleted
> because the Rule expands upon Section 7(3) in their Act. Section 7(3) of the
> J&K RTI Act is a mirror version of Section 73) in the Central RTI Act.
> Friends in J&K must now take up this initiative to get the Rules
> amended.
>
>If you would like to
> congratulate the DoPT for issuing an OM on this crucial matter please send
> your emails to:
>
> * Shri K G Verma, Director,
> DoPT at: dirrti-dopt@ nic.in
> * Shri Rajeev Kapoor, Joint
> Secretary in charge of RTI at
> DoPT at: [email protected]
> * Shri
> Shantanu Consul, Secretary, DoPT at: secy_...@nic. in
>In order to access
> our previous email alerts please click on: http://www.humanrig
> htsinitiative. org/programs/ ai/rti/india/ national. htm You will find the
> links at the top of this web page. If you
> do not wish to receive email alerts please send an email to
> this addressindicating your refusal to receive email
> alerts.
>
>Thanks
>Venkatesh
> Nayak
>Programme
> Coordinator
>Access to Information Programme
>Commonwealth Human Rights
> Initiative
>B-117, I Floor, Sarvodaya Enclave
>New Delhi- 110 017
>
>tel: 91-11- 2686 4678/ 2685 0523
>fax: 91-11- 2686 4688
>website: www.humanrightsinit iative.org
>alternate email:
> nayak.venkatesh@ gmail.com
>
