Dear Sunil, This is what we all need to do and my complaint order is still awaited which is pending after hearing from March 2009 and after this I was able to convince the MCGM to take out circular regarding charges and way document to be given by Municipal Corporation of Mumbai i.e they should stamp as document provided under RTI and name of the offier should also be written. But MCGM has worded the circular in Marathi "visshista dastavej" - means spl documents (which is vague) be charged as per price fixed by department ( now I am telling them give me list of all spl documents). So here there is hitch. After order from Joshi if tit is negative then I am left ony perceiving to GAD or go to High Court.
Yours in service for RTI Bhaskar Prabhu Mahiti Adhikar Manch Mumbai On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 2:13 PM, Sunil Ahya <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Dear Friends, > > With reference to the Maharashtra Right to Information Rules, 2005, made by > the Maharashtra (appropriate) government under section 27(2) of the RTI Act, > > I have copy pasted below Rule 4 (1) (A) *(a) & (b)* of the said Rules, > > Rule 4(1): > > (A)(a) when the concerned Department has already fixed the price of some > documents, maps, etc. > > The price so fixed* plus *postal charges. > > > > (b) when the information is readily available, either by way of > photocopying, or by other way (copy). > > (i) rupees two for each page(in A-4 or A-3 size paper) created or* copied > plus* postal charges; or > > (ii) actual charge or cost price of a copy in large size paper *plus*postal > charges. > > It seems, use of the following words in Rule 4(1) is ambiguous and lacks > clarity: > > "already fixed" in *Rule 4 (1) (A) (a), * > > "readily available", & "created" in *Rule 4 (1) (A) (b),* > * > In the event, when both the conditions occur simultaneously i.e. a PA has > already fixed a price for a particular info and also the same is readily > available for photocopying: > * > On one hand, a PA would invoke Rule 4 (1) (A) (a) if charges for the > requested information are *already fixed* by them irrespective of whether > the information is readily available for photocopying, > * > * > Whereas on the other hand an applicant would invoke Rule 4 (1) (A) (b) > suggesting that if the requested information *is readily available for > photocopying*,(why charge more) then the prescribed A-4, A-3 or if larger > than that, actual cost incurred for photocopying should be recovered, > irrespective of the charges prescribed by the PA for the same. > > I think, a clarification from the Maharashtra General Administration > Department (GAD) needs to be sought, with a request to issue a Memorandum / > GR in this regard. > > Thanks, > > Sunil. > -- > It is not always the same thing to be a good man and a good citizen - > Aristotle > > >
