Dear Karira I don't know if they still have tongas (victorias) in Secunderabad. The way the tanga-wallah controls thehorse and gets him to serve his purpose is to put "blinkers" over his eyes and only focus the eyes on where he wants the horse to go.
Similarly all the RTI activists are only looking at section 4(1)(a) in isolation and trying to teach me the Act. The Delhi High Court's order has thrown out all those arguments of CIC being able to award "compensation" in its decision. You have also not read section 19(8) and 18(1) carefully. I have only made 2 small points (repeated below). You (too) may tell me precisely what is wrong with these statements. I am not influenced by decisions of IC(T), but concede that he can read the RTI Act almost as well as I can. The first part of 4(1)(a) IS obligatory in itself, the 2nd part is not but left to the discretion of the P/A. "1) Section 4(1)(a) does not make it obligatory for P/As to computerise the records. It enables them to do so if they are so inclined. 2) You can "request" information in form of diskettes only when it is stored on a computer or other device - not because the information is voluminous and would pinch your pocket." For eg. (and this is a very trivial example to slightly adjust your depth of field), I don't know if you have noticed, whereas the first part of 4(1)(a) requires every P/a to maintain ALL its records duly indexed and catalogued to facilitate THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION, the second part only speaks of facilitating ACCESS to SUCH (ie. truncated subset) records and is also precedent upon the first part being completed. Sarbajit --- In [email protected], C K Jam <rtiwan...@...> wrote: > > Mr Sarbajit, > > Do not agree to that interpretation. > Sec 4(1)(a) is preceded by a sentence containing the word "shall". > > Therefore every public authority has to computerise : > > - those records which are appropriate to be computerised > - within a reasonable time > - subject to availability of resources > > Where did you get the "inclination" part from ? > > It seems you are being influenced by IC ANT's famous (and absurd) order which > said that the entire Sec 4 is not obligatory ! > > By the way, as far as funds (one of the "resources") are concerned, DoPT had > issued a Memo way back in 2007, based on the recommendations of the second > ARC, for specific provision in the budget for such a purpose. > Wonder whatever happened to that ? > > Also remember, as per CIC (and quoted in a DoPT circular), a > appellant/complainant can seek compensation from the PA, under Sec 19(8), if > the PA has not adhered to the mandate in Sec 4(1)(a). > Anyone wants to try seeking compensation from CIC itself, on this count ? > > RTIwanted > > > --- On Sun, 6/27/10, sarbajitr <sroy1...@...> wrote: > > From: sarbajitr <sroy1...@...> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Bhaskar > > > > 1) Section 4(1)(a) does not make it obligatory for P/As to computerise the > records. It enables them to do so if they are so inclined. > > > > > > >
