Jump to content

New File- Information under Sec 4 - no need for PIO to provide or reject application

Recommended Posts

Prasad GLN

Judgment appears incomplete and not possible in a country like India, where there are several illiterate and RTI with specific Sec.4 disclosure is not known to all applicants or PIOs.

Hon.Judge can not over look stipulation in RTI that PIO must either to provide or deny information.

A simple copy and paste reply that information is available in Public Domain and giving a link should have been more appropriate by any PIOs and PIO ought to have provided the printed letter to applicants whose information is linked to such disclosures without taking any trouble atleast for accepting Rs.10/RTI fee. But giving a free hand that PIO need not reject or respond appears merciless and unkind to less educated citizens who are not having access to systems and internet.

But Hon.Judge is always right.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

How many public authorities update information u/s 4.1.b regularly is also a question, in addition to how many citizens have internet access or how many public authorities have their websites or how many websites are in Hindi. where proactive disclosure can be uploaded in Hindi too. Many problems on the ground. This judgement needs to be challenged.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

There are 3 DOPT directives and several CIC decisions to Public Authorities to upload RTI Applications, PIO response, First Appeals and Appellate Orders. But several Public Authorities still have not uploaded the same.

The idea behind such directive is really laudable, as PIO can not at the time of hearing claim that they have provided information, as though applicant has preferred complaints, even after receiving such information.

Hon.ICs seldom pay attention to specific complaint that Public Authorities are not uploading the RTI information. In one case PIO has argued that the information was uploaded and Hon IC dismissed the case. When another RTI Application was filed, CPIO simply replied that he has provided correct information to IC that they were uploaded but it is accessible only to their officials alone and not to General Public. CPIO is correct.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is nothing but denying the right to information, in one way or the other. After studying the judgement, next course to file an appeal.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

Any Hon.Members have come across any stipulations in RTI Act either for rejection or for keeping quiet on receiving RTI Applications ?

The issue is when the law is silent, can a Court interpret that part on which court is silent ?

What happened to several so called cash rich organisations with lot of experts craving for Publicity ?

Can not they take active interest, when the matter touches a common man who has no approach either to a Court or even systems or such internet associations or guiding activists ?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • garg0505
      By garg0505
      Recently PIO of public authority, in a RTI application submitted u/s 6 of the RTI Act, responded to applicant after the stipulated time, you please visit the office of his junior and inspect the file/files, and after inspection of the files obtain the documents by depositing the money itself. Therefore, please provide expert opinions about the issue, as in my opinion no such provision do available to PIO to direct the information seekers under RTI Act. However if applicant desires himself to inspect the files, then option available to applicant to file the RTI application under section 2(j)(I) of the RTI act.
    • ashakantasharma
      By ashakantasharma
      Seeking information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act can be costly at times. Especially when you are asked to cough up as much as Rs 56,000 for some information, you would probably think again before using the Act.
      Advocate Vinod Sampat, too, was shocked when he was asked by the Andheri Land Records office to pay an amount of Rs 56, 268 to get information on the structures located on collector’s land across the city.
      Sampat had made an application on September 21 to inquire about it. He needed the accurate information to be part of the reference books he is writing on property matters. “I wanted information on such properties because buying properties situated on collector’s land costs an extra amount,” said Sampat.
      “However, I was shocked to see the amount asked by the Andheri office,” he said. And the amount was asked only for information on the properties situated under the jurisdiction of Andheri office.
      A shocked Sampat wrote to the Chief Information Commissioner Suresh Joshi, on Wednesday, asking him to ascertain the amount demanded from him. He also wrote to the Land Records Officer, Andheri, MT Ingle seeking a clarification on how the amount was arrived.
      As per RTI rules, Rs 2 per page is demanded to provide information. “That means they were giving me 28,000 pages as information,” said an amused Sampat.
      He said that if his queries were not answered, he would file an appeal with the appellate authority.
      When contacted, Ingle said he had charged Sampat according to the rates specified by the state government and the revenue department.
      Joshi said that in such cases, it is better for the applicants to ask for the inspection of the files so that they can pin-point the actual documents needed. They can also come in appeal to the commission, he said.
      “The information officers can charge rates only as prescribed by the state government and in this case, it is found that the concerned officer is trying to willfully mislead the people, strict action will be taken,” he added.
      However, Sampat said that the inspection point should have been mentioned in the letter, “instead of just frightening the applicant by demanding such an astronomical amount.”
      “Do you believe that the Land Records office must have counted all the 28,000 pages?”


  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy