Jump to content
  • 0
nile0611

Can a Secretary ask for any information?

Question

nile0611

My Society Secretary asked for information under RTI Act from BMC after 30 days we received the reply that the applicant is not citizen and so information cannot be given as per RTI Act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0
Shrawan

Yes, only Citizen have the right to ask for information. Interpreting this, the Unions/Organizations cannot ask for information under Right to Information.

 

You would like to read the decision of CIC here!

http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/118-post1.html

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
babloo

yes nile, any organisation/society cannot ask for information under RTI, so, In your case, the application which was made to BMC was signed by the secretary on behalf of the society, BMC rejected the said application stating that since a society is not a citizen, the application is not covered under the RTI Act, but the intresting part is that if the same secretary applies again to BMC as an individual, then BMC is bound to reply, so apply as an individual, collect the information, forward the reply to the society and the society can use the information if it is supplied by its member, hope this helps you

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
mpai
My Society Secretary asked for information under RTI Act from BMC after 30 days we received the reply that the applicant is not citizen and so information cannot be given as per RTI Act.

 

As long as your secretary wrote his name and signed the application, he is fully entitled to get the information. In short, your secretary is a citizen of the country. A recent CIC Appeal No.139/ICPB/ 2006 F.No.PBA/06/ 188 October 25, 2006, allowed the information in a similar case.

 

Best wishes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
ganpat1956

Thank you Pai for this citation. These replies make our forum livelier day by day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
mpai
Thank you Pai for this citation. These replies make our forum livelier day by day.

 

One must not forgot that this is your country and my country. The Govt. running this country is using your money and mine. So its our duty to make sure that they run the country as we want it and use the money, the way we fell they should.

 

Best wishes

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Shrawan

I happen to read the decision quoted by mPai.

 

Recently, this Commission has decided that even if information is sought by an office bearer of an Association/Union, the same should be treated as valid in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act.

 

It mentions that CIC in some previous decision decided that Union bearer application can be treated as valid under RTI.

 

@mpai

Can you direct me to the previous decision where CIC had decided this?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
mpai
I happen to read the decision quoted by mPai.

 

 

 

It mentions that CIC in some previous decision decided that Union bearer application can be treated as valid under RTI.

 

@mpai

Can you direct me to the previous decision where CIC had decided this?

 

There are several decisions. Looks like some of them have been pulled off the CIC site. Let me check out and inform later.

 

Best wishes

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
ganpat1956

Shrawan, I have been able to trace the following decision of the CIC in this connection. Please find out if it is in order:

 

1.CIC/WB/A/2006/00336 dt 09.08.2006

 

(In the pdf format of the decision, the date is wrongly mentioned as 09.05.2006)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Shrawan
Although the Act guarantees right to information only to a citizen, in the instant case, the appellant is seeking information on behalf of other members of the Association, or simply a group of citizens, not a body corporate. The basic objective of the Act is to give information, rather than to withhold or deny a right recognized.

 

Yes that is the decision. I am attaching it here for the reference as many Officers would require this ;)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
mpai

Here are some of the cases where the "Associations" were allowed

 

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

Appeal: No. CIC/OK/C/2006/ 00001

Dated, the 10th July, 2006

Name of the Appellant:The General Secretary, Hindustan

Cables Ltd., VRS Employees Welfare Association, Hyderabad

Name of the Public Authority : Hindustan Cables Ltd., Kolkata

 

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/ 2006/00364

Right to Information Act 2005 – Section 19

Appellant: Shri Sandeep Jain

Respondent: India Meteorological Deptt.

 

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2006/ 00313 dated 13.6.2006

Right to Information Act 2005 – Section 19

Appellant Shri Ravinder Balwani

Respondents : Department of Power, Government of NCT of Delhi

 

Maybe somebody would like to upload the appropriate CIC decisions.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
ssn

this was just the query I had, our building society has finally put in an application under RTI to the PIO of BMC but applicant he has advised us to put our housing society name with the treasurer signing on its behalf . We affixed a court fee stamp of Rs.10 with a self addressed envelope and an AD card attached for the info. to be provided by registered post. Oops hope its a really big cover since we have asked for ALL the documents submitted pertaining to our bldg. Hope we get the info. will let u all know the result. Celebrations are on in the BMC after the recent elections!!

How do they give the required info- directly or do they send a reply first?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
mpai
but applicant he has advised us to put our housing society name with the treasurer signing on its behalf . We affixed a court fee stamp of Rs.10 with a self addressed envelope and an AD card attached for the info. to be provided by registered post.

 

I do not know if you had applied under the Central RTI Act 2005 or under the Mah. State Info Act. I am not familiar with the latter. Now my replies for the posts highlighted in color, the replies are in the same color, so as not to cause any confusion.

 

Why do some folks listen to people, who are not conversant with the Act themself?

 

As per the Central Act. there is no need to attach self address envelope or AD Card. Only cost of photocopying or inspection of documents are applicable. Postage is generally paid for by the PIO's Office.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
ssn

thanks for that firing! honest, I had my doubts, but the committee thought better of a lawyer's opinion than a secretary's and justifiably! the application was filed under the Act of 2005. We have been told to pay in cash on receipt of documents. (to enquire after 7 working days since date of application which was 2nd feb.) by the way, they also didn't accept the self addressed envelope and ad card.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
ganpat1956

Recently I came across a report in "The Telegraph", Calcutta, datelined 04 Feb.2007, that a former MP and secretary of CITU, Dipankar Mukherjee has been denied information under RTI, because he asked for it in his capacity as secretary of CITU. I am furnishing the link to this news item below:

The Telegraph - Calcutta : Nation

 

Despite several decisions by the CIC in this regard, it appears that the PIOs and AAs are not getting themselves acquainted with the latest under RTI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
mpai

Despite several decisions by the CIC in this regard, it appears that the PIOs and AAs are not getting themselves acquainted with the latest under RTI.

 

The PIOs / AAs are very must conversant with the act to the extent to deny you information, by quoting the various exceptions. They are just afraid that somebody might expose their misdoings!

 

Given a chance, even these same PIOs/AAs would file an RTI Application for their personal benefit ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
karira

Reposting from another thread:

 

There is a small article in today's Economic Times referring to the following decision of the CIC:

http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_17052007_04.pdf

The article says that Companies can also file applications under RTI Act.

can someone please clarify..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
mpai
The article says that Companies can also file applications under RTI Act.

can someone please clarify..

 

For some reason, CIC has been favouring companies and NGOs in filing RTI Applications. eg Transparency International India, Cannon etc.

 

Maybe future decisions would let us know more about this subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Jitesh Bhattacharjee

Tell the secretary to request for the information in his name. In this case also, if the authority deny information, he may appeal first to FAA and then to the Information Commission (state/central), if necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Shrawan

The CIC in two of the recent decision has denied the information as the complainant has sought the information on behalf of the organization, of which he is a secretary, stating that the information seeker is not covered Under Section 3 of the Act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
karira

These seem to be contrary to earlier decisions of CIC widely quoted above and elsewhere in this forum. How to clarify the factual position ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Shrawan

Well, the latest prevails. However, I am yet to get hold of transition sequence to know where is the line of demarcation (if there is any)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
karira

Here is another decision where IC Mr M.M. Ansari has disallowed a appeal from a VP of a employees union:

 

6. The information seeker, being an organization, is not covered u/s 3 of the Act. The appeal is, therefore, not maintainable.

 

Full decision can be viewed at:

 

http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_08062007_14.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
mpai
The CIC in two of the recent decision has denied the information Under Section 3 of the Act.

 

Here is yet another decision of similar nature from Prof. Ansari who ruled

"the appellant was advised to seek information as citizen, as his present appeal was not covered u/s 3 of the Act. Information sought should be available with the CPIO in any material form. "

 

 

Manoj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Satish Gupta

Whether an organization is covered under RTI or not depends upon which Commissioner hears the case :)

C. I. Commissioner Ansari always rules that organizations are not covered.

C. I. Commissioner Balasubramanian rules that organizations are covered.

C. I. Commissioner Habibullah rules that organizations are covered.

 

Decision by Habibullah was the best reasoned decision. The parts of law that have governed this questions in other areas were well covered.

 

Under the rules of CIC, decision from one commissioner can be appealed to the Chief Information Commissioner. Since Habibulah is the Chief, an appeal against decision of Ansari has a good chance of being successful.

 

Satishicon7.gif

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Satish Gupta

We need a volunteer in Delhi, who can write a good appeal against the decisions of Ansari. According to CIC rules, decisions of one commissioner can be appealed to the Chief Commissioner. If you are willing to do the leg work, please email me. It is important to appeal otherwise Ansari and PIOs will continue to deny the benefits of RTI to the public.

 

Thanks

Satish Gupta

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.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   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

    • pnmazumdar
      By pnmazumdar
      Can an application for information under RTI be rejected on the ground that the applicant, though is a Lecturer of a Central University but he is also General Secretary of a political party and he has applied as General Secretary of a political party and not as an individual:confused:
    • ganpat1956
      By ganpat1956
      Express News Service
       
      Ludhiana, April 25: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued notices to Punjab's Principal Secretary, Vigilance Bureau Director and Chief Vigilance Officer following a public interest litigation (PIL).
      The PIL, filed by a Ludhiana-based NGO, Resurgence India, had sought an inquiry into the role of government officials and municipal bodies in violations of building bylaws, land use policy, town planning and building schemes.
       
      According to a report attached by the petitioner, 20 cases of violations are still pending against MC officials, while seven inquiries against the Vigilance Bureau officials have been closed for want of evidence.
       
      The information on the pending cases and complaints was obtained by the NGO under the Right to Information Act (RTI).
      The NGO stated that these violations, in shape of encroachments and illegal constructions, have taken place in the state over more than a decade.
       
      The petition has sought directions from the Court for fixing the responsibility on the municipal officials and other supervisory authorities who allowed these violations to occur at such a large-scale in Punjab.
       
      The NGO has also sought an independent inquiry into the disposal of all chargesheets against erring officials of the Department of Local Government, chief town planner and the municipal bodies in the State.
       
      The petition highlighted that these officials had been chargesheeted for dereliction of duty, for being in connivance with builders, or for allowing violations of building by laws, land use policy and town planning schemes.
       
      The petition alleged that the erring officials were either let off without punishment or with minor punishment.
       
      In this light, the NGO urged the court to ascertain whether the inquiry officials and supervisory officials at higher levels of hierarchy were also involved.
      HC notice to VB officials, Principal Secretary

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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