Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'different'.
Found 3 results
chanda_s posted a question in Ask for RTI Supportan RTi query has been addressed to my counterpart having jurisdiction in another state. the postal order sent along with the application is also in the name of my counterpart of the other state. the subject of the query, however comes under my jurisdiction as the area is now under my jurisdiction. now my counterpart in the other state had sent the application in original along with the postal order and asked me to provide the requisite information. this he has done within the stipulated period of 5 days. no problem on that count. i have prepared the requisite information which is now ready to be provided. to whom should i send the information? to the person who asked the question or to my counterpart i was referring to? as i already mentioned, the postal order is in the name of my counterpart and therefore i cant encash it. and unless i can realise the application fee, i cant provide the information. this is my predicament. i have studied section 6(3)(ii) and some case studies relevant to the issue. i have thought of two options. to send the original query back to my counterpart along with the information requested under rti and request my counterpart to supply the information himself to the applicant and encash the postal order. write to the applicant that the information pertains to my jurisdiction and therefore that the postal order be sent in the name of my office. once i receive the postal order, i'll provide the information. which of these two options would be a better and correct way of doing things? or is there an even better third option? kindly advise. to add to the information i already provided, i also add the following points. the entire country is divided into some 30 odd geographic circles for a particular job. i head one of those circles and my counterpart heads another. the information asked is about something which is now in a district in my jurisdiction.(earlier it was with my counterpart but subsequent to rearrangement of jurisdictions it now is with me.) though under the same department we are independent of each other and are different public authorities with different CPIOs and Appellate authorities. we sit in different states.
sidmis posted a topic in RTI in MediaNEW DELHI: The environment ministry, it seems, is so weighed down by its workload that it canâ€™t get its facts right. Responding to two separate Right to Information applications, it has contradicted itself on formulation of new rules to regulate 7,500 km of Indian coastline. In one reply, it denied any attempt to rejig the rules and in another, it admitted that it was finalising a new set of rules to control development activity along coasts. The confusion prevails, despite the fact that the government has availed a $90 million loan from the World Bank to operationalise and ground-test the rules that are yet to be finally approved. TOI had earlier reported on the existence of such rules and its details. The rules, sources said, were now lying with the highest officials in the government for their consideration. In 2004, the government had set up a committee under M S Swaminathan to review coastal regulations. The committee submitted its report in 2005. Since then, the government has been formulating the new rules in a hushed fashion. In its response to one RTI application, the ministry said the Indian Law Institute was commissioned to formulate regulations based on Swaminathanâ€™s report. Several coastal states had written to the government demanding that coastal regulations notified in 1991 under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, be eased to allow â€˜developmentâ€™ of coasts with Maratha strongman Sharad Pawar reportedly pitching hard recently for opening the salt pans of Mumbai to development as well. The 1991 notification has been under severe pressure from the construction lobby and states wanting to open the sea front to development. In submissions made to the government, Maharashtra had demanded that it be allowed to increase the floor space index restriction in the regulated coastal belt. Gujarat wants to open coasts to mining and industry while Kerala and Goa have demanded that the vulnerable coast be opened to tourism. The new draft rules allow the states to undertake commercial activities and infrastructure building like beach tourism, SEZs, water sports, ports, developing salt pans, mining, ship breaking and manufacturing, roads, railways, pipelines, power transmission lines and harbours within areas demarcated by government-hired experts as vulnerable to natural hazards. The demarcation of this vulnerable line is being carried out in some states using the World Bank loan while the draft rules are yet to be finalised. firstname.lastname@example.org 19 Oct 2007, 0002 hrs IST,Nitin Sethi,TNN
ganpat1956 posted a topic in RTI in Media[The title of the news story should read as "RTI Application" and not RTI Appeal--Ganpat] NEW DELHI: In what is a classic case of disparate ways of interpreting the same law, a Right to Information (RTI) request has elicited different responses from different courts, as appellant Shruti Singh Chauhan has discovered. The information that Chauhan asked from three high courts was the same: the total budget; the procedure for the appointment of staff and the vacancies; the number of judgments reserved in each court; and finally the sting in tail the number and nature of complaints against each judge. While the Delhi High Court refused to give information on any of the queries, the fledgling Chhattisgarh HC gave detailed replies to the questions. Interestingly, the Allahabad HC refused the petition asking her to submit separate applications for each item of information and a fee of Rs 500 for each. Chauhan had filed the RTI request asking for information on the total budget of the particular court along with a break-up of the amount available with each department, the number of judgments that have been reserved and since when, the number of complaints against each judge serving in the court, and procedure for appointment of class III and IV employees and a list of vacancies. In theory, the response of three HCs should have been the same. Surprisingly, Chauhan received varied responses from each court. The Delhi High Court ruled that it could not give information on its budget under rule 4(IV) and 5(a) of the Delhi HC (Right to Information) Rules, 2006. Rule 4(IV) says information on any decision that is taken administratively or quasi judicially...shall be available only to the affected persons while rule 5(a) gives exemption from disclosure if the information which is not in the public domain or does not relate to judicial functions and duties of the court and matters incidental and ancillary thereto. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/RTI_appeal_gets_3_different_responses/articleshow/2311229.cms