Notification on RTI Rules 2012 appears on DoPT. Website.

[smbhappy]

At last Notification on RTI Rules 2012 appears on DoPT. Website.

Link: http://circulars.nic.in/WriteReadDat..._2009-IR-1.pdf

[Ravi Maheshwari]

Sponsorer

At last Notification on RTI Rules 2012 appears on DoPT. Website.

Link: http://circulars.nic.in/WriteReadDat..._2009-IR-1.pdf

Thanks,

1) Restricting an application to 500 words appears to be OK; but it would have been better if the addresses of CPIO and applicant are excluded from 500 words.

2) There is no mention in the Rules that an application having more than 500 words has to be returned to applicant and/or applicant to be advised by CPIO/APIO to prioritize the information so as to restrict it to 500 words, within 5 days.

3) Now a days one page xerox costs not more than Re.1/-, whereas, the existing fee per page is Rs. 2/-. Hence, postal charges over and above Rs. 50/- is also not in order.

4) Electronic means is one of the modes of payment of fees; but I suppose the DOPT - the Nodal Agency to implement RTI - does not have facility of accepting payment through electronic means. It appears, it is not the will and wish of DOPT to introduce electronic means.

5) Public Authority may authorized any representative or any of its officers to present its case in appeal, presentation of case should have been restricted to by any Officer(s) of the Public Authority only, since presentation of case by any "authorized representative" will give license to all PAs to appoint/nominate Advocates, at cost of public exchequer, to present thier cases.

[Ravi Maheshwari]

At last Notification on RTI Rules 2012 appears on DoPT. Website.

Link: http://circulars.nic.in/WriteReadDat..._2009-IR-1.pdf

(1) Section 3 : Restricting an application to 500 words appears to be OK; but address of CPIO and applicant need to be excluded from calculating 500 words. There will be disputes in calculating words, its difficult to calculate. Would have been better if time limit of 5 days is imposed on CPIO/APIO to return the application or advice applicant to prioritize the information, in case he/she finds that number of words exceeded 500.

(2) Section 4 (g) : Copying charge of Rs. 2/- per page is high compared to the present market rate of not more than Re. 1/-; and hence, charging further fee in the form of postal charge appears to ob unreasonable.

(3) Section 6 (c) : I suppose DOPT – the Nodal Agency to implement RTI – does not have facility to accept payment of fees through electronic means. Transaction worth crores of rupees can be done electronically; but DOPT itself is lacking in accepting fee through electronic mode. It seems DOPT does not have will and wish to accept payment electronically.

(4) Section 8 : Since the Format of Appeal to CIC has been prescribed, it should be made mandatory for the First Appellate Authority to supply a copy of the Format of Appeal to the appellant at the time of disposal of first appeal.

(5) Section 13 : Public Authority should have not have allowed to authorize any representative to present its case, since the Public Authority may engage Advocates at higher fee to present its cases, which would again be loss to the public exchequer.(1) Section 3 : Restricting an application to 500 words appears to be OK; but address of CPIO and applicant need to be excluded from calculating 500 words. There will be disputes in calculating words, its difficult to calculate. Would have been better if time limit of 5 days is imposed on CPIO/APIO to return the application or advice applicant to prioritize the information, in case he/she finds that number of words exceeded 500.

(2) Section 4 (g) : Copying charge of Rs. 2/- per page is high compared to the present market rate of not more than Re. 1/-; and hence, charging further fee in the form of postal charge appears to ob unreasonable.

(3) Section 6 (c) : I suppose DOPT – the Nodal Agency to implement RTI – does not have facility to accept payment of fees through electronic means. Transaction worth crores of rupees can be done electronically; but DOPT itself is lacking in accepting fee through electronic mode. It seems DOPT does not have will and wish to accept payment electronically.

(4) Section 8 : Since the Format of Appeal to CIC has been prescribed, it should be made mandatory for the First Appellate Authority to supply a copy of the Format of Appeal to the appellant at the time of disposal of first appeal.

(5) Section 13 : Public Authority should have not have allowed to authorize any representative to present its case, since the Public Authority may engage Advocates at higher fee to present its cases, which would again be loss to the public exchequer.

[Ravi Maheshwari]

(1) Section 3 : Restricting an application to 500 words appears to be OK; but address of CPIO and applicant need to be excluded from calculating 500 words. There will be disputes in calculating words, its difficult to calculate. Would have been better if time limit of 5 days is imposed on CPIO/APIO to return the application or advice applicant to prioritize the information, in case he/she finds that number of words exceeded 500.

(2) Section 4 (g) : Copying charge of Rs. 2/- per page is high compared to the present market rate of not more than Re. 1/-; and hence, charging further fee in the form of postal charge appears to ob unreasonable.

(3) Section 6 (c) : I suppose DOPT – the Nodal Agency to implement RTI – does not have facility to accept payment of fees through electronic means. Transaction worth crores of rupees can be done electronically; but DOPT itself is lacking in accepting fee through electronic mode. It seems DOPT does not have will and wish to accept payment electronically.

(4) Section 8 : Since the Format of Appeal to CIC has been prescribed, it should be made mandatory for the First Appellate Authority to supply a copy of the Format of Appeal to the appellant at the time of disposal of first appeal.

(5) Section 13 : Public Authority should have not have allowed to authorize any representative to present its case, since the Public Authority may engage Advocates at higher fee to present its cases, which would again be loss to the public exchequer.

[KNIGHT217]

(1) section 3 : Restricting an application to 500 words appears to be ok; but address of cpio and applicant need to be excluded from calculating 500 words. There will be disputes in calculating words, its difficult to calculate. Would have been better if time limit of 5 days is imposed on cpio/apio to return the application or advice applicant to prioritize the information, in case he/she finds that number of words exceeded 500.

(2) section 4 (g) : Copying charge of rs. 2/- per page is high compared to the present market rate of not more than re. 1/-; and hence, charging further fee in the form of postal charge appears to ob unreasonable.

(3) section 6 (c) : I suppose dopt – the nodal agency to implement rti – does not have facility to accept payment of fees through electronic means. Transaction worth crores of rupees can be done electronically; but dopt itself is lacking in accepting fee through electronic mode. It seems dopt does not have will and wish to accept payment electronically.

(4) section 8 : Since the format of appeal to cic has been prescribed, it should be made mandatory for the first appellate authority to supply a copy of the format of appeal to the appellant at the time of disposal of first appeal.

(5) section 13 : Public authority should have not have allowed to authorize any representative to present its case, since the public authority may engage advocates at higher fee to present its cases, which would again be loss to the public exchequer.

if the fed up babus were free to use their powers they would have made the total number of words in appl to bare minimum and rti quieries would look more like a 'tell me why' book.