DoPT Circular re Sec 6(3) - Transfer of RTI Applications

[karira]

DoPT has issued a circular No. 10/2/2008-IR dated 12/06/2008 clarifying the procedure and regualtions for RTI applications received by a Public Authority regarding information concerning other Public Authority/Authorities.

It gives examples and sets guidelines for transfer of applications under Sec 6(3).

The circular is attached to this post:

http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/5940-h...html#post20054





Similar Threads which you may be interested into:

• DoPT Circular for creating a single point for RTI Applications if more than one CPIO
• DoPT Circular regarding CIC/SIC not allowed to refund RTI Fees
• DoPT Memo on transfer of RTI Applications to PMO under Sec 6(3)
• DoPT Circular regarding implementation of Sec 4
• DoPT Circular re recommendation of alloting 1% of budget wrt Sec 4(1)

[karira]

Sponsorer

In a recent order, CIC has invoked powers under Sec 19(8)(a)(iv) and asked DoPT to modify its OM No. 10/2/2008-IR dated 12.6.2008 to bring it in full conformity with the RTI Act:

http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/WB-06042009-03.pdf

This direction is defective on the ground that collection of information can in no account be constituted to amount to the creation of information. However, it is also correct that u/s 6(1) an applicant is expected to move a request for information to those identified under sub-sections (a) & (b) of sec. 6(1). Under such circumstances, the CPIO of the public authority incorrectly applied to may indeed inform the applicant regarding the fact that it is not the concerned authority in the matter. However, if the information sought is part of the overall information sought in a particular application, but is not held by the concerned public authority, to whom the application is made, then that public authority is bound to make the transfer u/s 6(3) sub sec. (i) or (ii).
In the present case, however, we do agree that the Competent Authorities are described in sec. 2(e) of the RTI Act. Information regarding those competent authorities should indeed be sought from them directly. Since the CPIO DoPT has clarified that this is information is distinct from what it holds DoPTcan be held responsible for providing information only with regard to the latter. While the decision of Appellate Authority Miss Anuradha Chagti DS is, therefore, upheld on this issue, the DOPT is directed u/s 19 (8) (a) sub sec. (iv) to modify its OM No. 10/2/2008-IR dated 12.6.2008 to bring it in full conformity with the law and avoid confusion among public authorities.

The full order is attached to this post.

[sandeepbaheti]

Paragraph 3(iii) of the OM, part of which has been declared as defective by the CIC because of incorrect interpretation of creation of information is defective on other grounds as well.
DOPT has taken the use of the words "public authority" in singular in Sec 6(3) as gospel. This is not so. Sec 13 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 states:

In all Central Acts and Regulations, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, words importing the masculine gender shall be taken to include females, and words in the singular shall include the plural, and vice versa.

[achemin]

Thanks for the useful information.

[karira]

This circular of the DoPT has been termed "bad in law" by the CIC.
Please read: Transfer under Sec 6(3) can be to multiple public authorities