Quote:
Originally Posted by colnrkurup  Sorry for my disagreement Mr.tarus. Section 6(3) is very emphatical in saying that ".... ON PAYMENT OF ANY FURTHER FEE representing the cost of providing the information, .....". Section 6(3)(a) says that "the details of further fees representing the cost of providing the information AS DETERMINED BY THE PIO,...". Though your contention is very correct that the cost should have been as per the Rules, introduction of the words "AS DETERMINED BY THE PIO" is damaging. This will play a vital role when the PIO does not want to provide the information or wish to harass the appellant in such a way to disuade him from seeking the information. All that the PIO has to do is to cook up a calculation in an intelligent way AS DETERMINED BY HIM. I feel this as damaging. It shift the responsibility to appellant to prove that the calculations made by the PIO is wrong. With a hostile PAs/ CIC/SICs, it is not that easy. |
I am afraid, the interpretation of Sec 7 of the Act is not correct! Sec 7(1) states that 'CPIO...provide the information on payment of such fee
as may be prescribed ..' All that Sec 7(3)(a) says is that the CPIO shall provided the 'details of such further fees ... as determined by him...
in accordance with the fee prescribed under sub-section (1).'
!! It only means that he can determine the fee in accordance with that prescribed under sub-section (1).
Further the "
Rules" state that '
for providing information under sub-section (1) of Section 7 the fees shall be charged ....at the following rates..' [Rule 4 of Right to Information (regulation of fee and cost) Rules 2005.] The rates are prescribed. There is no discretion to change that. In this context, 'as determined' means only as determined in accordance with the rules. It should be arithmetically accurate as per the rules. There is no leeway for inflating it by the CPIO.