Is it the correct use of section 7(9)?

[sharmajee]

Following are salient points noted by SIC in his Decision order in Appeal 3523/11, decided on 2.4.12.

RTI was filed by Mr Karni Dan (Appellant) on 4.3.11, to Secretary , Gram Panchayat, Napasar, Bikaner, seeking copy of Patta No. 95/128, issued in the name of Mr Balu Ram.

SIC further noted, Appellant has alleged that he has been denied information saying third party information.

Respondent submitted that through his application dated 9.3.10 also, Appellant had asked for same information, which was denied to him and subsequent First Appeal was also rejected by FAO. Ld SIC noted that Probably that time II appeal was not preferred by appellant.

Based on above, LD SIC finally concluded that seeking information on same subject again and again attracts provisions of section 7(9), which cannot be allowed. Ld SIC further expressed his doubts of misuse of Patta of other person too, so information is denied.

Points to Ponder

1. ####
2. %%%%
3. &&&
4. @@@@@
5. Facts/ Doubts/ Probability/ spirit & Preamble of RTI Act???
6. Appeal admitted by SIC on the basis of current facts / events but decided on….
7. If last time appellant did not get information, what stops him to apply again?

[sharmajee]

Sponsorer

Following are salient points noted by SIC in his another Decision order in Appeal 3687/11, decided on 16.4.12:
Both paries not present in hearing. So Ld SIC decided on material available on file.

RTI was filed by Mr Harendra Dhingra (Appellant) on 11.2.11, to Directorate, Mines and Geology Dept., Udaipur seeking following information:

1. Turn Over (Value) of Stones exported by Rajasthan in last 3 year
2. How many processing and polishing units of stones are there in Rajasthan and how many total workers work there.
3. How many mining leases have been allotted to Sc and ST category.
4. Jurisdiction of Assistant/ Mining Engineers, working in Rajasthan

Respondent informed appellant that if he wants information regarding any particular Patta/ area, only that can be provided.

Based on above, Ld SIC concluded that voluminous information has been sought in point no. 4, and this information is not maintained by Respondent so fit for denial u/s 7(9).

Points to Ponder:

1. How did Ld SIC conclude that its not mainatained, if not Respondent should have been directed to maintain the same u/s 4(1)(a) & 4(1)(b).
2. I feel all the information sought is nothing but section 4 voluntary disclosures, Directorate is supposed to put the same in public domain.

[sharmajee]

also see

Appeal 2875/11, Decided on 23.5.12
Appellant filed a RTI on 17.1.11 on 8 points.
Respondent demanded Rs 1000 towards cost of information on 20.9.11.
Ld SIC noted that demanding fee after 30 days is not as per law also Respondent has asked this cost not giving calculation but by approximation which is not valid.

Ld SIC, based on above and feeling sought information is voluminous directed Respondent to call appellant to inspection and provide 100 pages of his choice free and for information in excess of 100 pages charge Rs 2 per copy.

Points to Ponder
PIO had to respond (accept or reject) in 30 days.- Ignored section 7(1).
Can it be presumed that if demand of rs 1000 was made by sane mind, this confirms that PIO had the information and was willing to provide the information?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2815/11 Date of decision 24.5.12

Appellant filed RTI with Director, Panchayati Raj dept. on 17.1.11. seeking information about monthly details about ration cards issued in various districts and sub divisions of Rajasthan etc from Jan 2000 to Jan 2010.

Respondent replied on 10.10.11 saying collating info about 9177 panchayats will adversely effect the resources.
Ld SIC finally rejected appeal on the ground that voluminous information.

Points to ponder:
PIO had to respond (accept or reject) in 30 days.- Ignored section 7(1).

Directorate must have this information as being HOD, is the policy makers for whole Rajasthan/ sub divisions. Therefore must voluntarily display this information u/s 4(1) (b).