Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 17 to 24 of 41
  1. #17
    Posts
    330
    Blog Entries
    10
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    2 Post(s)

    Re: Proactive disclosure under section 4 of RTI Act 2005


    Dear Karira,
    The suggestion given by you is appreciable but neither public authorities not CIC is favouring to provide reasons for action. Even public authorities are not supplying the rules regualtions supported the discharge the function. We may hope that there will be a day when public authorities will be bounded to provided the reason of his action. At present we may try to make implemented the section 4(1)(b)(v).


    › Find content similar to: Proactive disclosure under section 4 of RTI Act 2005



  2. #18
    Posts
    6,775
    Name:
    Ganpat
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    2 Post(s)

    Re: Proactive disclosure under section 4 of RTI Act 2005


    Quote Originally Posted by karira View Post
    Please read the act again and again and again and again and again........each time you will find a nugget buried deep inside, which you either never noticed before or can find "new" uses for that bit in the act.
    Sound advice & good work on this sub-section, Karira. Keep it up.
    Defeat is not final when you fall down. It is final when you refuse to get up.

  3. #19
    Posts
    330
    Blog Entries
    10
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    2 Post(s)

    Re: Proactive disclosure under section 4 of RTI Act 2005


    Dear Karira,
    There is two things 1. Rules regulations supporting the action of public authority. 2. Reason for action.
    We are not getting support of PA and CIC to provide rules regulations then how PA will agree to give answer of any querry asking the PA for his action. If you know any decision supporting to section 4(1)(d). Please give me a link.

  4. #20
    Posts
    43,875
    Name:
    C J Karira
    Blog Entries
    9
    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    14 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    168 Post(s)

    Re: Proactive disclosure under section 4 of RTI Act 2005



    First Appelate Authority

    abhijeet,

    The ACT is very clear. The AA has to be a higher officer than the PIO. "Higher" does not mean "same level or equivalent" nor does it mean "lower level or junior". You must complain either directly to the SIC or even to the "Administartive Head" of the public authority.
    If you complain to the head of the PA, then please add the following sentence at the bottom of your application:
    "Under the RTI Act 2005 I have the right to seek information on the day to day progress of this complaint and the final decision taken in this regard."
    To this complaint, please attach a copy of the CIC/SIC order for the case pointed out by vashisthvivek (The o/o Advocate General directed to re-designate PIO and AA).

    (Abhijeet, please continue reading about your case further down..after the citation below)

    ===========
    The RTI Act speaks only about the "designation" of a PIO in a PA. As per my reading, nowhere is it mentioned about the "designation" of a First Appelate Authority. The only thing mentioned is that the applicant has a right to make a First Appeal to a officer "higher in rank" to the PIO.
    (Section 19(1): .....such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, in each public authority)
    Some PA's now have boards specifying the names of APIO/PIO/AA.
    PIO's are also supposed to inform the applicant about their right for First Appeal and the details of the AA.

    I was under the misconception that this has to be informed only when the case falls under Sections 7(3)(b) or Section 7(8)(iii).

    But, for the last few months I was wondering as to how in other situations (besides the two situations mentioned above) can a applicant find out who is the First AA ?

    Thanks to Abhijeet, who started this thread, I did some homework over the weekend and found a decision of the CIC (http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_31072007_07.pdf) which states that:

    1. "He has faulted the CPIO for not providing him the name and the designation of the Appellate Authority, which, allegedly, forced the complainant to approach the Commission in second appeal without first filing the first appeal before the Appellate Authority (AA)."

    2. "
    There is no doubt that Section 7(8) of the RTI Act enjoins the CPIO to indicate to a petitioner the name, the designation and the address of the Appellate Authority whom the petitioner can approach in first appeal. It is true that the CPIO in the present case failed to provide to the complainant the information regarding the AA. The CPIO’s contention that this information was available on website, where the petitioner could have accessed it, is wholly without merit. The CPIO is obliged under law to indicate the name, the designation and the address of the AA and no amount of circuitous reasoning will assuage his default. "

    3.
    However, it is also noteworthy that Section 19(1) provides that an RTI-petitioner aggrieved by a decision of the CPIO, within 30 days of the receipt of such a decision "prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to the CPIO in each public authority".
    .......The wordings of the above Section make it possible for an RTI-petitioner to file his first appeal before any officer, who is senior in rank to the CPIO, in the public authority. A petitioner is free to use this provision in case he finds himself without any direction about filing of first appeal due to failure of the CPIO to indicate the name of the AA in the decision made by him and transmitted to the petitioner.

    (All emphasis are mine to higlight the main points).

    In summary:

    1. PIO is supposed to inform the details of the AA to the applicant
    2. First Appeal can be made to any officer higher in rank to PIO, if the PIO has not informed the applicant about the details of the First AA.

    Full decision is attched to this post.
    ===================

    Abhijeet, in view of the above, if you really want to play hard, and are sure that the First AA is junior to the SPIO in your case, just walk into the PA and submit your First Appeal to "any officer higher in rank to the SPIO".
    Please be forewarned that it will require lots of guts and efforts to do this, but if you are willing to do that, please be rest assured that I and other members of this forum will back you up fully, with facts and citations.

    Best of luck !
    <!-- google_ad_section_end -->
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by karira; 26-11-07 at 09:58 AM.

  5. #21
    Posts
    43,875
    Name:
    C J Karira
    Blog Entries
    9
    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    14 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    168 Post(s)

    Re: Proactive disclosure under section 4 of RTI Act 2005


    Section 4(1)(d)

    I forgot to add one more important point in connection to this section
    If any applicant is invoking this section, he must state in his application that he is a affected person.
    Although this is contravention of Section 6(2) of the RTI Act, but that is the way it is.
    In one of my cases, the PIO infact denied information because he said that only one application has been filed and Section 4(1)(d) mentions "affected persons" (in plural).

    So, the next day, I made 20 RTI applications, got them signed by 20 different "affected persons" and resubmitted them to the PIO asking for information under Section 4(1)(d).

    Think Smart, Act Smarter !

  6. #22
    Posts
    330
    Blog Entries
    10
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    2 Post(s)

    Re: Proactive disclosure under section 4 of RTI Act 2005


    Means the what, how, why may only be asked by a group of persons.

  7. #23
    Posts
    43,875
    Name:
    C J Karira
    Blog Entries
    9
    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    14 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    168 Post(s)

    Re: Proactive disclosure under section 4 of RTI Act 2005


    Quote Originally Posted by sngupta View Post
    Means the what, how, why may only be asked by a group of persons.
    No, not necessarily.
    Depends on how smart the PIO is.

  8. #24
    Posts
    43,875
    Name:
    C J Karira
    Blog Entries
    9
    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    14 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    168 Post(s)

    Re: Proactive disclosure under section 4 of RTI Act 2005


    sngupta,
    Recently, after the IC's conference in Delhi, CIC made some recommendations and the first part deals with disclosure under Section 4.
    Item 3 of session 1 suggests penal provisions against the PA for not complying with Section 4.
    You can see them at:
    http://cic.gov.in/Conference-2007/Recommendations.pdf

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Tags for this Thread



About RTI INDIA

    RTI INDIA: Invoking Your Rights. We provide easy ways to request, analyze & share Government documents by use of Right to Information and by way of community support.

Follow us on

Twitter Facebook youtube Tumblr RTI Microblog RSS Feed Apple App Store Google Play for Android