Suppose a citizen asks for an information and adress is only as Secretary of such Union but in identification the personal identification such as voter id is there and the format used is a plain paper, In the place of signature too there is no stamps will it be taken as office bearer of an organisation or it will be treated as a citizen.
I am of opinion that the applicant is a citizen of India and any judgement given is contrary is wrong.
Please send your opinion.
As has been the precedence, it does not matter if you give in union/organization pad, the only pre-requisite seems to be that you must write your own name and sign it, irrespective of whether you have used the seal, letter pad, or any other information along with it.
</td> <td width="100%"> </td> <td nowrap="nowrap" valign="top"> Join Date: Mar 2007
Rep Power: 106
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="alt1" id="td_post_2974"> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr><td> <!-- google_ad_section_start -->Re: using of letter head<!-- google_ad_section_end -->
</td> </tr></tbody></table> <hr style="color: rgb(209, 209, 225);" size="1"> <!-- google_ad_section_start -->One good solution would be to apply on a letter head, but the signature should be of a person without mentioning his designation or post. This way the applicant can always claim that he has applied a s a "citizen" and that the letter head is being used only for the purpose of giving a address and number for reply.
There is a decision of the CIC which allowed such a appeal.
I will search for it and post it here.
As Ganpat pointed out, better to be prudent in such matters.
Even though in terms of RTI Act, only a citizen has the right to seek information from a public authority, this Commission has taken a view that directors of companies, partners of firms and office bearers of associations of persons could also seek information on behalf of the companies, firms and associations respectively. Therefore, the CPIO/the AA could not have rejected the application on the sole ground that a company is not a citizen.
On the same day, the IC Prof Ansari has held that the President of an Employees Union is not a citizen u/s 3 of the Act.
Yes, the decision of Prof. Ansari is absolutely correct. How can the President of an Union be considered as a citizen. He should have applied in his own name and address to seek the information. Besides he also made the mistake by asking "on behalf" of the members. Probably he (the President) wanted to show off.