Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 9 to 16 of 18

Thread: interpretation of section 2(f) RTI by SIC, Kerala

  1. #9
    Posts
    2,286
    Name:
    Col NR Kurup (Retd)
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    38

    Re: interpretation of section 2(f) RTI by SIC, Kerala


    I had tried everything legally possible to make the SIC, Kerala give justice to his salary. Now I have no doubt that as for as Kerala is concerned SIC does not exists though the PIOs and FAAs are functional. Things are not likely to improve so long as Sri.Palat Mohandas remain SIC. Following are some of his traits I had observed:
    1. He is scared of hard core RTI Activists. If he find any such known Activist in any of the gatherings he attend, he runs away after delivering his address on some pretex
    2. He is too keen to dispose news worthy cases which can bring publicity to him
    3. He had no answer when I asked him why not he dispose off the cases on first come first served basis except cases falling under life and liberty class. My nearly 3 year old cases are still pending with him
    4. If he find it diffiult to face an Activists, his appeals are not at all posted for hearing . In my cases there are nearly 15 appeals pertaining to last one year which were registered and acknowledged but not taken up for hearing
    4. A PIO can get away by submitting a false affidavit. When the appellant expose the falsehood, his reply is that the case already been disposed.
    5. Many orders of SIC, Kerala are contradicory to the CICs orders. Of cource, though their orders are not mutually binding it is nothing but common sense that when the SIC order contradictory to CICs orders quotted, he give a reasoned decision as ordered by Supreme Court. He has no answer to such a state even when confronted in person. There are interesting cases on this line already posted by me in this forum
    6/ He does not mind if the PIOs disobey his orders or even refuce to bepresent wwhen show cause notices issued.

    In nutshell, till such time he is removed, nothing is possible. My complaint to the Governor against him as well as by one Major Ravindran in separate aplication during separate period did not make any effect.



  2. #10

    Re: interpretation of section 2(f) RTI by SIC, Kerala


    Information includes reasoning. Under section 4(1)(d), public authority should give reasoning if the applicant is an affected person due to that reasoning.

    Dhanabalan

  3. #11

    Re: interpretation of section 2(f) RTI by SIC, Kerala


    To call for "reasoning" needs some care. Section 2(f) itself merely requires that something be in the "record." And at least from CIC rulings, anything that is in the nature of an opinion, explanation, advice, inquiry, have NOT qualified as information. But the point you make about section 4 requiring that the PIO show some application of mind does sound valid.

    Have been away from this site for a while, so have not looked into different threads relating to this. But what may help in using section 4 and overcoming limitations of the way 2(f) is interpreted is collecting rulings that let an RTI applicant claim this as a precedent.

  4. #12
    Posts
    2,286
    Name:
    Col NR Kurup (Retd)
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    38

    Re: interpretation of section 2(f) RTI by SIC, Kerala



    Yes. That is what the Act says. But this State is an exception. My experience in this State is that things does not move as per Rules & Laws. They are used only as a guide line to curcumvent them. Superiors at every stage is scared of their subordinates. Sorry. No more comments on this state of affairs in this forum please

  5. #13
    Posts
    44,552
    Name:
    C J Karira
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    553

    Re: interpretation of section 2(f) RTI by SIC, Kerala


    Quote Originally Posted by colnrkurup View Post
    Yes. That is what the Act says. But this State is an exception.
    Some IC's in the CIC are also an exception.

    During one lengthy discussion (not part of a hearing) with a particular IC on the RTI Act, the argument put forward was that Sec 4(1)(d) has been incorrectly inserted - and actually there is no need for it.

    The argument was, that "quasi-judicial" orders are always "reasoned" so need to include them in Sec 4(1)(d). "Administrative" orders are in any case, already in the ambit of Sec 4(1)(c).

    I had to quickly open my files, take out some orders of FAA's which I had with me, show them to the IC and ask him to conclude for himself whether they were "reasoned" or not !
    Twitter: @cjkarira

  6. #14
    Posts
    1,057
    Name:
    rajendra bakre
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    22

    Re: interpretation of section 2(f) RTI by SIC, Kerala


    Dear Shri Karira,

    It seems your last post #13 is abruptly terminated (as if phone is disconnected while conversation is on).

    I am deeply interested in what the IC said and how did you respond and then what did he say........

    I am sure many of members too are interested in it. It is not just the curiosity of hearing the full story it will be a learning process.

    So if it does not deviate from the main theme of the thread will you please continue from where you ended your post #13?

  7. #15
    Posts
    44,552
    Name:
    C J Karira
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    553

    Re: interpretation of section 2(f) RTI by SIC, Kerala


    After reading those orders he could only smile.
    He did not even ask me whether I went for Second Appeal or not.
    To end that particular topic and to move on to the next one, I had to remind him that law/acts/rules/GO's/ have to be obeyed, respected and followed by all concerned - whether we agree with them, or not. He got the point.
    Twitter: @cjkarira

  8. #16
    Posts
    264
    Name:
    Yousaidits Optional
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: interpretation of section 2(f) RTI by SIC, Kerala


    Col N R Kurup,

    The non-chronological hearing of cases certainly appears to violate article 14 of the Constitution of India - Equality before law.

    Have you considered approaching HC with a Writ Petition? Or is it the case of mess food being so bad that you don't mind people cutting line ahead of you?

    regards,
    SomeGuy

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


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 Apple App Store Google Play for Android