|
Chapter 1
|
|
Draft
Rule 1: Short title and commencement No change is recommended
|
|
Draft
Rule 2: Definitions No change is
recommended
|
|
Chapter 2
|
|
Draft
Rule 3: Rules governing request for
obtaining information
|
|
Draft Rule
|
Provisions in
the Draft RTI
Rules, 2015
|
Recommendations
for Change
|
Justification
for change
|
|
3(1)
|
A person,
who desires to obtain information under the Act from any public authority,
shall make a request in writing or through electronic means to the Public
Information Officer of the public authority concerned. The request shall be
made in the format given in the appendix as Form 1.
|
The
following proviso may be inserted under Rule 3(1):
“Provided that an RTI application
drafted on plain paper or submitted in electronic form and containing all
relevant details required in the format shall not be rejected by the Public
Information Officer.”
|
Making
formats compulsory is against the letter and spirit of the principal Act. PIOs
will use this Rule to reject RTI applications that are submitted on plain
paper. An RTI application can be rejected only for reasons specified in
Sections 8 or 9 of the principal Act. Several governments permit plain paper
applications so long as they contain the name and contact details for the
applicant and a clear description of the information sought. As Section 6(1)
of the principal Act also permits submission of RTI applications
electronically, the Rules must provide for that facility as well.
|
|
3(2)(a)
|
The
information sought should be a part of the record held by or under the
control of the public authority concerned.
|
Draft Rule
3(2)(a) may be deleted.
|
This Draft
Rule runs contrary to the Section 6(3) of the principal Act which allows for
transfer of a request from one public authority to another. Citizens will
often not know which public authority will have all the information sought.
Sometimes information on one issue will be available with several public
authorities. This is why provision for transfer was inserted in the principal
Act. This Rule also contradicts Draft Rule 3(5).
|
|
3(2)(b)
|
The
information sought should not:
(i)
involve
fresh collection of non-available data; or
(ii)
require
carrying out new interpretation or analysis of existing data, or drawing
of inferences, making of assumptions,
or providing advice or opinion based on existing data; or
(iii)
involve
providing answers to hypothetical questions; or
(iv)
be in terms of answer to the question ‘why’,
seeking justification for any action or inaction; or
(v)
be
so vast that the collection thereof involves disproportionate diversion of
resources of the public authority concerned.
|
a) In
Draft Rule 3(b)(i) after the words- “non-available data” the following may be
inserted:
“that is not required to be
collected under any law, rule, regulation or practice for the time being in
force”
b) Draft
Rules 3(b)(ii) to (v) may be deleted.
|
a) Draft Rule 3(2)(b)(i) prevents seeking information that
involves fresh collection of data. Section 2(f) defines information as
anything in material form which can be collected even about a private body
under any other law for the time being in force. It is well known that many
public authorities do not always perform their statutory regulatory functions
over private bodies properly. So when an applicant asks for information which
is required to be collected under any other law, rule or regulation but the
public authority has not already collected it, the public authority still has
a duty to collect that non-available data and decided whether it can be disclosed
under the RTI Act.
b) The
remaining Draft Rules will be misused by unscrupulous PIOs to reject
information requests outside of the grounds laid down in Section 7(1) of the
principal Act. As the State Government has not adequately discharged it obligation
of training people about their rights under this law, with particular focus
on the disadvantaged segments of society as is required in Section 26(1)(a)
of the RTI Act people are likely to submit requests in the form of queries or
ask for voluminous information. Instead PIOs should be trained to provide
reasonable assistance to RTI applicants as is required by Sections 5(3) and
6(1) of the principal Act.
|
|
3(4)
|
A request
for obtaining information under the Act shall be accompanied by the fee
prescribed in the U.P. Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost)
Rules, 2006.
|
The new
Rules must specifically contain a specific recital of the quantum of
application fee.
|
It is a
contradiction to say that these Rules will supersede the 2005 Rules in the Preamble
and then continue to say that fee rates will be charged according to the old
Rules. The 2005 RTI Rules will cease to exist on supersession by these new
set of Rules.
|
|
3(6)
paras 3 and 4
|
(3)
If the Public Information Officer is of the view that the information sought
can only be provided on payment of any further fee representing the cost of
providing the information as prescribed in the U.P. Right to Information
(Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2006, then he shall send intimation
accordingly to the applicant in the format given in the appendix as Form 5
and enter the details in the Register mentioned in sub-rule (2) above.
(4)
If the Public Information Officer is of the view that the request for
information is to be rejected for any of the reasons specified in sections 8,
9 or 11 of the Act, then he shall convey such rejection to the applicant in
the format given in the appendix as Form 6. The date of rejection shall be
entered in the Register mentioned in subrule (2) above.
|
a)
The new Rules must specifically contain a specific recital of the rates at
which additional fee will be charged. Additionally, the following new para
may be inserted under this sub Rule as follows:
“The Public Information shall not
charge any fee other than that specified in these Rules for the purpose of
providing the information sought by the requestor.”
b) In para
#4 of the Draft Rule, the phrase- “sections 8 or 9” may be substituted for
the phrase- “sections 8, 9 or 11”.
|
a)
It
is quite contradictory to say that these Rules will supersede the 2005 Rules
and then continue to say that fee rates will be charged according to the old
Rules. Those rules will cease to exist on supersession. The new Rules must
specifically contain a recital of all fee rates again.
b)
Para
#4 of the Draft Rule contradicts Sections 7 and 11 of the principal Act.
There is no provision for rejection of an RTI application under Section 11.
Section 7(1) clearly states that an RTI application may be rejected only for
reasons given in Sections 8 and 9. The State Government does not have the
power to expand the grounds for rejection using the rule-making power.
|
|
Chapter 3
|
|
Draft
Rule 4 : Rules governing
registration and disposal of complaints
|
|
4(2)
|
A
complaint should be typed, printed or written neatly and legibly and should
be filed in three copies.
|
The number
of copies may be reduced to two in accordance with the Draft Rule 4(7).
|
There is
no reason why the age-old bureaucratic practice of preparing documents in
triplicate should be foisted upon a complainant under the RTI Act. The
complainant should be required to send only two copies as in Draft Rule 4(7)
requires the Commission to send a copy of the complaint to the Respondent on
its own. There is no rationale for three copies at all.
|
|
4(3)
|
A complaint
should be submitted in the format given in the appendix as Form 9 and should
contain the following details:
(i)
Name
and address of the complainant (cellphone number and E-mail address of the
complainant, if available, may also be given).
(ii)
Name and address of the Public Information
Officer against whom the complaint has been made.
(iii)
Brief
description of the complaint.
(iv)
Ground(s) of the complaint
(v)
Prayer
or relief sought.
(vi)
Any
other information considered necessary by the complainant.
(vii)
A
certificate of the complainant that no complaint in regard to the same
application under section 6(1) of the Act against the same Public Information
Officer was filed by him earlier.
|
a)
the following proviso may be inserted at the bottom of Draft Rule 4(3) as
follows:
“Provided that a complaint drafted
on plain paper or submitted electronically shall not be rejected solely on
that ground by the Commission.”
b)
The phrase- “if applicable” may be inserted at the end of Draft Rule
4(3)(ii).
c) Draft
Rule 4(3)(vii) may be deleted.
|
a)
Making
formats compulsory is against the letter and spirit of the principal Act. The
Commission must not be permitted to reject a complaint submitted on plain
paper. It is also advisable for the Commission to establish a system for
enabling the e-filing of complaints – a convenience created by the Central
Information Commission and several State Information Commissions.
b)
Under Section 18(1) of the principal Act, a ground for filing a complaint is
that there is no PIO available in a public authority to receive an RTI
application. So the name and designation of the PIO cannot be provided in
such cases. So the Rules must not insist on the furnishing of the name and
designation of the PIO every time.
c)
This Draft sub-Rule is illogical. It prevents a complainant from filing
multiple complaints against an officer in relation to the same RTI
application. For example, in the first instance it could be any of the
grounds mentioned in Section 18(1) of the RTI Act. In the second instance a
complaint may have to file against the same PIO for not complying with the
order of the Commission. So this Draft sub-Rule is unnecessarily restrictive
of a complainant's rights.
|
|
4(5)
|
Every
complaint shall be examined by the Registrar. If the Registrar is of the view
that the complaint is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act or
Rules, he shall return the complaint to the complainant, pointing out the
defect(s) therein, and enter the details thereof in a register maintained for
the purpose in the format as given in the appendix as Form 10. If the
Registrar is of the view that the complaint is in accordance with the
provisions of the Act and Rules, he shall direct that the complaint be
numbered and entered in a register maintained for the purpose in the format
as given in the appendix as Form 11.
|
Draft Rule
4(5) may be amended as follows:
“Every complaint shall be examined
by the Registrar. If the Registrar is of the opinion that the complaint is
not in accordance with the provisions of the Act or Rules, he shall make all
reasonable efforts to contact the complainant and provide reasonable
assistance to such complainant to correct the defects in the complaint. Every
such instance of rectification of defects in a complaint shall be promptly
recorded in the register maintained for that purpose in the Form 11 as
provided in the Appendix to these Rules.”
|
This
provision is open for misuse to reject almost any complaint on technical
grounds. Instead of returning the complaint, the complainant must be
contacted and asked to rectify any error in the complaint without actually
returning it. Please note that Section 18(1) of the RTI Act the Commission
has a duty to receive and inquire into any complaint. It cannot be returned
because that will amount to rejection.
|
|
4(7)
|
The Commission
shall issue notices to the complainant and the Public Information Officer
concerned at least 15 days before the date fixed for the hearing. A copy of
the complaint will also be sent to the Public Information Officer directing
him to submit his written statement in two copies by the date fixed.
|
After the
words- “The Commission shall issue notices to the complainant and the Public
Information Officer” the following words may be inserted:
“in such a manner that it is
delivered to the complainant”
|
It is not
enough to issue notice 15 days in advance because the most common problem
faced by complainants in UP and in several other States is that the notice
reaches them a day before or on the day of the hearing giving them little
time to appear.
|
|
4(8)
|
On the
date of hearing of the complaint, a copy of the written statement of the
Public Information Officer shall be furnished to the complainant for his
submission, if any. After consideration of the contents of the complaint, the
written statement of the Public Information Officer and the submission made
by the parties at the hearing, the Commission, if it is satisfied that there
are reasonable grounds to inquire into the matter, may initiate an inquiry in
respect thereof, such inquiry to be conducted in accordance with the
provisions of section 18(3) and (4) of the Act and the Rules. The Commission
may also entrust any such inquiry to any officer of the Commission. If the Commission
is of the view that no reasonable grounds exist to inquire into the matter,
it shall dismiss the complaint.
|
a)
The opening limb of Draft Rule 4(8) may be amended as follows:
“The Commission shall cause a copy
of the written statement of the Public Information Officer to be served on
the complainant so as to reach him at least a week in advance of the date of
the hearing.”
b) In
Draft Rule 4(8) The words- “The Commission may also entrust any such inquiry
to any officer of the Commission” may be deleted.
|
The
requirement of furnishing a copy of the PIO’s statement to the complainant on
the day of the hearing is against the principles of natural justice. While
the PIO will get the complaint letter well in advance there is no duty on him
to send his rejoinder well in advance to the complainant. By giving a copy of
the PIO's reply to the complainant on the date of the hearing, the Commission
ends up preventing the complainant from putting up a solid rebuttal as there
will be very little time for so doing.
Nothing in
the principal Act authorises the Commission to delegate any of its powers to
any other person or authority. In the absence of such enabling provision
delegation of powers or authority through the Rules amounts to abuse of the
rule-making power vested in the State Government.
|
|
Draft
Rule 5 : Rules governing registration
and disposal of appeals
|
|
5(1)
|
Any person
who does not receive a decision from a Public Information Officer within the
prescribed time, or is aggrieved by a
decision of a Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within the
prescribed time, prefer an appeal to such officer who is designated as the
First Appellate Authority by the public authority concerned. The appeal shall
be submitted in the format given in the appendix as Form 12. The First
Appellate Authority shall dispose off the appeal in accordance with section
19(1) and (2) of the Act and Rules.
|
After the
words- “given in the appendix as Form 12” the following words may be
inserted:
“The First Appellate Authority
shall not reject an appeal drafted on plain paper or submitted electronically
solely on that ground. Where the appeal suffers from any defect the First
Appellate Authority shall make all reasonable efforts to contact the
appellant and advise him or her to rectify the defect.”
|
Making
formats compulsory is against the letter and spirit of the principal Act. The
First Appellate Authority must not be permitted to reject an appeal submitted
on plain paper. It is also advisable for the State Government to establish a
system for enabling the e-filing of complaints – a convenience created by the
Central Government and several State Governments.
|
|
5(2)
|
Any person
aggrieved by an order passed by the First Appellate Authority or by
non-disposal of his appeal within the prescribed period by the First
Appellate Authority, may file a second appeal within the prescribed time to
the Commission in the format given in the appendix as Form 13. Such appeal
shall be accompanied by the following documents duly verified as true copies
by the appellant:
(i)
a
copy of the request for information submitted to the Public Information
Officer under section 6 (1) of the Act;
(ii)
a
copy of the reply received, if any,
from the Public Information Officer;
(iii)
a
copy of the appeal made to the First Appellate Authority under section 19(1)
of the Act;
(iv)
a
copy of the order, if any, received from the First Appellate Authority;
(v)
copies
of other documents relied upon by the appellant and referred to in his
appeal;
(vi)
an
index of the documents referred to in the appeal; and
(vii)
a
certificate of the appellant that no appeal on the same ground(s) against the
same First Appellate Authority was filed by him earlier.
An appeal
to the Commission should be typed, printed or written neatly and legibly, and
should be filed in three copies.
|
The
following proviso may be inserted at the bottom of Draft Rule 5(2) as
follows:
“Provided that an appeal drafted on
plain paper or submitted electronically shall not be rejected solely on that
ground by the Commission.”
Draft rule
5(2)(vii) may be deleted.
|
Making
formats compulsory is against the letter and spirit of the principal Act. The
Commission must not be permitted to reject an appeal submitted on plain
paper. It is also advisable for the Commission to establish a system for
enabling the e-filing of second appeals – a convenience created by the
Central Information Commission and several State Information Commissions.
Draft Rule
5(2) (vii) is illogical. It prevents an appellant from filing more than one
second appeal against a First Appellate Authority. A second appeal may always
be filed in relation to a second RTI application submitted in the same public
authority.
|
|
5(3)
|
Every
appeal filed with the Commission shall be examined by the Registrar. If the
Registrar is of the view that the appeal is not in accordance with the
provisions of the Act or Rules, he shall return the appeal to the appellant,
pointing out the defect(s) therein, and enter the details thereof in a
register maintained for the purpose in the format as given in the appendix as
Form 10. If the Registrar is of the view that the appeal is in accordance
with the provisions of the Act and Rules, he shall direct that the appeal be
numbered and entered in a register maintained for the purpose in the format
as given in the appendix as Form 14.
|
Draft Rule
5(3) may be amended as follows:
“Every appeal shall be examined by
the Registrar. If the Registrar is of the opinion that the complaint is not
in accordance with the provisions of the Act or Rules, he shall make all
reasonable efforts to contact the appellant and provide reasonable assistance
to such complainant to correct the defects in the appeal. Every such instance
of rectification of defects in a complaint shall be promptly recorded in the
register maintained for that purpose in the Form 14 as provided in the
Appendix to these Rules.”
|
This
provision is open for misuse to reject almost any appeal on technical
grounds. Instead of returning the complaint, the appellant must be contacted
and asked to rectify any error in the complaint without actually returning
it.
|
|
5(5)
|
The
Commission shall issue notices to the appellant, the Public Information
Officer and the First Appellate Authority concerned at least 15 days before
the date fixed for the hearing. A copy of the appeal will also be sent to the
Public Information Officer and the First Appellate Authority directing them
to submit their written statements in two copies by the date fixed.
|
After the
words- “The Commission shall issue notices to the appellant and the Public
Information Officer and the First Appellate Authority” the following words
may be inserted:
“in such a manner that it is
delivered to the appellant
|
It is not
enough to issue notice 15 days in advance because the most common problem
faced by complainants in UP and in several other States is that the notice
reaches them a day before or on the day of the hearing giving them little
time to appear.
|
|
5(6)
|
On the
date of hearing of the appeal, a copy each of the written statements of the
Public Information Officer and the First Appellate Authority shall be
furnished to the appellant for his submission, if any. After consideration of
the contents of the appeal, the written statements of the Public Information
Officer and the First Appellate Authority, and the submission made by the
parties at the hearing, the Commission, if it is satisfied that there are
reasonable grounds for consideration of the appeal, may fix a date for
further hearing in respect thereof, such hearing to be conducted in
accordance with the provisions of section 19(3) of the Act and the Rules. If
the Commission is of the view that no reasonable grounds exist to further
consider the appeal, it shall dismiss the appeal.
|
a)
The opening limb of Draft Rule 5(6) may be amended as follows:
“The Commission shall cause a copy
of the written statements of the Public Information Officer and the First
Appellate Authority to be served on the appellant so as to reach him at least
a week in advance of the date of the hearing.”
b)
In Draft Rule 4(8) after the words- “it shall dismiss the appeal” the
following words may be inserted:
“with reasons to be recorded in
writing in sufficient detail so as to enable the appellant to understand the
grounds for such dismissal.”
|
a)
The requirement of furnishing a copy of the statements of the PIO and the FAA
to the appellant on the day of the hearing is against the principles of
natural justice. While the PIO and the FAA will get the complaint letter well
in advance there is no duty on them to send their rejoinders well in advance
to the appellant. By giving their written statements on the date of the
hearing, the Commission ends up preventing the appellant from putting up a
solid rebuttal as there will be very little time for so doing.
b)
The closing limb of Draft Rule 4(8) is against the principles of natural
justice. While dismissing the appeal the Commission must be required to give
clear and defensible reasons for such dismissal. It must not be done in a
mechanical manner.
|
|
Draft
Rule 6 : Service of notice by the
Commission No change is recommended
|
|
Draft
Rule 7 : Conduct of inquiry by authorised
Officer
|
|
7
|
The
Commission may entrust an inquiry in connection with any complaint or appeal
pending before it to any officer of the Commission, and such officer while
conducting the inquiry shall have all the necessary powers including the
power to-
(i)
summon
and enforce attendance of persons;
(ii)
compel
production of documents or things;
(iii)
administer
oath and take oral evidence or receive evidence on affidavits;
(iv)
inspect
documents and require discovery of documents; and
(v)
requisition
any public record or documents from any public authority.
|
Rule 7 may
be deleted.
|
Nothing in
the principal Act authorises the Commission to delegate any of its powers to
any other person or authority. In the absence of such enabling provision
delegation of powers or authority through the Rules amounts to abuse of the
rule-making power vested in the State Government.
|
|
Draft
Rule 8: Presence of parties
during hearing on complaint or appeal
|
|
8
|
During the
course of hearing on a complaint or an appeal, the complainant or appellant
may be present in the Commission in person or through duly authorised
representative. However, the Commission, if it deems necessary, may summon
any of the above parties to be present in person in the Commission on any
specific date of hearing.
|
After the
words- “duly authorised representative” the following words may be inserted:
“or choose not to be present at
all”
|
The
Central RTI Rules permit an appellant not to be present at all at a hearing.
This right must be provided for in the State Rules also. Or else an appellant
or complainant will be compelled to attend every hearing without being paid
any travel allowance while the PIO and the FAA bill such expenses on the
public exchequer. Often the appeals and complaints are about delays,
unjustified refusals or other technical matters. Such cases can be decided on
the basis of merits of the case if the Commission wants to perform the role
of the appointed champion of transparency.
|
|
Draft
Rule 9: Adjournment of hearing
|
|
9
|
The
complainant/appellant or any of the respondents may make an application for
adjournment of the hearing. The Commission, if it is of the view that the
reason for seeking adjournment is just and sufficient, may grant adjournment
on payment of reasonable cost or otherwise.
|
In this
Draft rule the words- “on payment of reasonable cost or otherwise” may be
deleted.
|
There is
no reason why adjournment when granted on just and reasonable grounds should
be accompanied by costs. This is not done even in courts. The Commission may
simply refuse to grant adjournment if the grounds are not reasonable and
proceed to decide the case on merits.
|
|
Draft
Rule 10 : Award of costs by the Commission
|
|
10
|
During the
hearing on any complaint or appeal, the Commission may also impose such other
costs on and award such compensation to the parties as deemed fit, having
regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.
|
In Draft
Rule 10 after the words- “impose such other costs” the following words may be
inserted:
“on the public authority”
and the
words- “to the parties” may be substituted with the following:
“to the complainant or appellant”.
|
The State
Government is not empowered to make Rules to give any power to the Commission
which the Act does not provide. Only appellants and complainants can seek
compensation under Section 19(8)(b) of the principal Act. Costs may be
awarded against the public authority only for transgressions committed by the
PIO or the FAA. There is no provision for imposing any punishment or cost on
the appellant / complainant. The State Government cannot arrogate to itself
the power to vest the Commission with new powers that Parliament had not
intended for it in the first place.
|
|
Draft
Rule 11 : Review of the order of the
Commission
|
|
Draft
Rule 12 : Withdrawal, amendment or abatement
of complaint or appeal
|
|
12(1)
|
During the
hearing on any complaint or appeal, the Commission may, on a request made by
the complainant or appellant, as the case may be, allow the complaint or
appeal to be withdrawn.
|
Draft Rule
12(1) may be deleted.
|
This
adjournment provision will be misused by unscrupulous PIOs and FAAs and any other
vested interests to pressurise an appellant or a complainant from withdrawing
the appeal or complaint. The Central Government dropped such provisions from
the 2012 RTI Rules after civil society actors impressed upon it the fact that
scores of RTI users had been murdered and hundreds attacked for seeking
information. There should be no provision for withdrawing an appeal or a
complaint because this is not a civil or criminal suit. It is only an
administrative matter and must be decided on the merits of the case.
|
|
12(3)
|
The
proceedings pending before the Commission on any complaint or appeal shall abate
on the death of the complainant or appellant, as the case may be.
|
Draft Rule
12(3) may be deleted.
|
Till date about
40 RTI users and activists across the country have been murdered by vested
interests in order to prevent them from demanding transparency on a variety
of issue. Draft Rule 12(3) is a tailor made recipe for murdering RTI
applicants who seek information to expose corruption and malgovernance. Civil
society succeeded in prevailing upon the Central Government to delete a
similar provision from the RTI Rules in 2012. An appeal or complaint must not
abate on account of the death of the person who instituted such proceedings.
The Commission must still decide the case on merits.
|
|
Draft
Rule 13 : Order of the Commission
|
|
13
|
On
conclusion of the hearing on any complaint or appeal, the Commission shall
pass orders thereon either on the same date or on any future date fixed for
the purpose and communicated to the parties. Every such order of the
Commission shall be signed and dated by the Commissioner who had heard the
complaint or appeal.
|
Draft Rule
13 may be amended as follows:
“On conclusion of the hearing on
any complaint or appeal, the Commission shall pass pronounce its order in
open proceedings on the same date or on any future date fixed for that
purpose. Every such order of the Commission shall be signed and dated by the
Commissioner who had heard the complaint or appeal and the Registrar shall
furnish an authenticated copy of such order free of charge to the parties in
the first instance. Parties may apply with the Registrar for supply of more
than one copy on payment of reproduction charges.”
|
It is
often the experience of appellants and complainants that the decision reached
at during a hearing is not accurately reflected in the final order when it is
issued at a later date. Some ICs had set standards of issuing orders on the
spot soon after the hearing except in complicated cases where extra time was
required for interpretation of the law. The Rule should be that orders are
pronounced in the hearing itself, recorded then and there and copy handed
over to the parties the same day. In this age of IT revolution, this is
possible. IC Shailesh Gandhi demonstrated this in thousands of cases a couple
of years ago.
Further,
the Registrar must be required to authenticate the order and supply the first
copy free of charge to the parties. Subsequent copies may be supplied at
actual cost of reproducing the order.
|
|
Chapter 4
|
|
Draft
Rule 14 : Procedure for realization of
penalty and damages
|
|
14(1)
|
The Commission,
at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal, may impose penalty on a
Public Information Officer in accordance with the provisions of section 20 of
the Act.
|
In Draft
Rule 14(1) the word- “may” must be substituted with the word- “shall”.
|
The power
to impose penalty in Section 20(1) of the RTI Act is not discretionary. Where
the conditions for attracting penalty are met with penalty has to be imposed.
This Rule turns the power of penalty into a discretionary power of the
Commission which is an abuse of the rule-making power vested in the State
Government.
|
|
14(4)
|
If a
compliance report on the penalty order is not received by the date fixed, the
Commission, in its discretion, may order for the recovery of the penalty
amount from the Public Information Officer concerned as arrears of land
revenue, such order to be issued in the format given in the appendix as
Form-18.
|
Draft Rule
14(4) may be amended as follows:
“Subject to the institution of any
proceedings by the PIO for review of the order of penalty under Rule 11 or a
by means of a writ petition before the competent court, if a compliance
report on the penalty order is not received by the date fixed, the
Commission, in its discretion, may order for the recovery of the penalty
amount from the Public Information Officer concerned as arrears of land
revenue, such order to be issued in the format given in the appendix as
Form-18.”
|
The PIO
has a right to demand review of the penalty order before the Commission or
before the High Court through a writ petition. This must be recognised in the
Rules also so that proceedings for recovering penalty are not initiated
during the pendency of a review petition.
|
|
Chapter 5
|
|
Draft
Rule 15 : Secretary of the Commission No change recommended
|
|
Draft
Rule 16 : Registrar of the
Commission No change recommended
|
|
Chapter 6
|
|
Draft
Rule 17 : Seal and emblem No change
recommended
|
|
Draft
Rule 18 : Language of the Commission No change recommended
|
|
Appendix
|
|
Form
1 :
a)
Para #2 in the format of the RTI application may be deleted because Section
6(2) does not require the lineage of an RTI applicant to be recorded in an
RTI application in this manner.
b)
Para 8 may be deleted because in the absence of knowledge about how much the
packet will weigh when the PIO send the information, an applicant cannot
reasonably decide how much postage stamp to affix on the envelope. If the
postage charges are more than Rs. 50/- per envelope then the same may be
added to the calculation of the additional fee by the PIO while intimating
the same to the RTI applicant as has been done under the Central Government’s
RTI Rules, 2012.
|
|
|
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment