Right to Information law - ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಹಕ್ಕು ಮತ್ತು ಕಾನೂನು

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER CANNOT DIRECT TO GIVE INFORMATION IN A COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 18 ONLY APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAVE SUCH POWER UNDER SECTION 19.

noreply@blogger.com (Sridhara Babu) — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 20:17:02 PST

Supreme Court Bench Consisting of: Justice G.S. Singhvi, Justice Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya in a case of Chief Information Commr.& Anr vs State Of Manipur & Anr Decided on 12-12-2011: “The nature of the power under Section 18 is supervisory in character whereas the procedure under Section 19 is an appellate procedure and a person who is aggrieved by refusal in receiving the information which he has sought for can only seek redress in the manner provided in the statute, namely, by following the procedure under Section 19. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that Section 7 read with Section 19 provides a complete statutory mechanism to a person who is aggrieved by refusal to receive information. Such person has to get the information by following the aforesaid statutory provisions. The contention of the appellant that information can be accessed through Section 18 is contrary to the express provision of Section 19 of the Act. It is well known when a procedure is laid down statutorily and there is no challenge to the said statutory procedure the Court should not, in the name of interpretation, lay down a procedure which is contrary to the express statutory provision.”

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT – LIMITATION TO TAKE COMPLAINT- CAUSE OF ACTION EXPLAINED BY SUPREME COURT

noreply@blogger.com (Sridhara Babu) — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 07:51:01 PST

KANDIMALLA RAGHAVAIAH & CO. VS NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. & ANR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN, JUSTICE R.M. LODHA Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 24-A of the Act bars any fora set up under the Act, from admitting a complaint, unless the complaint is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. The provision expressly casts a duty on the Commission, admitting a complaint, to dismiss a complaint unless the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or National Commission, as the case may be, that the complainant had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the period of two years from the date on which the cause of action had arisen. The term "cause of action" is neither defined in the Act nor in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 but is of wide import. It has different meanings in different contexts, that is when used in the context of territorial jurisdiction or limitation or the accrual of right to sue. Generally, it is described as "bundle of facts", which if proved or admitted entitle the plaintiff to the relief prayed for. Pithily stated, "cause of action" means the cause of action for which the suit is brought. "Cause of action" is cause of action which gives occasion for and forms the foundation of the suit. In the context of limitation with reference to a fire insurance policy, undoubtedly, the date of accrual of cause of action has to be the date on which the fire breaks out.

ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಹಕ್ಕು ಎಂದರೆ ಏನು ?

noreply@blogger.com (Sridhara Babu) — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 21:13:28 PST

"ಮಾಹಿತಿಗಾಗಿ ಹಕ್ಕು" ಎಂದರೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ಪ್ರಾಧಿಕಾರ ಹೊಂದಿರುವ ಅಥವಾ ಅದರ ನಿಯಂತ್ರಣದಲ್ಲಿರುವ, ಈ ಅಧಿನಿಯಮದ ಅಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಪಡೆಯಬಹುದಾದ ಮಾಹಿತಿಯ ಹಕ್ಕು ಮತ್ತು ಇದರಲ್ಲಿ,-
(ಎ) ಕೆಲಸದ, ದಸ್ತಾವೇಜುಗಳ, ದಾಖಲೆಗಳ, ಪರಿವೀಕ್ಷಣೆ ಮಾಡುವ;
(ಬಿ) ದಸ್ತಾವೇಜುಗಳ ಅಥವಾ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳ ಟಿಪ್ಪಣಿಗಳನ್ನು, ಉದ್ಧೃತ ಭಾಗಗಳನ್ನು ಅಥವಾ ಪ್ರಮಾಣೀಕೃತ ಪ್ರತಿಗಳನ್ನು ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಳ್ಳುವ;
(ಸಿ) ವಿಷಯ ಸಾಮಗ್ರಿಯ ಪ್ರಮಾಣೀಕೃತ ಮಾದರಿಗಳನ್ನು ಪಡೆದುಕೊಳ್ಳುವ;
(ಡಿ) ಡಿಸ್ಕೆಟ್ಗಳು, ಪ್ಲಾಫೀಗಳು, ಟೇಪುಗಳು, ವಿಡಿಯೋ ಕ್ಯಾಸೆಟ್ಗಳ ರೂಪದಲ್ಲಿ ಅಥವಾ ಯಾವುದೇ ಇತರ ವಿದ್ಯುನ್ಮಾನ ವಿಧಾನದಲ್ಲಿ ಅಥವಾ ಅಂತಹ ಮಾಹಿತಿಯನ್ನು ಗಣಕಯಂತ್ರದಲ್ಲಿ ಅಥವಾ ಯಾವುದೇ ಇತರ ಸಾಧನದಲ್ಲಿ ಸಂಗ್ರಹಿಸಿಟ್ಟಿದ್ದರೆ ಅದರ ಮುದ್ರಿತ ಪ್ರತಿಯ ಮೂಲಕ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಪಡೆಯುವ,

- ಹಕ್ಕು ಒಳಗೊಂಡಿರುತ್ತದೆ.

ಮಾಹಿತಿಯನ್ನು ಖಡ್ಡಾಯವಾಗಿ ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕರಿಗೆ ತಿಳಿಯುವ ರೀತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರಕಟಿಸತಕ್ಕದ್ದು

noreply@blogger.com (Sridhara Babu) — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 21:12:46 PST

ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ಪ್ರಾಧಿಕಾರವು ಈ ಕೆಳ ಕಂಡ ಮಾಹಿತಿಯನ್ನು ಖಡ್ಡಾಯವಾಗಿ ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕರಿಗೆ ತಿಳಿಯುವ ರೀತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರಕಟಿಸತಕ್ಕದ್ದು

೧) ಅದರ ರಚನೆ, ಕಾರ್ಯಗಳು ಮತ್ತು ಕರ್ತವ್ಯಗಳ ವಿವರಗಳನ್ನು;
೨) ಅದರ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳ ಮತ್ತು ನೌಕರರ ಅಧಿಕಾರಗಳನ್ನು ಮತ್ತು ಕರ್ತವ್ಯಗಳನ್ನು;
೩) ಮೇಲ್ವಿಚಾರಣೆ ಮತ್ತು ಹೊಣೆಗಾರಿಕೆಯ ಮಾರ್ಗಗಳು ಸೇರಿದಂತೆ ತೀರ್ಮಾನ ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಳ್ಳುವ ಪ್ರಕ್ರಿಯೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಅನುಸರಿಸಬೇಕಾದ ಕಾರ್ಯವಿಧಾನವನ್ನು;
೪) ಅದರ ಕಾರ್ಯಗಳ ನಿರ್ವಹಣೆಗೆ ಅದು ರೂಪಿಸಿರುವ ಸೂತ್ರಗಳನ್ನು;
೫) ಅದರ ಕಾರ್ಯಗಳನ್ನು ನೆರವೇರಿಸುವುದಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಅದು ಹೊಂದಿರುವ ಅಥವಾ ಅದರ ನಿಯಂತ್ರಣದಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಅಥವಾ ಅದರ ಉದ್ಯೋಗಿಗಳು ಬಳಸುವ ನಿಯಮಗಳು, ವಿನಿಯಮನಗಳು, ಅನುಸೂಚಿಗಳು, ಕೈಪಿಡಿಗಳು ಮತ್ತು ದಾಖಲೆಗಳನ್ನು;
೬) ಅದು ಹೊಂದಿರುವ ಅಥವಾ ಅದರ ನಿಯಂತ್ರಣದಲ್ಲಿರುವ ದಸ್ತಾವೇಜುಗಳ ಪ್ರವರ್ಗಗಳ ವಿವರಪಟ್ಟಿಯನ್ನು;
೭) ಅದರ ಕಾರ್ಯನೀತಿಯ ರಚನೆ ಅಥವಾ ಅದರ ಅನುಷ್ಠಾನಕ್ಕೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದಂತೆ ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕರೊಡನೆ ಸಮಾಲೋಚಿಸಲು ಅಥವಾ ಅವರ ಪ್ರಾತಿನಿಧ್ಯವಿರುವಂತೆ ಮಾಡಲು ಇರುವಂಥ ಯಾವುದೇ ವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆಯ ವಿವರಗಳನ್ನು;
೮) ಮಂಡಳಿಗಳು, ಪರಿಷತ್ತುಗಳು, ಸಮಿತಿಗಳು ಅಥವಾ ಇತರ ನಿಕಾಯಗಳು ಮತ್ತು ಅದರ ಭಾಗವಾಗಿ ಅಥವಾ ಅದರ ಸಲಹೆಯ ಉದ್ದೇಶಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ರಚಿತವಾದ ಇಬ್ಬರು ಅಥವಾ ಹೆಚ್ಚು ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಗಳನ್ನೊಳಗೊಂಡ ಮಂಡಳಿಗಳ, ಪರಿಷತ್ತುಗಳ, ಸಮಿತಿಗಳ ಮತ್ತು ಇತರ ನಿಕಾಯಗಳ ಸಭೆಗಳು ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕರಿಗೆ ಮುಕ್ತವಾಗಿರುತ್ತವೆಯೇ ಅಥವಾ ಅಂತಹ ಸಭೆಗಳ ನಡಾವಳಿಗಳು ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕರಿಗೆ ದೊರೆಯುತ್ತವೆಯೇ ಎಂಬುದರ ವಿವರಪಟ್ಟಿಕೆಯನ್ನು; ೯) ಅದರ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳ ಮತ್ತು ನೌಕರರ ನಿರ್ದೇಶಿಕೆಯನ್ನು; ಮತ್ತು ಆ ತರುವಾಯ ಪ್ರತಿವರ್ಷ ಈ ಪ್ರಕಟಣೆಗಳನ್ನು ಅಂದಿನವರೆಗೆ
೧೦) ಅದರ ವಿನಿಯಮನಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಉಪಬಂಧಿಸಿರುವಂತೆ ಪರಿಹಾರದ ವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆಯೂ ಸೇರಿದಂತೆ ಅದರ ಪ್ರತಿಯೊಬ್ಬ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿ ಮತ್ತು ನೌಕರರು ಪಡೆಯುವ ತಿಂಗಳ ಗೌರವಧನವನ್ನು;
೧೧) ಎಲ್ಲ ಯೋಜನೆಗಳ ವಿವರಗಳನ್ನು ಸೂಚಿಸುವ, ಪ್ರಸ್ತಾವಿತ ವೆಚ್ಚಗಳನ್ನು ಮತ್ತು ಮಾಡಲಾದ ಬಟವಾಡೆಗಳ ವರದಿಯನ್ನು ಸೂಚಿಸಿ; ಅದರ ಪ್ರತಿಯೊಂದು ಏಜೆನ್ಸಿಗೆ ಹಂಚಿಕೆ ಮಾಡಲಾದ ಆಯವ್ಯಯವನ್ನು,
೧೨) ಹಂಚಿಕೆ ಮಾಡಲಾದ ಮೊಬಲಗನ್ನೊಳಗೊಂಡು, ಸಹಾಯಧನ ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮಗಳ ಜಾರಿಯ ವಿಧಾನವನ್ನು ಮತ್ತು ಅಂತಹ ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮಗಳ ಫಲಾನುಭವಿಗಳ ವಿವರಗಳನ್ನು;
೧೩) ಅದು ನೀಡಿರುವ ರಿಯಾಯಿತಿಗಳನ್ನು, ಅನುಮತಿ ಪತ್ರಗಳನ್ನು ಅಥವಾ ಅಧಿಕಾರಪತ್ರಗಳನ್ನು ಪಡೆಯುವವರ ವಿವರಗಳನ್ನು;
೧೪) ಅದರ ಬಳಿ ಲಭ್ಯವಿರುವ ಅಥವಾ ಅದು ಹೊಂದಿರುವ ವಿದ್ಯುನ್ಮಾನ ರೂಪಕ್ಕೆ ಪರಿವರ್ತಿಸಿರುವ, ಮಾಹಿತಿಗೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದ ವಿವರಗಳನ್ನು;
೧೫) ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ಉಪಯೋಗಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಗ್ರಂಥಾಲಯವನ್ನು ಅಥವಾ ವಾಚನಾಲಯವನ್ನು ನಿರ್ವಹಿಸುತ್ತಿದ್ದಲ್ಲಿ ಅದರ ಕೆಲಸದ ಸಮಯವನ್ನೊಳಗೊಂಡಂತೆ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಪಡೆಯಲು ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕರಿಗೆ ಲಭ್ಯವಿರುವ ಸೌಲಭ್ಯಗಳ ವಿವರಗಳನ್ನು;
೧೬) ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳ ಹೆಸರುಗಳು, ಪದನಾಮಗಳು ಮತ್ತು ಇತರ ವಿವರಗಳನ್ನು;
೧೭) ನಿಯಮಿಸಬಹುದಾದಂತಹ ಇತರ ಮಾಹಿತಿಯನ್ನು ಪ್ರಕಟಿಸತಕ್ಕದ್ದು

- ಪರಿಷ್ಕರಿಸತಕ್ಕದ್ದು.

ಧಾಖಲೆ ಏಂದರೆ ಏನು ? ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಎಂದರೆ ಏನು ?

noreply@blogger.com (Sridhara Babu) — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 21:11:37 PST

"ದಾಖಲೆ"ಯು,-

(ಎ) ಯಾವುದೇ ದಸ್ತಾವೇಜು, ಹಸ್ತಪ್ರತಿ ಮತ್ತು ಕಡತವನ್ನು;

(ಬಿ) ಯಾವುದೇ ದಸ್ತಾವೇಜಿನ ಮೈಕ್ರೋಫಿಲಂ, ಮೈಕ್ರೋಫಿಲ್ಮ್ ಮತ್ತು ಪಡಿಯಚ್ಚು ಪ್ರತಿಯನ್ನು;

(ಸಿ) ಅಂತಹ ಮೈಕ್ರೋಫಿಲಂನಲ್ಲಿ (ಗಾತ್ರವನ್ನು ವಿಸ್ತರಿಸಿರಲಿ ಅಥವಾ ವಿಸ್ತರಿಸದಿರಲಿ) ಸಾಕಾರಗೊಳಿಸಿರುವ ಪ್ರತಿರೂಪ (ಇಮೇಜ್) ಅಥವಾ ಪ್ರತಿರೂಪಗಳ ಮರು ಪ್ರತಿ ಮಾಡುವುದನ್ನು; ಮತ್ತು

(ಡಿ) ಗಣಕಯಂತ್ರ ಅಥವಾ ಯಾವುದೇ ಇತರ ಸಾಧನದ ಮೂಲಕ ಸಿದ್ಧಪಡಿಸಲಾದ ಯಾವುದೇ ಇತರ ವಿಷಯ ಸಾಮಗ್ರಿಯನ್ನು,

- ಒಳಗೊಳ್ಳುತ್ತದೆ.

"ಮಾಹಿತಿ" ಎಂದರೆ, ತತ್ಕಾಲದಲ್ಲಿ ಜಾರಿಯಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಯಾವುದೇ ಇತರ ಕಾನೂನಿನ ಅಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ಪ್ರಾಧಿಕಾರದಿಂದ ಪಡೆಯಬಹುದಾದ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳು, ದಸ್ತಾವೇಜುಗಳು, ಮೆಮೋಗಳು, ಇ-ಮೇಲ್ಗಳು, ಅಭಿಪ್ರಾಯಗಳು, ಸಲಹೆಗಳು, ಪತ್ರಿಕಾ ಹೇಳಿಕೆಗಳು, ಸುತ್ತೋಲೆಗಳು, ಆದೇಶಗಳು, ಲಾಗ್ ಪುಸ್ತಕಗಳು, ಕರಾರುಗಳು, ವರದಿಗಳು, ಕಾಗದಪತ್ರಗಳು, ನಮೂನೆಗಳು, ಮಾದರಿಗಳು, ಯಾವುದೇ ವಿದ್ಯುನ್ಮಾನ ರೂಪದಲ್ಲಿ ಹೊಂದಿರುವ ದತ್ತಾಂಶ ಮತ್ತು ಯಾವುದೇ ಖಾಸಗಿ ನಿಕಾಯಕ್ಕೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಒಳಗೊಂಡಂತೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ರೂಪದಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಯಾವುದೇ ವಿಷಯ ಸಾಮಗ್ರಿ;

ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಹಕ್ಕು ಅಧಿನಿಯಮದ ಉದ್ದೇಶಗಳು

noreply@blogger.com (Sridhara Babu) — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 21:07:55 PST

ಭಾರತ ಸಂವಿಧಾನವು ಪ್ರಜಾಸತ್ತಾತ್ಮಕ ಗಣರಾಜ್ಯವನ್ನು ಸ್ಥಾಪಿಸಿರುವುದರಿಂದ; ಮಾಹಿತಿಯನ್ನು ಪಡೆಯಲಿಚ್ಛಿಸುವ ನಾಗರಿಕರಿಗೆ ಕೆಲವು ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಒದಗಿಸುವುದಕ್ಕೆ ಉಪಬಂಧ ಕಲ್ಪಿಸುವುದು ಈಗ ವಿಹಿತವಾಗಿರುವುದರಿಂದ; ವಾಸ್ತವಿಕ ಪದ್ಧತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಮಾಹಿತಿಯನ್ನು ಬಹಿರಂಗಪಡಿಸುವುದರಿಂದ ಸರ್ಕಾರಗಳ ದಕ್ಷ ಕಾರ್ಯಾಚರಣೆಗಳು, ಪರಿಮಿತ ಆರ್ಥಿಕ ಸಂಪನ್ಮೂಲಗಳನ್ನು ಗರಿಷ್ಠ ಪ್ರಮಾಣದಲ್ಲಿ ಬಳಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳುವುದು ಮತ್ತು ಸೂಕ್ಷ್ಮಮಾಹಿತಿಯ ಗೌಪ್ಯತೆಯ ಸಂರಕ್ಷಣೆ ಒಳಗೊಂಡಂತೆ ಇತರ ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ಹಿತಾಸಕ್ತಿಗಳೊಂದಿಗೆ ಸಂಘರ್ಷ ಉಂಟಾಗುವ ಸಾಧ್ಯತೆ ಇರುವುದರಿಂದ;

ಪ್ರಜಾಪ್ರಭುತ್ವದ ಕಾರ್ಯನಿರ್ವಹಣೆಗೆ ಹಾಗೂ ಭ್ರಷ್ಟಾಚಾರ ನಿಯಂತ್ರಣಕ್ಕೆ ಮತ್ತು ಸರ್ಕಾರಗಳು ಹಾಗೂ ಅವುಗಳ ಅಂಗಸಂಸ್ಥೆಗಳು ಜನರಿಗೆ ಜವಾಬ್ಧಾರಿಯಾಗಿರುವಂತೆ ಮಾಡಲು ತಿಳುವಳಿಕೆಯುಳ್ಳ ನಾಗರಿಕರು ಮತ್ತು ಮಾಹಿತಿಯ ಪಾರದರ್ಶಕತೆಯು ಪ್ರಮುಖವಾಗಿರುವುದರಿಂದ;

ಪ್ರಜಾಸತ್ತಾತ್ಮಕ ಆದರ್ಶದ ಸಾರ್ವಭೌಮತೆಯನ್ನು ಸಂರಕ್ಷಿಸುವುದರ ಜೊತೆಗೆ ಸಂಘರ್ಷಕ್ಕೊಳಗಾಗುವ ಹಿತಾಸಕ್ತಿಗಳ ನಡುವೆ ಸಾಮರಸ್ಯ ಮೂಡಿಸುವುದು ಅವಶ್ಯವಾಗಿರುವುದರಿಂದ;

ಪ್ರತಿಯೊಂದು ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ಪ್ರಾಧಿಕಾರದ ಕಾರ್ಯನಿರ್ವಹಣೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಪಾರದರ್ಶಕತೆ ಮತ್ತು ಉತ್ತರದಾಯಿತ್ವವನ್ನು ಹೆಚ್ಚಿಸುವ ದೃಷ್ಟಿಯಿಂದ ಸರ್ಕಾರೀ ಪ್ರಾಧಿಕಾರಗಳ ನಿಯಂತ್ರಣದಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಮಾಹಿತಿಯನ್ನು ಪಡೆಯಲು ನಾಗರಿಕರಿಗೆ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಪಡೆಯುವ ಹಕ್ಕಿನ ಕಾರ್ಯರೂಪದ ವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆಯನ್ನು ರೂಪಿಸುವುದಕ್ಕೆ, ಕೇಂದ್ರ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಆಯೋಗದ ರಚನೆಗೆ ಮತ್ತು ರಾಜ್ಯ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಆಯೋಗಗಳ ರಚನೆಗೆ ಮತ್ತು ಅದಕ್ಕೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದ ಅಥವಾ ಅದಕ್ಕೆ ಆನುಷಂಗಿಕವಾದ ವಿಷಯಗಳಿಗೆ ಉಪಬಂಧ ಕಲ್ಪಿಸುವ ಅಧಿನಿಯಮ.
ಭಾರತ ಗಣರಾಜ್ಯದ ಐವತ್ತಾರನೇ ವರ್ಷದಲ್ಲಿ ಸಂಸತ್ತಿನಿಂದ ಈ ಮುಂದಿನಂತೆ ಅಧಿನಿಯಮಿತವಾಗತಕ್ಕದ್ದು:-

ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಹಕ್ಕು ಅಧಿನಿಯಮ ೨೦೦೫

(ಅಧಿನಿಯಮ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ ೨೦೦೫ ರ ೨೨)
[೧೫ನೇ ಜೂನ್, ೨೦೦೫]

PERSONAL INFORMATION OF OFFICER CANNOT BE ASKED - JUSTICE K. BHAKTAVATSALA

noreply@blogger.com (Sridhara Babu) — Sun, 09 Jan 2011 09:59:13 PST

H.E. Rajashekarappa Vs. State Public Information Officer and Ors. ILR 2008 Kar 3646 Honourable Judges: K. Bhakthavatsala, J. Date of Judgement: 01/07/2008, Writ Petition No. 10663 of 2006, The object of the Act is to provide right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. In view of the above provisions excerpted, it cannot be said that Section 2(f) of the Act encompasses the personal information of the officials of the public authority. The intention of the legislation is to provide right to information to a citizen pertaining to public affairs of the public authority. Therefore, the respondent No. 3 had no right under the Act to seek personal information of the petitioner. The respondent No. 2/appellant authority has erred in directing the petitioner to furnish the information as sought for by the respondent No. 3. As the respondent's application is vexatious and it is an attempt made to settle scores with the petitioner, it is a fit case to impose heavy costs in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent No. 3.

Fraud in RTC issuing officials and DC, and Missappropriation case being buried in Lokayukta office

noreply@blogger.com (Sridhara Babu) — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 03:25:45 PDT

Phani Complaint Against Dc

DOWN LOAD MODEL APPLICATIONS TO FIGHT AGAINST CORRUPTION

noreply@blogger.com (Sridhara Babu) — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 03:45:14 PDT

http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/share_files/RTI-APPLICATIONS-AND-APPEAL-KARNATAKA--5162.asp

APPEAL TO PRESERVE AGRICULTURAL LANDS BY LAND REFORMS

noreply@blogger.com (Sridhara Babu) — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 03:42:11 PDT

Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961 commonly referred to by advocate brethrens as a law of tenancy in respect to agricultural lands. Beyond that another important aspect which is forgotten in these days by law enforcers and revenue department is regarding sale and purchase of agricultural lands.

Whenever there is a sale transaction of agricultural land a declaration in sub-registrar office have to be filed by both purchaser and seller as required under section 81A of Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Such declarations were made in falsify way by both sellers and purchasers either hiding their real non-agricultural income or by hiding their real extent of holding.

Section 63 of Karnataka Land Reforms Act prescribes the holding limits from 10 acres of A class land to 54 acres of D class land. Section 79A of Karnataka Land Reforms Act prescribes income limitation to acquire agriculture lands. No person having non agricultural income (either individually or in HUF) exceeding two lakh rupees in average for five years shall purchase agricultural lands. There are many instances of purchase of agricultural lands in individual names of a family exceeding holding limits.

Revenue department of Karnataka is hiding the website address which is showing online data of RTC’s of land holdings throughout the state. Such holdings of lands throughout the state may be viewed online at http://202.138.101.164/Home.aspx. When looked into extent of holdings there we find following types of illegal things approved by the active collusion of revenue department.

100's of acres of agricultural lands were purchased by non-agriculturists the shara in mutation registers lacks certification as to whether 79A and 79B of Karnataka Land Reforms Act has been verified or not.
The agricultural lands were purchased on behalf of some developers or builders in the name of directors.
The mutation shara in almost cases does not disclose as to amount for which such transaction of sale took place.
The sale transactions of small extents were rampant to avoid the income tax clearance and to avoid khatha change difficulties.
Some khathas were made out even after having statistics related to land holdings which violate section 63 of Karnataka Land Reforms Act.
Many associations, trusts, companies, have purchased agricultural lands directly in their names without getting suitable permission from government as provided under section 109 of Karnataka Land Reforms Act.
In many cases Deputy commissioners have violated their capacity to grant permission under section 109 to an extent not exceeding half an hectare. that is 1.25 acres or 50 guntas. The large extent over that has to be notified by government to exempt application of section 63, 79A, 79B or 80 of Karnataka Land Reforms Act.
Many revenue officials are using this restrictions to favour through corruption.
In some cases although affidavit and saral income tax returns copies are collected to test 79A, 79B violations. But revenue department is not verifying those documents by summoning relevant documents from Income Tax department. There are increased creations of forged saral copies. In a disclosed fraud in relation to application for loans with banks wherein more income showing copies are manipulated to get more loans, In this area low income saral copies are manipulated to show non-agricultural income below Rs 2 lakhs.
In order to shield illegal transactions some relevant informations were not entered in RTC's by Revenue departments.

The questions which hunt in my mind is whether Land Reforms Act need amendment or whether Land reforms act needs strict implementations. To get answers for this questions. Lets see what's happening in village side.

Naturally People dream of becoming rich overnight and enjoy the luxuries hereto found in cinemas. There is no such change in human tendency with regard to rural people. They too have ambitions to have materialistic life. That's why many people were found near single number lottery stalls before its ban.
Many rural people expecting crores together money for their agriculture lands, when once it was neglected by them as non-yielding and only consuming utility, they have left hopes on lands, but now a day farmer’s Bangalore agriculturist relatives are getting crores together money and their life styles are changing from cycle to scorpio. Many farmers in anticipation of changing their life styles also selling their lands, and many middle men investing on lands are utilising this selling phobia to their advantage.
If this type of investment criteria is left without a check to it what happens to production of food. Even if some land acquisition proposals are made people leave cultivating in their lands. If such mass scale desertion of agricultural activity moves unchecked, whether concrete jungles grow food for human consumption.
What happens to idle minds of farmers after they desert their primary occupation? One can see in villages/towns every house is having real estate agent. Every one is doing this broker business. To what extent it will flourish. Idle minds of farmers may be a cause of worry to the future police administration.
When present land reforms laws are there in existence people are violating it with all corrupt attitude. There is no respect towards laws of the legislature by the executive machinery. First of all non agricultural income of legislatures including their perks and others exceed two lakh rupees per year and the Legislatures themselves are not entitled to purchase agricultural lands. There are many instances of purchase of agricultural lands by legislatures. The law framing authority themselves violated their framed laws. Taking this loophole executive machinery as law enforcers are becoming corrupt.
Many Bar and Restaurants are having good business in and around Devanahalli, because every house hold got crores together money and some are spending on evil habits. What's happening to our peace loving farmer he was thrown to streets as drunkard, gambler, gangster, etc.
Litigant minded farmer who has sold land when it was in lakhs now in the greed of crores putting up litigations by finding one or other loopholes in the transactions. Many old cases of revenue records stray entries were digged up to create litigations and expecting money in turn for settlement.
Recent Hon’ble Karnataka High Court Judgment regarding women's Rights to property have brought in many ideas to dispute digging farmers. No limits to greed, no limits to materialistic needs are the chief causes for such peace less situations.
Many acquisition gossips are going on in many villages. Many realtors spread such gossip through revenue officials and purchase lands from farmers. Due to low returns from government acquisition proceedings farmers are selling to realtors. This type of land Mafia is working throughout state.
Litigation settling mafia is working in almost all places. Both litigants are pressurized to sell at cheap rates and settle their claims. Farmers in anticipation of quick money settle their genuine case with illegal litigant. Many litigations were unnecessarily created by financing through realtors and subsequent settlements take place with pressure from land mafia elements.

There is a need for social survey before there is any change in Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The below stated facts need to be surveyed to preserve our backbone of the country.

1. Whether people who sold lands are happy?
2. What type of avocation they have selected?
3. What are their problems even after they have money?
4. Whether they are happy with lands or with money?
5. How are they contributing to the development of economy?
6. How do they spend and save money?
7. How do their family relations changed when money got in?
8. Whether Joint family satisfaction is there without lands?
9. How many farmers children's are at cross roads?
10. What type of disputes arose after sale of agricultural lands?
11. How does the lifestyle changed?
12. Whether capable of maintaining such lifestyles in long run?
13. What is their sensational attachment to lands?
14. Whether there is any depression in the minds of farmers?
15. Whether they feel to migrate from their nearby village?
16. Whether they are spending on wise investments?
17. How many have spent money over re-acquiring lands in other places?
18. How many have created their bread earning routes for survival?
19. What is the educational development of children after sale of lands?

Few needed reforms under the present land laws.

1. Land records related to a land should be computerized to verify online the old records also related to a survey number.
2. The pending cases related to land records in revenue courts needs speedy disposal.
3. It is a sorry state of affairs that land tribunals are still having cases related to tenancies.
4. Retired Judicial officers should be appointed to dispose off the disputes pending in revenue courts.
5. The revenue record that is RTC’s should have entries related to land grants, land alienation orders, pending disputes both civil and revenue, RTC’s provided as surety in criminal cases needs to be entered to avoid misuse of farmers in criminal cases, the relevant columns of number of trees and other information needs to be updated.
6. It shall be mandatory duty of the Assistant commissioner’s that they should take action against uncultivated land holders under section 84 of Karnataka Land Reforms Act.
7. All the Government lands should be listed with specific words in RTC’s in order to avoid encroachments of Government lands.

8. Some NAK lands that is non-agricultural kharab’s having no entry of private persons names in RTC’s are siphoned off by private persons, As per section 67 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act those lands which does not belong to any individual shall be government land. When NAK lands have no entry of private persons names in RTC’s then it certainly belongs to Government.

9. Some tahsildar’s argue that NAK lands are alienated lands but revenue department circulars speaks other wise there is clear cut directions in circulars that all alienated lands should be entered in RTC’s with owners name to whom alienation order was given, with extent of alienation and purpose of alienation with order number and date. This is a mandatory duty of tahsildars as quoted in repeated circulars. But tahsildars are reluctant to take action against government land encroachers and almost of them are not ready to prepare list of government lands.

10. We have seen and witnessed allegations and counter allegations of government land encroachments from A.T. Ramaswamy report, when looked into actual reality thousands of acres of government lands were looted by private individuals by having created stray entries in RTC records. And some unchallenged orders were obtained from revenue courts with collusion of revenue authorities. Today we find scarcity of lands for burial of human body in Bangalore, At least government lands in each district to be preserved for construction of decent burial places without tombs so that our future generations may not be worried to dispose off our dead bodies.

11. The income limit for acquisition of lands needs proper documentation and verification. Revenue department should take written reply and documentary proof from IT department for verification of non-agricultural income.

12. Government should detect such violations of section 79A and 79B sue motto or pass a law to have voluntary disclosure with penalty so that there will be mass scale collection of funds which can be utilized for the welfare of farmers.
Government should pass strict law to enforce cultivation of agricultural lands by the holders of land, or to surrender land to landless labourers on fixed returns assuring landlords also of equal protection of their ownership.

13. Government should pass strict law not to convert fertile lands to non-agricultural purposes. There should be a survey of demarcation of fertile agricultural lands. The irrigation facility provided lands needs to be preserved from conversions to non agricultural purposes. Although there are repeated circulars from revenue department banning acquisition of fertile lands and preference of large holders rather than small holders in the matter of acquisition, little efforts were made to implement such circulars by the acquiring authorities.

14. The developmental activities like SEZ and others should be implemented in the area having “Banjaru Bhoomi”. Panchayath department is spending crores together money to make “Banjaru Bhoomi” a fertile land on the other side revenue department is acquiring fertile lands for industrial and other developmental purposes. When barren lands are identifiable by the sister department for spending grants and other developmental funds why the department of revenue not identifying barren lands before going in for acquisition of lands.

15. There should be some relaxation in respect to extent of holdings for genuine agricultural reasons. Each such holdings should account for its investment and returns so that speculative investments are best avoided.

16. There should be complete ban of alienations by a person who purchases land only for layout development. Such investors should be streamlined with previous permissions of government. Government should spell out its targeted layouts in targeted lands by bifurcating lands with class already under Karnataka Land Reforms Act.

17. There should be strict laws to preserve public tanks and rain water flowing Hallahs, the under ground water depletion is affecting water table and also causing warming of earth forecasting serious troubles. In the name of development no public tanks be destroyed, arrangements have to be made to preserve water in tanks and to preserve encroachments of rain water flowing raja galuve’s.

18. The Co-operative farming provisions under chapter VII of Karnataka Land Reforms Act needs to be encouraged by the government through various measures to give stiff competition to world economy.

To combat all the above discussed aspects of farming population’s present problems, our countries Land reforms agenda to preserve social Justice have to be strengthened by adoption of following aspects in all the state acts which is under grave threat of repealment due to globalisation. Our Advocate community in all states should insist upon preserving land reforms acts with several modifications suiting present needs.

1. The ceiling limit on land holding should be strengthened which is not followed in strict sense, many politicians and black money operators are investing on land by holding lands crossing ceiling limits. The action against those should be initiated.
2. The Co-operative farming mode shall be encouraged rather than allowing big extent of lands at the hands of few rich people.
3. Fertile agricultural lands should be strictly prohibited from alienating to non-agricultural use.
4. Fertile agricultural lands should not be acquired by state, for non-agricultural use.
5. State before acquiring private lands should check out whether any government waste lands are available for the purpose.
6. Not only tenants should be protected under land reforms but small and marginal farmers should be protected from constant threat of acquisition. Since in the name of threat of acquisition land mafia is increasing every where.
7. Land provided by Government for non-agricultural purpose to any parties should be used for such purpose within five years, failure on the part of allottees, should be taken serious action.
8. Surplus Land distribution should be made with greater transparency and publication. No political mis-use of such distribution shall be made.
9. List of farming community with photos and their land holdings should be published in a website, to check black money investments and allowing transparency in land affairs.
10. List of waste land and un-cultivated lands shall be published in website to allow any developmental activity over such lands.
11. Land Mafia and Land Hoardings should be seriously dealt with by having suitable “Land Reforms Judicial Magistrate” to entertain complaints on those matters.
12. Common property such as forests, grazing lands, water, fisheries, Tank, Pond, etc is to be held and managed through a community resource management system. By formulating a separate rules and regulations for it.
13. It would be important to widen the scope of land reforms beyond the mere activity of redistribution of land or revision of ceiling limit. In order to be effective, land reforms must be seen as part of a wider agenda of systemic restructuring that undertakes simultaneous reforms in the sectors of energy and water. These deeper structural reforms shall ensure that the exercise at redistribution of land actually becomes meaningful by enabling the small farmer to turn his plot into a productive asset.

CONCLUSION: It is time for all netha's and babu's of law department to think about the proper planning in utilization of agricultural lands. Development shall take place, not at the destruction of agricultural economy. Development shall take place, not only in construction of buildings and roads but also in construction of positive minds of people at large. Development without positive minded citizenship is a great curse to our future generations. People from agriculturist family may be left as Idle minds, certainly there will be lot of devil’s workshops that will ruin our future generations. Government should frame proper laws to preserve back bone of our country that is farmer and his lands.

GOVERNMENT TO PROSECUTE RTI APPLICANT? ITS SHAME ON DEMOCRACY

noreply@blogger.com (Sridhara Babu) — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 11:59:49 PDT

During hearing of a complaint filed by Dr. K Shivaram, Retired Asst. Director of Dept. of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Science it was disclosed through written statement filed by the Public Information Officer that Chief Secretary had permitted Dr. Aswath, Commissioner for Department of Animal Husbandry and Veterinery Services to file a defamaton case against Dr. K Shivaram. Immediately we brought it to the notice of the Commission the manner in which RTI applicants are being treated by the State Government. In a similar case it is reported that Inspector General of Registration and Commissioner of Stamps had also approached the Chief Secretary with a similar request to file defamation case against a few RTI applicants who had sought information on the functioning of the Registration Department in the State. In an another incidence two Revenue Inspectors of Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike had also issued Legal Notice to an RTI applicant. We brought this to the notice of Sri. K A Thippeswamy, Commissioner, who heard the case of Dr. Shivaram on 26.5.2008. Immediately the Commissioner ordered for filing a written statement by the Public Information Officer and demanded an explantion from him as to how seeking information amounts to defamation. Commission also ordered for placing all available records with the Office of the Chief Secretary relating to sanction of permission to Dr.Aswath, IAS., to file a defamation case. Complaint was adjourned to 9th September 2008.

I am reproducing below a news report published in the Bangalore Edition of Indian Express on 27.5.2008

Indian Express Blore 27/05/2008 --- Basavaraj Itnal |ENS| May 26

In a move that can discourage applicantsfrom seeking information , the
Karnataka Government has deceided to sue an applicant Dr K Shivramfor
seeking information under the RTI . Omn December 11,2007 , Shivram a
Retd Asst Director of the Department of AH & VS sought information about
the Annual Statements of Assets & liabilities of the Commissioner of AH
& VS D S Ashwath .
The Information in question was treated as 3rd party information and
Ashwath failed to disclose the same . Following an appeal to Karnataka
Information Commission (KIC) shivram was asked what public cause would be
served by the disclosure of Ashwaths assets statement. Ashwath also
wrote to the chief Secretary seeking permission to sue Shivram for
Defamation. what is more SHOCKING IS THAT THE CHEIF SECRERTARY HAS GRANTED
PERMISSION FOR PROSECUTION..
Mahithi Hakku Adayayana Kendra Trustees Vikram Simha and BH veeresh
saiod that the Government ios doing everything to scuttle the RTI Act .
First the Karnataka government haS NO BUSINESS IN TRATING ASSETS
STATEMENTS AS 3RD PARTY INFORMATION . IT IS A SERIOUS VIOLATION OF THE sPIRIT
OF rti aCT TO SUE AN APPLICANT MERELY FOR SEEKING INFORMATION.vIKRAM
SAID . VEERESHA SAID THAT THEY WOULD TAKE UP THE ISSUE WITH KIC.

B.H. VEERESHA
MAHITHI HAKKU ADHYAYANA KENDRA
54, 17TH CROSS, M C LAYOUT
VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE 560 040
TEL.NO. 9448704693

Send free SMS to your Friends on Mobile from your Yahoo! Messenger. Download Now! http://messenger.yahoo.com/download.php

RTI AMENDMENT IN KARNATAKA

noreply@blogger.com (Sridhara Babu) — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 11:59:49 PDT

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

NO.DPAR;14:RTI:2008 Karnataka Government Secretariat
DPAR (Janaspandana Cell)
3rd Floor. Podium Block, V V Towers
BANGALORE DT.17.3.2008.

NOTIFICATION

In exercise of the Powers conferred by Sub-Section (1) and (2) of Section 27 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (Central Act 22 of 2005), The Government of Karnataka hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Karnataka Right to Information Rules, 2005, namely:

Title and Commencement: (1) These rules may be called the Karnataka Right to Information (Amendment) Rules, 2008.
(2) They shall come into force from the date of their publication in Official Gazette.

Insertion of new rule 14: In the Karnataka Right to Information Rules, 2005, after rule 13, the following shall be inserted, namely:

“14. Request relate only to single subject matter: A request in writing for information under section 6 of the Act shall relate to one subject matter and it shall not ordinarily exceed one hundred and fifty words. If an applicant wishes to seek information on more than one subject matter, he shall make separate applications;

Provided that in case, the request made relates to more than one subject matter, the Public Information Officer may respond to the request relating to the first subject matter only and may advise the applicant to make separate application for each of the other subject matters.”

By Order and in the name of the
President of India
Sd/-
( B. SHIVARUDRA SWAMY)
Under Secretary to Government, I/C
DPAR (JANASPANDANA CELL –RTI)

ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ಪ್ರಾಧಿಕಾರಿಯ ಕರ್ತವ್ಯ ಮತ್ತು ಅವರು ಜಾರಿ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿರುವ ಕಾನೂನು ವಿಚಾರವಾಗಿ ಅಭಿಪ್ರಾಯ ಪಡೆಯಲು ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆ ಯಾಕೆ ಕೇಳ ಬಾರದು

noreply@blogger.com (Sridhara Babu) — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 11:59:49 PDT

ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಹಕ್ಕು ಅಧಿನಿಯಮದಲ್ಲಿ ‘ಮಾಹಿತಿ‘ ಎಂಬ ಪದಕ್ಕೆ ಈ ಅರ್ಥ ಕಲ್ಪಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ, ಅದರಲ್ಲಿ ಅಭಿಪ್ರಾಯ, ಮತ್ತು ಸಲಹೆಗಳು ಸೇರಿರುತ್ತವೆ, ಹಾಗಿರುವಾಗ ಪ್ರಶ್ನಾಪೂರ್ವಕವಾಗಿ ಸದರಿ ಪ್ರಾಧಿಕಾರಿಯ ಕರ್ತವ್ಯದಲ್ಲಿನ ಅಭಿಪ್ರಾಯ ಏಕೆ ಕೇಳಬಾರದು?

"ಮಾಹಿತಿ" ಎಂದರೆ, ತತ್ಕಾಲದಲ್ಲಿ ಜಾರಿಯಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಯಾವುದೇ ಇತರ ಕಾನೂನಿನ ಅಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ಪ್ರಾಧಿಕಾರದಿಂದ ಪಡೆಯಬಹುದಾದ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳು, ದಸ್ತಾವೇಜುಗಳು, ಮೆಮೋಗಳು, ಇ-ಮೇಲ್‌ಗಳು, ಅಭಿಪ್ರಾಯಗಳು, ಸಲಹೆಗಳು, ಪತ್ರಿಕಾ ಹೇಳಿಕೆಗಳು, ಸುತ್ತೋಲೆಗಳು, ಆದೇಶಗಳು, ಲಾಗ್ ಪುಸ್ತಕಗಳು, ಕರಾರುಗಳು, ವರದಿಗಳು, ಕಾಗದಪತ್ರಗಳು, ನಮೂನೆಗಳು, ಮಾದರಿಗಳು, ಯಾವುದೇ ವಿದ್ಯುನ್ಮಾನ ರೂಪದಲ್ಲಿ ಹೊಂದಿರುವ ದತ್ತಾಂಶ ಮತ್ತು ಯಾವುದೇ ಖಾಸಗಿ ನಿಕಾಯಕ್ಕೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಒಳಗೊಂಡಂತೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ರೂಪದಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಯಾವುದೇ ವಿಷಯ ಸಾಮಗ್ರಿ;

ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಹಕ್ಕು ಅಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳು ಮರೆಯುತ್ತಿರುವ ಕಾನೂನಿನ ಮರು ನೆನಪಿಗೆ

noreply@blogger.com (Sridhara Babu) — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 11:59:49 PDT

ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಹಕ್ಕು ಅಧಿನಿಯಮ ೨೦೦೫
(ಆಯ್ದ ಬಾಗಗಳ ಯಥಾವತ್ತು)

೪. ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ಪ್ರಾಧಿಕಾರಗಳ ಹೊಣೆಗಾರಿಕೆ.-
(೧) ಪ್ರತಿಯೊಂದು ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ಪ್ರಾಧಿಕಾರವು,-
(ಎ) ಈ ಅಧಿನಿಯಮದ ಅಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಹಕ್ಕಿಗಾಗಿ ಅನುಕೂಲ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಡುವ ರೀತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಮತ್ತು ನಮೂನೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಕ್ರಮಬದ್ಧ ಸೂಚಿಪಟ್ಟಿ ಮತ್ತು ಸೂಚೀಕರಣಗೊಂಡ ಅದರ ಎಲ್ಲಾ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳನ್ನು ನಿರ್ವಹಿಸತಕ್ಕದ್ದು ಮತ್ತು ಸೂಕ್ತ ಸಮಯದೊಳಗಾಗಿ ಮತ್ತು ಸಂಪನ್ಮೂಲಗಳ ಲಭ್ಯತೆಗೊಳಪಟ್ಟು, ಗಣಕೀಕರಣಕ್ಕೆ ಸೂಕ್ತವಾದ ಎಲ್ಲ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳನ್ನು ಗಣಕೀಕರಿಸುವಂತೆ ಮತ್ತು ಅಂತಹ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳು ಸುಲಭವಾಗಿ ದೊರೆಯುವಂತೆ ದೇಶಾದ್ಯಂತ ವಿವಿಧ ಸಿಸ್ಟಂಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಸಂಪರ್ಕಜಾಲದ ಮೂಲಕ ಸಂಪರ್ಕ ಕಲ್ಪಿಸುವಂತೆ ಮಾಡತಕ್ಕದ್ದು;
(ಬಿ) ಈ ಅಧಿನಿಯಮವನ್ನು ಅಧಿನಿಯಮಿತಿಗೊಳಿಸಿದ ದಿನಾಂಕದಿಂದ ಒಂದುನೂರ ಇಪ್ಪತ್ತು ದಿನಗಳೊಳಗಾಗಿ,- (I) .. .. .. ..
(II).. .. .. .. ..
(III) .. .. .. .. ....
(xi) ಎಲ್ಲ ಯೋಜನೆಗಳ ವಿವರಗಳನ್ನು ಸೂಚಿಸುವ, ಪ್ರಸ್ತಾವಿತ ವೆಚ್ಚಗಳನ್ನು ಮತ್ತು ಮಾಡಲಾದ ಬಟವಾಡೆಗಳ ವರದಿಯನ್ನು ಸೂಚಿಸಿ; ಅದರ ಪ್ರತಿಯೊಂದು ಏಜೆನ್ಸಿಗೆ ಹಂಚಿಕೆ ಮಾಡಲಾದ ಆಯವ್ಯಯವನ್ನು,
(xii) ಹಂಚಿಕೆ ಮಾಡಲಾದ ಮೊಬಲಗನ್ನೊಳಗೊಂಡು, ಸಹಾಯಧನ ಕಾರ್‍ಯಕ್ರಮಗಳ ಜಾರಿಯ ವಿಧಾನವನ್ನು ಮತ್ತು ಅಂತಹ ಕಾರ್‍ಯಕ್ರಮಗಳ ಫಲಾನುಭವಿಗಳ ವಿವರಗಳನ್ನು;
(xiii) ಅದು ನೀಡಿರುವ ರಿಯಾಯಿತಿಗಳನ್ನು, ಅನುಮತಿ ಪತ್ರಗಳನ್ನು ಅಥವಾ ಅಧಿಕಾರಪತ್ರಗಳನ್ನು ಪಡೆಯುವವರ ವಿವರಗಳನ್ನು;.. .. .. .. .... .. .. .. ..

(ಸಿ) ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕರಿಗೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದ ಪ್ರಮುಖ ಕಾರ್‍ಯನೀತಿಗಳನ್ನು ರೂಪಿಸುವಾಗ ಅಥವಾ ನಿರ್ಧಾರಗಳನ್ನು ಘೋಷಿಸುವಾಗ ಎಲ್ಲ ಸುಸಂಗತ ಸಂಗತಿಗಳನ್ನು ಪ್ರಕಟಿಸತಕ್ಕದ್ದು;

(ಡಿ) ಆಡಳಿತಾತ್ಮಕ ಅಥವಾ ಅರೆನ್ಯಾಯಿಕ ಸ್ವರೂಪದ ನಿರ್ಣಯಗಳಿಂದ ಬಾಧಿತರಾದ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಗಳಿಗೆ ಅದರ ಕಾರಣಗಳನ್ನು ಒದಗಿಸತಕ್ಕದ್ದು.

(೨) ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಪಡೆಯುವುದಕ್ಕಾಗಿ, ಈ ಅಧಿನಿಯಮದ ಉಪಯೋಗವನ್ನು ಕನಿಷ್ಠ ಪ್ರಮಾಣದಲ್ಲಿ ಅವಲಂಬಿಸುವುದಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಪ್ರತಿಯೊಂದು ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ಪ್ರಾಧಿಕಾರವು ಅಂತರ್ಜಾಲವೂ ಸೇರಿದಂತೆ, ಅಂಥ ಮಾಹಿತಿಯನ್ನು ವಿವಿಧ ಸಂಪರ್ಕ ಸಾಧನಗಳ ಮೂಲಕ ನಿಯಮಿತ ಮಧ್ಯಂತರದಲ್ಲಿ (೧)ನೇ ಉಪ ಪ್ರಕರಣದಲ್ಲಿ (ಬಿ) ಖಂಡದ ಅಗತ್ಯಗಳಿಗನುಸಾರವಾಗಿ ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕರಿಗೆ ಸಾಕಷ್ಟು ಮಾಹಿತಿ ದೊರಕಿಸಿಕೊಡಲು ಕ್ರಮ ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಳ್ಳುವುದು ಅದರ ನಿರಂತರ ಪ್ರಯತ್ನವಾಗಿರತಕ್ಕದ್ದು.

(೩) (೧)ನೇ ಉಪ ಪ್ರಕರಣದ ಉದ್ದೇಶಗಳಿಗಾಗಿ ಪ್ರತಿಯೊಂದು ಮಾಹಿತಿಯನ್ನು, ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕರಿಗೆ ಸುಲಭವಾಗಿ ದೊರೆಯುವಂತಹ ನಮೂನೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಮತ್ತು ವಿಧಾನದಲ್ಲಿ ವ್ಯಾಪಕವಾಗಿ ಪ್ರಸಾರ ಮಾಡತಕ್ಕದ್ದು.

(೪) ವೆಚ್ಚದ ಪ್ರಮಾಣವನ್ನು, ಸ್ಥಳೀಯ ಭಾಷೆಯನ್ನು ಮತ್ತು ಆ ಸ್ಥಳೀಯ ಪ್ರದೇಶದಲ್ಲಿನ ಸಂಪರ್ಕದ ಅತ್ಯಂತ ಪರಿಣಾಮಕಾರಿ ವಿಧಾನ ಇವುಗಳನ್ನು ಗಮನದಲ್ಲಿಟ್ಟುಕೊಂಡು ಎಲ್ಲ ವಿಷಯಗಳನ್ನು ಪ್ರಸಾರ ಮಾಡತಕ್ಕದ್ದು ಮತ್ತು ಆ ಮಾಹಿತಿಯು, ಕೇಂದ್ರ ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿಯ ಅಥವಾ ಸಂದರ್ಭಾನುಸಾರ, ರಾಜ್ಯ ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿಯ ಬಳಿ ಸಾಧ್ಯವಾದಷ್ಟು ಮಟ್ಟಿಗೆ ವಿದ್ಯುನ್ಮಾನ ನಮೂನೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಸುಲಭವಾಗಿ, ಉಚಿತವಾಗಿ ಅಥವಾ ನಿಗದಿಪಡಿಸಬಹುದಾದಂತಹ ಮಾಧ್ಯಮ ವೆಚ್ಚದ ಅಥವಾ ಮುದ್ರಣಕ್ಕೆ ತಗಲುವ ವೆಚ್ಚದ ಬೆಲೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಲಭ್ಯವಾಗುವಂತಿರತಕ್ಕದ್ದು.

೭. ಕೋರಿಕೆಯ ವಿಲೆ.- (೧) ೫ನೇ ಪ್ರಕರಣದ (೨)ನೇ ಉಪ ಪ್ರಕರಣದ ಪರಂತುಕಕ್ಕೆ ಅಥವಾ ೬ನೇ ಪ್ರಕರಣದ (೩)ನೇ ಉಪ ಪ್ರಕರಣದ ಪರಂತುಕಕ್ಕೆ ಒಳಪಟ್ಟು, ಕೇಂದ್ರ ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿಯು ಅಥವಾ ಸಂದರ್ಭಾನುಸಾರ, ರಾಜ್ಯ ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿಯು ೬ನೇ ಪ್ರಕರಣದ ಅಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಕೋರಿಕೆಯನ್ನು ಸ್ವೀಕರಿಸಿದ ನಂತರ ತ್ವರಿತವಾಗಿ ಮತ್ತು ಯಾವುದೇ ಸಂದರ್ಭದಲ್ಲಿ ಕೋರಿಕೆ ಸ್ವೀಕರಿಸಿದ ಮೂವತ್ತು ದಿವಸಗಳೊಳಗಾಗಿ, ನಿಗದಿಪಡಿಸಬಹುದಾದಂತಹ ಶುಲ್ಕವನ್ನು ಸಂದಾಯ ಮಾಡಿದ ಮೇಲೆ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಒದಗಿಸತಕ್ಕದ್ದು ಅಥವಾ ೮ ಮತ್ತು ೯ನೇ ಪ್ರಕರಣಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ನಿರ್ದಿಷ್ಠಪಡಿಸಿರುವ ಯಾವುವೇ ಕಾರಣಗಳಿಗಾಗಿ ಕೋರಿಕೆಯನ್ನು ತಿರಸ್ಕರಿಸತಕ್ಕದ್ದು: ಆದರೆ, ಕೋರಿರುವ.. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

(೩) ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಒದಗಿಸುವುದಕ್ಕೆ ಆಗುವ ವೆಚ್ಚವನ್ನು ಸೂಚಿಸುವ ಯಾವುದೇ ಹೆಚ್ಚಿನ ಶುಲ್ಕವನ್ನು ಸಂದಾಯ ಮಾಡಿದ ಮೇಲೆ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಒದಗಿಸಬೇಕೆಂಬ ತೀರ್ಮಾನ ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದಲ್ಲಿ, ಕೇಂದ್ರ ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿಯು ಅಥವಾ ಸಂದರ್ಭಾನುಸಾರ, ರಾಜ್ಯ ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿಯು ಕೋರಿಕೆ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿರುವ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಗೆ ಈ ಮುಂದಿನ ವಿವರಗಳನ್ನು ತಿಳಿಸತಕ್ಕದ್ದು,-
(ಎ) (೧)ನೇ ಉಪ ಪ್ರಕರಣದ ಅಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ನಿಗದಿಪಡಿಸಿರುವ ಶುಲ್ಕದ ಮೊಬಲಗನ್ನು ನಿರ್ಧರಿಸಲು ಮಾಡಿದ ಲೆಕ್ಕಾಚಾರದೊಂದಿಗೆ ಅವನು ನಿರ್ಧರಿಸಿರುವಂತೆ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಒದಗಿಸಲು ತಗಲುವ ವೆಚ್ಚವನ್ನು ಸೂಚಿಸುವ ಹೆಚ್ಚಿನ ಶುಲ್ಕದ ವಿವರಗಳು, ಶುಲ್ಕವನ್ನು ಠೇವಣಿ ಇಡುವಂತೆ ಅವನನ್ನು ಕೋರುವುದು ಮತ್ತು ಸದರಿ ಮಾಹಿತಿಯ ರವಾನೆ ಮತ್ತು ಶುಲ್ಕ ಸಂದಾಯದ ನಡುವಿನ ಅವಧಿಯನ್ನು ಆ ಉಪ ಪ್ರಕರಣದಲ್ಲಿ ಉಲ್ಲೇಖಿಸಿರುವ ಮೂವತ್ತು ದಿವಸಗಳ ಅವಧಿಯನ್ನು ಲೆಕ್ಕ ಹಾಕುವ ಉದ್ದೇಶಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಗಣನೆಗೆ ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಳ್ಳತಕ್ಕದ್ದಲ್ಲ;.. .. .. .. .. .. ..

(೬) (೫)ನೇ ಉಪ ಪ್ರಕರಣದಲ್ಲಿ ಏನೇ ಇದ್ದರೂ ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ಪ್ರಾಧಿಕಾರವು (೧)ನೇ ಉಪ ಪ್ರಕರಣದಲ್ಲಿ ನಿರ್ದಿಷ್ಟಪಡಿಸಿರುವ ಕಾಲಮಿತಿಗಳನ್ನು ಪಾಲಿಸಲು ವಿಫಲವಾದಲ್ಲಿ ಮಾಹಿತಿಗಾಗಿ ಕೋರಿಕೆ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸುವ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಗೆ ಮಾಹಿತಿಯನ್ನು, ಶುಲ್ಕವಿಲ್ಲದೆ ಒದಗಿಸತಕ್ಕದ್ದು.

ಆಡಳಿತ ಸುಧಾರಣೆ ತರುವ ಉದ್ದೇಶದಿಂದ ಕಾನೂನು ವಿಚಾರದಲ್ಲಿ ಹೇಗೆ ವಿವಿದ ಇಲಾಖೆಯ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಕೇಳಬೇಕು

noreply@blogger.com (Sridhara Babu) — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 11:59:49 PDT

ಪ್ರಿಯ ಓದುಗರೆ,

ನಿಮ್ಮ ಪ್ರತಿಕ್ರಿಯೆಗೆ ನಾನು ಚಿರ ಋಣಿ

ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಹಕ್ಕು ಅರ್ಜಿಯನ್ನು ಉಪಯೋಗಿಸಿ ಕೊಂಡು ಹೇಗೆ ವಿವಿದ ಇಲಾಖೆಗಳ ಕಾರ್ಯ ವೈಕರಿಯನ್ನು ಸುದರಣೆ ಮಾಡಬಹುದು ಎಂಬ ವಿಚಾರದಲ್ಲಿ ಇನ್ನು ಮುಂದೆ ನಿರಂತರವಾಗಿ ಈ ಬ್ಲಾಗ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಮಾಹಿತಿಯನ್ನು ನೀಡುತ್ತೇನೆ ಸದರಿ ಮಾಹಿತಿಯನ್ನು ಉಪಯೋಗಿಸಿ ಕೊಂಡು ಹೆಚ್ಚಿನ ಸುದಾರಣೆಯನ್ನು ಮತ್ತು ಬ್ರಷ್ಟಾಚಾರ ರಹಿತ ಸಮಾಜವನ್ನು ನಿರ್ಮಿಸಲು ಕೋರುತ್ತೇನೆ.

ಇಂತಿ ತಮ್ಮ ವಿದೇಯ

ಶ್ರೀಧರ ಬಾಬು. ಎನ್

ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿಯಿಂದ ನೇಮಿಸಲ್ಪಟ್ಟ ಅವರಡಿಯ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳಿಂದ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ತರಿಸಿ ಕೊಡಬೇಕು ಅವರ ಬಳಿ ಪಡೆಯಿರಿ ಎನ್ನಲಾಗದು

noreply@blogger.com (Sridhara Babu) — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 11:59:49 PDT

If multiple number of PIOs are appointed in the same public authority there is no scope to either ask the citizen to approach another PIO within the same public authority or send the request to another PIO within the same P.A. Only in a case where the information sought is held by another P.A. other than the one which has designated her as PIO, she can transfer the request to that P.A. for furnishing information to the applicant directly. ICPB/C1/CIC/2006 - 6 March, 2006.

PIO, who has received the request form the requester is under obligation to seek information form his colleague and provide it to the requester. His colleague who was to provide the information as per s.5(5) would become deemed PIO and expected to provide the - PIO, who received the original request - the required information. CIC/AT/A/2006/00015 - 1 March ,2006

ಕಡತವೊಂದು ನಾಶಗೊಳಿಸಲ್ಪಟ್ಟ ಸಂದರ್ಭದಲ್ಲಿ - ಮಹಿತಿದಾರನಿಗೆ ಹೇಗೆ ಪ್ರತಿಕ್ರಿಯಿಸಬೇಕು

noreply@blogger.com (Sridhara Babu) — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 11:59:49 PDT

ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಸರಕಾರದ ಆದೇಶ

ಸಿಬ್ಬಂದಿ ಮತ್ತು ಆಡಳಿತ ಸುಧಾರಣಾ ಇಲಾಖೆ
(ಜನಸ್ಪಂದನ ಕೋಶ) ೩ನೇ ಮಹಡಿ,
ಪೋಡಿಯಂ ಬ್ಲಾಕ್, ವಿಶ್ವೇಶ್ವರಯ್ಯ ಗೋಪುರ,
ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು, ದಿನಾಂಕ:೨೮-೩-೨೦೦೬

ಸುತ್ತೋಲೆ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ: ಸಿಆಸುಇ ೧೬೫ ಮಾಹಅ ೨೦೦೫

ವಿಷಯ: ಕಡತವೊಂದು ನಾಶಗೊಳಿಸಲ್ಪಟ್ಟ ಸಂದರ್ಭದಲ್ಲಿ ಸದರಿ ಕಡತಕ್ಕೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದ ಮಾಹಿತಿಯನ್ನು ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಹಕ್ಕು ಕಾಯ್ದೆಯಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಕೋರಿದಾಗ ಏನು ಕ್ರಮ ಜರುಗಿಸಬೇಕೆಂಬ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಸೂಚನೆಗಳು.

ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕರೊಬ್ಬರು ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಹಕ್ಕು ಕಾಯ್ದೆಯಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಕೋರಿದಾಗ ಆ ಮಾಹಿತಿಗೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದ ಕಡತ / ಪ್ರಕರಣ / ದಾಖಲಾತಿಗಳು ಕಚೇರಿಯ ಕಾರ್ಯವಿಧಾನದಂತೆ ನಾಶಗೊಳಿಸಲ್ಪಟ್ಟಿದ್ದಲ್ಲಿ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಕೋರಿದ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಗೆ ಯಾವ ರೀತಿ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ನೀಡಬೇಕೆಂಬ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಕೆಲವು ಇಲಾಖೆಗಳು ಸ್ಪಷ್ಠಪಡಿಸಲು ಕೋರಿದ್ದವು. ಈ ಅಂಶ ಕುರಿತು ಕಾನೂನು ಇಲಾಖೆಯೊಡನೆ ಸಮಾಲೋಚಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ. ಕಾನೂನು ಇಲಾಖೆಯ ಅಭಿಪ್ರಾಯ ಕೆಳಕಂಡಂತಿದೆ:-

ಆಡಳಿತ ಇಲಾಖೆಯು ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಹಕ್ಕು ಕಾಯ್ದೆಯಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಈ ಕೆಳಕಂಡ ಅಂಶಗಳ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಕಾನೂನು ಇಲಾಖೆಯ ಅಭಿಪ್ರಾಯವನ್ನು ಕೋರಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ;
(೧) ನಾಶಗೊಳಿಸಲಾದ ಕಡತವನ್ನು ಪುನರ್ನಿರ್ಮಿಸಿ (by reconstructing) ಮಾಹಿತಿ ನೀಡಬೇಕೆ? ಹಾಗೂ ಇದು ಕಡ್ಡಾಯವೆ?
(೨) ಕಡತವನ್ನು ಪುನ: ನಿರ್ಮಿಸಲು ಸಾಧ್ಯವಿರದಿದ್ದಾಗ ಯಾವ ಕ್ರಮ ಅನುಸರಿಸಬೇಕು.

ಅಥವಾ

(೩) ಕಚೇರಿಯ ಸ್ಥಾಯೀ ಸೂಚನೆಗಳಂತೆ ( standing orders) ಅವಧಿಮೀರಿದ ಕಡತದಿಂದ ಕೋರಿದ ಮಾಹಿತಿಗಳನ್ನು ಕಡತವು ನಾಶಗೊಳಿಸಲ್ಪಟ್ಟಿದೆ ಎಂದು ಮಾಹಿತಿ ನಿರಾಕರಿಸಬಹುದೆ;
(೪) ಬೇರೆ ಯಾವ ಕ್ರಮವನ್ನು ಅನುಸರಿಸಬೇಕು?

"ಈಗ ಕೇಂದ್ರ ಸರ್ಕಾರ ಹೊರಡಿಸಿದ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಹಕ್ಕು ಕಾಯ್ದೆ ೨೦೦೫ ಊರ್ಜಿತದಲ್ಲಿರುತ್ತದೆ. ಯಾವುದೇ ಒಬ್ಬ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಯು ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಕೋರಿದಾಗ, ಆಡಳಿತ ಇಲಾಖೆಯು ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಹಕ್ಕು ಕಾಯ್ದೆ ೨೦೦೫ರ ಕಲಂ ೮ ಮತ್ತು ೯ ರಲ್ಲಿ ಉಲ್ಲೇಖಿಸಿರುವ ಆಧಾರದ ಮೇಲೆ ಮಾತ್ರ ಮನವಿಯನ್ನು ತಿರಸ್ಕರಿಸಬಹುದೆಂದು ೨೦೦೫ರ ಕೇಂದ್ರ ಅಧಿನಿಯಮ ತಿಳಿಸುತ್ತದೆ. ಒಂದು ವೇಳೆ ಕಡತವನ್ನು ನಾಶಗೊಳಿಸಿದ್ದರೆ. ಅದರಂತೆ ವಿವರವಾದ ಹಿಂಬರಹವನ್ನು ನೀಡಬೇಕಾಗುತ್ತದೆ. ೨೦೦೫ರ ಕೇಂದ್ರ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಹಕ್ಕು ಕಾಯ್ದೆ ಅಧಿನಿಯಮದ ಉಪಬಂಧಗಳನ್ನು ಪರಿಶೀಲಿಸಲಾಗಿ, ನಾಶಗೊಳಿಸಲಾದ ಕಡತಗಳನ್ನು ಪುನರ್ ನಿರ್ಮಿಸುವ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಕಡತವನ್ನು ಪುನರ್ ನಿರ್ಮಿಸಲು ಸಾಧ್ಯವಿರದಿದ್ದಾಗ ಯಾವ ಕ್ರಮ ಅನುಸರಿಸಬೇಕು ಅಥವಾ ಕಚೇರಿಯ ಸ್ಥಾಯಿ ಸೂಚನೆಗಳಂತೆ (standing orders ) ಅವಧಿ ಮೀರಿದ ಕಡತದಿಂದ ಕೋರಿದ ಮಾಹಿತಿಗಳನ್ನು ಕಡತವು ನಾಶಗೊಳಿಸಲ್ಪಟ್ಟಿದೆ ಎಂದು ಮಾಹಿತಿಯನ್ನು ನಿರಾಕರಿಸಬಹುದೆ ಬೇರೆ ಯಾವ ಕ್ರಮವನ್ನು ಅನುಸರಿಸಬೇಕು? ಎಂಬುದರ ಕುರಿತು ಯಾವುದೇ ಪ್ರಾವಧಾನ ಮಾಡಲಾಗಿರುವಿದಿಲ್ಲ. ಒಂದು ವೇಳೆ ಕಡತವನ್ನು ನಾಶಗೊಳಿಸದರೆ, ಅದರಂತೆ ವಿವರವಾದ (ನಾಶಗೊಳಿಸಿದ ದಿನಾಂಕ, ನಾಶಗೊಳಿಸಲು ನೀಡಿದ ಆದೇಶ, ಇತ್ಯಾದಿ) ಹಿಂಬರಹವನ್ನು ನೀಡಬೇಕಾಗುತ್ತದೆ”

ಮೇಲಿನ ಅಂಶಗಳನ್ನು ಗಮನದಲ್ಲಿರಿಸಿ ಆಯಾ ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ಪ್ರಾಧಿಕಾರಗಳು ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ್ಟ ಪ್ರಕರಣಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಸೂಕ್ತನಿರ್ಧಾರ ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಳ್ಳಬಹುದೆಂದು ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ಸೂಚಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ, ಕಾನೂನು ಇಲಾಖೆಯ ಅಭಿಪ್ರಾಯವನ್ನು ತಮ್ಮ ಇಲಾಖೆಯ ವ್ಯಾಪ್ತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಕಾರ್ಯನಿರ್ವಹಿಸುತ್ತಿರುವ ಎಲ್ಲ ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳ ಹಾಗೂ ಮೇಲ್ಮನವಿ ಪ್ರಾಧಿಕಾರಗಳ ಗಮನಕ್ಕೆ ತರಬೇಕೆಂದು ಸಹ ಸೂಚಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ.

ರಾಜೀವ್ ಚಾವ್ಲ
ಸರ್ಕಾರದ ಪ್ರಧಾನ ಕಾರ್ಯದರ್ಶಿಗಳು (ಪ್ರ)
ಸಿಬ್ಬಂದಿ ಮತ್ತು ಆಡಳಿತ ಸುಧಾರಣೆ ಇಲಾಖೆ (ಆಡಳಿತ ಸುಧಾರಣೆ)

ಮಾಹಿತಿ ನೀಡಲು ಇರುವ ಕಾಲಮಿತಿ ವಿವರ

noreply@blogger.com (Sridhara Babu) — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 11:59:49 PDT

1. 30 days from the date of application

2. 48 hours for information concerning the life or liberty of a person

3. 5 days shall be added to the above response time, in case the application for information is given to Assistant Public Information Officer.

4. If the interests of a third party are involved then time limit will be 40 days (maximum period + time given to the party to make representation).

Failure to provide information within the specified period is a deemed refusal.

ಕಾರಣ ತಿಳಿಸಿ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ನಿರಾಕರಿಸದೆ ಕೇವಲ ಕಲಂ ೮ ಉಲ್ಲೇಖಿಸುವುದು ತಪ್ಪು

noreply@blogger.com (Sridhara Babu) — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 11:59:49 PDT

Through this Order the Commission now wants to send the message loud and clear that quoting provisions of Section 8 of the RTI Act ad libitum to deny the information requested for, by CPIOs/Appellate Authorities without giving any justification or grounds as to how these provisions are applicable is simply unacceptable and clearly amounts to malafide denial of legitimate information attracting penalties under section 20(1) of the Act.
CIC/OK/A/2006/00163 – 7 July,2006.

The PIO has to give the reasons for rejection of the request for information as required under Section 7(8)(i). Merely quoting the bare clause of the Act does not imply that the reasons have been given. The PIO should have intimated as to how he had come to the conclusion that rule 8(1)(j) was applicable in this case .
CIC/OK/C/2006/00010 – 7 July,2006.

PIO should give his own name, name of appellate officer in his communications. CIC/OK/A/2006/00016 - 15 June 2006.

The requester should be entitled to receive clear-cut replies to all his queries.
CIC/AT/A/2006/00144 – 14 July,2006.

The respondents’ plea that compilation of the information as requested by the
appellant would lead to diversion of substantial resources of the public authority is
quite obviously over-stated. This appears to be an information which must be
maintained in ordinary course of business and no additional efforts appear necessary
to collect and collate it. In any case, the cost of any such exercise can be charged to the appellant as further fee prescribed under Section 7(3) of the RTI Act and its
corresponding Rules. CIC/AT/C/2006/00471-21.12.2006

If the rules of the Tribunal permit furnishing copies of the affidavits
or other documents connected with this pending case, or if the rules are silent
on this aspect, the documents sought for be furnished to the appellant within
15 days, free of cost. However, if furnishing of the same is not permitted, the
same may be communicated to the appellant quoting the relevant rules.
190/ICPB/2006-December 11, 2006.

…there has been a serious error by the respondents in assuming that
information in respect of sub-judice matters need not be disclosed. The RTI
Act provides no exemption from disclosure requirement for sub-judice matters.
The only exemption in sub-judice matter is regarding what has been expressly
forbidden from disclosure by a Court or a Tribunal and what may constitute
contempt of Court: Section 8(1)(b). The matter in the present appeal does not
attract this exemption. Presence of a different provision in the Cantonment Act
about supply of documents in sub-judice matters to a requester have had no
bearing on the disclosure requirement under the RTI Act. Seen purely from the
stand-point of the RTI Act, the right of the appellant to access the information
requested by him is unimpeachable.
CIC/AT/A/2006/00193-18.9.2006.

if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests
notwithstanding the Officials Secrets Act or any of the exemptions mentioned
with sub-section 8(1). That clearly shows that the Act gives paramountcy to the
public interest and the exemptions do not constitute a bar to providing
information. If it were the intention that no aspect of matters sub-judice can be
considered under the Act, this would have been expressly incorporated in
clause (b) of sub-Section 1 of Section 8 alongwith other matters prescribed in
this clause… CIC/OK/C/2006/00010, A/2006/00027 & A/2006/00049-30.8.2006

ಪ್ರಾಧಿಕಾರದ ಬಳಿ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಇದ್ದಲ್ಲಿ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಶೇಖರಿಸಿ ಕೊಡುವುದಕ್ಕೆ ಚಾರ್ಜು ಹಾಕುವುದು ಸಲ್ಲದು

noreply@blogger.com (Sridhara Babu) — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 11:59:49 PDT

ಹೆಚ್ಚಿನ ಚಾರ್ಜು ಕೇಳುವುದು ಪೋಸ್ಟಲ್ ಚಾರ್ಜು ಕೇಳುವುದು ತಪ್ಪು

Kailash Mishra applied to BSNL Seeking information about the project completed by switching and installation with in high circle. BSNL wrote back of him asking to deposit Rs. 9810/- which included Rs. 9732/- for the man hours utilized to collect the information. CIC held: BSNL should have provided details of computation since all the information was available at one place, there was no reason for deployment of extra man power for supplying the information. CIC/PB/A/2006/00063-19,June,2006.

it is mandatory for all the public authorities to adhere to the principle of
maximum disclosure, and furnish the information, as and when sought by the
citizens, for which they do not have to charge any extra money, other than what
has been prescribed by the Govt. under the RTI fees and costs rules. The CPIO
has charged an extra amount of Rs.50/- for handling his letters, which is illegal.
204/IC(A)/2006-25.8.2006

ಮಾಹಿತಿ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಯಾಗಿ ಪಡೆಯಬೇಕು ಸಂಸ್ಥೆಯ ವತಿಯಿಂದ ಅಲ್ಲ

noreply@blogger.com (Sridhara Babu) — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 11:59:49 PDT

Recently, this Commission has decided that even if information is sought by an office bearer of an Association/Union, the same should be treated as valid in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act- 139/ICPB/2006-25.10.2006

PIO can decline information under section 3, if the applicant applies as a managing
Director of a company and not a citizen of India.
CIC\OK\A\2006\00121 - 27 June,2006.

The Appellant in his reply stated that whereas he was the General Secretary of the[political] party earlier, now he was its Vice-President. As the Appellant continues to maintain his status as an office bearer of a political party, the Commission agrees to the stand of the Respondents in denying the information to the Appellant.
CIC/OK/A/2006/00149-20.12.2006

The Commission could not agree with the PIO’s contention that the information was
sought on behalf of an institution. The Appellant had applied in his own name and had
only given his address as that of an NGO for the purpose of correct delivery of post.
Thus merely giving the address of an NGO does not imply that the institution was
asking for the information.
CIC/OK/A/2006/OOO50 – 3 July,2006

ಅರ್ಜಿ ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಳ್ಳಲು ನಕರ ಬೇಡ, ಬರಹದಲ್ಲಿದ್ದರು ಪಡೆಯಿರಿ, ಅರ್ಜಿದಾರರಿಗೆ ತೊಂದರೆ ನೀಡಬೇಡಿ

noreply@blogger.com (Sridhara Babu) — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 11:59:49 PDT

PIO rejected a request that it had not been type written.CIC condemned the PIO’s action because the Act specifically provides for applications to be submitted “in writing”{Sec 6 (1)} and held: If the refusal to receive the application is only because it is handwritten as alleged,the refusal cannot be said to have been with reasonable cause as required u/s 20 (1) & (2). CIC/WB/C/2006/00035

During the hearing, the Appellant stated that when he had gone to submit his RTI application in the Dehradun, he was mistreated. The Commission takes a serious note of the complaint but since there is no evidence of this, the Commission only issues a warning to the concerned office that in case there is any complaint in future, it will be taken very seriously CIC/OK/A/2006/00288-18.12.2006

ಪೋಸ್ಟಲ್ ಆರ್ಡರ್ ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಳ್ಳಲು ನಿರಾಕರಿಸಿದ್ದಕ್ಕೆ ಚೀಮಾರಿ

noreply@blogger.com (Sridhara Babu) — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 11:59:49 PDT

Shri D S Negi of Dwarka, went to the office of the Chief Engineer (Dwarka Project) to file an RTI application in connection with a water crisis.

The appellant was directed to meet the EA to Chief Engineer.

The EA signed the application and marked it to PIO, SE (HQ) of the Organisation.

The PIO asked the appellant to submit an amount of Rs. 10/- in cash, as the IPO
will not be acceptable because of an accounting problem.

The application was then marked to Sr. AO.

He in turn marked it to the Accountant and then to the Receipt Clerk.

The receipt Clerk simply refused to accept the application and
asked applicant to bring a photocopy of the receipt for Rs. 10/- to be
attached with the application as proof of payment of the requisite fee.

The process therefore took nearly 3 ½ hrs to simply file an RTI application. CIC expressed deep concern over the careless attitude in receiving an application under RTI and directed to make easily accessible arrangements for receiving RTIapplications over one window or centralized counter. Complaint No. CIC/WB/C/2006/00178 -14.11.2006

ಗೊಂದಲವಿದ್ದಲ್ಲಿ ಅರ್ಜಿದಾರರ ಜೊತೆ ಮಾತನಾಡಿ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಕೊಡಬೇಕು

noreply@blogger.com (Sridhara Babu) — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 11:59:49 PDT

The CPIO and the AA may, however, be well advised that in all matters such as this, it is better to call the petitioner over for a discussion about what precise information he seeks. In the present case, the petitioner had come all the way in appeal to the Commission in spite of the fact that the public authority was willing to share with him all the information which he had requested. A personal discussion would have avoided litigation.
CIC/AT/A/2006/00157 – 5 July,2006.

If there was general confusion regarding the kind of information that has been called for and that could have been supplied , it could have been easily resolved by a personal sitting between the appellant and the respondents . CIC /WB/A/2006/00180 – 5 July,2006

ಸಹಾಯಕ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿ - ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿಯ ಹೆಸರಲ್ಲಿ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ನೀಡಬೇಕು

noreply@blogger.com (Sridhara Babu) — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 11:59:49 PDT

The Act has surely limited the APIO's rule only to receiving applications for information and appeals and transmitting the same to their proper destination. His responsibilities are not coextensive with the P.I.O.S. However, this action of the APIO should not create as special disability for the requester in exercising his rights under the Act.

In the normal course an applicant for information has a right to receive the reply from the PIO and the PIO only. We, however, see no legal difficulty in the PIO using the services of an APIO to transmit the former’s decision on the application for information through the APIO.

In our understanding, this will not lead to any miscarriage of justice or place undue restriction on an information seeker’s rights under the RTI Act.

We, however, like to caution that any order issued by a APIO on behalf of PIO must clearly state that the former was only transmitting the orders of latter and should also state the name and the designation of the PIO on whose behalf the APIO might be acting. This will enable the information seeker to bring against the PIO any charge of delay etc. if that happens to be the case.

In this instant case, the order was, no doubt, signed by the Assistant PIO, Shri Ramesh Chand Sapra, but the order very clearly stated that this was from the “Office of the Public Information Officer-cum-Dy. Commissioner of Police: West Delhi” Quite obviously, therefore, the appellant was not handicapped in knowing the identity of PIO handling his case, even though the reply was signed by the APIO.
CIC/AT/A/2006/00059-5 May,2006.

APIO
It is only a PIO who is required to provide information to the requesters. When arequest is received by an APIO he is required only to forward the same forthwith to a PIO of the public authority.— 10/01/2005 - CIC - 25 February,2006.

PIO
Under the Act, the CPIO may take the assistance of any other officer from his department. Therefore, the documents signed on his behalf by any other officer designated by him should be acceptable to the appellant. 111/IC(A)/2006 – 13 July,2006.

PIO- Multiple PIOs:
If multiple number of PIOs are appointed in the same public authority there is no scope to either ask the citizen to approach another PIO within the same public authority or send the request to another PIO within the same P.A. Only in a case where the information sought is held by another P.A. other than the one which has designated her as PIO, she can transfer the request to that P.A. for furnishing information to the applicant directly. ICPB/C1/CIC/2006 - 6 March, 2006.

Other officers
PIO, who has received the request form the requester is under obligation to seek information form his colleague and provide it to the requester. His colleague who was to provide the information as per s.5(5) would become deemed PIO and expected to provide the - PIO, who received the original request - the required information. CIC/AT/A/2006/00015 - 1 March ,2006.