Dear Bhaskar,

The SCIC may not strike down the Rules. It is better it advocate with the Administrative Department first through letter petitions etc. If that does not work then the right thing to do is to approach the High Court. The recent RTI Rules in Gujarat have some bad provisions. We are workign on a critique. It will be released shortly.

Thanks

Venkat

From: rti_india <at> yahoogroups.com [mailto:rti_india <at> yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bhaskar Prabhu
Sent: Monday, May 31, 2010 10:23 AM
To: rti_india <at> yahoogroups.com

Subject: Re: [rti_india] DoPT OM on the kinds of fee chargeable under Section 7(3) of the RTI Act in India

 

Dear Venkatesh,

I read the circular of DoPT. But if you see rules of Mahahrashtra it conflicting and in Mharashtra the local bodies i.e municipal authorityies and other are chargeing more than what is prescridbed under the guise of Section 41(A)a of Rules for eg assesment document Municipal Corp of Mumbai they charge rs.230 per document. Our appeal with Dr.Joshi we had argued opur case in public interest for one and half our order is still pernding more than i yr from March 2 2009.  As all charges need to considered as per 4(1)(A) b.

 

If you see newly Gujrat rulles it is draconion.

 

What all we do about it.

 

Bhaskar Prabhu

Convenor

Mahiti Adhikar Manch

On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Venkatesh Nayak <venkatesh <at> humanrightsinitiative.org> wrote:

 

[Attachment(s) from Venkatesh Nayak included below]

Dear all,

After a longish pause I am slipping back into my old habit of boring you all with longish comments on matters and developments related to RTI in India and other countries. Some of you have inquired about the long pause. I thank you all for your continued interest in our despatches. After recovering from a bout of illness and catching up on pending work, I am back at my keyboard with some good news.

 

Readers will remember that RTI activists in India had made submissions to the Central Information Commission (CIC) on how to interpret Section 7(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) relating to additional fees. Some public authorities were charging wages, collation and compilation charges for providing information to applicants and billing huge amounts for meeting some information requests. Some Information Commissioners in the CIC supported the collection of such charges while a few other Commissioners refused to accept that the RTI Act empowered public authorities to collect such charges. This matter was heard by a full bench of the CIC in 2009. The CIC's decision clearly stated that the public information officer may charge only such fees as is mentioned in the RTI Fee and Costing Rules, 2005. The RTI Rules allow the PIO to charge only reproduction costs and nothing more. The CIC's decision is accessible at: http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/programs/ai/rti/india/national/2009/email_alerts/cic_fb_7%283%29_addl_fee_case_cct09.pdf

 

On 24th May, 2010 the Department of Personnel and Training (administrative departmetn for RTI matters in the Union Government) has issued an Office Memorandum based on this decision of the CIC in the matter of K K Kishore v Institute of Company Secretaries and Subodh Jain v Dy. Commissione of Police. The OM is attached to this email. It is also accessible at: http://persmin.gov.in/WriteData/CircularNotification/ScanDocument/RTI/12_9_2009-IR.pdf

 

This OM goes one step ahead and states that the PIO must not charge postal charges from applicants as it is not mentioned in the Rules. So the principle that the PIO cannot demand any fees that is not mentioned in the Rules continues to apply to this category of charegs as well. The State Government of Maharashtra for example, mentions in the Rules itself that the applicant must pay postage charges also. In Mahrashtra if the State PIO charges postage then that is legal but nowhere else will it be legal in the absence of such a Rule. However we must persuade all State Governments that pass on the postal charges to the applicants to amend the Rules in light of the Union Government's position. There is no reason why a citizen must be taxed twice. Postal charges incurred by a public authority are anyway paid for through the budget which is based on the taxpayers' money.

 

I also request all applicants to use this OM to challenge any PIO's decision to charge fees other than what is mentioned in the Rules. I would like to congratulate all RTI users, supporters and watchers who sent submissions to the CIC in this case and thank them for their sustained support. Your hard work has resulted in the law being interpreted correctly. Now the DoPT has issued general instructions based on the CIC's decision. This OM has been sent to the State Governments as well. So you now have the task of advocating with your State Governments to harmonise the fee rules in tune with the Central Rules.

 

In Jammu and Kashmir the RTI Rules framed in 2009 allow the PIO the discretion to charge unspecified kinds of fees in addition to reproduction costs. This Rule must now be deleted because the Rule expands upon Section 7(3) in their Act. Section 7(3) of the J&K RTI Act is a mirror version of Section 73) in the Central RTI Act. Friends in J&K must now take up this initiative to get the Rules amended.

 

If you would like to congratulate the DoPT for issuing an OM on this crucial matter please send your emails to:

 

• Shri K G Verma, Director, DoPT at: dirrti-dopt <at> nic.in
• Shri Rajeev Kapoor, Joint Secretary in charge of RTI at DoPT at: jsata-R9E+szwozl8@public.gmane.org
• Shri Shantanu Consul, Secretary, DoPT at: secy_mop <at> nic.in  

In order to access our previous email alerts please click on: http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/programs/ai/rti/india/national.htm You will find the links at the top of this web page. If you do not wish to receive email alerts please send an email to this address indicating your refusal to receive email alerts.

 

Thanks

Venkatesh Nayak

Programme Coordinator
Access to Information Programme
Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative
B-117, I Floor, Sarvodaya Enclave
New Delhi- 110 017
tel: 91-11- 2686 4678/ 2685 0523
fax: 91-11- 2686 4688
website: www.humanrightsinitiative.org
alternate email: nayak.venkatesh <at> gmail.com

 

 

Dear Bhaskar

If a competent authority notifies exorbitant / draconian "fees" under their Rules you cannot challenge it easily or legally. Had SCIC Joshi ruled in your favour the P/As could have ignored him at will until such time as the fee Rules are in place. This is why Joshi has not taken action on your pleas.

This state of affairs has come about because of 'haraamis' and RTI Activists who use RTI to block the Govt's work and for blackmail. In the circumstances the State(s)have utilised one of the many defences available to it under RTI Act.

In any case there is no "conflict" between DoPT's OM and State Rules since they operate in different domains.

Sarbajit

--- In rti_india <at> yahoogroups.com, Bhaskar Prabhu <mahitiadhikarmanch <at> ...> wrote:
>
> Dear Venkatesh,
> I read the circular of DoPT. But if you see rules of Mahahrashtra it
> conflicting and in Mharashtra the local bodies i.e municipal authorityies
> and other are chargeing more than what is prescridbed under the guise of
> Section 41(A)a of Rules for eg assesment document Municipal Corp of Mumbai
> they charge rs.230 per document. Our appeal with Dr.Joshi we had argued opur
> case in public interest for one and half our order is still pernding more
> than i yr from March 2 2009. As all charges need to considered as per
> 4(1)(A) b.
>
> If you see newly Gujrat rulles it is draconion.
>
> What all we do about it.
>
> Bhaskar Prabhu
> Convenor
> Mahiti Adhikar Manch
>
> On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Venkatesh Nayak <
> venkatesh <at> ...> wrote:
>
> >
> > [Attachment(s)<http://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&view=js&name=js&ver=pd_Am7ltdRI.en.&am=!ZKLuV0Z3Ba-RZb2MUfUyelVd8zBbk3JAqVLR6jDN8hPEBblW&fri#128df1dd54104a7c_TopText>from Venkatesh Nayak included below]
> >
> > Dear all,
> > After a longish pause I am slipping back into my old habit of boring you
> > all with longish comments on matters and developments related to RTI in
> > India and other countries. Some of you have inquired about the long pause. I
> > thank you all for your continued interest in our despatches. After
> > recovering from a bout of illness and catching up on pending work, I am back
> > at my keyboard with some good news.
> >
> > Readers will remember that RTI activists in India had made submissions to
> > the Central Information Commission (CIC) on how to interpret Section 7(3) of
> > the *Right to Information Act, 2005* (RTI Act) relating to additional
> > fees. Some public authorities were charging wages, collation and compilation
> > charges for providing information to applicants and billing huge amounts
> > for meeting some information requests. Some Information Commissioners in the
> > CIC supported the collection of such charges while a few other Commissioners
> > refused to accept that the RTI Act empowered public authorities to collect
> > such charges. This matter was heard by a full bench of the CIC in 2009. The
> > CIC's decision clearly stated that the public information officer may charge
> > only such fees as is mentioned in the RTI Fee and Costing Rules, 2005. The
> > RTI Rules allow the PIO to charge only reproduction costs and nothing more.
> > The CIC's decision is accessible at:
> > http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/programs/ai/rti/india/national/2009/email_alerts/cic_fb_7%283%29_addl_fee_case_cct09.pdf
> >
> > *On 24th May, 2010 the Department of Personnel and Training
> > (administrative departmetn for RTI matters in the Union Government) has
> > issued an Office Memorandum based on this decision of the CIC in the matter
> > of K K Kishore v Institute of Company Secretaries and Subodh Jain v Dy.
> > Commissione of Police.* The OM is attached to this email. It is also
> > accessible at:
> > http://persmin.gov.in/WriteData/CircularNotification/ScanDocument/RTI/12_9_2009-IR.pdf
> >
> > This OM goes one step ahead and states that the PIO must not charge postal
> > charges from applicants as it is not mentioned in the Rules. So the
> > principle that the PIO cannot demand any fees that is not mentioned in the
> > Rules continues to apply to this category of charegs as well. The State
> > Government of Maharashtra for example, mentions in the Rules itself that the
> > applicant must pay postage charges also. In Mahrashtra if the State PIO
> > charges postage then that is legal but nowhere else will it be legal in the
> > absence of such a Rule. However we must persuade all State Governments that
> > pass on the postal charges to the applicants to amend the Rules in light of
> > the Union Government's position. There is no reason why a citizen must be
> > taxed twice. Postal charges incurred by a public authority are anyway paid
> > for through the budget which is based on the taxpayers' money.
> >
> > *I also request all applicants to use this OM to challenge any PIO's
> > decision to charge fees other than what is mentioned in the Rules. *I
> > would like to congratulate all RTI users, supporters and watchers who sent
> > submissions to the CIC in this case and thank them for their sustained
> > support. Your hard work has resulted in the law being interpreted correctly.
> > Now the DoPT has issued general instructions based on the CIC's decision.
> > *This OM has been sent to the State Governments as well. So you now have
> > the task of advocating with your State Governments to harmonise the fee
> > rules in tune with the Central Rules. *
> > **
> > *In Jammu and Kashmir the RTI Rules framed in 2009 allow the PIO the
> > discretion to charge unspecified kinds of fees in addition to reproduction
> > costs. This Rule must now be deleted because the Rule expands upon Section
> > 7(3) in their Act. Section 7(3) of the J&K RTI Act is a mirror version of
> > Section 73) in the Central RTI Act. Friends in J&K must now take up this
> > initiative to get the Rules amended. <amended.it <at> ...>*
> >
> > *If you would like to congratulate the DoPT for issuing an OM on this
> > crucial matter please send your emails to:*
> >
> >
> > - *Shri K G Verma, Director, DoPT* at: dirrti-dopt <at> ...
> > - *Shri Rajeev Kapoor, Joint Secretary* *in charge of RTI* *at DoPT*at:
> > jsata <at> ...
> > - *Shri Shantanu Consul, Secretary, DoPT* at: secy_mop <at> ...
> >
> > *In order to access our previous email alerts please click on: **
> > http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/programs/ai/rti/india/national.htm** You
> > will find the links at the top of this web page. If you do not wish to
> > receive email alerts please send an email to this address indicating your
> > refusal to receive email alerts.*
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Venkatesh Nayak
> >
> > *Programme Coordinator
> > Access to Information Programme
> > Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative
> > B-117, I Floor, Sarvodaya Enclave
> > New Delhi- 110 017
> > tel: 91-11- 2686 4678/ 2685 0523
> > fax: 91-11- 2686 4688
> > website: www.humanrightsinitiative.org
> > alternate email: **nayak.venkatesh <at> ...* <nayak.venkatesh <at> ...>*
> > *
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

 

1) Let us restrict ourselves to the case of sanctioned building approval plans. The Maharashtra Govt / BMC had previously settled the price of COPY of such plans at Rs 230 per plan.

2) It is very likely that such plans are either large photocopies in A0 size or blueprints in large sizes for which no fees have been prescribed.

3) So the question of application of Rule 4(1)(A)(b) for supplying at Rs.2 per page does not arise. The second part of this rule is consistent with Rule 4(1)(A)(a) and the approved plan copy will be provided at Rs. 230 irrespective of which Rule (a) or (b) is followed.

4) I recall what our member CA Rakesh Gupta had once queried, why should photocopies be given at Rs. 2 per page when the market price is 50p ?

5) BTW the Maharashtra rules are consistent with section 4 "All materials shall be disseminated .. easily accessible .. available free or at such cost of the medium or the print cost price as may be prescribed.". (Correlate with "readily available"). In a discretionary situation ("or") the PIO is allowed to compute the cost to his advantage and you cannot complain.

6) The Maharashtra SIC's website is entirely in Marathi so where did you locate an English version ? Who is the SPIO of the MSIC ?

Sarbajit

--- In rti_india <at> yahoogroups.com, Sunil Ahya <sunilahya <at> ...> wrote:
>
> Dear Friends,
>
> With reference to the Maharashtra Right to Information Rules, 2005, made by
> the Maharashtra (appropriate) government under section 27(2) of the RTI Act,
>
> I have copy pasted below Rule 4 (1) (A) *(a) & (b)* of the said Rules,
>
> Rule 4(1):
>
> (A)(a) when the concerned Department has already fixed the price of
> some documents,
> maps, etc.
>
> The price so fixed* plus *postal charges.
>
>
>
> (b) when the information is readily available, either by way of
> photocopying, or by other way (copy).
>
> (i) rupees two for each page(in A-4 or A-3 size paper) created or* copied
> plus* postal charges; or
>
> (ii) actual charge or cost price of a copy in large size paper
> *plus*postal charges.
>
> It seems, use of the following words in Rule 4(1) is ambiguous and lacks
> clarity:
>
> "already fixed" in *Rule 4 (1) (A) (a), *
>
> "readily available", & "created" in *Rule 4 (1) (A) (b),*
> *
> In the event, when both the conditions occur simultaneously i.e. a PA has
> already fixed a price for a particular info and also the same is readily
> available for photocopying:
> *
> On one hand, a PA would invoke Rule 4 (1) (A) (a) if charges for the
> requested information are *already fixed* by them irrespective of whether
> the information is readily available for photocopying,
> *
> *
> Whereas on the other hand an applicant would invoke Rule 4 (1) (A) (b)
> suggesting that if the requested information *is readily available for
> photocopying*,(why charge more) then the prescribed A-4, A-3 or if larger
> than that, actual cost incurred for photocopying should be recovered,
> irrespective of the charges prescribed by the PA for the same.
>
> I think, a clarification from the Maharashtra General Administration
> Department (GAD) needs to be sought, with a request to issue a Memorandum /
> GR in this regard.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sunil.
> --
> It is not always the same thing to be a good man and a good citizen -
> Aristotle
>

 

Dear Friends,

With reference to the Maharashtra Right to Information Rules, 2005, made by the Maharashtra (appropriate) government under section 27(2) of the RTI Act,

I have copy pasted below Rule 4 (1) (A) (a) & (b) of the said Rules,

Rule 4(1):

(A)(a) when the concerned Department has already fixed the price of some documents, maps, etc.	The price so fixed plus postal charges.
(b) when the information is readily available, either by way of photocopying, or by other way (copy).	(i) rupees two for each page(in A-4 or A-3 size paper) created or copied plus postal charges; or  (ii) actual charge or cost price of a copy in large size paper plus postal charges.

 
It seems, use of the following words in Rule 4(1) is ambiguous and lacks clarity:

"already fixed" in Rule 4  (1) (A) (a),

"readily available", & "created" in Rule 4 (1) (A) (b),

In the event, when both the conditions occur simultaneously i.e. a PA has already fixed a price for a particular info and also the same is readily available for photocopying:

On one hand, a PA would invoke Rule 4 (1) (A) (a) if charges for the requested information are already fixed by them irrespective of whether the information is readily available for photocopying,

Whereas on the other hand an applicant would invoke Rule 4 (1) (A) (b) suggesting that if the requested information is readily available for photocopying,(why charge more) then the prescribed A-4, A-3 or if larger than that, actual cost incurred for photocopying should be recovered, irrespective of the charges prescribed by the PA for the same.

I think, a clarification from the Maharashtra General Administration Department (GAD) needs to be sought, with a request to issue a Memorandum / GR in this regard.

Thanks,

Sunil.

--
It is not always the same thing to be a good man and a good citizen - Aristotle

 

The problem with "NGO-speak" is that it involves deliberate suppression of relevant facts to fool the audience.

1) The SCIC has no power to strike down duly notified rules. It is important to say this directly rather than using NGO-speak.

2) In numerous cases (in English) the Maharashtra SIC has UPHELD the charging of Rs.230 per First Assessment document.

"2007/01/02"
http://sic.maharashtra.gov.in/files/pdf/hearings%20of%20april%202007.pdf

"2008/3450/02"
http://sic.maharashtra.gov.in/files/upload/brihanmumbai/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20Oct,%202009.pdf

The rationale is that section 4 of the Maharastra RTI Rules specifies that where any public authority has notified fees / charges prior to the coming into force of RTI Act these shall continue.

3>
> _____
>
> From: rti_india <at> yahoogroups.com [mailto:rti_india <at> yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
> Of Bhaskar Prabhu
> Sent: Monday, May 31, 2010 10:23 AM
> To: rti_india <at> yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [rti_india] DoPT OM on the kinds of fee chargeable under
> Section 7(3) of the RTI Act in India

>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Venkatesh,
> I read the circular of DoPT. But if you see rules of Mahahrashtra it
> conflicting and in Mharashtra the local bodies i.e municipal authorityies
> and other are chargeing more than what is prescridbed under the guise of
> Section 41(A)a of Rules for eg assesment document Municipal Corp of Mumbai
> they charge rs.230 per document. Our appeal with Dr.Joshi we had argued opur
> case in public interest for one and half our order is still pernding more
> than i yr from March 2 2009. As all charges need to considered as per
> 4(1)(A) b.
>
> If you see newly Gujrat rulles it is draconion.
>
> What all we do about it.
>
> Bhaskar Prabhu
> Convenor
> Mahiti Adhikar Manch
>
>

> On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Venkatesh Nayak <venkatesh <at> humanrigh
> <mailto:venkatesh <at> ...> tsinitiative.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> [Attachment(s)
> <http://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&view=js&name=js&ver=pd_Am7ltdRI.en.&am=!Z
> KLuV0Z3Ba-RZb2MUfUyelVd8zBbk3JAqVLR6jDN8hPEBblW&fri#128df1dd54104a7c_TopText
> > from Venkatesh Nayak included below]
>
>
>
> Dear all,
> After a longish pause I am slipping back into my old habit of boring you all
> with longish comments on matters and developments related to RTI in India
> and other countries. Some of you have inquired about the long pause. I thank
> you all for your continued interest in our despatches. After recovering from
> a bout of illness and catching up on pending work, I am back at my keyboard
> with some good news.
>
> Readers will remember that RTI activists in India had made submissions to
> the Central Information Commission (CIC) on how to interpret Section 7(3) of
> the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) relating to additional fees.
> Some public authorities were charging wages, collation and compilation
> charges for providing information to applicants and billing huge amounts for
> meeting some information requests. Some Information Commissioners in the CIC
> supported the collection of such charges while a few other Commissioners
> refused to accept that the RTI Act empowered public authorities to collect
> such charges. This matter was heard by a full bench of the CIC in 2009. The
> CIC's decision clearly stated that the public information officer may charge
> only such fees as is mentioned in the RTI Fee and Costing Rules, 2005. The
> RTI Rules allow the PIO to charge only reproduction costs and nothing more.
> The CIC's decision is accessible at: http://www.humanrig
> <http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/programs/ai/rti/india/national/2009/em
> ail_alerts/cic_fb_7%283%29_addl_fee_case_cct09.pdf>
> htsinitiative.org/programs/ai/rti/india/national/2009/email_alerts/cic_fb_7%
> 283%29_addl_fee_case_cct09.pdf
>
> On 24th May, 2010 the Department of Personnel and Training (administrative
> departmetn for RTI matters in the Union Government) has issued an Office
> Memorandum based on this decision of the CIC in the matter of K K Kishore v
> Institute of Company Secretaries and Subodh Jain v Dy. Commissione of
> Police. The OM is attached to this email. It is also accessible at:
> http://persmin.
> <http://persmin.gov.in/WriteData/CircularNotification/ScanDocument/RTI/12_9_
> 2009-IR.pdf>
> gov.in/WriteData/CircularNotification/ScanDocument/RTI/12_9_2009-IR.pdf
>
> This OM goes one step ahead and states that the PIO must not charge postal
> charges from applicants as it is not mentioned in the Rules. So the
> principle that the PIO cannot demand any fees that is not mentioned in the
> Rules continues to apply to this category of charegs as well. The State
> Government of Maharashtra for example, mentions in the Rules itself that the
> applicant must pay postage charges also. In Mahrashtra if the State PIO
> charges postage then that is legal but nowhere else will it be legal in the
> absence of such a Rule. However we must persuade all State Governments that
> pass on the postal charges to the applicants to amend the Rules in light of
> the Union Government's position. There is no reason why a citizen must be
> taxed twice. Postal charges incurred by a public authority are anyway paid
> for through the budget which is based on the taxpayers' money.
>
> I also request all applicants to use this OM to challenge any PIO's decision
> to charge fees other than what is mentioned in the Rules. I would like to
> congratulate all RTI users, supporters and watchers who sent submissions to
> the CIC in this case and thank them for their sustained support. Your hard
> work has resulted in the law being interpreted correctly. Now the DoPT has
> issued general instructions based on the CIC's decision. This OM has been
> sent to the State Governments as well. So you now have the task of
> advocating with your State Governments to harmonise the fee rules in tune
> with the Central Rules.
>
> In Jammu and Kashmir the RTI Rules framed in 2009 allow the PIO the
> discretion to charge unspecified kinds of fees in addition to reproduction
> costs. This Rule must now be deleted because the Rule expands upon Section
> 7(3) in their Act. Section 7(3) of the J&K RTI Act is a mirror version of
> Section 73) in the Central RTI Act. Friends in J&K must now take up this

> initiative to get the Rules amended. <mailto:amended.it <at> ...>

>
>
> If you would like to congratulate the DoPT for issuing an OM on this crucial
> matter please send your emails to:
>
>

> * Shri K G Verma, Director, DoPT at: <mailto:dirrti-dopt <at> ...>

> dirrti-dopt <at> ...
>
> * Shri Rajeev Kapoor, Joint Secretary in charge of RTI at DoPT at:

> <mailto:jsata <at> ...> jsata <at> ...
>
> * Shri Shantanu Consul, Secretary, DoPT at: <mailto:secy_mop <at> ...>

> secy_mop <at> ...
>
> In order to access our previous email alerts please click on:
> http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/programs/ai/rti/india/national.htm You
> will find the links at the top of this web page. If you do not wish to
> receive email alerts please send an email to this address indicating your
> refusal to receive email alerts.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Venkatesh Nayak
>
> Programme Coordinator
> Access to Information Programme
> Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative
> B-117, I Floor, Sarvodaya Enclave
> New Delhi- 110 017
> tel: 91-11- 2686 4678/ 2685 0523
> fax: 91-11- 2686 4688

> website: www.humanrightsinit <http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/>
> iative.org
> alternate email: <mailto:nayak.venkatesh <at> ...>
> nayak.venkatesh <at> ...
>