UNJUST REJECTION OF RTI APPLICATION !

270 views
Skip to first unread message

M.K. Gupta

unread,
Jul 2, 2012, 10:01:52 PM7/2/12
to RTI Act 2005 Hum Janenge Forum People's Right to Information
UNJUST REJECTION OF RTI APPLICATION!
 
An Appellant sent an RTI application to Deptt. of Excise, Delhi Govt. enclosing the postal order of Rs. 20/- instead of Rs. 10/- without filling the payee column.  Postal order of higher value was sent to cover the cost of photocopies of documents, if any, and this fact was mentined in the RTI application also.
 
The PIO has rejected the application on the grounds of postal order of higher demonition and for leaving the payee column blank.
 
Though a fresh RTI has been sent removing the aforesaid objections but I want to know if any appeal can be sent to FAA or CIC for rejecting the appln on the above grounds.
 

sarbajit roy

unread,
Jul 3, 2012, 2:44:47 PM7/3/12
to HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005
The PIO's rejection is technically correct.

1) The prescribed application fee is Rs. 10. Had the applicant not
mentioned it was to cover (partially or otherwise) the further fees
also, a case could have been made out that since Rs.10 IPO was not
available Rs.20 was sent in its place (applicant shot himself in the
foot).

2) The IPO cannot be left blank. It is to be made out to the Pay &
Accounts officer of the P/A. The PIO cannot be expected to fill it in.
If some mistake is made by the PIO in filling in the payees name who
takes responsibility ??

Sarbajit

C K Jam

unread,
Jul 3, 2012, 9:48:23 PM7/3/12
to humja...@googlegroups.com
Mr Sarbajit,

1. The IPO is to be made out to "Accounts Officer, XXXXXXX"

(XXXXXXX stands for Name of Public Authority (PA))

Even if a PA does not have any officer by the designation of
"Accounts Officer", it must designate one ONLY for the purposes of 
receiving RTI Fees.

2. The PIO had no business to "reject" the "application".
He should have returned ONLY the IPO (not reject the application) 
and informed the applicant that information will be provided to him
on receipt of the prescribed fees by the approved mode of
payment.

3. The applicant had made clear his intention and willingness to pay the fees.

Sad that, even after 7 years, PIOs of well known PAs still ask 
for payees name, other than the one prescribed in the
RTI Rules.

This only reflects poor training, stubborn mentality and "care two hoots" attitude.

RTIwanted


From: sarbajit roy <sro...@gmail.com>
To: "HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005" <HumJa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 4, 2012 12:14 AM
Subject: [HumJanenge] Re: UNJUST REJECTION OF RTI APPLICATION !

J. P. Shah

unread,
Jul 3, 2012, 11:26:10 PM7/3/12
to humja...@googlegroups.com
Mostly CIC holds that defective RTI application is no application. 
 


-J. P. SHAH 9924106490  
http://www.jps50.blogspot.com/





  

From: M.K. Gupta <mkgup...@yahoo.co.in>
To: RTI Act 2005 Hum Janenge Forum People's Right to Information <humja...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 3 July 2012 7:31 AM
Subject: [HumJanenge] UNJUST REJECTION OF RTI APPLICATION !

Sandeep gupta

unread,
Jul 4, 2012, 12:41:00 AM7/4/12
to humja...@googlegroups.com
Sarbajit Sir,
You are unnecessarily and illogically siding with the PIO.
1. Agricultural Scientists Recruitment Board does not accept IPO drawn
in favour of Pay and Accounts officer of the P/O. The PIO will reject
the application saying that the application fee should be drawn in
favour of Secretary. From where the hell will the applicant know (if
it is not published) the details of the payee name?
2. CBDT does not accept application fee in favour of accounts officer
or Pay and Accounts officer. YOu have to pay to Zonal accounts
officer.
3. My application to bsnl mumbai were rejected adding that payment is
to be made to Accounts officer, civil division.
4. In the state governments (at least in punjab), there is no post as
pay and accounts officer or accounts officer. thus rti application are
not accepted in case payment is made towards these officers.
--
Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
1722, Sector 14, Hisar-125001, INDIA
Phone: 91-99929-31181

Mohammed Afzal

unread,
Jul 4, 2012, 12:57:19 AM7/4/12
to humja...@googlegroups.com
Mr Gupta,
The RTI Act 2005 very categorically prescribe the RTI fees I don't see any reason why one should be so generous by afflixing excess amount.

Plz note: 10 other applicants will do things. Not under the preview of the RTI Act and blame the PIO for rejection. 

Plz when we say that RTI Act should be implemented in totality, it means that we should be abiding by it as well. Bcoz together we can make a difference.

However it true that applicants across the country sometime leave the IPO blank citing that some Public authorities want RTI fees in favour of _______ . It has been observed that many a times the PIO oblige and accept the IPO with favouring so and so blank. But the point here is that if we insist that PIO should adhere to the RTI Act than we also hv some responsibility to follow.

Plz do not take it personally. 

Best Regds - Mohammed Afzal

########################

Sent from my iPhone

M.K. Gupta

unread,
Jul 4, 2012, 1:46:47 AM7/4/12
to Surendera M. Bhanot, humja...@googlegroups.com
Thanks, Mr. Bhanot for this useful information. Even the CIC had accepted blank postal orders sent by me along with RTI applications.  If we send IPO of higher value citing its reason and declare that we will not ask for the return of higher value, there is no valid reason of rejecting the same. Any way, on this account and for not providing full information the the Delhi Excise Deptt., There is no issue in filling the payee's column but sometime due to lack of information about the proper designation of Payee, the column is left blank though the IPO is crossed. 
I also thanks Mr. Sarabjit Roy for his views on the query.
I m going to file Second appeal before the CIC.  


From: Surendera M. Bhanot <bhano...@gmail.com>
To: humja...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 4 July 2012 12:27 AM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: UNJUST REJECTION OF RTI APPLICATION !

Dear Mr. Gupta,

I do leave the Payee's column blank always and many a time I send IPO for value more than Rs. 10.00 to cover the postage expenses to as per Punjab RTI Rules. But I send the IPO crossed as "Payee's Account".

I add a line in the RTI Application quoting Section 5(3) of the RTI Act 2005 requesting PIO to render reasonable assistance in filing the name of the Payee in the blank space. Never any application is rejected/sent back. 

Section 5(3) is reproduced below:

Section 5(3) Every Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall deal with requests from persons seeking information and render reasonable assistance to the persons seeking such information.


--
GREETINGS AND WARM REGARDS

Surendera M. Bhanot

- Coordinator, RTIFED, Punjab Chandigarh   
- President, RTI Help & Assistance Forum Chandigarh 
- Life Member, Chandigarh Consumers Association
- Youth for Human Rights International - YHRI - South Asia
- Jt. Secretary, Amateur Judo Association of Chandigarh
- Member, SPACE - Society for Promotion and Conservation of Environment, Chandigarh
No. 3758, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh-160022
Mob: 919-888-810-811
PHONE: 91-172-5000970
FAX: 91-172-5000970

Mail Me




sarbajit roy

unread,
Jul 4, 2012, 8:51:48 AM7/4/12
to HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005
Derar Sandeep

I am not siding with teh PIO, I am siding with the RTI Act (and
Rules).

1) If 3 (or even 3,000) P/As do not accept IPOs made out to Pay &
Accounts Officer, then that does not mean the Rules are wrong, it
means the PIOs are wrong and it is grounds for a complaint u/s 18.
This is exactly one of those specific cases where section 18 comes
into play.

2) If a State Govt P/A does not accept IPO made out to P&A officer,
you will have to check the concerned State Govt's RTI Rules. These may
differ from Central Rules which do not extend to State P/As.

Furthermore, If a Central Govt Officer (like your 3 cases) does not
follow Rules, he is liable for disciplinary action under his service
Rules. What I really want to know is what action the PIOs took when
you informed them about the Rule specifying that IPOs / DDs etc are to
be made to "P&A" Officer.

Sarbajit

On Jul 4, 9:41 am, Sandeep gupta <drsandgu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sarbajit Sir,
> You are unnecessarily and illogically siding with the PIO.
> 1. Agricultural Scientists Recruitment Board does not accept IPO drawn
> in favour of Pay and Accounts officer of the P/O. The PIO will reject
> the application saying that the application fee should be drawn in
> favour of Secretary. From where the hell will the applicant know (if
> it is not published) the details of the payee name?
> 2. CBDT does not accept application fee in favour of accounts officer
> or Pay and Accounts officer. YOu have to pay to Zonal accounts
> officer.
> 3. My application to bsnl mumbai were rejected adding that payment is
> to be made to Accounts officer, civil division.
> 4. In the state governments (at least in punjab), there is no post as
> pay and accounts officer or accounts officer. thus rti application are
> not accepted in case payment is made towards these officers.
>

Hari Goyal

unread,
Jul 4, 2012, 11:38:33 AM7/4/12
to humja...@googlegroups.com, drsan...@gmail.com, rti4ci...@gmail.com, rti dwarka
For the information of all the activists,
 
Yes, I agree with Dr. Sandeep Gupta. Even Securities and Exchnage Board of India (SEBI) a Finance Ministry funded
public organisation does not accept RTI application fee is paid if the IPO is addressed to "Pay and Accounts Officer, SEBI".
 
2.   I received a letter from Mr. Aman Jain, Office of the Central Assistant Public Information Officer dated February  15, 2012  
      that said:
 
     "You may note that the fee of rs. 10/- deposited by you vide IPO No. 92E 315050 is not in order as the same has to be drawn
       in favour of "Securities & Exchange Board of India". The IPO No. 92E 315050 is accordingly being returmned."
 
There are many such examples. So Mr. Sarabjit may like to add to his knowledge.  
 
Hari Goyal
011-25082239
 
   
 
> Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 10:11:00 +0530

> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: UNJUST REJECTION OF RTI APPLICATION !

Sandeep gupta

unread,
Jul 4, 2012, 11:42:03 AM7/4/12
to humja...@googlegroups.com
The ASRB PIO says that when you have already been informed that
payment has to be made in favour of secretary, why are you again
insisting on payment to accounts officer.
as I was more interested in getting information, i sent the IPO again
(in all cases)

On 7/4/12, sarbajit roy <sro...@gmail.com> wrote:

M.K. Gupta

unread,
Jul 4, 2012, 11:49:20 AM7/4/12
to humja...@googlegroups.com
Dear Afzal,

When the IPO of Rs. 10/- is not available in the post office and one is bent upon to send the RTI, he is compelled to send the IPO of higher value, whatever is available, may be Rs. 10, 50 or even 100/-.  In the RTI Act, it has nowhere been written that an application can be rejected for sending higher amount.  This is only a way to delay or deny the information.  Higher amount is also sent when an applicant wants photo copies of documents without any delay or waiting to receive a letter from PIO for sending some more amount because that will delay information from at least one to two months. 

I fail to understand reason of your provocation.  If a PIO react like this, that is understandable.

From: Mohammed Afzal <mohdaf...@gmail.com>
To: "humja...@googlegroups.com" <humja...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 4 July 2012 10:27 AM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] UNJUST REJECTION OF RTI APPLICATION !

Vikram Simha

unread,
Jul 4, 2012, 2:52:06 PM7/4/12
to humja...@googlegroups.com
iS IT A "CURABLE DEFECT" ? IF SO AT WHAT STAGE ?
iN KARNATAKA THE IPOs is to be made in favour of IPOs
N vikramsimha , KRIA Katte , #12 Sumeru Sir M N Krishna Rao Road , Basvangudi < Bangalore 560004.


--- On Wed, 4/7/12, sarbajit roy <sro...@gmail.com> wrote:

> From: sarbajit roy <sro...@gmail.com>
> Subject: [HumJanenge] Re: UNJUST REJECTION OF RTI APPLICATION !
> To: "HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005" <HumJa...@googlegroups.com>

Ketan Modi

unread,
Jul 4, 2012, 3:51:39 PM7/4/12
to humja...@googlegroups.com

The PIO has erred grossly. The statute & rules there under spells out the amount
of minimum fees to be paid by the applicant. If an applicant sends a postal order
of higher denomination, the PIO can treat it either as charity to the government
or fee towards photocopies to be furnished. In the instant case, the applicant had
already mentioned in the application that the higher denomination PO was towards
photo copying. The rejection order is bad in law and the applicant must approach
the FAA with this prayer and seek the documents free of cost with prayer that cost
of photocopying be recovered from the PIO's salary. This will teach him a lesson
of the life time. Happy information seeking.
Ketan Modi

On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 00:08:00 +0530 wrote
Follow Rediff Deal ho jaye! to get exciting offers in your city everyday.

Sarbajit Roy

unread,
Jul 5, 2012, 9:51:28 AM7/5/12
to humja...@googlegroups.com
Dear Guptaji

1) Nobody is saying that higher amount IPO cannot be sent, or is
invalid merely because it is of a higher amount.

2) What I and Afzal have said is that you cannot send an IPO of a
higher amount and expect the PIO to credit the extra amount towards
further fees to provide the information.

3) The RTI Act lays down the Protocols.
a) File application accompanied by Rs.10 application fee
b) PIO to send a computation of further fees IF information can be disclosed
c) Applicant to remit further fees as demanded

M.K. Gupta

unread,
Jul 7, 2012, 9:38:23 PM7/7/12
to humja...@googlegroups.com
Dear Ketan Modi ji, I request to quote the section and Act from where you r quoting. 
regards,
mkg
9810550172

From: Ketan Modi <modi...@rediffmail.com>
To: humja...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 5 July 2012 1:21 AM

Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] UNJUST REJECTION OF RTI APPLICATION !
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages