50 paise postcard costs Rs 7 to postal department
A postcard which is sold for 50 paise actually costs the government Rs 7, according to an RTI response from the postal department listing the costs incurred by it on such services which are proving to be loss-making propositions for it.
In the year 2012-13, the per unit revenue earned from the sale of postcards was 50 paise whereas, to keep the service running, the per unit cost came to Rs 7.18, down from Rs 7.50 during 2010-11, the department said in its RTI response.
Similarly, the printed postcard was bringing a revenue of Rs 6 although the cost incurred on it was Rs 7.19 per unit in the year 2012-13. The RTI query further found that the cost of a letter card was Rs 7.18 per unit whereas the revenue earned from it was Rs 2.50.
The postal department also incurs a loss in dispatching registered newspapers with the per unit cost for a single dispatch being Rs 10.59 while Rs 20.79 is the cost for sending newspaper bundles. However, the revenue earned is a meagre 59 paise for single and Rs 1.63 for bundled dispatches, the reply said.
The postal department also said that while insurance is offered at Rs 55.24, its cost was almost three times at Rs 141.82 during 2012-13. Each dispatch of a book packet costs the department Rs 9.51 but the revenue earned by it for every delivery is Rs 2.90.
Each parcel brings revenue of Rs 40.69 while the cost incurred for sending the same is Rs 46.58. Printed books gave a revenue of Rs 2.90 to the department while the cost of dispatching such material was Rs 12.44, it added.
The response provided to applicant SC Agrawal said, "It is submitted that no annual profit and loss account is prepared in this section. However, allocation of expenditure and revenue to around 30 services is being maintained every year as an annual costing exercise on the basis of data received from different sections of the directorate."
| |
Showing posts with label RTI. Show all posts
Showing posts with label RTI. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 13, 2014
50 paise postcard costs Rs 7 to postal department
Saturday, May 18, 2013
Dopt Orders 2013 - Extension of RTI web portal for online filing of RTI application
Dopt Orders 2013 - Extension of RTI web portal for online filing of RTI application
No.1/1/2013-1R
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions
Department of Personnel & Training
North Block, New Delhi
Dated: 17/05/2013
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject: Extension of RTI web portal for online filing of RTI application.
In continuation of this Department’s O.M. of even number dated 22/04/2013, ¡t is intimated that training to RTI Nodal Officers, RTI Cell officials and NIC/IT personnel attached with Ministries/Departments of Government of India have been completed by DoPT with the help of NIC.
2. It is again requested that training to all the CPlOs and First Appellate Authorities (FAAs) may be provided by the concerned Ministry/Department, through the officials trained by DoPT/NIC, User name/password to all the CPIOs and FAAs are to be provided by RTI Nodal Officers of the concerned Ministry/Department. It is imperative that the RTI Nodal Officers start updating the details of CPIOs / FAAs in the system and issue user name and password to them at the earliest.
3. As mentioned in the said O.M., it is planned to extend the facility of RTI online web portal to all the Ministries/Departments of Government of India. This facility is being extended to Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries and Department of Consumer Affairs and Department of Food and Public Distribution from 22 May 2013.
sd/-
(Sandeep Jain)
Deputy Secretary
Source: www.persmin.nic.in
| |
|
Thursday, May 16, 2013
Compendium of Best Practices on RTI
Publishing of Compendium of Best Practices on RTI
1/3/2013-IR
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions
Department of Personnel and Training
IR Division
North Block, New Delhi-110001
Dated: 14.5.2013
Subject: Publishing of Compendium of Best Practices on RTI
The Department of Personnel and Training, Govt. of India proposes to publish a compendium of best practices on RTI being adopted by Public Authorities all over the country. Write ups are invited from the Indian Citizens about the best practices on RTI being adopted by Public Authorities all over the country. The best 20 write-ups would be selected for inclusion in the compendium. The individuals whose write ups are selected for inclusion In the compendium would be rewarded with a lumpsum amount of Rs. 25000 each.
2. The format for the write-Ups would be as follows:
1) Name of the Public Authority, whose practice is being considered in the write up.
2) Need felt/problem faced by the Public Authority leading to adoption of such practice.
3) Details of the said practice, including its scope, financial implications, and deployment of resources such as manpower, infrastructure, etc.
4) Lessons learnt by the Public Authority during implementation of the said practice.
5) Positive outcome of such practice in the implementation of the RTI Act.
6) Scope of its replication in other Public Authorities.
3. The write-ups should be of about 5000 words, neatly typed in 1.5 linespace and 14 size font. All documents in support of the best practice should be attached separately. The complete name and address including telephone and email id of the individual submitting the write-up should be mentioned. Handwritten write-ups would not be considered. Two copies of the write-ups should be submitted to the Deputy Secretary(IR), Department of Personnel and Training, North Block, New Delhi-110001 by 28th June, 2013 through post.
4. The individuals whose write ups would be selected could be asked by the department to resubmit the same after making desired changes, if any.
sd/-
(Sarita Nair)
Under Secretary to the Govt of India
Source: www.persmin.nic.in
| |
|
Thursday, May 9, 2013
Furnishing Wrong Information
Furnishing
Wrong Information
There are a number of cases where an
applicant has filed first appeal with the First Appellate Authority in the
Public Authority concerned and second appeal/complaint with the Central
Information Commission/State Information , as the case may be, inter-alia, due
to the following reasons:
(i) Non-receipt
of information within prescribed time;
(ii) Denial
of request of information;
(iii) If he/she believes that
incomplete/misleading or false information under this Act has been given by the
Public Information Officer.
The number of
second appeals/complaints registered by the Central Information Commission
during three years is as under:
The Right to Information Act, 2005
already provides for imposition of penalty and recommendation of disciplinary
action by the Central Information Commission/State Information Commission, as
the case may be, against the Public Information Officer who has knowingly given
incorrect, incomplete or misleading information under the RTI Act. The CIC/SICs
have been imposing such penalties and also recommending disciplinary action
against such Public Information Officers.
This was stated
by Shri V. Narayanasamy, Minister of State in the Ministry of Personnel, Public
Grievances and Pension and Minister of State in the Prime Minister’s Office in
written reply to a question by Shri Bharat Ram Meghwal today.
| ||||||
|
Saturday, February 16, 2013
Timely intimation about payment of additional fee under RTI Act 2005
Timely intimation about payment of additional fee under RTI Act 2005
F.No.12/31/2013-IR
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions
Department of Personnel & Training
North Block, New Delhi – 110001
Dated: 11.2.2013
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject: Timely intimation about payment of additional fee under RTI Act 2005.
It has been brought to the notice of the Central Information Commission that some CPIOs inform the information seeker about the additional fee under sub section 7(3) of the RTI Act at the fag end of the thirty days period prescribed for providing the information under sub-section 7(1) of the RTI Act.
2. The Central Information Commission in one of its orders has mentioned that while there cannot be any hard and fast rule about when exactly the intimation about the photocopying charges should be conveyed to the information seeker, it is implied in the prescribed time limit that the demand for the photocopying charges must be made soon after the RTI application is received so that the information seeker has time to deposit the fees and receive the information within the prescribed thirty days period. If the information sought is not voluminous or is not dispersed over o large number of files, computation of the photocopying charges should not be a time consuming task. As soon as the RTI application is received, the holder of the information should decide about how much information to disclose and then calculate the photocopying charges so that the CPIO can immediately write to the information seeker demanding such fees.
3. This may be brought to the notice of all concerned for compliance.
sd/-
(Sandeep Jain)
Deputy Secretary
Source: www.persmin.nic.in
| |
|
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Information that cannot be denied to Parliament cannot be denied to you and me… but does it happen?
Information that cannot be denied to Parliament cannot be denied to you and me… but does it happen?
Does this provision in Section 8 wherein, despite exemptions you have the right to information if it is of larger public interest being correctly interpreted by Courts? A study thinks otherwise
Notwithstanding Section 8 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act under which you are denied the right to certain information, there is a provision which states that, every citizen has the right to get that information which our elected representatives, have access to. It reads thus, “Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.”
However, it has been observed in an expert study, conducted by the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) that the judiciary has been inconsistent in application of this provision and therefore “does not provide clarity of interpretation of this crucial provision of the RTI Act.’’
Sometimes, the judiciary applies it to the entire Section 8 (1) which should be the case according to the CHRI’s analysis but many a time in its judgment, the judiciary restricts this provision only to Section 8 (1)(j) which relates to protection of personal information. Such varied interpretation which is diluting the power of this provision says the study, would have adverse repercussions for citizens, if this trend continues in the court of law.
Interestingly, even the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), Government of India in its guidelines to public authorities, Public Information Officers (PIOs) and First Appellate Authorities (FAAs) at the Central and State level for implementing the RTI Act, directed them to follow this provision by stating that: “The Act gives the citizens a right to information at par with the Members of Parliament (MPs) and the Members of the State Legislatures (MLAs). According to the Act, information which cannot be denied to Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.’’
However, many PIOs and FAAs continue to decline information and the matter goes to information commissioners who often order disclosure of information. However, petitioners seek legal intervention and it is here that the provision is not used in its true spirit, as per the study.
Venkatesh Nayak, Programme Coordinator, Access to Information programme, Commonwealth Human Rights Imitative (CHRI) conducted the study to highlight how the provision is being narrowly used. States Nayak, “In 18 judgments interpreting the provision, this is far from convincing. We have chosen one such issue for analysis where despite the existence of more than 15 judgments, the jurisprudence does not provide clarity of interpretation of this crucial provision of the RTI Act. Settlement of access disputes in the High Courts has not always conformed to the doctrine of precedent.”
Nayak observes that, “Eight High Courts have interpreted the scope and application of the proviso under Section 8(1) varyingly. Starting with the Bombay High Court, in 2007, five High Courts (Bombay, Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, Madras and Patna) have interpreted this proviso in six cases as being applicable only to clause (j) of Section 8(1), namely, the exemption protecting personal information of an individual from disclosure. Three High Courts (Calcutta, Kerala and Punjab and Haryana) have in ten cases interpreted this proviso as applying to all exemption clauses listed in Section 8(1). In at least two High Courts (Bombay and Delhi) single‐judge and Division Benches have held contrary views indicating the lack of crystallisation of judicial precedent, regarding the interpretation of the scope and application of this proviso.’’
Section 8 (of the RTI Act) deals with exemptions to the right to information. Nayak points out that:
• Sub‐Section (1) lists out the specific exemptions to disclosure –namely, information that an applicant may not claim as a matter of right
• Sub‐Section (2) provides for the disclosure of even exempt information when public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests.
• Sub‐Section (3) limits the operation of seven out of the ten exemptions up to 20 years for a given set of records. The exemptions relating to national security, foreign relations with foreign Governments, Parliamentary and Legislative privilege and Cabinet documents apply for an indefinite period of time.
• A proviso is inscribed at the bottom of Section 8(1) which states that… Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.”
The study highlights several judgments which have interpreted Section 8 (1) in different modes. In most of these cases, the High Courts have upheld the orders of information commissioners but the judgment is not based on a comprehensive look at this provision. This study aims to provide insight into this discrepancy. Concludes Nayak, “We hope that in an appropriate case the true meaning of the proviso underlying Section 8(1) is interpreted by the courts with due regard to legislative intent and the drafting history of the RTI Act.’’
Following are a few examples:
Case 1: A member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) was sentenced to a month’s imprisonment for committing contempt of Supreme Court’s orders during his tenure as Minister in the Government of Maharashtra. He spent 21 days of his jail term in a hospital in Mumbai under the pretext of being treated for various illnesses.
A citizen sought medical reports of his treatment, under RTI, in order to ascertain why the MLA had spent most of the duration of his sentence in an air‐conditioned hospital. The Petitioner objected to the disclosure of his medical records claiming that such action would cause invasion of his right to privacy. The matter escalated to the State Information Commission which ordered disclosure in the larger public interest.
The Petitioner (the MLA) challenged the order of disclosure on various grounds including the right to privacy and the requirement of confidentiality of patient‐related information under the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations 2002.
A two‐judge Bench of the Bombay High Court upheld the order of disclosure of the Petitioner’s medical records in the larger public interest. (Mr Surupsingh Hrya Naik v/s State of Maharashtra Through Additional Secretary, General Administration Deptt. And Others, Bombay High Court [Writ Petition No. 1750 of 2007] decision date: 23/03/2007)
CHRI’s analysis: “The Court relied upon the judgement of a single‐judge Bench in an earlier dispute relating to access to information under the Goa Right to Information Act, 1997 (Goa RTI Act) to hold that the proviso underlying Section 8(1) applied only to clause (j)… The main cause in the Surupsingh Naik case was about an individual’s right to privacy in relation to his medical records. In our opinion inquiring into Parliament’s intent behind placing the proviso under Section 8(1) in the light of the Court’s earlier pronouncement was necessary before determining its scope and application. Instead the ratio of the Court in the Panaji Municipal Council case was applied mechanically without regard to the reasoning that informed it. In view of this glaring contradiction the Court’s reading of the import and application of the proviso underlying Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, deserves to be reviewed.’’
Case 2: An Applicant sought information about the appointment, posting, transfer and promotion of clerical staff employed by the Canara Bank (the Bank) in Ernakulam district of Kerala during the period 2002‐2006. The Bank denied access on various grounds. When the matter escalated to the Central Information Commission (CIC), it ordered that the information be disclosed. The Bank challenged this order before the Kerala High Court claiming the protection of Section 8(1)(e)‐ when information is available to a person in his fiduciary relationship‐ and Section 8(1)(j)‐ when disclosure of personal information has no relationship to any public activity or interest or if disclosure would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. A single‐judge Bench of the Court rejected both contentions and upheld the order of the Central Information Commission. (Canara Bank vs the Central Information Commissioner and Another, Kerala High Court [Writ Petition (Civil) 9988 of 2007, decision date: 11/07/2007]7 2.1)
CHRI’s analysis: The Court independently held that the proviso applied to the whole of Section 8(1) and not merely to clause (j) of that Section. More importantly, the proviso to the section qualifies the section by stating that information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.
Case 3: A student sought access to his answer sheets in a Bachelor’s Degree examination conducted by the University of Calcutta. The PIO rejected the request without invoking any of the exemptions provided in Section 8 of the RTI Act. He merely stated, in an undated letter, that the University had taken a decision not to permit inspection of evaluated answer scripts under the RTI Act.
The matter escalated to the High Court where the University cited a decision of the CIC which had ruled in an earlier case that where Boards and Universities conducting public examinations had evolved a robust system of evaluation and, if, by their own rules, prohibited disclosure of evaluated answer‐sheets or where such disclosure would result in rendering the system unworkable in practice, a citizen could not seek disclosure of the answer‐sheets. The University also contended that answer scripts did not fall within the definition of information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and that disclosure of the evaluated answer scripts would endanger the lives of the examiners. The University contended further that the Supreme Court had in earlier decisions refused to order disclosure of such documents, so Section 8(1)(b) of the RTI Act would apply. A single‐judge Bench of the Court rejected these contentions in a well reasoned judgement and ordered the evaluated answer sheets to be disclosed. (Pritam Rooj vs University of Calcutta, Calcutta High Court [Writ Petition No. 22176 of 2007], decision date: 28/03/2008.)
CHRI’s Analysis: …The Court also took notice of the need for protecting the privacy of individuals. However the Court held that the proviso underlying Section 8(1) applied to the whole of that Section…The proviso at the foot of Clause (j) appears to cover the entirety of Section 8(1), notwithstanding the view taken by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court. The manner in which the exceptions to the rule have been carved out in Section 8 and the proviso which appears to govern all the cases covered by Section 8(1) of the said Act, makes the exemption section exhaustive. [emphasis supplied]…That the Court rejected the finding of a larger Bench of another High Court without supplying a reasoned justification is problematic, particularly when both parties had used the ratio to support their contention..
In case you would like to have the full report, please contact:
Venkatesh Nayak
Programme Coordinator,
Access to Information Programme
Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative
B-117, First Floor, Sarvodaya Enclave
New Delhi- 110 017, INDIA
Tel: +91-11-43180215/ 43180201
Fax: +91-11-26864688
Skype: venkatesh.nayak@skype.com
Alternate Email: nayak.venkatesh@gmail.com
Website: www.humanrightsinitiative.org
| |
|
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Effective implementation of Right to Information Act : DOPT offering Short-term Internships Course
Effective implementation of Right to Information Act : DOPT offering Short-term Internships Course
F.No.1/21/2012-IR
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances & pensions
Department of Personnel & Training
North Block,
New Delhi – 110 001
Dated 18th December, 2012.
Office Memorandum
Subject : Internship for Undergraduates pursuing five year Integrated course in Law under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme on "Improving Transparency and Accountability in government through effective implementation of Right to Information Act" for the year 2012-13.
The undersigned is directed to say that Department of Personnel & Training is offering short-term internships to Undergraduates pursuing five year integrated course in Law to conduct an analysis of RTI applications in select public authorities. The guidelines issued by this Department in this regard on 15th October, 2012 (copy enclosed) have been circulated to reputed Law Schools and Universities.
2. The internship would be of one month duration starting from 1st January, 2013.
3. Various Ministries/Departments of the Government of India are willing to allow interns sponsored by this Department to analyse a sample of the RTI applications received by them.
4. Law Schools and Universities are requested to nominate the names of those students who are desirous of undertaking internship on RTI applications in Central Ministries / Departments. Nominations for the internship may be sent to the undersigned latest by 26th December, 2012.
sd/-
(Anuradha S. Chagti)
Director(IR)
Source: www.persmin.nic.in
|
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****
*****
For Latest Updates
Always visit http://satish24k.blogspot.in
Share and Care
|
Monday, December 17, 2012
How to write RTI applications effectively?
*Four golden rules for writing effective RTI Applications*
Dear fellow Activists,
We often sit down to draft an RTI application in an angry and unrealistic mood. When we write RTI applications, our focus should be on getting information. Instead, we are thinking about stopping some wrongdoings, getting some officials and corrupt contractors penalized, making the authorities “answerable” for negligence etc, etc. At such times, we fail to think clearly about the items of information that we need.
Right to Information Act 2005 is a law, and effectiveness in legal work depends on using the law without anger, resentment and wishful thinking.
While asking for information, the 4 golden rules are:
1. Point to various specific documents. Your application should look like a shopping-list of documents.
2. Name documents using words from Sec 2(f) and Sec 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act – reports, logbooks, emails, advices, rules, regulations, manuals etc. Only after exhausting these should you use other similar names e.g. quality audit reports, correspondence etc. In case this information is denied, the similarity of wordings will help you to convince appellate authorities that your requested information is “records” and “information” that must be mandatorily given.
3. Don’t ask questions, don’t demand explanations, and don’t make allegations.
Don’t make your application sound like a letter of complaint or a letter-to-the-editor. Don’t preface it with a covering letter or an introductory paragraph. RTI applications should be emotionless and bland.
4. Avoid vague expressions and requests such as
Prepared by
Shri Sailesh Gandhi
Central Information Commissioner
(Circulated in the interest of the public giving them tips to frame good questions while submitting RTI Applications to get the information)
|
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****
*****
For Latest Updates
Always visit http://satish24k.blogspot.in
Share and Care
|
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
RTI Act 2005 : Complete edition of the rule available in various languages
RTI Act 2005 : Complete edition of the rule available in various languages
Hindi Version of RTI Act, 2005 (As modified upto 1st February, 2011) – DOPT
Department of Personnel and Training has published on its portal today the complete Hindi manual of RTI Act. It is modified up to 1.2.2011. You can download by clicking the link is given below…
The complete edition of Right to Information Act, 2005 is being published in different languages, and also available in the official portal of RTI, here we are bringing the link to various languages…
ENGLISH
Assamese
Bangla
Gujarati
Kannada
Malayalam
Marathi
Oriya
Punjabi
Tamil
Telugu
Urdu
Courtesy : www.cgstaffnews.com
|
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****
*****
For Latest Updates
Always visit http://satish24k.blogspot.in
Share and Care
|
Friday, November 2, 2012
Cabinet withdraws controversial draft amendments to RTI
Cabinet withdraws controversial draft amendments to RTI
NEW DELHI: The Union Cabinet today decided to withdraw controversial draft amendments to the Right to Information Act that had sought to restrict disclosure of file notings only to social and developmental issues.
After this, all file notings can be made public except those explicitly exempted, such as the ones related to national security, privacy and protection of commercial interest. "The Cabinet has decided to withdraw the amendments," said a source privy to the deliberations at the Cabinet meeting chaired by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. In 2006, the Cabinet had approved the amendments but they did not make it to the Parliament because of the stiff opposition. Source : The Economic Times, 01 Nov., 2012 |
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****
*****
For Latest Updates
Always visit http://satish24k.blogspot.in
Share and Care
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)