RTI activists allege red-tapism is killing the Act |
Applications are being sent back by the State Information Comm under the heading of 'remand' |
Sameera Kapoor. Vashi |
| Delay by authorities concerned in replying to the applications filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act has been a regular woe voiced, however, applicants are now finding a new issue that's alleged of diluting the power of the act itself. Hearings on appeals filed by applicant to the State Information Commissioner (SIC) are being alleged of not adhering to RTI guidelines. Appeals are alleged of being reverted back by the SIC under the name of 'Remand'. The alleged practice of reverting appeals back has lead applicants to question the purpose of having appeals. The appeal hearing required to be addressed by SIC is being informed to be filtered under the name of issuing a Remand order. "Appeals are filed when the requested information isn't availed or the RTI applicant isn't satisfied with the information given. I had filed an applications with CIDCO over three issues and went ahead with an appeal, but the failure to get any reply prompted me to go for an appeal with the SIC," said an applicant Santhosh Shukla. The RTI applicant is informed to have received a letter from CIDCO Office of the Chief Engineer and General Manager (Tech), seeking his presence on November 11 supported with a remand order dated September 23, 2010. "The whole purpose of having the hearing is getting negated with such move. How is CIDCO to hold hearing meant against itself and how is it going to penalize itself for the delay in giving reply. All these decision is to be taken by the SIC, but by issuing a remand order that has no provision in RTI Act is diluting its purpose," Shukla said. With the applicant not being able to trace any section which refers to remand order, specific demands are being raised to resolve the matter. "I have sent a detailed letter to this regard to the SIC himself. I have requested to either withdraw the remand order or call for the proper hearing as mandated in the Act or else specify the clause under which the order was passed," he insisted. All efforts to contact the SIC proved futile. |
__._,_.___
.
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment