Our leaders need to be held accountable, says journalist Heather Brooke. And she should know: Brooke uncovered the British Parliamentary financial expenses that led to a major political scandal in 2009. She urges us to ask our leaders questions through platforms like Freedom of Information requests — and to finally get some answers.
Kindly refer the attached notice/directive/circular issued from the office of Commissioner & Registrar of Co-Op Department, Government of Maharashtra dated 30th December 2011, in said notice/directive/circular, it has been clearly mentioned that only Deputy Registrar of Concerned ward of Co-operative societies can be PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER under RTI Act, 2005, WHEREAS in various offices at Mumbai, the responsibility has been passed to lower staffs.
We have raised our objection before Divisional Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Department, Mumbai Region and have urged him to implement the same on priority basis.
Thanks & Regards
Dr. L.B. Tiwari
President & Head-Legal Cell
SAHAYAK–A Socio-Legal & Educational Forum
PRIVATE CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETIES are not covered under sec 2(a) of the RTI Act, 2005:
Sec 2(a) “appropriate Government” means in relation to a public authority which is established, constituted, owned, controlled or substantially financed by funds provided directly or indirectly:
(i) by the Central Government or the Union territory administration, the Central Government;
(ii) by the State Government, the State Government.
PRIVATE CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETIES ARE COVERED UNDER SECTION 2(f) OF THE RTI ACT 2005:
Under Sec. 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers,samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;
• HOW SECTION 2 (F) APPLIES TO A PRIVATE CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY:
As per sec. 2(f) of the act an information which can be accessed by a Public Authority from a Private Body can be provided under the RTI Act. In the context of a Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Private Body is a Co-operative Housing Society and Public Authority is Registrar of Co-operative Societies.
• Public Information Officer & First Appellate Authority OF REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES:
1) Public Information Officer (Public Information Officer) – Deputy Registrar.
2) First Appellant Authority (First Appellate Authority) – District Deputy Registrar.
• FLOW OF A RTI APPLICATION FILED FOR SEEKING INFORMATION FROM A PRIVATE CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED:
This is how it works if one would like to seek information from a Co-operative Housing Society Ltd:
1) One can file a RTI application with the Public Information Officer i.e. Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies, where the particular Society has been registered.
2) Deputy Registrar will forward this application to the Chairman/Secretary of the Co-operative Society.
3) Chairman/Secretary of the Society will then provide the requested information to the Deputy Registrar.
4) Finally Deputy Registrar will provide the applicant with the requested information.
Please Note: At present some Deputy Registrars order/direct the Chairman/Secretary of the Society to provide the information directly to the applicant, thereby skipping the 2nd, 3rd and 4th step mentioned above, and so the Chairman/Secretary of the society will then directly provide you with the requested information under the directions/order of the Deputy Registrar.
J.B.Patel (Jeby)
Housing Society Activist!
Mobile:9820538570
*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)
In a rare order that boosts the spirit of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the state chief information commissioner (SCIC) Ratnakar Gaikwad has fined an official of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) Rs. 25,000 for refusing to reveal information under the act for nearly two years now.
This is the highest fine that can be imposed on an errant government official who refuses to reveal information, under the act.
Click Here for more details
Soon, anyone would be able to file an RTI application over the phone, with help and guidance from a call centre as well as through a website
While the government is consistently blamed for diluting the RTI (Right to Information) Act in several ways besides making illogical amendments at the state level, it is gearing up to make filing of RTI applications by just making a phone call. Citizens will not have to take the pains of either writing a RTI application or taking the pains to post it or physically deliver it. Proposals for setting up such privately run call centres have been advertised by the “Department of Personnel & Training” (DoPT) with the last date of submission being 10 July 2012.
The project has been named “RTI Call Centre and Portal Project” under which 2,000 centres are proposed all over the country.
The DoPT, which has put up details of the project on its website, cites two facilities under it. One is the computerised call centre which would facilitate the citizen to file his/her RTI over the phone; file first appeal applications over the phone and even track the status of their first appeal. This facility is termed as “Computer Telephony Integration enabled Call Centre Setup”. Second, is the development of a “web portal” which would provide information about the RTI Act as well as facilitate filing of RTI and first appeal applications.
Click Here for the full details
Three activists – Ashish Mhatre, Krishnaraj Rao and G R Vora – have put up an online bank of successful applications to help people use the RTI Act effectively. Just browse through the list available, click on the one of your need, and find links to successful applications to be used as a format for your own. It is very simple to use and will go a long way in making your own applications successful. Click Here for the links
The list includes the following titles :
Some more format links are listed for your perusal – Click Here
The Right to Information Act 2005 provides effective access to information for citizens of India, which is under the control of the public authorities. It promotes transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. It extends to the whole of India except the state of Jammu and Kashmir. In order to ensure greater and more effective access to information, it was decided to repeal the Freedom of Information Act, 2002 and enact another law for providing an effective framework. To achieve this object, the Right to Information Bill was introduced in the Parliament and was passed by the Lok Sabha on 11th May, 2005 and by the Rajya Sabha on 12th May, 2005 and it received the assent on 15th June, 2005. It came on the Statute Book as THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005 (22 of 2005)
Click Here for more information including RTI stories and resources
Click Here for the official Government RTI website
Moves to limit word length, subject matter in applications as well as refusal to fill vacancies will backfire, writes Gajanan Khergamker
There seems to be a distinct bias in the ‘Sunshine’ Act…the Right to Information, particularly in Maharashtra and not without reason.
For starters, in what was construed as a stark “breach of trust and public confidence”, the state went ahead almost on tippy toes and notified an amendment to Maharashtra RTI Rules on 16th January 2012.
Changes aimed to defeat the law
That most members of the public irked by a public authority’s excess or inept attitude or behavior, making an RTI application to obtain information aren’t familiar with drafting, is a given. And, the process of educating the public about sticking to queries instead of providing background information and history is an ongoing, tedious one.
So, capitalising on this very snag, the state appears to have placed the 150-word caveat which will almost singularly defeat the very purpose of the RTI Act.
Applicants unfamiliar with the law, will continue to write and ramble on and on about the issues in question and wait for the stipulated period for official response which should be as dodgy as expected and dismissive owing to the applicant’s inability to restrict the application to the required 150 word limit.
Providing the perfect foil for issues which need to be resolved with urgency, the amendment is bad in law and needs to be reviewed.
Click Here for the full story
Consumer Resources 