Thursday, April 8, 2010

RTI applicant surprised by HC Official's response

RTI applicant surprised by High Court official's response

Mohamed Imranullah S.

MADURAI: An applicant under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, who wanted to know the status of a case originally filed before the principal seat of the Madras High Court in Chennai in 2001 and subsequently transferred to its Madurai Bench in 2004, has taken by surprise by the response asking her to appear in person for verification of her identity, residential address and signature.

M. Shanthi of Karur had filed an RTI application on February 25 seeking details of a civil miscellaneous appeal filed by an insurance company in 2001 against a judgment passed by a lower court earlier. Stating that the case was not listed for hearing for a long time, she sought to know whether it was still pending or had been disposed of.

N. Vijayakumar, Deputy Registrar (Administration) of the Bench and also Assistant Public Information Officer, replied to the application on March 3. Instead of giving a direct answer to the question, he asked the woman applicant to approach her advocate for obtaining the required information.

Not satisfied with the reply, Ms. Shanthi filed an appeal, under the RTI Act, before the Registrar (Administration) of the High Court Bench on March 13, 2010.

Subsequently, she received another letter from R. Susheela Devi, Deputy Registrar (RTI) dated March 31 asking her to come to the Bench during office hours at the earliest for verification of her residential address and signature.

The issue gains significance in view of the fact that there is no provision in the RTI Act which entitles a public information officer to ask an applicant to prove his/her identity. Section 6(2) of the Act categorically states a person seeking information need not give any personal details except those that were required for contacting him.

© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu

Courtesy_

1 comment:

  1. 2nd appeal should be filled with the authority giving reference of section 6(2) of the RTI Act. If not satisfied than a complaint against PIO should be filled before District Consumer Forum demanding compensasion for 'unnecessary harassment' as this type of practice is treated "unfair trade practice" under Consumer Protection Act 1986, As you have paid a fees for that information, hence you become a "Consumer" under CPA as NCDRC New Delhi has ruled in a revision petition no. 1975 of 2005 (Dr.S.P.Thirumala Rao Vs Municipal Commissioner, City Municipal Corporation Mysore, Karnataka)
    SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, 1224, G/F, NEW HBC SEC.19, PANCHKULA-134113, HARYANA. MOB. 09872439347

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

The RTI Act was passed by the Lok Sabha (Lower House) on 11 May 2005, by the Raj Sabha (Upper House) on 12 May 2005 and received Presidential assent on 15 June 2005. Parts of the Act came into force upon Presidential assent, but the Act came fully into force on 12 October 2005, 120 days after Presidential assent.

Search our Blog

Google
 

Subscribe this Blog to your E-mail


Disclaimer

This Blog Spot is meant for publishing reports about the usage of RTI Act (Right to Information Act, 2005) so as to create an awareness to the general public and also to keep it as a ready reckoner by them. So the readers may extend their gratitude towards the Author as we quoted at the bottom of each Post under the title "Courtesy".Furthermore, the Blog Authors are no way responsible for the correctness of the materials published herein and the readers may verify the concerned valuable sources.

Dinamani - RTI News