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

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 <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>>
>> On 7/4/12, sarbajit roy <sroy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > 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
>>
>> > On Jul 3, 7:01 am, "M.K. Gupta" <mkgupta...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
>> >> 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.
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
>> 1722, Sector 14, Hisar-125001, INDIA
>> Phone: 91-99929-31181


--
Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
1722, Sector 14, Hisar-125001, INDIA
Phone: 91-99929-31181