Rti,2005
Naveen Jain
(Querist) 18 September 2012
This query is : Resolved
IF WE REQUIRE ANY INFORMATION ,, IS IT MANDATORY TO ASK FOR THE INFORMATION IN FORM A
Because i have got a letter in reply to my apllication under RTI,2005 that , we will only supply the information if asked in formA
Arvind Singh Chauhan
(Expert) 19 September 2012
No it is not mandatory to be in any prescribed form.
Arvind Singh Chauhan
(Expert) 19 September 2012
Please paste the link and see the para 22-
http://rti.gov.in/RTICorner/Guideonrti.pdf
K.S.Srinivas
(Expert) 19 September 2012
There is no prescribed format of application for seeking information. The
application can be made on plain paper. The application should, however, have
the name and complete postal address of the applicant. Even in cases where the
information is sought electronically, the application should contain name and
postal address of the applicant.
J K Agrawal
(Expert) 19 September 2012
Thanks mr Arvind. This Forum need this type of opinion.
Your reply is appreciable.
malipeddi jaggarao
(Expert) 20 September 2012
Apart from the suggestions made by Mr.Srinivas above, you need to enclose a Demand Draft/Indian Postal Order of Rs.10/- payable to the Public Information Officer.....(Organisation). Though the application need not be in the prescribed form, you should justify the reasons for asking the information to prove that the information needed is in public interest. At the same information required should not fall under the exempted categories as per the RTI Act. You should also mention clearly if the information required is chargeable with more than Rs.10/- you will undertake to pay the required either before supplying the information if PIO advises the amount, or on receipt of information if not suggested before sending the information. If these points are covered, PIO can not ask you to submit the application in the prescribed format. In fact there is no prescribed format for seeking the information as per the RTI Act.
Isaac Gabriel
(Expert) 20 September 2012
The PIO cannot refuse the information under section 8(1) See the link
REFUSAL OF INFORMATION U/S 8.1.d OF RTI ACT
Section 8.1.d of RTI Act reads as:
“information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;”
To invoke above reason, information should have following characteristics:
1. Information should relate to third party, including public authority.
2. Its disclosure should be harmful for competitive position of third party or public authority.
3. Applicant is not in a position to prima-facie prove larger public interest in disclosure. This cannot be invoked when frauds or scams have been committed with public money.
4. Information should relate to/constitute commercial confidence or trade secret or intellectual property of third party [including pubic authority].
5. PIO provides meaningful justification on how disclosure would harm competitive position of third party or public authority and how it constitutes commercial confidence, trade secret or intellectual propery. Just stating sub-section is not sufficient.
Please also note:
A] “Through this Order the Commission now wants to send the message loud and clear that quoting provisions of Section 8 of the RTI Act ad libitum to deny the information requested for, by CPIOs/Appellate Authorities without giving any justification or grounds as to how these provisions are applicable is simply unacceptable and clearly amounts to malafide denial of legitimate information attracting penalties under section 20(1) of the Act.”CIC/OK/A/2006/00163 dated 7 July, 2006.
B] “The PIO has to give the reasons for rejection of the request for information as required under Section 7(8)(i). Merely quoting the bare clause of the Act does not imply that the reasons have been given. The PIO should have intimated as to how he had come to the conclusion that rule 8(1)(j) was applicable in this case.”CIC/OK/C/2006/00010 dated 7 July, 2006.
Refer: CIC/SG/A/2011/003607/17371 dated 10-03-2012
