The better way:-
1) File u/s 6.
2) File with any PIO (or the one seemingly most apt)
3) It is the responsibility of the PIO who accepts to
farm out the portions / questions to other PIOs or
concerned officers within 5 days.
BTW: A.K.Jain is Appellate authority for almost
everything.
I also feel that there should be a PIO in the
"offices" of the Chairman, VC, Pr.Sec+Comm, and Dir
Planning. qv section 5 (RTIA)
Having a zillion PIOs is a tactic which is going to be
increasingly used to stall RTI.
Sarbajit
--- Gita Dewan Verma <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> To: All DDA officers designated PIO/Appellate
> Authority for purpose of RTI Act, 2005 (via eml to
> ids
> available at:
>
http://www.ddadelhi.com/about_us/pop_ups/appelateauthority.pdf)
>
> Sub: Request for guidelines for exercising RTI u/s.6
> pending sufficient publication u/s.4 and for review
> of
> PIO jurisdictions so as to to cover the whole
> Authority and Offer of support for streamlining
> initiatives u/s.26(1); OR, alternatively, Request
> for
> assistance u/s.5(3) to frame as RTI requests doubts
> about the agenda of Authority meeting of 19.10.05
> (wrt
> to letter to LG, endorsed to you, text included in
> this message)
>
> Madam / Sir
>
> Kindly refer to the preamble of Right To Information
> Act, 2005 (articulating intent of setting out
> practical regime for RTI to harmonise likely
> conflict
> with other public interests including efficient
> operations of the Governments, etc) and, in this
> context, to s.4(1)(b) (requiring information as per
> sub-clauses (i) to (xvii) to have been published
> with
> a view, as per s.4(2), to provide information suo
> motu
> so that people have minimum resort to the use of
> this
> Act to obtain it). Kindly refer also to s.4(1)(a)
> (requiring records to be in a manner and form which
> facilitates RTI and appropriate records to be,
> within
> a reasonable time and subject to availability of
> resources, computerised to facilitate access) and,
> in
> this context, also to DDA Budget 2005-06 outlay of
> Rs.18.92 Crs for system up-gradation, etc. Kindly
> refer, in context of the foregoing, to DDA website
> and
> please note that:
> (1) RTI Act is mentioned neither on home-page nor in
> site-map but in About-Us section
> (2) link labelled "Right Information Act 2005"
> (please
> note inaccuracy in label) is to a page that contains
> only three links and does not serve RTI facilitating
> /
> minimising objectives.
> (3) link labelled "Principal Information Officers
> and
> Appellate Authority" (please note inaccuracy in
> label)
> is to a pdf file providing details of as many as 40
> PIOs, with jurisdictions that are not readily
> relate-able to information otherwise available on
> the
> website (in 6 sections, viz, Planning, Housing,
> Land,
> Heritage, Sports, Greens)
> ---------------------
> I request, firstly, publishing on DDA website
> guidelines for responsibly exercising RTI (u/s.6)
> pending sufficient suo motu publication (u/s.4) to
> facilitate / minimize it.
> ---------------------
>
> Further, kindly refer to Delhi Development Act,
> 1957,
> Chapter-II, section-3 (pertaining to the Authority
> itself), section-5 (pertaining to Advisory Council
> constituted by the Authority), section-5A
> (pertaining
> to Committees constituted by the Authority) and
> section-4 (pertaining to Staff of the Authority,
> including s.4(1) pertaining to Secretary and Chief
> Accounts Officer and s.4(2) pertaining to other
> officers and employees). In this context, please
> note
> that neither suo motu information on DDA website nor
> jurisdictions of designated PIOs, etc, cover the
> Authority, its Advisory Council, Committees or
> Secretary, ie, only the portion of DDA created by
> s.4(2) seems to have been brought into the purview
> of
> RTI Act. This is patently counter-productive, as:
> (a) using RTI for transparency at level of employees
> (who are accountable to the Authority) while leaving
> out the Authority (which is accountable to the
> people)
> is ultimately pointless and also likely to
> exacerbate
> conflicts, which is contrary to RTI Act purpose.
> (b) preoccupation with transparency at level of
> employees may well be at cost of oversight of drift
> from statutory mandate at level of the Authority
> (such
> as suggested by news reports of Authority meeting on
> 19.10.05), which is deleterious in terms of DD Act
> imperatives.
> ---------------------
> I urge review of PIO jurisdictions so as to cover
> the
> whole Authority for consistency with RTI Act purpose
> and harmony with DD Act imperatives.
> ---------------------
>
> If DoPT, involved in general modalities for RTI Act,
> is not running agency-specific programs u/s.26(1)
> and/or DDA officials who qualified DoPT
> Training-of-Trainers are inclined to conduct one, I
> would like to offer support. Please note I am not
> short of work and am making this offer because I
> consider it my responsibility in view of my unusual
> qualifications and experience. I qualified both DTS
> and DoT programs of DoPT and have ample DoT (Design
> of
> Training) experience. As a qualified researcher I am
> interested in use and politics of information and
> currently exploring the architecture of RTI Act. As
> a
> qualified planner engaging on Delhi Master Plan
> issues
> I have a thorough understanding of DD Act.
> ---------------------
> If DDA has any use of my support for streamlining
> initiatives u/s.26(1), it is on offer for purposes
> of
> DD Act to which I am wholeheartedly committed as a
> planner.
> ---------------------
>
> In case you find all of the above unworthy of your
> consideration, then please provide me reasonable
> assistance u/s.5(3) of RTI Act to frame as requests
> u/s.6, in a manner consistent with your
> responsibilities under RTI Act and DD Act, my doubts
> about the agenda of the Authority meeting on
> 19.10.05,
> expressed in my letter to LG endorsed to you, text
> of
> which is below.
>
> Yours sincerely
> Gita Dewan Verma, Planner
> 1356, DI Vasant Kunj, New Delhi - 110070
> email: mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx
>
> cc: Hon'ble LG (DDA Chairman & Competent Authority
> for
> RTI Act, 2005)
> cc: mpisgmedia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> ===letter dated & dispatched by courier on
> 24/10/05===
>
> Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor of NCT Delhi
> (DDA Chairman & Competent authority for RTI Act,
> 2005)
>
> Sub: DMP-2021 Public Notice & implementation of RTI
> Act, 2005, in DDA
> Ref: News reports of Authority meeting on 19.10.05
>
> Respected Sir,
>
> >From news reports it appears DMP2021 Public Notice
> process (in which hearings on objections/suggestions
> started on 03.10.05) and Right To Information Act,
> 2005 (which came fully in force on 12.10.05) were
> not
> on agenda of the Authority meeting on 19.10.05.
>
> 1. Apropos DMP2021 Public Notice, permit me to urge
> that at the moment this is the prime responsibility
> of
> the Authority that exists only for purposes of DD
> Act
> (s.3) with sole object of promoting and securing
> development of Delhi according to plan (s.6).
> Further,
> Rules require consideration / disposal of responses
> by
> a Board of Enquiry and Hearing drawn exclusively
> from
> the Authority and its Advisory Council. This does
> prevent the Authority from considering / deciding
> the
> same issues on its own. Regrettably, all three major
> agenda items reportedly considered / decided on
> 19.10.05 - viz, further land acquisition for Games
> Village on the riverbed, private participation in
> housing approved in principle in July, and disposal
> policy/rates for institutional land and schools -
> relate to DMP2021 proposals and are pending disposal
> of its Public Notice. (I am aggrieved by all three
> on
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
1) File u/s 6.
2) File with any PIO (or the one seemingly most apt)
3) It is the responsibility of the PIO who accepts to
farm out the portions / questions to other PIOs or
concerned officers within 5 days.
BTW: A.K.Jain is Appellate authority for almost
everything.
I also feel that there should be a PIO in the
"offices" of the Chairman, VC, Pr.Sec+Comm, and Dir
Planning. qv section 5 (RTIA)
Having a zillion PIOs is a tactic which is going to be
increasingly used to stall RTI.
Sarbajit
--- Gita Dewan Verma <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> To: All DDA officers designated PIO/Appellate
> Authority for purpose of RTI Act, 2005 (via eml to
> ids
> available at:
>
http://www.ddadelhi.com/about_us/pop_ups/appelateauthority.pdf)
>
> Sub: Request for guidelines for exercising RTI u/s.6
> pending sufficient publication u/s.4 and for review
> of
> PIO jurisdictions so as to to cover the whole
> Authority and Offer of support for streamlining
> initiatives u/s.26(1); OR, alternatively, Request
> for
> assistance u/s.5(3) to frame as RTI requests doubts
> about the agenda of Authority meeting of 19.10.05
> (wrt
> to letter to LG, endorsed to you, text included in
> this message)
>
> Madam / Sir
>
> Kindly refer to the preamble of Right To Information
> Act, 2005 (articulating intent of setting out
> practical regime for RTI to harmonise likely
> conflict
> with other public interests including efficient
> operations of the Governments, etc) and, in this
> context, to s.4(1)(b) (requiring information as per
> sub-clauses (i) to (xvii) to have been published
> with
> a view, as per s.4(2), to provide information suo
> motu
> so that people have minimum resort to the use of
> this
> Act to obtain it). Kindly refer also to s.4(1)(a)
> (requiring records to be in a manner and form which
> facilitates RTI and appropriate records to be,
> within
> a reasonable time and subject to availability of
> resources, computerised to facilitate access) and,
> in
> this context, also to DDA Budget 2005-06 outlay of
> Rs.18.92 Crs for system up-gradation, etc. Kindly
> refer, in context of the foregoing, to DDA website
> and
> please note that:
> (1) RTI Act is mentioned neither on home-page nor in
> site-map but in About-Us section
> (2) link labelled "Right Information Act 2005"
> (please
> note inaccuracy in label) is to a page that contains
> only three links and does not serve RTI facilitating
> /
> minimising objectives.
> (3) link labelled "Principal Information Officers
> and
> Appellate Authority" (please note inaccuracy in
> label)
> is to a pdf file providing details of as many as 40
> PIOs, with jurisdictions that are not readily
> relate-able to information otherwise available on
> the
> website (in 6 sections, viz, Planning, Housing,
> Land,
> Heritage, Sports, Greens)
> ---------------------
> I request, firstly, publishing on DDA website
> guidelines for responsibly exercising RTI (u/s.6)
> pending sufficient suo motu publication (u/s.4) to
> facilitate / minimize it.
> ---------------------
>
> Further, kindly refer to Delhi Development Act,
> 1957,
> Chapter-II, section-3 (pertaining to the Authority
> itself), section-5 (pertaining to Advisory Council
> constituted by the Authority), section-5A
> (pertaining
> to Committees constituted by the Authority) and
> section-4 (pertaining to Staff of the Authority,
> including s.4(1) pertaining to Secretary and Chief
> Accounts Officer and s.4(2) pertaining to other
> officers and employees). In this context, please
> note
> that neither suo motu information on DDA website nor
> jurisdictions of designated PIOs, etc, cover the
> Authority, its Advisory Council, Committees or
> Secretary, ie, only the portion of DDA created by
> s.4(2) seems to have been brought into the purview
> of
> RTI Act. This is patently counter-productive, as:
> (a) using RTI for transparency at level of employees
> (who are accountable to the Authority) while leaving
> out the Authority (which is accountable to the
> people)
> is ultimately pointless and also likely to
> exacerbate
> conflicts, which is contrary to RTI Act purpose.
> (b) preoccupation with transparency at level of
> employees may well be at cost of oversight of drift
> from statutory mandate at level of the Authority
> (such
> as suggested by news reports of Authority meeting on
> 19.10.05), which is deleterious in terms of DD Act
> imperatives.
> ---------------------
> I urge review of PIO jurisdictions so as to cover
> the
> whole Authority for consistency with RTI Act purpose
> and harmony with DD Act imperatives.
> ---------------------
>
> If DoPT, involved in general modalities for RTI Act,
> is not running agency-specific programs u/s.26(1)
> and/or DDA officials who qualified DoPT
> Training-of-Trainers are inclined to conduct one, I
> would like to offer support. Please note I am not
> short of work and am making this offer because I
> consider it my responsibility in view of my unusual
> qualifications and experience. I qualified both DTS
> and DoT programs of DoPT and have ample DoT (Design
> of
> Training) experience. As a qualified researcher I am
> interested in use and politics of information and
> currently exploring the architecture of RTI Act. As
> a
> qualified planner engaging on Delhi Master Plan
> issues
> I have a thorough understanding of DD Act.
> ---------------------
> If DDA has any use of my support for streamlining
> initiatives u/s.26(1), it is on offer for purposes
> of
> DD Act to which I am wholeheartedly committed as a
> planner.
> ---------------------
>
> In case you find all of the above unworthy of your
> consideration, then please provide me reasonable
> assistance u/s.5(3) of RTI Act to frame as requests
> u/s.6, in a manner consistent with your
> responsibilities under RTI Act and DD Act, my doubts
> about the agenda of the Authority meeting on
> 19.10.05,
> expressed in my letter to LG endorsed to you, text
> of
> which is below.
>
> Yours sincerely
> Gita Dewan Verma, Planner
> 1356, DI Vasant Kunj, New Delhi - 110070
> email: mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx
>
> cc: Hon'ble LG (DDA Chairman & Competent Authority
> for
> RTI Act, 2005)
> cc: mpisgmedia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> ===letter dated & dispatched by courier on
> 24/10/05===
>
> Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor of NCT Delhi
> (DDA Chairman & Competent authority for RTI Act,
> 2005)
>
> Sub: DMP-2021 Public Notice & implementation of RTI
> Act, 2005, in DDA
> Ref: News reports of Authority meeting on 19.10.05
>
> Respected Sir,
>
> >From news reports it appears DMP2021 Public Notice
> process (in which hearings on objections/suggestions
> started on 03.10.05) and Right To Information Act,
> 2005 (which came fully in force on 12.10.05) were
> not
> on agenda of the Authority meeting on 19.10.05.
>
> 1. Apropos DMP2021 Public Notice, permit me to urge
> that at the moment this is the prime responsibility
> of
> the Authority that exists only for purposes of DD
> Act
> (s.3) with sole object of promoting and securing
> development of Delhi according to plan (s.6).
> Further,
> Rules require consideration / disposal of responses
> by
> a Board of Enquiry and Hearing drawn exclusively
> from
> the Authority and its Advisory Council. This does
> prevent the Authority from considering / deciding
> the
> same issues on its own. Regrettably, all three major
> agenda items reportedly considered / decided on
> 19.10.05 - viz, further land acquisition for Games
> Village on the riverbed, private participation in
> housing approved in principle in July, and disposal
> policy/rates for institutional land and schools -
> relate to DMP2021 proposals and are pending disposal
> of its Public Notice. (I am aggrieved by all three
> on
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com