To, The Public Information officer & chief Municipal officer Municipal Corporation, Mandsour

Sub- This is with respect to your reply letter dated 10/01/2013 for the RTI application dated 13/12/12 In your reply letter dated 10/01/2013 you have cited the following reasons for not providing the information sought. That the RTI application was not signed by the information seeker. That the information seeker has sought information under more than one head. That your office does not have the requisite information sought by information seeker. That information sought affects the right to privacy of person concerned.

But to my disappointment reasons given by you denotes a very shallow understanding of the RTI Act. You have not provided the information which you are bound to furnish under the RTI Act and in this way you have miserably failed in your duty of providing the information. Reasons furnished by you are not in accordance with the sections of RTI Act, 2005. That the RTI application was not signed by the information seeker :

This reason given by you is one of the most foolish reasons one would ever come across because there is no section in the RTI Act which requires the information seeker to sign the application. All which is required under section 6 (1) is an application made in writing and prescribed fee and that requirement has been dully fulfilled by the information seeker thus you have given an unreasonable reason which is not backed by the law of the subject. That the information seeker has sought information under more than one head :

Again to my disappointment, despite being the Public Information officer you are not well versed with the sections of the RTI Act, 2005. Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005 is the only section which provides exemption clause i.e. situations where public information officer is not bound to furnish the information due to certain circumstances and the reason given by you does not come under any clause of section 8 and thus you have wrongfully denied the information to the information seeker. And though your job is of felicitating the free flow of information you are being an impediment in free flow of information which is my right as the citizen of a democratic nation. That your office does not have the requisite information sought by information seeker :

Your kind attention is invited to the section 6 (3) of the Act which reads as follows

Where an application is made to a public authority requesting for an information,(i) which is held by another public authority; or (ii) the subject matter of which is more closely connected with the functions of another public authority, the public authority, to which such application is made, shall transfer the application or such part of it as may be appropriate to that other public authority and inform the applicant immediately about such transfer: Provided that the transfer of an application pursuant to this subsection shall be made as soon as practicable but in no case later than five days from the date of receipt of the application. Even the Plain reading of the section given above unambiguously lays down that it was your legislative duty to transfer my application to the appropriate public authority within 5 days and again u have failed in your duty of felicitating the free flow of information.

That information sought affects the right to privacy of person concerned :

Your kind attention is invited to the section 8 (1) (j) of The RTI Act, 2005 it reads as follows (j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Cursory perusal of section 8 (1) (j) clearly lays down that this section comes into picture when there is an unwarranted intrusion of the privacy of an individual and in the present scenario information sought does not cause an unwarranted intrusion on the privacy of an individual and thus u have wrongfully denied the information sought and further the section reads that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person and thus information sought by information must have been provided.

The legislative intent behind the RTI Act was to set a regime of free flow of information but because of Public Information officers like you the purpose of the act has been defeated. I request you to consider my reply and provide the information otherwise I will have to go to the appellate authority and central information commission. Since you have neither provided the information nor followed your duty as public information officer I urge you last time to correct your mistake by providing the information.