Following things should be noted in respect of this article.
NOTE: U/s 32 of the MCS Act, 1960, “restrictions” are already in place for providing information about its own members to other members in the same Society, leave aside providing information to non-members (means the Public). The provisions of the RTI Act, would not be able to supersede the established “autonomous provisions” of the MCS Act, and on the contrary would be contrary to the established provisions of the MCS Act.
Answer-->22. Act to have overriding effect.—The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.
Scores of Coop. Society members and related activists are being mislead by some self-glorifiers, that the office-bearer of a Coop. Society, has become a “Public authority" u/s 2(h), just simply because now the Coop. Society has become a “self government established /constituted under the Constitution (97th Amendment) and/or under the State Legislature”, WHEREAS to the contrary, a “Public Authority” can only be a person who is a Public / Govt. servant, which is mandatory. In the case of a Coop. Society, its office-bearers CAN NEVER be classified as a Public / Govt. servant.
Answer-->(h) "public authority" means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted—
(a) by or under the Constitution;
(b) by any other law made by Parliament;
(c) by any other law made by State Legislature;
(d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any—
(i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed;
(ii) non-Government organisation substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the
appropriate Government;
If your conception about public authority is,even for a moment,taken for granted,How can an NGO too come under this provision as it's heads are not paid by the government.Further,the definition itself gives a clear meaning who is a public authority and it nowhere mention that he(public authority)should be on government payment scale.
NOTE: The Gujarat High Court has declared on 22-04-2013, that “Articles 243ZH to 243ZT" of the 97th Constitutional amendment are “ultra vires”. These articles were SPECIFICALLY & SPECIALLY related to the Coop. Society’s. The MCS (Amendment) Ordinance, 2013, of 15-02-2013 is based on Constitution [97th amendment] Act, 2011, making it as infructuous.
Answer-->No high court has power to review any matter which relates to Constitution of India.There is only one Court and that is The Supereme Court of India,which has the power to declare a law constitutional or un-constitutional.Therefore,your reasoning fails here.
a) A Public Authority is mandatorily a Public servant or a Govt. Servant (u/s 20(2) and should necessarily be drawing Salary from the Public coffers.
Answer-->section 20(2) talks about penalties and not about public servant.
b)The senior most officer of the relevant Public /Govt. dept., appoints a competent officer for the "additional" post of "Public Information Officer (PIO)" (u/s 2(l), for the purposes of RTI Act, who is classified as a "State PIO", meaning he works for the particular State of India.
Anwer-->Probably you haven't even read about the apoinment of Central information Commission and State Information Commission. They are appointed by the president on recommendation of prime minister and a minister in council recommended by prime minister.
c) The PIO (u/s 2(l), is mandatorily a Public /Govt. Servant, mandatorily drawing his salary from the Public coffers alongwith the relevant pay benefits, holidays, retirement benefits and so on.
Answer-->No where mentioned.
With so many loopholes in this articles, further views is withheld,deemed fits for the time being.Expect further improvement in this article.
Thanks,
Regards,
