Galgali received the award yesterday from Pune-based Sajag Nagrik Manch (Alert Citizens Forum) for his contribution in the field of RTI.
"I am going to hand over this amount to the 'Naam Foundation' which is doing excellent job to help the drought-affected people," Galgali told PTI.
On the occasion, another RTI activist Nikhil Dey said Right to Information is the need of the hour.
Nayak said Rule 5(2)(iv) does not follow the lowest
Also Read
benchmark for fee rates set by the Central RTI Rules as well as those of Uttarakhand and other states with regard to inspection of records.
"Rule 7(8) does not provide for search procedures to be initiated by the Commission when a public authority claims that records are missing," he said.
Nayak said these Rules do not differentiate between APL and BPL RTI applicants.
"Rule 4(5) is also against the spirit of the RTI Act where a PIO is not required to transfer an RTI application to more than one public authority under Section 6(3) of the Act... A Full Bench of the CIC went a step further and ruled in a case that where PIOs of multiple public authorities have official email ids, the RTI application can be transferred to all of them at the click of a button instead of following the DoPT's suggested route," he said.
The objections have been supported by Commodore (Retd) Lokesh Batra and UP-based activist Urvashi Sharma.
Sharma said the rules allow an RTI applicant to take back his plea, stop all the proceedings after the death of an applicant, besides take back order of penalising an erring PIO which will open floodgates of threats and abuses aimed at the applicants.