Wednesday, May 26, 2010

TRANSFER OF APPLICATION WITHIN PUBLIC AUTHORITY

Applicants are facing a situation when PIO transfers application to other PIO within the same public authority and advises applicant to collect the same from that PIO.

Under these circumstances, while filing first appeal following paragraphs should be quoted.

A] As per sub sections 4 and 5 of section 5 of RTI Act PIO to whom application is submitted is duty bound to collect information from any source within the public authority and to supply to the applicant. Transfer of RTI application within public authority is against provisions of RTI Act.

B] PIO has also violated directives issued by Government of India
Department of Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi as contained in its notification No.1/14/2008-IR dated 28-07-08, which deals with transfer of applications.

C] CIC has been quoted as under in judgement pronounced on 02.09.2009 by HIGH COURT OF DELHI in W.P. (C) 288/2009
CPIO, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, versus
SUBHASH CHANDRA AGARWAL & ANR [Judges’ assets case]

“23. In view of this, the question of transferring an application under Section 6(3) of the Right to Information Act by the CPIO of the Supreme Court cannot arise. It is the duty of the CPIO to obtain the information that is held by or available with the public authority. Each of the sections or department of a public Authority cannot be treated as a separate or distinct public authority. If any information is available with one section or the department, it shall be deemed to be available with the Public Authority as one single entity CPIO cannot take a view contrary to this.”

Note: I will not advise filing of first appeal, if you get proper information even when application is wrongly transferred. Above paragraphs can be highlighted only when filing first/second appeal for non-receipt of reply or incomplete reply.

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

NOTICE UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT FOR RTI ACT

From:
Name:
Address:
Cell No.
Email ID
_____________________________________________________________

Date: __________

by regd ad post & Email

To,
1. Head of Public Authority and his address

and

2. SPIO/CPIO and his address

Dear Sirs,

Subject: NOTICE UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 1986 and SEC 80 OF CPC

I had sought certain information from SPIO/CPIO of your public authority under The Right to Information Act 2005 vide my RTI application dated __________ [copy enclosed with proof of mailing or receipt].

2. I have not received reply from SPIO/CPIO within period mandated in RTI Act 2005.

OR

Since I did not get reply within stipulated time I filed first appeal dated ______. Copy of appeal is enclosed with proof of its mailing or receipt.

OR

I have received reply vide letter No. __________ dated ______ [copy attached] and it has following deficiencies:

A] Reply is delayed beyond stipulated time limit under RTI Act

B]

3. The foregoing amounts to deficiency in service and / or supply of defective, incomplete, irrelevant, wrong, misleading information under Consumer Protection Act 1986. This also leads to violation of Human Rights as defined by United Nations Declaration.

4. I humbly add that Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi has in revision petition No. 1975 [in appeal No. 244/04 relating to complaint of Dr. S.P Thirumala Rao v/s Municipal Commissioner, Mysore] has decided on 28-05-2009 that applicant under RTI Act is a consumer under The Consumer Protection Act 1986.

5. Other District Consumer Forums [ Guntur, Nagpur, Faridkot, Vizainagaram, Medhak, Coimbatore etc] have also ordered supply of information under RTI Act and ordered payment of compensation to applicants.

6. Before I proceed further, I request you to kindly supply or cause to be supplied proper information sought by me immediately and also pay me an amount of Rs.50000/-[Rs. fifty thousand only], towards damages, compensation, cost, inconvenience, mental agony and tension and breach of my fundamental rights under article 19.1.a of Constitution of India, etc latest within 60 days from the date hereof.

7.In addition to above, I request you to please initiate departmental action against erring officers of your public authority for defiance of law, dereliction of duties and infringement of fundamental rights of common Indian guaranteed under article 19.1.a, under service rules of your organization, under advice to me.

8. As Head of public authority, you should not tolerate such bluntant violation of laws passed by Parliament, which will again amount to abetment of violation of laws of the country and rule of law on your part.

9. Please note that this notice and proposed complaint as above are exclusively at your risk, cost, responsibility and consequences and without prejudice to writ which I may file in Hon’ble High Court under article 226 of the Constitution for violation of my fundamental rights.

10. I quote for your information:

a. In Lucknow Development Authority V/S M .K. Gupta the Apex Court held that when public servants by malafide, oppressive and capricious acts in performance of official duty causes injustice harassment and agony to common man, renders the State or its instrumentality liable to pay damages to the person aggrieved. And the State or its instrumentality is duty bound to recover the amount of compensation so paid from the public servant concerned. (1994) 1 SCC 24,

b. “If civilisation is not to perish in this country as it has perished in some others too well known to suffer mention, it is necessary to educate ourselves into accepting that, respect for the rights of individuals is the true bastion of democracy. Therefore, the State must repair the damage done by its officers to the petitioner's rights. It may have recourse against those officers."- HON’BLE Supreme Court in Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar (1983) 4 SCC 141

I am sure you both will not dare to defy above averments of Hon’ble Supreme Court, which can have serious personal repercussions.

11. This notice may also be treated as notice under section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code and be directed to appropriate authority of Govt.

Yours faithfully,


[ __________]

Encls: as above

Copies by Regd AD and email to

2. FAA [only if first appeal is already filed]


This is a proforma draft and should be amended to suit individual case.

You can issue this notice. There is no need of advocate for it.

Please also visit:

NCDRC decision:
http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/00RP197505.html

Additional Remedy
http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/blogs/jps50/719-additional-remedy-information-seekers.html

Consumer complaint draft and guide
http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/blogs/jps50/2114-consumer-complaint-rti.html

All the best.

Sunday, May 23, 2010

PROCEDURAL DEFICIENCIES

PROCEDURAL DEFICIENCIES

I find that CIC/SICs are returning appeals/complaints on small procedural deficiencies. I append below extracts from judgements on procedural deficiencies, as mentioned by hon’ble Supreme Court of India. This can be used by members while representing to Chief IC:



a) “A procedural law is always in aid of justice, not in contradiction or to defeat the very object which is sought to be achieved”. [ Saiyad Mohd. V Abdulhabib, (1988) 4 SCC 343]

b) “A Party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure. The Rules of Procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the Administration of Justice and they must therefore be construed liberally and in such manner as to render the enforcement of substantive rights effective”. [Ram Manohar Lal Vs NBM Supply, AIR 1969 [17-03-1969 SC]

c) “Common sense should not be kept in the cold storage when pleadings are construed. Parties win or lose on substantial questions, not on technical tortures and Courts cannot be "abettors". [Noronha V Prem Kumari, AIR 1980.]

d) “Every venial defect or error not going to the root of the matter cannot be allowed to defeat justice or afford an excuse to the Government or a Public Officer to deny just claim”. [Jones V Nicholls, (1844) 13 M & W 361.]

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

ACPIO/CPIO OF BANKS

Following banks have appointed their branch heads as ACPIO for RTI applications and appeals:

State Bank of India, Bank of India, Dena Bank, Canara Bank, Andhra Bank, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Central Bank of India, Punjab National Bank, State Bank of Travancore, State Bank of Mysore, State Bank of Hyderabad, Reserve Bank of India. IDBI Bank,
State Bank of Indore.

Following banks have ACPIO/CPIO at Regional Office or Zonal Office or Circle Office:

Union Bank of India, United Bank of India, Syndicate Bank, Bank of Baroda, UCO Bank, Punjab & Sind Bank, State Bank of Patiala, Indian Bank, Corporation Bank, Bank of Maharashtra, Allahabad Bank. Vijaya Bank.

Appellate Authorities are at Head Office or Zonal/Circle level.

NOTE: Central Information Commission in decision dated 15-12-2009 under file No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000187, has sought explanation of branch head for delay in forwarding RTI application to CPIO, even when branch head was not designated as ACPIO.

IMPORTANT NOTE FOR RTI APPLICATIONS AND APPEALS

NOTE TO BE INCLUDED IN ALL RTI APPLICATIONS AND APPEALS FOR PROPER COMPLIANCE OF RTI ACT 2005

For your kind information, I add that in addition to RTI Act 2005, I can proceed against public authority and its officers under The Consumer Protection Act 1986 as decided by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi on 28-05-2009, in REVISION PETITION NO. 1975 OF 2005 in complaint filed by Dr. S. P. Thirumala Rao against Municipal Commissioner, Mysore City Municipal Corporation, Mysore.