Monday, June 25, 2012

NO PENALTY IMPOSED UNDER RTI?

I have posted revised format at


https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B8UWHOfZJjpdLV9WbnRMaE9GZ00

https://www.box.com/s/303350651589fc1b4e2a

Sunday, June 24, 2012

COURT JUDGEMENTS ON PENATY UNDER RTI


PENALTY UNDER RTI --COURT CASES

WP (C) No.3845/2007
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Pronounced on: 28.04.2009
MUJIBUR REHMAN versus Central Information Commission

12. The Court while considering a complaint about the Tribunal infracting its bounds has to be alive to the fact that primary discretion in such cases is with the statutory Tribunal. At the same time, once it is established that the Tribunal, for no apparent reason, either exceeded its jurisdiction or failed to exercise jurisdiction lawfully vested in it, the High Court would be justified in interfering with its orders.

14. As far as the sixth respondent's contention regarding possible prejudice in his departmental enquiry is concerned, this Court feels that an order under Section 20 would not in any manner come in the way of his defenses, lawfully available to him in such proceedings. The sixth respondent is not denying the findings recorded in the order dated 29.5.2006; in fact he has not even challenged it. The court cannot be unmindful of the circumstances under which the Act was framed, and brought into force. It seeks to foster an "openness culture" among state agencies, and a wider section of "public authorities" whose actions have a significant or lasting impact on the people and their lives. Information seekers are to be furnished what they ask for, unless the Act prohibits disclosure; they are not to be driven away through sheer inaction or filibustering tactics of the public authorities or their officers. It is to ensure these ends that time limits have been prescribed, in absolute terms, as well as penalty provisions. These are meant to ensure a culture of information disclosure so necessary for a robust and functioning democracy.

15. In the above circumstances, Court is of the opinion that the impugned order to the extent it discharges the sixth respondent of the notice under Section 19 (8) and does not impose the penalty sought for has to be declared illegal. In this case, the penalty amount (on account of the delay between 28.12.2005 and the first week of May, 2006 when the information was given) would work out to Rs.25,000/-. The third respondent is hereby directed to deduct the same from the sixth respondent's salary in five equal installments and deposit the amount, with the Commission.

16. In the circumstances of the case, the third respondent shall bear the cost of the proceedings quantified at Rs.50,000/- be paid to the petitioner within six weeks from today.[emphasis added]
_______________________________________________________

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 16.04.2009
 W.P. (C) 6661/2008
U.O.I ..... Petitioner versus
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION &ORS

[Compensation increased from Rs.5000/- to Rs.55000/- by HC]
_____________________________________________________________

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.14161 of 2009
Date of Decision: 10.09.2009

Shaheed Kanshi Ram Memorial College and another
Versus State Information Commission, Punjab and others

As per provisions of the Act, Public Information Officer is supposed to supply correct information that too, in a time bound manner. Once a finding has come that he has not acted in the manner prescribed under the Act, imposition of penalty is perfectly justified.
________________________________________________________________

Writ No. 2272/2007 Ravindranath K Mohite v/s state of Maharashtra
 March 2008 of High Court of Bombay [bench Justice J N Patel and Justice Nishita Mhatre ]- Directorate of Medical Education and Research

– Why penalty not imposed by SIC.
_____________________________________________________

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 588 of 2010 Date of decision January 14, 2010
Khushal Singh V/s Central Information Commission

3. The Right to Information Act ushers in a new era of transparency in the functioning of public offices and the duties of public authorities. We ought to be heading for a situation that many of the information regarding public offices ought not to be required to be demanded to be secured. On the other hand, the information must be forthcoming on their own. Every public institution ought to be running its affairs with a degree of transparency that would instantly evoke public confidence. In this case, there were not merely instances where the delay had been caused that could normally be expected of a public institution to give the  information. On the other hand, the delay had been caused by a deliberate unwillingness to give the information of what they ought to have had. Section 20 of the Act alone provides a reckoning that nothing except  imposition of the penalty would be the consequence for non performance  or delayed performance. The Central Information Commission has passed the order after due consideration of the relevant status and its own conviction that there was an attempt at defiance and delay the process of  securing information process of that the Act makes possible. We have to charter a whole new path of understanding a new paradigm that has been set through this Act. The bureaucratic mindset of lethargy must go; Inertia must give place to quick response; defiance shall be tellingly punished. The penalty enforced is justified and within the confines of what is permissible under Section 20. [emphasis added]
__________________________________________________________

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. NO. 1924 OF 2008, Date of Decision: 8.2.2008
Ramesh Sharma and another v/s
The State Information Commission, Haryana and others
___________________________________________________

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P. (C) 7372/2007 & CM APPL 14017/2007

Decision on: 5th August, 2010
M.K.TYAGI Versus K.L. AHUJA & ANR. .....
{Shri K.L. Ahuja is CPIO, Central Vigilance Commission}

Penalty Rs.22500/- plus compensation Rs.30000/- ordered to be paid to Shri Tyagi, as whiste blower
______________________________________________________________

Saturday, June 23, 2012

NON ACCEPTANCE OF ENVELOPE CONTAINING RTI APPLICATION OR APPEAL BY OFFICE OF PIO OR FAA


Of late, many govt. offices are refusing to accept envelope containing RTI application or appeal under one pretext or other. I suggest following steps:

1. Retain returned envelope and get photocopies of both sides of returned envelope.

2. Lodge complaint u/s 18.1.a to SIC/CIC with copy to PIO and Head of Office or Transparency Officer of public authority, if any designated. Attach photocopies of both sides of returned envelope. Please refer:

HOW TO COMPLAIN U/S 18 [CENTRAL/STATE]

3. Send the contents of returned envelope in another envelope by mentioning only address of that office to which RTI relates, without mentioning PIO/CPIO etc on envelope, so that receiving person does not know that it contains RTI matter. Also send copy of above complaint in the same envelope.

4. In addition to above, after a week you may send copy of complaint by email to SIC/CIC and also head of the office, if email ID is available.

23062012

Saturday, June 16, 2012

HOW TO APPROACH INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN


Also at https://www.box.com/s/8ce7e60e3e02ca045335
                                               
                                                           COMPLAINT PETITION

BEFORE HON’BLE INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN AT __________

Address of Office of Insurance Ombudsman:
_______________________________________________________________

Date: _________                                                                 By Registered Post AD
                                                             
Being aggrieved by no decision/ full or part repudiation of claim, I submit this complaint for kind decision.

01. Name and address of complainant with mobile No. and email ID [if any] :

Mention your details


02. Name and address of Insurance Company with fax/phone/email ID:



03. Details of policy:

Type of Policy _________

No. of policy: __________

Validity from _______ to ________

Policy since: _______ [mention date of commencement of first policy]

04. Details of Claim:

Claim Amount: Rs.__________ [Rs. ___________________________only]

Claim submission date ________

Claim relating to: ________

Claim No. [Allotted by insurance co] if any

05. Cause of Complaint:

[Mention here how claim has been rejected]



06. Submission of Complainant:

[Mention why you think claim should have been paid]

07. Prayers and Relief:

a. Claim of Rs. ________[ in words Rs. __________] be kindly ordered to be paid to complainant with interest at ____ p.a. from  date of lodging claim to date of payment.

b. Compensation of Rs. _____ towards expenses and mental agony be ordered to be paid.

c. Insurance Company be imposed exemplary penalty for improper repudiation, non-conveying decision, delay in conveying decision on claim, violating IRDA directives and not honoring averments of higher judiciary on the matter of such claims.

d. The Hon’ble Insurance Ombudsman be pleased to pass such other orders as deemed fit in the interest of justice, fair play and equity.

08. Declaration:

Complainant hereby states that the information and particulars given above are true to the best of his knowledge and belief. He also declares that this matter is not previously filed with any commission or Court or tribunal or authority.

09. Attachments:

Self attested photocopies of: a] Policy, b] Claim form with its enclosures,   c] All letters of Insurance Co or TPA d] Complaint made to insurance company/TPA by complainant giving 30 days minimum time to settle claim.                      

X
Signature of Complainant

Copy to [without attachments, since same are with it] by Regd AD post:

Branch Office of Insurance Company which issued policy
________________________________________________________________

Guidelines: 1. Please visit http://www.gbic.co.in/notifications.html specially  clauses 13 to 18.  For address etc please visit www.gbic.co.in