Sunday, February 24, 2013

Social Audit Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/001832/VS/02124 dated 13-02-2013


Date: 24-02-2013                                                                                By email



To,
Shri Vijai Sharma,
Information Commissioner
Central Information Commission,
Club Building, Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi-110067
Email: vijai.sharma@nic.in

Respected Sir,

Subject: Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/001832/VS/02124 dated 13-02-2013
– SOCIAL AUDIT

This bears reference to your captioned decision, copy of which is attached herewith.

2. You have not ordered for tracing 19 year old file since it will disproportionately divert resources of the bank.

3. I humbly point out that your decision suffers from following infirmities:

a] You have not reasoned out how and why you came to the conclusion not to interfere, thereby violating judgement dated 08-09-2010 of Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Kranti Associates Pvt Ltd. & Anr Versus Sh. Masood Ahmed Khan & Others.  

b] Bank was duty bound to properly maintain its old record [section 4.1.a] at least after 7 years of enactment of RTI Act.  Even when amalgamation takes place in very large banks, record is meticulously transferred to transferee banks, while in this case it is a small gramin [rural] bank.

c] You could have ordered to provide notarized affidavit by CPIO to the effect that file is not traceable despite best efforts. There are many such decisions of CIC in past. You may refer recent decision No. CIC/AD/A/2012/002463 dated 20-02-2013 also.

d] Tracking one 19 year old file in a bank does not in any way divert disproportionately its resources, when compared to total annual expenses of the bank, especially when fundamental right of a common applicant is at stake. It may cost maximum 3-4 hour salary of a peon which may not be more than Rs.200/- to Rs.300/-.

e] You have deprived information to the applicant for the inefficient management of record by bank. Please peruse section 4.1.a of RTI Act. Thus you have favoured violator of RTI Act at the cost of common citizen.

f] Even when CPIO offered to make efforts to locate the record, you did not agree for it. This is very surprising as to who wants to deprive information.

g] CPIO did not plead disproportionate diversion of resources, but you cooked it up for him. This is not expected of an IC of your stature, experience and qualification.

h] The decision appears to indicate superficial application of mind and biased against appellant, thus killing RTI in its letter and spirit, while common man considers ICs as guardians of RTI of citizens.

i] The decision is administrative in nature and not quasi judicial.

j] Your decision will be a bad precedence, since old records [some IC may consider even 5-10 year old record also as old record] will be out of bound of RTI Act.

4. I am also enclosing note on section 7.9 [disproportionate diversion of resources] covering various CIC decisions and Court judgements. It does not entitle CPIO or IC to deny the information on this ground.

5. I am sure you do not intend to exploit inability of the individual appellant to move High Court, while passing such decisions, because of his financial constraints and lack of expertise etc.

6. This feedback may please be treated as part of social audit and public participation with a view to improve decisions and effectiveness of CIC and RTI for common citizen.

Yours faithfully,
J. P. Shah
Encl: a/a

Copy to:
Chief Information Commissioner, Central Information Commission,
New Delhi -110 066  Email: s.mishra@nic.in
--If such decisions are not checked, other Information Commissioners at CIC and SICs would be tempted to replicate it. You may order review to correct deficiency and repetition.