Date: 24-02-2013 By
email
To,
Shri Vijai Sharma,
Information Commissioner
Central Information Commission,
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,
--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.
No comments:
Post a Comment