Date: 16-10-2013 By
email
To,
Central Information Commissioner
Central Information Commission,
New Delhi-110067
Hon’ble Sir,
Subject: Decision
No. CIC/VS/A/2012/000727/04727
of 12-09-2013-
SOCIAL AUDIT
As part of social audit I happened
to peruse your captioned decision, with a view to improve decisions and RTI. I respectfully
point out following infirmities in the said order:
2. You have upheld decision of FAA
denying information of deposit accounts of her late father under sub-sections
d, e and j of section 8.1 just because amount in the accounts has been paid by
bank to nominee.
3. The applicant is daughter of
deceased account holder and hence as per nomination rules nominee is just a
trustee of the property of deceased [ i. e. bank balance] which nominee has to
receive from bank and then dispose off to heirs of the deceased. He does not
become owner due to nomination. In this case true owner/co-owner [heir] has been
denied information, which may result in her not getting correct share from the
nominee.
4. It would have been appropriate
if information of deposit accounts should have been ordered to be supplied,
subject to her producing satisfactory evidence of her being daughter of
deceased account holder. In fact CPIO has stated to you that she is the
daughter [ref para 4 of decision] of account-holder. Due to non-supply, she is
left at the mercy of nominee who may or may not be heir or even relative of
deceased. Now daughters have equal rights in the properties of parents and
your order has incapacitated her from availing this right.
5. Your decision has contravened
following decisions of CIC itself against principle of precedence [Ref: judgement
dated 01-06-2012 of
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.[C]/11271/2009 –Registrar of Companies v/s
D. K. Garg]:
CIC/SM/A/2009/000187
dated 15-12-2009
CIC/SM/A/2009/000419
dated 15-02-2010
CIC/SM/A/2010/001093
dated 07-06-2011
CIC/SM/A/2011/000571/SG14694
dated 20-09-2011
CIC/DS /C /2011/002566/VS/01891 dated 23-01-2013
CIC/SM/A/2010/001109 dated 31-05-2011
6. Absence of
appellant in hearing casts extra responsibility on IC to empathize with
him/her, so that his/her non-presence does not become reason for injustice.
7. I hope my above feedback will
be cogitated upon by yourgoodselves for future decisions. This will avoid wrong
precedence by other CPIOs and SPIOs to block information against letter and
spirit of RTI Act. Citizens rightly expect correct, unbiased and reasoned
decisions [ref: Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kranti Associates Private Limited and another v.
Masood Ahmed Khan and others, (2010) 9 SCC 496], with total application of
mind from IC of your stature and back-ground. I am also sure that you, as guardian
of RTI of citizens, do not intend to take disadvantage of inability of common
appellants to move High Courts against every defective decision. Each decision
may now be costing nearly Rs.8000/- to Rs.10000/- to public exchequer.
8. May I quote from judgement
dated 05-11-1993 of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY V/s. M.K. GUPTA:
….….. . Harassment of a common man by public
authorities is socially
abhorring and legally
impermissible. It may harm him personally but the injury to society is far more
grievous. Crime and corruption thrive and prosper in the society due to lack of
public resistance. Nothing is more damaging than the feeling of helplessness. An ordinary
citizen instead of
complaining and fighting succumbs to the pressure of undesirable functioning
in offices instead of standing against it. Therefore the award of compensation
for harassment by public
authorities not only compensates
the individual, satisfies him personally but helps in curing social evil. It may result in improving the work culture
and help in changing the outlook.
…… Today the
issue thus is not only
of award of compensation but who
should bear the brunt. ….. The authority empowered to function under a
statute while exercising power
discharges public duty. It has to act to subserve general welfare
and common good. In discharging this duty honestly and
bonafide, loss may accrue to any person. And he may claim compensation which may in circumstances be payable.
But where the duty is performed
capriciously or the exercise of power results in harassment and agony then the
responsibility to pay the loss determined should be whose? In a modern
society no authority can arrogate to itself the power to act in a manner which
is arbitrary. It is unfortunate
that matters which require immediate attention linger on and the
man in the street
is made to run from one end to
other with no result.
The culture of window clearance appears to be totally dead. Even in ordinary matters a common man who has
neither the political backing nor the financial strength to match
the inaction in public oriented departments gets frustrated and it
erodes the credibility in the system.
Public administration, no doubt
involves a vast amount of administrative discretion which shields the
action of administrative authority. But where
it is found that exercise of
discretion was malafide and the complainant is entitled to compensation for
mental and physical harassment then the officer can no more claim to be under
protective cover. When a citizen seeks to recover compensation from
a public authority in respect of injuries suffered by him for capricious exercise of power ………..
[emphasis added]
Yours faithfully,
J. P. Shah
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 defect.
No comments:
Post a Comment