Date:
15-06-2014 By
email & post
To,
Chief
Information Commissioner,
Central
Information Commission,
August
Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place
New
Delhi110066
Email:
rajiv.mathur@nic.in
Respected
Sir,
Subject: Decisions No. CIC/AD/A/2013/000873SA, CIC/AD/A/2013/000874SA
And
CIC/AD/A/2013/000875SA all dated 10-06-2014
As part of social audit and citizen participation in
governance, I happened to peruse captioned decisions. With a view to improve
quality of decisions and making RTI effective and user-friendly, I respectfully
point out following infirmities in the said decision:
2.
The appellant was made to visit FAA FIVE TIMES for hearing. Ld. IC has
expressed his displeasure over such attitude of FAA and rendered few advices. He
has avoided even summoning FAA for explaining why disciplinary action against
FAA should not be recommended, for avoidable horrible harassment to a common
citizen in terms of time, cost, mental agony and inconvenience of travel etc. In
fact action of FAA amounts to obstructing supply of information, by tiring out
the appellant. Not only FAA has thus trivialized RTI, Ld. IC has sent wrong
signals, as if public servants have right to harass common citizens and enjoy it.
Actual recommending disciplinary action was second step after considering
explanation of FAA.
3.
FAA should be facilitator of supply of information under RTI Act, while his
acts as above were blatant transgression of letter and spirit of RTI. It manifests
his negative and malafide attitude towards RTI. Action of FAA was not only in
violation of RTI Act but also lacked empathy towards common citizen, who was
made to beg for information. This act must be in violation of service rules of
FAA. Ld. IC has lightly taken mockery of RTI by FAA, while it affects
fundamental right of citizen in a democratic country where citizen is the king.
Act of FAA is against principle of good governance, as conceptualized by
Hon’ble Prime Minister.
4.
I append below few decisions of CIC which should have been taken into
consideration as precedent by Ld. IC, pursuant
to 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/SG/A/2010/001352/8407 dated 05-07-2010 ,
CIC/SG/A/2010/000085/6895Adjunct dated 05-07-2010
CIC/AT/A/2008/00290 dated 17-07-2008
CIC/AD/A/2010/000952 dated 18-08- 2010
CIC/AT/A/2010/000451 dated, the 18-11-
2010 [SBI]
CIC/DS/A/2011/000220 dated 12-05-2011
CIC/AT/A/2007/01502 dated 24-10-2008 [LIC]
CIC/SM/C/2011/000867 dated 02-08-2011 ,
CIC/SM/C/2011/000863 dated 02-08-2011 ,
CIC/SM/C/2011/000873 dated 02-08-2011 ,
CIC/AD/C/2011/001744 dated 13-01-2012 [Railway board] CIC/DS/A/2013/000593
dated 17-09-2013
There are many such orders of CIC and
also of some SICs [like Gujarat , Punjab
etc] which have passed orders making FAA accountable for breach of duties
clamped on him under RTI Act.
5. I also append extracts from judgement of Higher
Judiciary and you can vet said decision in light thereof:
a]
“A citizen is not expected to
indulge in futile litigation and endless chase in overcoming technical hurdles
and obstacles for seeking information. Public authorities are not obliging him
by giving him information because the rule of the day is transparency,
accountability in public dealing and public affairs and in relation to public
fund. --- Hon’ble High Court of Bombay 30-11-2010
b]
“1. People in power and authority should not easily lose equanimity, composure
and appreciation for the problems of the lesser mortals. They are always
expected to remember that power and authority must be judiciously exercised
according to the laws and human compassion. Arrogance and vanity have no place
in discharge of their official functions and duties. ” -Supreme Court on 18-02-2010 in Civil Appeal Nos. 1429-1430 of 2010
c]
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,
d]….…..”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 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”. --Supreme Court on 05-11-1993 in Lucknow
6.
While appellant was present, no one was present for respondent or his CPIO or
FAA for hearing by Ld. IC. One can imagine public image of CIC in public
authorities that a SDM level officer does not respect CIC. Ld. IC too did not
comment on such absence in his decision nor sought explanation for absence,
while presence is mandatory for CPIO or his representative in hearing at CIC.
Such soft corner has emboldened govt officers to trivialize RTI and to laugh at
ICs, at the cost of information seekers.
7.
Ld. IC has also made supply of document copies on payment of charges, though
appellant will be getting it after nearly 18 months of his filing RTI.
8.
While you are first among equals, you can at least use your good offices to
ensure that RTI applicants/appellants are not harassed by CPIOs and FAAs and
that ICs do not indirectly support such acts in their decisions, which will
embolden other FAAs to frustrate appellant by making him make rounds and rounds
of FAA without accountability to none.
No comments:
Post a Comment