Sunday, June 01, 2014

SOCIAL AUDIT OF DECISION OF CIC

Date: 30-05-2014                                                                            By email & post

To,
Ms. Manjula Prasher
Information Commissioner
Central Information Commission,
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi110066
Email: m.prasher@nic.in

Hon’ble Madam,

Subject: Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2013/001127/MP Dated 15-05-2014


As part of social audit I happened to peruse your captioned decision. You have upheld non-disclosure of note sent to RBI by respondent bank and instructions issued to internal auditors, under section 8.1.e [fiduciary relationship].

With a view to improve quality of decisions and RTI, I respectfully point out following infirmities in the said decision:

1. The issue pertains to ATM failed transactions where in account is debited but cash is not dispensed at ATM. RBI vide its circular dated              17-07-2009 had mandated that banks should suo moto compensate customer @Rs.100/- per day of delay, if the amount of such transaction is not credited back within 12 [reduced to 7 from 17-05-2011] working days from date of complaint by customer. Massive movement from April 2010 by a senior citizen of Pune has revealed that majority of banks are not paying compensation amount as directed by RBI. This amount is in crores if all banks are put together. There was no reason to take assurance to you of bank officers on face value that RBI directives are followed. Thus this issue is in larger public interest.

2. Instructions by way of circulars to internal auditors cannot be treated as under fiduciary relationship, since such circulars are to be proactively disclosed under section 4.1.b. [v]. Even RBI puts all its circulars on its website.

3. As per RBI instructions, a note is required to be placed before Boards of the Banks and copy is to be sent to RBI on quarterly basis, to enable RBI to monitor the issue. It contains only statistical data on ATM failed transactions and steps taken to ensure that compensation is paid with failed amount of transaction expeditiously. Pune crusader got these notes from RBI pertaining to private banks under section 2f of RTI Act. Many Public Sector Banks also supplied such note to him under RTI directly.

4. Circular and note as above are prepared as part of official duty of bank officers and hence cannot be treated as “voluntarily supplied by third party.”

5.  I have posted a write-up on fiduciary relationship under RTI at following link, perusal of which will convince you about error in said decision:

https://www.box.com/s/21403f11a9319dc332f8


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 your Honour for future decisions. This will avoid wrong precedence by other CPIOs and 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.15000/- 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,
New Delhi - 110 066 Email: rajiv.mathur@nic.in
--If such decisions are not checked, other Information Commissioners at CIC and SICs would be tempted to replicate it as precedence. You may order review to correct defects

No comments:

Post a Comment