Date:
31-07-2014 By
email
To,
Chief
Information Commissioner,
Central
Information Commission,
New
Delhi110066
Email:
rajiv.mathur@nic.in
Respected
Sir,
Subject:
Decision No. CIC/AD/A/2013/000377/VS/07408 Dated 30-07-2014 ---Rameshwar
Ram, v/s Ministry of Railways
As
part of social audit and citizen participation in governance, I happened to
peruse captioned decision. Ld.
IC has declined supply of copies of 144 caste certificates based on section 7.9
of RTI Act. 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:
01. As per section 7.1 of RTI Act,
information can be declined only under section 8 or 9 of RTI Act, while Ld. IC
has used section 7.9 to deny information.
02. I am attaching a write –up on
section 7.9, contents of which will substantiate that the captioned decision is
not in consistence with RTI Act.
03. The applicant has not sought caste
certificates in any other form than what is available on record.
04. Administrative difficulties for
supply of 144 caste certificates cannot be reason for denial. [Ref: Judgement
dated 07-01-2010 of Hon’ble High court of Madras in W.P.NO.20372 of 2009 and
M.P.NO.1 OF 2009].
05. CPIO was already having list of
144 employees who has submitted caste certificates and hence getting files
would not be much time consuming for his staff. He had 30 days time to get
photocopies [i.e.5 copies per day]. This could have been done in less than 6
hours of sincere working by a clerk of CPIO office.
06. This decision violates following
decisions of CIC and hence principle of precedence is breached:
CIC/SS/A/2012/001370 dated 29.04.2013
CIC/SS/A/2013/000829 dated 15-10-2013
4221/IC(A)/2009- F.
No.CIC/MA/C/2009/000195 dated 24-07-2009
CIC/SM/A/2010/001028 dated 30-05-2011
CIC/SM/A/2013/000218 dated 18-06-2013
and also CIC decisions and court
judgements mentioned in attached write-up
Thus there is procedural deficiency
since previous decisions were not taken into account
07. The captioned decision also
violates following judgements:
a. Judgement dated
12-12-2011 of HIGH COURT OF DELHI in
LPA 797/2011 -UPSC v/s N
SUGATHAN covering other three writs on the same issue.
b.
Judgement dated 23-04-2013 of HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND in Writ Petition
No.1814 of 2006 (M/S) -Uttaranchal Public
Service Commission Vs. CIC.
c. Judgement dated
04-03-2013 of Punjab & Haryana High Court in CWP No.4239 of 2013 (O&M)
- Vijay Dheer vs State Information Commission,
Thus there is procedural deficiency
since previous court judgements were not taken into account by Ld. IC
08. Disclosure of certificates and
documents is in larger public interest, since very large number of cases
have come to light where candidates have sought appointments on the basis of
fake or forged documents and certificates. Scrutiny of genuineness cannot be
left to govt. officers only. Alert citizens can also check veracity of certificates
and documents if supplied under RTI. This will serve larger public interest
which over-rides private interest and privacy of recruited employee. I quote
from judgement quoted at 7.c supra:
“…….A part of
information/documents sought by the complainant, relates to the mode of
appointment/promotion of a person on a public post, therefore, Information / documents
to that extent fall under the domain of larger public interest. The documents
on the basis of which a person has sought an appointment in a public office
becomes the documents of larger public interest."
09. It is not in consonance with
preamble and legislative intent of RTI Act. It has resulted in gross
miscarriage of justice and public welfare. It supports wrong doers at the cost
of law abiding public, specially when media is exposing large scale submission
of fake caste certificates to grab govt jobs. This decision is encouraging bad
governance where public scrutiny is obstructed.
10. In this case worst come worst,
inspection should have been allowed, so that the appellant could select few of
caste certificates for supply of photocopy.
In that case peon of CPIO could have given 144 files to appellant for
inspection. Ld IC could have ordered supply of at least 50 photocopies out of
144, if he came to the conclusion that 144 certificates will divert resources
disproportionately. Appellant would have sought remaining certificates by
filing separate RTIs in the batch of 25-30 certificates, since he was already
having list of such candidates.
11. The decision lacks reasoning
and justifications for arriving at the decision to deny information u/s
7.9. There appears to be no meaningful application of mind. Importance of
reasons has been repeatedly hammered by higher judiciary and without reasons,
orders are nullity as being arbitrary and subjective. Thus there is procedural
infirmity on the part of Ld IC.
12. It appears that appellant is
employee of Public Authority. Hence he must be in know of fake certificates and
wanted to substantiate his unconfirmed information, before lodging complaint
with appropriate authority. Thus he was doing national service by exposing
those who have grabbed govt jobs belonging to reserved categories on the basis
of fake caste certificates.
13. The order trivializes
fundamental right of a citizen guaranteed under Constitution.
I have locus standi in this case,
since my future requests will be denied on the basis of this decision, as
precedence. Candidates recruited based on fake or forged certificates and
documents would give rise to bad governance, which may affect many citizens
including me. Thus I am affected person like any other citizen who has to be
served by public servants.
In case review is not possible, you
may use your position as first among equals and ensure that such decisions are
not taken in future at least.
I am sure, Ld. IC, keeping in view his
stature, legal qualifications and background, would not like to take
disadvantage of inability of common appellants to approach High Courts against
defective decisions, due to financial, time and expertise constraints. Each
decision of CIC is costing nearly 18-20000/- to tax payers and poorest of the
poor also pays indirect taxes while buying food. If challenged, such
defective decisions of CIC further aggravate pendency of already overburdened
higher judiciary.
I humbly quote:
“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.
---
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY [Shikshan Prasarak Mandali vs. Maharashtra SIC & ors.
Writ petition decided on 18.10.2012] [Citation: RTIR I (2013) 234 (Bombay)]
Copy of above decision is enclosed
with write-up on section 7.9
Yours faithfully,
J. P. Shah
-Kindly cogitate for future decisions
in the interest of RTI.
No comments:
Post a Comment