Public Service Guarantee Act and State Information Commissions

Public Service Guarantee Act and State Information Commissions

M.P., Bihar, Punjab, Uttarakhand, Delhi, J & K, UP, Rajasthan, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Himachal Pradesh have implemented Public Service Guarantee Act to guarantee time-bound delivery of services govt offices. Such a law of Central Govt is pending with Standing Committee of  Parliament.

These State Acts guarantee as a matter of right to get delivery of govt services in a time bound method by citizens or else concerned employee is penalized for per day delay beyond stipulated time limit. The citizen is also entitled to compensation in some states.

I am sure State Information Commissions [SIC] being State entities should be within purview of this act. If this is so, RTI applicant should invoke this act to get decisions from SICs in a time frame declared under this act.

I am trying to study some of these State Acts. I am requesting our  members to explore this possibility in their states, where appeals/complaints are lingering with SIC for long time. State Acts would be on website of State Govt or can be googled.

Feed back and experience of members will be useful to other members also.

11-08-2012

http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/100648-public-service-guarantee-act-state-information-commissions.html

NON-COMPLIANCE OF ORDERS OF CIC/SIC –Administrative Remedy

Of late defiance of orders of Information Commissioners has become rampant. The only remedy with the information seeker is to lodge complaint with Chief Information Commissioner, who routinely issues another order for compliance that too after a delay ranging from 6 to 36 months depending upon efficiency and pendency of CIC/SIC. Commissions hardly invoke powers of Civil Court vested in it u/s 18.3 to ensure speedy compliance of its own orders.

Hence I suggest that if after two months of filing complaint of non-compliance [with copy to PIO, FAA and Head of public authority],  as suggested in my separate article posted at https://www.box.com/s/b090a6cf8b4ee6d52e11, you do not get information or compliance, please send letter as per following link, after making suitable changes to suit your case. It may sensitize the machinery.

It is to be addressed to Chief /Principal Secretary heading ministry at Delhi under which public authority works for central govt information. In case of state govt information it should be addressed to Chief/Principal Secretary of the Department which oversees department of SPIO/PIO. Details are available on website of Ministry or Department. 

Draft of Letter is at:
https://www.box.com/s/af7520eaaf9f084ceafd

10-08-2012

FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP UNDER RTI ACT 2005

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

FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP UNDER RTI ACT 2005

One of the reasons for declining information is fiduciary relationship.

Section 8.1.e of RTI Act 2005 reads as under:

“Information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants disclosure of such information”

Black’s Law Dictionary describes a fiduciary relationship as “one founded on trust or confidence reposed by one person in the integrity and fidelity of another.”

To qualify for information as held under fiduciary relationship, it should have following ingredients:

1. Information should have been given to public authority voluntarily by the giver of information. Giver must have choice whether to give or not and to whom it should be given.

2. Information should not have been given to public authority under compulsion or compliance of any law or rule.

3. Information should have been given to public authority for using it for the benefit of its giver.

4. Information should have been given in utmost trust, confidence and faith by giver in the receiving public authority.

Some of the examples of fiduciary relationship are:

Litigant-lawyer, patient-doctor, investor-financial advisor, client-bank, beneficiary-trustee, ward-guardian, attorney-principal, director-shareholder parent-child, insured-insurer etc

Following information held by public authority of third party cannot be said to be held in fiduciary relationship if:

A] It is given to public authority under compliance of any law or rule [e.g. Income Tax Act, customs act, VAT, etc].

B] Giver has no choice but to give information to public authority.

C] Information is not given voluntarily by giver to public authority.

D] Information was not to be used for the benefit of giver by public authority.

E] information is not given in trust, confidence and faith in public authority.

E] it is in larger public interest to disclose, even if held under fiduciary relationship.

Important CIC decisions & judgements on fiduciary relationship:

i] CIC/AT/A/2008/01238 dated 07-06-2010

ii] CIC/SM/A/2010/001634/SG/14617 dated 15-09-2011

iii] CIC/SM/A/2011/001376/SG/15684 dated 15-11-2011

iv] Judgement dated 30-08-2010 of High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in

WP(C).No. 6532 of 2006(C) -1. TREESA IRISH, W/O.MILTON LOPEZ                         Vs CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER

v] Judgement of Full Bench of High Court of Delhi, in Secretary General Supreme Court of India V Subhash Chandra Agarwal, L.P.A. No. 501/2009.

The above material can be used in first or second appeal.

07-08-2012

SAVE ON MEDICINES

Medicines are prescribed by doctors by brand name & not by the generics (Ingredients). Hence we end up paying more money for the same medicine. Follow these few steps to know more & start saving on your medical bills.
 

1. Log on to www.medguideindia.com

2. Click on 'Drugs'

3. Click on 'Brand'

4. Type the brand name which you are using (e. g. Metocard XL (50 mg). The site will also help you with drop down menu) & Click on 'Search'

5. Click on 'Generics'. It will display the ingredients of the tablet.

6. Click on 'matched brands'

7. Don't be surprised to see that same drug is available at very low cost also. And that to by other reputed manufacturer. e. g. Metocard XL 50 is for Rs. 62.00 & same drug by Cipla (Mepol) is available ONLY @ Rs. 7.00.

Language of Reply under RTI

Available also at :https://www.box.com/s/ab03d7ae691295c6c5ed

RTI applicants face problem of language of reply, specially if information is sought from other states. I had sought information from BBMP [municipal corporation] Bengaluru and had requested that information be supplied in English. However, I received reply in Kannada and I had to email to my relative to translate it. I append below relevant extract from judgment of High Court of Uttarakhand.

I infer that information supplied in language which the applicant does not understand is no information. PIO should supply either in English, Hindi or State language of PIO as per choice of applicant.

Recently, in Gujarat entire land acquisition process was declared invalid because notices were published in Gujarati newspapers, but notices were in Hindi which most of the affected farmers do not understand.

I hope this will be useful to applicants.

Extract:

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

WRIT PETITION NO. 2130 OF 2009 (MS)

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand

Versus

Uttarakhand State Information Commission & Others

Decision dated 27-03-2010

“It is a common misconception prevailing even today that information must be given to citizens only when it is asked. This is not the case. Most of the information has to be given by the public authority, suo motu, under Section 4 of the Act which has to be periodically updated by various means of communications, including internet so that the public should have a minimum resort to the use of this Act for obtaining information. In other words the endeavour of the public authority should be such that the information should be readily available to citizens by available means of communication, including internet and the other means so that they may not have to request for information under Section 6 of the Act. Under Section 6 of the Act only a formal request has to be made in writing to the public information officer of a public authority which is duty bound to furnish the information within a period of one month. All the same, before one resorts to Section 6 most of the information concerning the public authority has to be disseminated to public in a manner, “which is easily accessible to the public”.

Now the intention of Legislature is absolutely clear from the unambiguous composition of the language of the statute, referred above. An information must be given to a citizen in the language, which he understands. It is the legislative mandate that “information” must be disseminated considering, inter alia, the “local language” ………… [Emphasis added]

A public authority should facilitate in the easy distribution of information to a citizen. The provisions of the Right to Information Act read in the light of the Constitution of India as well as the Consumer Protection Act speak loud and clear that in the present case, State Consume Commission was duty bound to furnish a translated copy of its judgment/order once such a requisition was made to it.

The approach of the Consumer Commission, however, was patently wrong. Not only was it in violation of sub-sections (3) and (4) to Section 4 of the Act the approach of the petitioner defeats the objects and goals for which the Right to Information Act was enacted. It is elementary that the language of the State being Hindi not only the information was liable to be given to respondent no. 3 in Hindi but more particularly when such an information was sought in Hindi, it was even more necessary for the Consumer Commission to have translated its order in Hindi and supplied the copy to the applicant.”

10072012________________________________________________________