Date: 20-01-2013 Happy Republic Day By email
To,
Shri Basant Seth,
Information Commissioner
Central Information Commission,
Club Building, Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi-110067
Email: b.seth@nic.in
Respected Sir,
Subject: Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2012/900133/BS/1683 dated 15-01-2013
– SOCIAL AUDIT
This bears reference to your captioned decision, copy of which is
attached herewith.
2. Transferee CPIO did not reply within time limit, amounting to deemed
denial. You have remanded first appeal to FAA, who has not decided it within time
limit mandated by RTI Act. You have not sought explanation of defaulting CPIO
for penalty nor recommended disciplinary action under service rules against FAA
for dereliction of statutory duties enjoined on them by an act of Parliament.
3. Chronology of entire process is as under:
RTI application filed on 29-09-2011
First Appeal for deemed denial filed on 13-11-2011
Second appeal received by CIC on 23-01-2012
Decided by IC on 15-01-2013
4. CPIO who received RTI application should not have transferred it to
another CPIO on 05-10-2011 in the same public authority, since it violates sections 5.4 and 5.5 of
RTI Act. Transfer is envisaged under section 6.3 only when there are two
different public authorities. EPFO is one public authority. This matter is not
dealt with in your decision.
5. Time
is the soul and essence of RTI Act. By not questioning inordinate delay of 443 days beyond 30
days [upto 14-01-2013], your decision has shattered the soul of RTI Act. I do not know when FAA will decide appeal [if at all he decides this
time], since you have not fixed any time limit in your order. Thus you
have given free hand to FAA to act at his free time. This will again compel the
appellant to move CIC and beg for time limit and again to force
compliance of your orders. CIC will take at least 12 to 24 months, if appellant
re-approaches for non-compliance or defective compliance. You may study cases
of non-compliance or defective compliance of CIC orders by CPIOs or FAAs in
last three years and you will realize weakness of your authority or that of
CIC, because of soft approach – not even to seek explanation, if not penalize
and then actually recover penalty. Thus such orders are abetting mockery
of RTI, CIC and more seriously fundamental rights of citizens and in
turn making ICs subject matter of joke by CPIOs, FAAs and vested interests who
intend to puncture RTI to conceal their misdoings.
6. Under such circumstances, CPIO will be emboldened not to supply
information and FAAs will be encouraged not to decide first appeals and thus compel
appellants to file second appeals or complaints, since FAAs know that Ld ICs will
at the most remand back to FAAs only [and then to CPIO], after 12-36-60 months,
without fixing accountability for not performing their duties under the Act
and service rules. This is a case of system strengthening the
law-breakers and penalizing law abiding citizens.
7. Common citizens expect decisions worth emulating from IC of your back
ground, qualification, experience and stature, since each decision would be
costing about Rs.10000/- to public exchequer. Even a junior bank officer could
have passed such type of routine order.
8. As a result of this, citizens are put to inconvenience, expenses,
visits to offices, frustration, agony, inordinate delays and wastage of time
and money in repeatedly approaching Commission and FAAs. This style pampers ego
of FAAs and dignity of common men is further lowered down in a
democratic country, where he is otherwise the supreme authority. it also
increases avoidable work load of Commission.
9. I humbly invite your kind perusal to following decisions of CIC, which
are good precedence for you to emulate under the circumstance of appeal in
question:
CIC/SG/C/2012/000407/19036 dated 22-05-2012
CIC/SM/C/2012/000544 dated 22-05-2012
CIC/AD/C/2011/001744 dated 13-01-2012
CIC/SG/A/2010/001352/8407 dated 05-07-2010
CIC/AT/A/2008/00290 dated 17-07-2008
CIC/AD/A/2010/000952 dated 18-08-2010
CIC/DS/A/2011/000220
dated 12-05-2011.
In addition I can
quote more than one dozen of such decisions of your peers at CIC.
10. I also add that
of late, Gujarat Information Commission is issuing orders to PIOs and FAAs within
a week or fortnight of receipt of complaint or second appeal by it, in
cases where FAAs have not decided appeals. The order mandates that FAA decides
appeal and also he ensures that information or decision of PIO is conveyed
within 30 days to appellant. I hope this could be considered as best
practice worth replicating at CIC.
11. Your said
decision defies following judgements:
a. Judgement dated 28-04-2009
in WP (C) No.3845/2007 by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi - Mujibur Rehman versus
Central Information Commission [penalty].
b. Para
54 of judgement dated 01-06-2012
in WP[C] No. 11271/2009 by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi– Registrar of Companies
v/s D. K Garg [in the matter of precedence]
c. Judgement dated 05-11-1993
in Lucknow Development Authority Vs M.K. Gupta of Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India [CITATION: 1994 AIR 787 1994 SCC
(1) 243 JT 1993 (6) 307 1993 SCALE (4)370].
12. I am not aware of
queries in RTI application, but you should have in all fairness, straightway
ordered release of information which was not barred under section 8 or 9, within
15 days or so, query-wise by studying and dissecting queries, rather than
making the appellant move from pillar to post. Please put your self in the
shoes of common appellant and then decide what you would have reasonably expected
from an IC in the said order specially in view of averments of Hon’ble Supreme
Court as under:.
A] a. 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 [emphasis added].
B] 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 Development Authority
v/s M. K. Gupta. [ emphasis added]
13. This feedback may please be treated as part of social
audit and public participation with a view to improve decisions and
effectiveness of CIC and RTI for common citizen.
Yours faithfully,
J. P. Shah
Encl: a/a
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
deficiency and repetition.
