Is CIC not competent to get his orders complied with:
The bench noted that CIC order dated 22.09.2009 was the result of a sequence of events which were set into motion by a complaint filed by the respondent No.2 (Dr Sarabjit Roy) sometime in 2005 under Section 18 read with Section 19 of the said Act. The complaint was against the DDA and, in particular, sought directions to DDA to fulfill its obligations under Section 4 of the RTI Act, which included pro-active disclosures and making it available on its website as expeditiously as possible.
According to the act, proactive disclosures on the 17 points mentioned in sec 4(1)(b) were to be published by DDA within 120 days of the promulgation of the act ie by 15.10.05. On this complaint dated 2005, CIC passed an order dated 25.02.2006, directing the PIO of petitioner DDA to provide the Commission with a compliance report for the Commission's record with respect to the obligations under Section 4 of the RTI Act. It was also directed that the Acts and the Rules relevant to the functioning of the public authority (DDA) be also published on the website as expeditiously as possible and, in any case, within 30 days.
Thereafter, on 12.08.2008, the respondent No.2, Dr Sarabjit Roy, filed another complaint against the Secretary, DDA submitting that CIC orders dated 25.02.2006 had not yet been complied with. On this complaint, CIC vide orders dated 12.08.2008 noted that the representative of the DDA had submitted that DDA Act had since been uploaded on the DDA's website recently, although not in compliance with CIC orders dated 25.02.2006. However, respondent No.2 contended that the same was not placed in an organized manner. CIC in his other orders dated 17.03.2009 and 09.04.2009 on some other complaints/represen
The Commission vide his order dated 09.04.2009 directed ordered Secretary DDA Shri Bansal, in the light of the above, to ensure that the orders of this Commission dated25-2-2006 are complied with in full within 30 working days of the date of issue of this decision notice. It was noted that this was a repetition of an earlier order buttressed by subsequent elaboration in the Commission's orders of 17-3-09 and 9-4-09. If the compliance was not completed by the end of the period now given, the CPIO found to be in non-compliance will be liable for penalty under sub-Section 1 of Section 20 on the ground that furnishing the information in the manner directed has been obstructed by that CPIO. To ensure that this is done, this Commission would hold another hearing in this matter on 13.07. 2009 when all parties were directed to be present including Secretary, DDA Shri Bansal 'who is the coordinating authority for dissemination of information under the RTI Act, so nominated by the DDA'. As a follow-up on this order, CIC held another hearing on 23.07.2009 and in his decision dated 24.07.2009 observed that the petitioner (DDA), in an effort to demonstrate compliance to the Commission, had uploaded the information in a disorganized manner which was also admittedly incomplete thereby bringing in confusion instead of clarity into the system for providing access to information as required under Section 2(i) of the RTI Act and ordered: "Under the circumstances, it will be necessary to launch a more detailed enquiry into the functioning of DDA in servicing the RTI Act. For this purpose, Vice Chairman, DDA Shri Ashok Kumar together with Principal Commissioner cum Secretary, DDA, will appear before us on 03.09.2009 to discuss the present situation and the requirement and scope of further enquiry to enable us to reach a constructive conclusion in this matter'. The next hearing was accordingly held on 03.09.2009. In its orders dated 22.09.2009, the CIC stated (i) it was constrained to note adversely the absence of VC, DDA who was specially invited on this occasion to help clarify the decision regarding compliance with the orders of this Commission, (ii) the levels of compliance of the DDA, both in letter & spirit, of the RTI Act left much to be desired and it did not appear that close attention was paid by the top management of this Authority to ensure a smooth transition to the transparency and accountability that is demanded by this law. (iii) Principal Commissioner cum Secretary, DDA Shri V.M. Bansal, although repeatedly asked to clarify various points at issue, solidly took recourse to the plea that whatever the Commission directs, the DDA will implement. He had no suggestions of what course may be followed either by internal inquiry or enquiry by professionals of the need to review the public disclosure policy of the DDA. (iv) This is a most unsatisfactory situation in a public authority, which should be in the forefront of transparency dealing with a mandate as vital as is assigned to the DDA. For this reason, this Commission, in enquiring into the complaint of Dr. Sarabjit Roy, is satisfied that there are grounds to enquire into the matter of compliance with sec 4 of the RTI Act by the DDA. To initiate this enquiry a Committee is appointed, which will go into the details of servicing of the RTI Act by all wings and sections of the DDA and submit a report to this Commission within 45 working days of the date of receipt of this Decision Notice.
Thus, instead of taking action under sec 20 and imposing penalty on CPIO concerned for this abnormal delay, CIC thought it fit to launch a detailed inquiry into the functioning of the DDA in servicing the RTI Act.
The bench noted that the petitioner DDA was duty bound by virtue of the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act to publish the information u/s 4 so that the public have minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain the information. However, Sec 4 merely sets out the obligations of the PAs, it does not provide the machinery to enforce the implementation of these obligations.
The bench noted that CIC was correct to the extent that it directed the petitioner (DDA) to carry out its obligations u/s 4.'However, we are concerned with the larger issue as to whether the CIC had the power to appoint ―a third party committee comprising of outsiders to conduct an inquiry into the servicing of the RTI Act.'
My views:
According to the act, its implementation is the responsibility of PAs. The functions of CIC are limited to handling complaints and appeals u/s 18 & 19 of the act and penalizing CPIOs (only) for defaults u/s 20. Rule 12 of CIC Management Rules 2007 requires filing of counter statement by CPIO after receipt of a copy of the appeal or complaint with copy to the appellant/complainant, the FAAor the Public Authority, as the case may be. Sec 20(1) empowers CIC to impose a penalty of Rs 250/- per day subject to a max of Rs 25,000/- in case CPIO has (a) without reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or not furnished information within the time frame specified u/s 7(1), (ii) malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject matter of the request or (iii) obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, after providing reasonable opportunity to CPIO of being heard and, if possible, proving that he acted reasonably. Sec 20(2) empowers CIC to also recommend disciplinary action against CPIO under service conditions applicable to him for his defaults as above. PWC report published in Sep 09 stated that the Information Commissioners cannot be pass orders arbitrarily without reference to specific provisions in the said Act and Rules. In case, Section 20 and Section 19(8)(b) are not applied, the IC order must contain applicable reasons mentioned in the Act.
In this matter, CIC did not proceed in accordance with the act and the rules at all. In his orders dated dated 25.02.2006, CIC directed the PIO of petitioner DDA to provide the Commission with a compliance report for the Commission's record with respect to the obligations under Section 4 of the RTI Act and ensure its publication on the website as expeditiously as possible and, in any case, within 30 days. CIC's orders were not followed and he had developed no system to monitor compliance of his orders. However, respondant no 2 brought to his notice vide his complaint dated 12.08.08 that CIC orders dated 25.02.06 had not been complied with by DDA. Instead of levying penalty u/s 20 on CPIO, CIC vide his order dated 09.04.2009 directed Secretary DDA Shri Bansal, in the light of the above, to ensure that the orders of this Commission dated25-2-2006 are complied with in full within 30 working days of the date of issue of this decision notice. According to the act, Secretary DDA could not have any role except to function as a witness for any problems that may have been pointed out by CPIO. But, there is no mention of CPIO in this order and it appears that CIC arbitrarily took action to call Secretary DDA and confuse the matter, against any provision in the act. Similiarly, vide order dated 24.07.09 directed VC DDA to be present at its hearing on 03.09.09 without giving reference to any rule under which he was so called. When VC DDA did not so turn up, CIC noted adversely against him and formed an enquiry committee in the matter. He thus took the responsibility of implementing RTIA05 in DDA on himself instead of sticking to his functions and powers which called for levying of suitable fine on CPIO and interacting with CPIO only as per provisions in the act. This is a typical case showing incompetence on the part of CIC. Most of the other matters are also being disposed off accordingly and this is why the credibility of CIC has gone so low.
C K Jam wrote on 29.05 10 that he saw a post regarding SC having implemented PIO/RTI Rules from Day 1. However, the SC had still not suo motu disclosed information under Sec 4(1)(b) - even nearly 5 years later. SC was able to wrangle "Congratulations" from the CIC WH on "implementing RTI" in the SC. God only knows on what grounds.
Ravindran Major wrote on 29.05.10: The two institutions which should be held directly responsible for the growth of naxalites and maoists are : the courts and, now, the information commissions. The courts have been digging the grave of justice for years on end now. As of now they are there just to give a clean chit to well heeled and well connected criminals of the highest order. The present CJI who claims to have started his career as a class IV employee is sending the worst signals to the common citizens. The information commissions have so badly subverted the law they were tasked to enforce that a peaceful way for transforming this into a real democracy has apparantly been lost forever.
I am given to believe that Lal Bahadur Shashtri National Institute Of Adminstration (LBSNIA) at Dehradun trains the best clerks the country. The least they are supposed to do is to correctly take down orders in shorthand, prepare drafts/briefs, collect/collate info, file the documents correctly and retrieve them efficiently. But just one look at the office procedures of the information commissions headed by former secretaries will prove that these clots know nothing even about their basic job content and must have survived till date by literally bootlicking the successful scoundrels and thugs in politics.
More comments are invited from members on this issue.
M K Singhal, Engineer-in-
No comments:
Post a Comment