Also forgot to add, since when did CIC start collecting "penalties" ?
RTIwanted
--- On Sun, 7/25/10, C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com>
Subject: [rti_india] Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Prabhandak Committee is a PA [1 Attachment]
To: rti_india@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, July 25, 2010, 12:39 PM
Order of Delhi HC is attached.
The last para of the judgment of the Hon'ble Court is intriguing, to say the least:
However, considering that the above question of law had not
earlier been examined for its correctness by this Court, this Court
is of the view that the penalty of Rs.25,000/- levied on the General
Manager of the Petitioner may have been a bit too harsh. In the
circumstances, the penalty amount is reduced to Rs.5000/- in both
petitions and directed to be paid by the Petitioner DSGMC itself to
the CIC within a period of two weeks without recovering it from
the salary of its General Manager.
1. From the final order, it does not look as if the reduction in penalty one of the questions to be determined by the Hon'ble Court.
2. The CIC has imposed penalties after taking all facts into account - including after deciding that DSGPC is a PA and after non-compliance of its orders as well as no valid explanation forthcoming from the persons penalised.
3. Hon'ble Court has ordered for the penalty to be paid by the PA - and not the PIO. This is contrary to Sec 20 of the RTI Act.
Hope this part about PAs paying penalty instead of PIO, does not set a bad precedent.
RTIwanted
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment