Re: [HumJanenge] False information by Indian Army (PA) to Information Commissioner during 2nd Appeal

I remember this case of yours raised by you nearly two years back. If
my memmory is correct, I have replied you that in case the PIO claim
that the information is not held, nothing could be done. I appreciate
your persuasion in digging the case further. I think it is now a fit
case alleging that the public servant framing a false report in a
judicial proceedings. Pursuing the issue at CIC level may not yield
any result. I think you should resort to serve notice to the PIO by
name under Section 80 CPC through an Advocate. You will be surprised
to know the speed at which the case move in case your Advocate accept
to serve Advocate Notice. Good luck.

On 05/01/2011, Sumit Jha <sumitjha5@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> Dear Members,
>
> I am sure, all of you will be surprised to know the extent to which Indian
> Army
> can go to avoid providing information under RTI, Act. In this matter, when I
> filed appeal to CIC against the orders of FAA and CPIO, the representatives
> of
> the Public Authority (Indian Army) namely Brig. Ved Prakash and Col. Ajay
> gave
> false information to the Information Commission. Based on this information,
> IC
> decided my appeal which ultimately went against me. I recently filed another
> RTI
> Application to Indian Army and the CPIO's reply clearly shows that the
> information provided by the Army Representatives to IC was false/wrong. So,
> today I sent a complaint to the Information Commissioner with a copy to
> Chief
> Information Commissioner with the request to direct Indian Army to provide
> me
> with the information sought and that CIC should initiate/recommend legal
> action
> against the representatives of the PA who provided false information.
>
> I have given below the exact matter in brief. This is for your information
> and
> comments.
>
> Thank You
>
> Sumit Jha
> New Delhi
> -----------------Matter in Brief-------------
> In Indian Army it is a rule that Brigadier and above rank officers have to
> take
> prior permission from competent authority of Army in order to join
> commercial
> employment, if they wish to join within two years of retirement.
>
> So, I had sought to know from the CPIO, Indian Army, whether Brig. ABC had
> sought permission from the competent authority as per rules before taking up
> a
> job with a private organisation after his retirement. The CPIO had refused
> to
> disclose this information in terms of section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act
> (Information held in fiduciary capacity). The AA had upheld the decision of
> CPIO.
>
> I appealed against the order of AA to CIC, heard on 4.2.2010. Col. Ajay,
> representing PA, submitted that the records relating to the present matter
> are
> retained by the Army authority only for a period of 03 years and since the
> matter is of 2002, these records have been destroyed and so not possible to
> provide any information.
>
> Decision of IC, Shri M.L.Sharma:The denial of information on the ground of
> the
> requested information being kept in fiduciary capacity is not sustainable in
> law. However, given the fact that the PA is not retaining the relevant
> records,
> at present, appeal has become purely of an academic interest. Hence the
> matter
> is closed.
>
> PRESENT MATTER:I recently filed another RTI Application with CPIO, Indian
> Army,
> to know about the period for which such information is kept. The CPIO
> informed
> me that such information is kept for FIFTEEN years. As per information, even
> after fifteen years, when the file is destroyed, certain information is
> noted
> down in the veteran register to meet future requirement. A copy of the
> letter is
> attached.
>
> THEREFORE it is very clear that the public authority not only provided false
> information to the Hon'ble Information Commissioner but tried to dissuade
> him
> from taking the right decision by taking concocted pleas. Also, PA
> deliberately
> tried not to reveal the information despite provisions in the RTI Act.
>
> My Submission:
> 1. PA may kindly be directed to provide me with the complete
> information
> at the earliest.
> 2. The Central Information Commission may kindly recommend/initiate
> suitable legal action against the PA for providing wrong information to
> the
> Hon'ble Information Commissioner, thereby trying to subvert the
> decision
> making process of the commission.
>
>