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

Absolutely wrong. It is a usual plea of the corrupt PAs. How can
seeking an information in the public domain become harassment ? Of
course the corrupt PAs will be annoyed if some one ask information
inconvenient to them. Can anyone quote a single case showing that the
particular information sought was a harassment ?

On 06/01/2011, Rakshpal Abrol <rakshpal.abrol@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> The RTI Act,2005 is meant to get the information,which otherwise kept
> secret.
> It is being noticed that mejor playrers are using it as atool to get certain
> information to
> harass the bueaucrats.
>
>
> Warm regards,
>
> Rakshpal Abrol
> Consumer Activist
> 9820203154
> rakshpal.abrol@yahoo.co.in
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Sumit Jha <sumitjha5@yahoo.co.in>
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Wed, 5 January, 2011 12:31:55 AM
> Subject: [HumJanenge] False information by Indian Army (PA) to Information
> Commissioner during 2nd Appeal
>
>
> 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.
>
>