Dear Roy Sir, could please clarify the following ?
1) Whether the stand of PIO and FAA that the information Can't be provided since the matter had been appealed in Court is justified ? is there any provision in RTI ACT for denial of information merely because the matter is pending before the Court ? so, I feel Mr. Gandhi is right in his stand since unless there is an express prohibition from the Court , the CPIO can't refuse the information.Whether PIO Intend to file or actually filed the case in court, it doesn't matter for furnishing the information, so where is the case of corruptly recording the statements by Mr. Gandhi. ?
2) you can't compare the case of CJ Assets case with that of the present one. each and every case has its own facts and circumstances. it also depends upon the nature of the prayers sought in the petitions. We don't know what were the prayers in these two petitions and hence you can't assume that information should have been supplied as soon as the order of the Court is announced. it is left for the petitioner i.e. Aggrieved party to enforce his order.
3) Regarding your point no.3, the Court only struck down the CIC Management Regulation , not the constitution and functioning of the CIC.So why should the CIC should stop function , was there any specific order to the effect that the CIC functions be stopped ? Obviously no. The functioning of the CIC is regulated by the provisions of RTI Act i.e. section 12 of RTI Act . so, there is no question of stopping the functioning of CIC merely the regulation formulated by CIC is struck by the Court. so, the logic and reasoning you are putting forward has no relevance to the points you raised in your grievance petition .
regards.
umapathi.s
1) Whether the stand of PIO and FAA that the information Can't be provided since the matter had been appealed in Court is justified ? is there any provision in RTI ACT for denial of information merely because the matter is pending before the Court ? so, I feel Mr. Gandhi is right in his stand since unless there is an express prohibition from the Court , the CPIO can't refuse the information.Whether PIO Intend to file or actually filed the case in court, it doesn't matter for furnishing the information, so where is the case of corruptly recording the statements by Mr. Gandhi. ?
2) you can't compare the case of CJ Assets case with that of the present one. each and every case has its own facts and circumstances. it also depends upon the nature of the prayers sought in the petitions. We don't know what were the prayers in these two petitions and hence you can't assume that information should have been supplied as soon as the order of the Court is announced. it is left for the petitioner i.e. Aggrieved party to enforce his order.
3) Regarding your point no.3, the Court only struck down the CIC Management Regulation , not the constitution and functioning of the CIC.So why should the CIC should stop function , was there any specific order to the effect that the CIC functions be stopped ? Obviously no. The functioning of the CIC is regulated by the provisions of RTI Act i.e. section 12 of RTI Act . so, there is no question of stopping the functioning of CIC merely the regulation formulated by CIC is struck by the Court. so, the logic and reasoning you are putting forward has no relevance to the points you raised in your grievance petition .
regards.
umapathi.s
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 8:08 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Mr Gupta
Kindly check your facts before shooting off your posts to this group. You wrote
To the contrary, it is clear from the order that the PIO and the FAA
"Mr Gandhi, IC is right in stating that when there is no stay on his
order, the information cannot be denied merely on the intent of the PA
of filing an appeal against the HC order. "
properly informed the applicant that matter HAD been appealed and
hence information could not be disclosed. It is Mr Gandhi who
CORRUPTLY recorded that the DSGMC "intended" to file an LPA.
If Mr Shailesh Gandhi's view is correct then immediately after the
J.Ravindra Bhat's order in CJI case Mr Subhash Agrawal should have got
information on CJI's assets, After the 3 judge HC order he should
also have got the information too.
If Mr Shailesh Gandhi is correct than CIC should have immediately
stopped functioning after Delhi High Court struck down CIC Management
Regulations and benches of CIC. Why dont YOU file a contempt against
him ?.
Sarbajit
> Kindly quote intemperate language used by Shri Shailesh Gandhi, Information Commissioner, CIC. Strange that a member who generally uses terms like harami, fool and so on is talking about the intemperate languge which I fail to find out.
>
>
>
> Such boldness at CIC is the need of the hour as, of late, some public authorities have stopped taking CIC seriously and the hapless applicants are unable to knock the door of the High Court against the CIC.
>
>
>
> Mr Gandhi, IC is right in stating that when there is no stay on his order, the information cannot be denied merely on the intent of the PA of filing an appeal against the HC order.
>
>
>
> I send my thanks to Shri Gandhi for this strong decision. If the PA is further aggrieved, the door of Hon'ble HC is open filing contempt of court case.
>
>
>
> I request members to go through the attached decision thoroughly before arriving at a conclusion on the submissions of both i.e. Shri Roy and mine. In fact, I wish that Mr. Gandhi should be the next CCIC in the interest of maintaining the effectiveness of the RTI Act .
>
>
>
> Regds,
>
> M K Gupta
>
>
>
> The decision
>
>
>
> CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
>
> Club Building (Near Post Office)
>
> Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
>
> Tel: +91-11-26161796
>
> Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003231/10734
>
> Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003231
>
> Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
>
> Appellant : Mr. Inder Mohan Singh
>
> K-92 A, Krishna Park Extension,
>
> New Delhi-110018
>
> Respondent : Mr. H. B. Singh
>
> Public Information Officer
>
> Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee
>
> Guru Gobind Singh Bhavan,
>
> Gurdwara Rakab Ganj Sahib,
>
> New Delhi-110001
>
> RTI application filed on : 25/10/2010
>
> PIO replied : 08/11/2010
>
> First appeal filed on : 09/11/2010
>
> First Appellate Authority order : 16/11/2010
>
> Second Appeal received on : 19/11/2010
>
> Information Sought:
>
> 1) Employment details of the concerned committee was sought such as whether according to the
>
> provision in Regulation and functions of DSGMC, no member of DSGMC or relatives will be
>
> employed in the office of DSGMC, school, institution and Gurdwaras under DSGMC.
>
> 2) Whether any action is taken against those who violate these provisions.
>
> 3) The authority which has the power to take action against the aforementioned people,
>
> Reply of the Public Information Commissioner:
>
> The proceedings in this regard were stayed by the High Court of Delhi till the final disposal of writ
>
> petitions.
>
> Grounds for the First Appeal:
>
> The reply given was not in order as the writ petitions talked about had already been disposed of on
>
> 22/07/2010. Therefore the plea taken was false.
>
> Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
>
> FAA upheld the reply of PIO without even hearing the appellant.
>
> Grounds for the Second Appeal:
>
> The information sought should be given to the appellant and respondents should be punished.
>
> Page 1 of 3
>
> Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
>
> The following were present:
>
> Appellant : Mr. Inder Mohan Singh;
>
> Respondent : Mr. H. B. Singh, Public Information Officer ;
>
> The Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee (DSGMC) was held to be a Public Authority
>
> by a decision of this Commission in its decision no. CIC/SG/A/2009/000226/4219 dated 22/07/2009. The
>
> DSGMC had challenged this decision before the Delhi High Court. The Delhi High Court by its order in
>
> WP(C)720/2010 had upheld the decision of the Commission on 22/07/2010. The Appellant had filed a
>
> RTI application seeking information as mentioned above on 25/10/2010, and the PIO has given false
>
> information on 08/11/2010 stating that the High Court of Delhi has stayed the decision of the
>
> Commission. The Appellant states that the First Appellate Authority (FAA) during its hearing gave him a
>
> letter dated 16/11/2010 stating that a LPA was pending before the High Court of Delhi. Thus it is clear
>
> that there is no stay of the order of the Commission or of the order of the High Court concurring with the
>
> CIC that DSGMC is a Public Authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
>
> The DSGMC has been flouting the law of the land and refusing to operate as per the law. It appears that
>
> DSGMC seems to believe that merely by stating that it intends to file a case in the court, they can flout
>
> orders given by the statutory authorities and courts. No individual or institution can disobey order given
>
> by statutory authorities or courts and unless a valid stay order is obtained. This is most unfortunate and the
>
> Commission strongly condemns such unlawful actions of DSGMC. The Public Authority is denying
>
> citizens their fundamental right to information by these actions. The Commission sees that the Appellant
>
> has been unnecessarily harassed by denying information and forcing him to file a second appeal before the
>
> Commission. This is also putting a burden on the public finances since this Commission is needlessly
>
> being called upon to adjudicate in a matter repeatedly.
>
> 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 not only 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
>
> The Commission under its powers under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act awards a compensation to the
>
> Appellant for the loss and detriment suffered by him. The Commission awards a compensation of
>
> Rs.1000/- to be given to the Appellant.
>
> Decision:
>
> The Appeal is allowed.
>
> The PIO is directed to provide the complete information as per the available records
>
> to the Appellant before 20 January 2011.
>
> He is also directed to ensure that a cheque of Rs.1000/- as compensation is sent to the
>
> Appellant before 15 February 2011.
>
> The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO
>
> within 30 days as required by the law.
>
> Page 2 of 3
>
> From the facts before the Commission it appears that the PIO is guilty of not furnishing information
>
> within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the
>
> requirement of the RTI Act.
>
> It appears that the PIO's actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is
>
> being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty
>
> should not be levied on him.
>
> He will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 25 January 2011 at 12.00pm
>
> alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated
>
> under Section 20 (1). He will also bring the information sent to the appellant as per this decision
>
> and submit speed post receipt as proof of having sent the information to the appellant.
>
> If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant the
>
> PIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before the
>
> Commission with him.
>
> This decision is announced in open chamber.
>
> Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
>
> Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
>
> Shailesh Gandhi
>
> Information Commissioner
>
> 31 December 2010
>
> (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (PBR
>
> ________________________________
> From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
> To: s.mishra@nic.in
> Sent: Mon, 21 March, 2011 5:05:36 PM
> Subject: [HumJanenge] PUBLIC GRIEVANCE: Intemperate language used in decisions of the Commission
>
> To:
> The Chief information Commissioner of India
> August Kranti Bhawan, New Delhi
>
> BY EMAIL
>
> Respected Sir
>
> I am constrained to bring to your kind notice the intemperate language used by Shri Shailesh Gandhi in the following decision at URL [http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SG_A_2010_003231_10734_M_49087.pdf]
>
> I am constrained to mention that the language used by Shri Gandhi at paras 2 and 3 of page 2 lowers the dignity of the Information Commission, betraying as it does a gross ignorance of the legal process, rights of litigants (including the right to exhaust all legal remedies) etc. Had Shri Gandhi cared to avail the section 4 disclosure process of the High Court of Delhi by its website, he would easily have learned that an LPA no 606/2010 has been very promptly filed in the matter along with application for stay of the single judge's decision. All daily orders of the Court in the matter are accessible over the internet. That the stay was not granted was quite evidently due to technical reasons beyond the control of the appellant/public authority.
>
> Accordingly to uphold the dignity of the Commission, I request you to kindly ensure that Mr Shailesh Gandhi is not allowed to sit in a single bench and/or pass such kind of intemperate and poorly reasoned orders. In the alternative, and considering the current shortage of Information Commissioners, I request that all decisions of Mr Gandhi may kindly be reviewed carefully before being pronounced / placed in public domain.
>
> I would be obliged if my grievance is acknowledged within 3 days as per the DARPG norms.
>
> Yours faithfully
>
> Sarbajit Roy
>
No comments:
Post a Comment