Re: [HumJanenge] REMINDING BACK THE COMPLAINT TO PUBLIC AUTHORITY

Dear Abhinav, I have not received any information so far in the case remanded back by Mrs. Deepak Sandhu, CIC.   In fact, I received copy of the order in the last week of Sept. and hope so, that DDA might have received the order late so I shall be waiting till 15th.

---

From: Abhinav <a.h.agarwal@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Cc: "tk.mohapatra@nic.in" <tk.mohapatra@nic.in>; "vijay.bhalla@nic.in" <vijay.bhalla@nic.in>
Sent: Friday, 4 November 2011 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] REMINDING BACK THE COMPLAINT TO PUBLIC AUTHORITY

Hello Mr. M.K. Gupta,

If you receive the information from the  CPIO Ministry of Urban Development now?
As I can see from the CIC website for
File# CIC/DS/A/2011/000555,
Complaint/Appeal#SA/UG/11/f5074qpik
the action date was 11-10-2011 meaning that 2 weeks have already passed.

Any info. about fine imposed on PIO for delaying the information,

Thanks
Abhinav Agarwal
Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh


On 10/28/11, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> REMINDING
> BACK THE COMPLAINT TO PUBLIC AUTHORITY
>          I sent a complaint to CIC dated
> 17.7.2010 against the Delhi Development Authority for giving incorrect,
> incomplete and misleading information.  The FAA has not replied to the First
> Appeal.
>          I have received a letter from Mrs.
> Deepak Sandhu, Hon'ble Central Information Commissioner dated 29th Sept.
> 2011 which was booked
> by speed post on 25.10.11 i.e. after 28 days.  However, in a good move,
> copies of that letter have also been sent to
> FAA, CPIO and Sr. Research Officer, DDA too remanding back the appeal
> stating that
> this is to avoid multiple proceedings u.s. 19 and 18 of the RTI
> Act.  Though, IC has given a time of two-
> week to dispose of the First Appeal or if the First appeal has already been
> disposed of, to furnish a copy of the order within one week of the receipt
> of
> the her order.  It is learnt that this
> practice has been adopted due to high pendency which is reportedly now
> 20,000 and
> will increase further the real solution lies in the filling up of vacant
> posts
> of ICs.  Such temporary measures are an
> impediment in getting the Information as per RTI
> Act though getting the information is Fundamental Right.
> Though I made a complaint u.s.
> 18 of RTI Act as it was clearly a complaint
> case, the CIC has converted the same into an appeal No.
> CIC/DS/A/2011/000555.  I am not
> contesting the power of CIC to do this but my case petition deserved to be
> treated as complaint.  IC has asked me to
> approach the Commission again in second appeal or complaint if I will still
> feel aggrieved by the decision of the FAA.  The complaint has already been
> filed last year with a bunch of
> supporting documents.
> In fact, as per RTI Act, CIC should
> have heard the complaint straight away without granting the second
> opportunity
> to the Public Authority/CPIO. The Public Authorities are taking undue
> advantage
> of such practice as they tend to furnish information only after the case is
> remanded back to them by the Commission.  According to my estimate, hardly
> 20% RTI
> applicants are able to approach the CIC in case of non receipt of
> information
> meaning thereby that 80% such applicants do not get the information.
> Moreover, CIC's delayed action by over 14-month in issuing the notice
> becomes irrelevant as by that time, the relevance and usefulness of the
> information is rendered becomes redundant.
> The Govt. often pleads for the review the RTI
> Act, and if such review is undertaken, , such deviation and distortion
> should
> be set right in that review instead of clipping the wings of RTI
> Act or acting to the contrary.
> Copy to:
>
> Shri Vijay Bhalla, Dy. Registrars attacched to Shri Satyanand Mishra, Chief
> IC, and Shri T.K. Mohapatra, Dy. Registrr with Mrs. Deepak Sandhu for
> information.


--
Thanks
Abhinav

"
Have a heart that never hardens, a temper that never tires, and a touch that
never hurts...
"