Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Re: [rti_india] Order of Central Information Commission - for info

 

The CIC decision clarifying that the RTI Act has nowhere authorised the PIO or a Public Authority to ask an RTI applicant for proof of citizenship is a news of great rejoice for the RTI activists of Odisha where the State Government has through its RTI Rules 2005 notified on 1st October 2005, imposed a compulsory and lengthy 11-column Application Form (Form-A), that asks inter alia for proof of citizenship in the shape of Voter's Card or Passport. Besides the said Rules has also mandated that the application fee of Rs.10/- can be submitted only through Treasury Challan, as a result of which no Indian staying outside Orissa can submit his or her RTI application to any public authority in Orissa. Protests against such State Rules ultra vires the parent Act have been raging right since October 2005 when the said Rules was notified. About a year and half back the State Government through its RTI portal invited the views and opinions of the members of public on the amendment of the said Rules and most of the respondents opined strongly demanding withdrawal of such prohibitive modes of application and remittance of fees. But till date no such amendment has come through. In view of this bitter experience of RTI in Orissa, the above said decision of CIC in pursuance of the complaint by Mr.Rangarajan comes as a fresh breather for the RTI activists of Orissa, irrespective of the fact that State Government of Orissa is not going to amend its unacceptable Rules merely on the strength of the above decision of CIC. 
Chitta Behera
Cuttack, Orissa
        

From: M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in>
To: "rti_india@yahoogroups.com" <rti_india@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 8 February 2012 3:44 PM
Subject: Re: [rti_india] Order of Central Information Commission - for info

 
Thanks,  Mr. Rangarajan, from the facts of the case, it is clear that the PIO/ Public Authority wanted to block the information but for your persistence, I suppose that they will have to give the information.  IC should have issued a warning to the PIO also.  Please approach the FAA, ad directed by the Commission. PIOs and PAs now are innovating new ways to deny the information to stop the exposure their misdeeds and corruption.

Keep this up, Mathre ji, I m with u.  If you want any consultation on RTI, send direct mail to me and with my little knowledge, i will try to help.
From: Mathre Rangarajan <rangajan@yahoo.com>
To: M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in>; "rti_india@yahoogroups.com" <rti_india@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 8 February 2012 12:48 PM
Subject: Re: [rti_india] Order of Central Information Commission - for info [2 Attachments]

 
I am enclosing a scanned copy of letter dt 14-09-2011 received from M/s Braithwaite & Co Ltd, Kolkata and also a later letter dt 28-09-2011 (after I wrote to them that what they asked is illegal with a petition to CIC).
 
I hope this gives full picture
 
warm regards / rangarajan
 
From: M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in>
To: "rti_india@yahoogroups.com" <rti_india@yahoogroups.com>; Rangarajan Mathre <rangajan@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 7 February 2012 8:19 PM
Subject: Re: [rti_india] Order of Central Information Commission - for info [1 Attachment]

Dear Rangarajan,  there is a little confusion to be clarified which is whether the PIO asked the proof of your citizenship.  Though you have written identification proof but I am still asking for further clarification to clear the issue further.

From: Mathre Rangarajan <rangajan@yahoo.com>
To: Rangarajan Mathre <rangajan@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 7 February 2012 4:30 PM
Subject: [rti_india] Order of Central Information Commission - for info [1 Attachment]

 
IN my RTI activity, I got the following reply, which is self explanatory:-

 
In the Central Information Commission
                                        at
New Delhi
 
File No; CIC/AD/C/2011/001736
Date of Decision     :  Jan,   11, 2012.
 
Parties:
Complainant
Mr. M Rangarajan
B 2-301, Sriram Spandhana, CheMaghatta Village,
Bangalore 560037 Karnataka
 
Respondent
PIO,
M/s. Braithwaite and Company Ltd. Ministry of Railways
5, Hide Road,
Kolkata - 700 043
 
 
 
 
 
Information Commissioner(s)                              Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
 
Page 2
In the Central Information Commission
                                         at
New Delhi
 
File No: CIC/AD/C/2011/001736
ORDER
Background
1.           The Applicant filed an RTI application dated 10.09.2011 seeking information about
retirement benefits and pension scheme granted to retired employees and requested to be furnished with copies of documents indicating retirement benefits, relevant office orders to that effect, pension scheme, instructions in the form of office orders issued for utilization of Fund created for the welfare of retired employees and some other related information in a tabular form indicating statistical utilization of the said fund during the past two years, The S.O. from the Braithwaite Company responded by a letter dated 14.09.2011 seeking identification proof of the Applicant.
 
2.           Aggrieved with the response of the Company, the Applicant approached, the Central
Information Commission with the current Complaint dated 22.09.2011 narrating the
events which led to the filing of the instant Complaint.
 
Decision
 
3.           The facts of the case indicate clearly that the response of the Respondent Company is
not in keeping with the provisions nor the spirit of the RTI Act. There is no provision in the RTI Act to seek identification of a citizen who seeks information from any Public Authority. The PIO of the Company is warned not to seek such identification in future u/s 3 of the RTI Act, which stipulates that all citizens shall have the Right to Information, as it would be construed by the Commission as deemed denial.
 
4.            Since the Appellant has not exhausted the first Appellate channel available to him for
seeking information and has approached the Commission directly, the case is being remanded back to the First Appellate Authority directing him to treat the complaint as a first appeal and to take a decision on the matter by issuing a speaking order. The PIO may forward the case along with a copy of this Order to the concerned First Appellate Authority within 5 days of receipt of this order.
 
5.           The case is disposed on the above terms.
(Annapurna D)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
/
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
 
 
Page 3
 
Cc:
 
Mr. M Rangarajan
B 2-301, Sriram Spandhana, Cheflaghatta Village,
Bangalore - 560 037 Karnataka
2.                         PIO,
                                                                        M/s.  Braithwaite and Company Ltd. (with a copy of the case)
                                                                        Ministry of Railways
                                                                5 Hide Road,  Kolkata - 700 043
 
                                  3.                    Officer in Charge, NIC 


 








__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___
at

No comments:

Post a Comment