Jump to content
karira

New Download- Penalty on PIO quashed because no. of queries were too long

Recommended Posts

madhulotheti

Respected Shri Karira ji,

 

My opinion in this issue is, had been the Respondent present his case personally or through an Attorney before the Delhi High Court, the end result might been different from what it delivered.

 

Hon'ble Madras High Court, in an earlier judgment in WP No. 20372 of 2009 and MP No. 1 of 2009, dated 07.01.2010, held as follows:

 

The other objections that they are maintaining a large number of documents in respect of 45

departments and they are short of human resources cannot be raised to whittle down the citizens’

right to seek information. It is for them to write to the Government to provide for additional staff

depending upon the volume of requests that may be forthcoming pursuant to the RTI Act. It is purely an internal matter between the petitioner archives and the State Government. The right to information having bee!? guaranteed by the law of Parliament, the administrative difficulties in

providing information cannot be raised. Such pleas will defeat the very right of citizens to have

access to information. Hence the objections raised by the petitioner cannot be countenanced by

this court. The writ petition lacks in merit.”

 

Relying on this judgment, PIO cannot reject that stating that information sought is voluminous, shortage of manpower, etc.,

 

This is just my opinion sir, may be my contention is wrong or right.

 

With regards,

Madhu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira

@madhulotheti

 

Yes, that is correct. Many appellants fail to appear in court in person or through a lawyer to defend the cases, which are filed by the public authority or the PIO. The result is obvious, as in the above case.

 

As a consequence, many other RTI applicants suffer due to no fault of theirs, since CIC/SIC will start using this judgment to dismiss second appeals. It has happened many times in the past including in the famous case of interpretation of Sec 18 by the Apex Court (State of Manipur Case).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
madhulotheti

Sir,

 

Not only the CIC / SIC, but also many First Appellate Authorities are dismissing the appeals by relying on the Hon'ble Apex Court judgement held in CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497.

 

I myself was the victim at the level of FAA.

 

With regards,

Madhu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

We are talking of FAA & ICs, even PSUs are denying information of four sentences stating the same reason that the information solicited was voluminous.

FAA naturally agrees with them and only at the time of second appeal hearing, it is IC that has to decide as to whether information is voluminous or not. But rarely IC imposes fine to such PIO for this type of denial for misleading appellant and IC (The information required is a pinpointed document of 3 A 4 size page, the information solicited runs to four sentences in all but a PA has denied the information and IC agreed with PIO)

I do not know as to further appeals at CIC takes their own earlier CIC decisions into account that state that this is not a reason for denial mentioned in Act or quotes Delhi HC to spare PIO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • smbhappy
      By smbhappy
      As per Section 5(3), the proviso to section 6(1), section 7(4)  the designated authorities, INCLUDING INFORMATION COMMISSIONERS, are required to assist the information seeker. 
      The commission is।  is also required to provide this assistance to appellant as per Para 10 of its judgement in WP(C)-7295 OF 2017 is under a statutory obligation to provide all reasonable assistance to the information seeker. Even a layman or an illiterate person may seek information as he has the constitutional right under article 19(1)(a) of the constitution of India as well as under RTI ACT. This is a very formidable tool to deal with the defying information Commissions across the country.
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
      W.P. (C) No. 7295 of 2017
      PARA 10. The provision of Section 6(1) specifically provides that the Public Information Officer has to render all possible assistance to the information seeker. The intention of the legislature is quite clear in this regard. Though in Section6, the word “Central Public Information Officer “or the “State Public Information Officer “has been used, however, the same is applicable to the appellate authorities also as it is a settled law that an appeal is the continuation of the original proceeding. Thus, the State Information Commission being the second appellate authority is under statutory obligation to provide all reasonable assistance to the information seeker. Even a lay man or an illiterate person may seek information as he has the constitutional right under Article 19(1)(a)of the Constitution of India as well as the statutory right under the Act, 2005 and if a person who seeks information under the Act, 2005is debarred from appearing in-person before the statutory authorities, the same will defeat the very purpose of the legislation.
      Debarring - Jharkahnd HC - Debarring information seeker illegal.pdf
    • Priya De
      By Priya De
      Find here the original Supreme court judgement on Aadhaar.
      (1)        The requirement under Aadhaar Act to give one's demographic and biometric information does not violate fundamental right of privacy.
      (2)        The provisions of Aadhaar Act requiring demographic and biometric information from a resident for Aadhaar Number pass three­fold test as laid down in Puttaswamy (supra) case, hence cannot be said to be unconstitutional.
      (3)        Collection of data, its storage and use does not violate fundamental Right of Privacy.
      (4)    Aadhaar Act does not create an architecture for pervasive surveillance.
      (5)        Aadhaar Act and Regulations provides protection and safety of the data received from individuals.
      (6)        Section 7 of the Aadhaar is constitutional. The provision does not deserve to be struck down on account of denial in some cases of right to claim on account of failure of authentication.
      (7)        The State while enlivening right to food, right to shelter etc. envisaged under Article 21 cannot encroach upon the right of privacy of beneficiaries nor former can be given precedence over the latter.
      (8)        Provisions of Section 29 is constitutional and does not deserves to be struck down.
      (9)        Section 33 cannot be said to be unconstitutional as it provides for the use of Aadhaar data base for police investigation nor it can be  said to violate protection granted under Article 20(3).
      (10)      Section 47 of the Aadhaar Act cannot be held to be unconstitutional on the ground that it does not allow an individual who finds that there is a violation of Aadhaar Act to initiate any criminal process.
      (11)      Section 57, to the extent, which permits use of Aadhaar by the State or any body corporate or person, in pursuant to any contract to this effect is unconstitutional and void. Thus, the last phrase in main provision of Section 57, i.e. “or any contract to this effect” is struck down.
      (12)      Section 59 has validated all actions taken by the Central Government under the notifications dated 28.01.2009    and 12.09.2009 and all actions shall be deemed to have been taken under the Aadhaar Act.
      (13)      Parental consent for providing biometric information under Regulation 3 & demographic information under Regulation 4 has to be read for enrolment of children between 5 to 18 years to uphold the constitutionality of Regulations 3 & 4 of Aadhaar (Enrolment and Update) Regulations, 2016.
      (14)      Rule 9 as amended by PMLA (Second Amendment) Rules, 2017 is not unconstitutional and does not violate Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 & 300A of the Constitution and Sections 3, 7 & 51 of the Aadhaar Act. Further Rule 9 as amended is not ultra vires to PMLA Act, 2002.
      (15)      Circular dated 23.03.2017 being unconstitutional is set aside.
      (16)      Aadhaar Act has been rightly passed as Money Bill.  The decision of Speaker certifying the Aadhaar Bill, 2016 as Money Bill is not immuned from Judicial Review.
      (17)      Section 139­AA does not breach fundamental Right of Privacy as per Privacy Judgment in Puttaswamy case.
      (18)      The Aadhaar Act does not violate the interim orders passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 494 of 2012 and other Writ Petitions.

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy