Jump to content
karira

Post Office is not a designated APIO for CIC and "date of receipt" means date of receipt on PIO's desk !

Recommended Posts

karira

In a recent order, the FAA of CIC has reiterated that Post Offices are not designated APIO's for the CIC. Therefore a RTI application to the CIC cannot be submitted through a Post Office.

 

But strangely, the FAA has taken the stand that the 30 days mandatory period for the PIO of CIC to provide information is not the date of receipt in CIC, is also not the date of diarizing in the CIC BUT the date on which the RTI application is received in the PIO's unit !

http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/FAAD_17022010_01.pdf

 

4. At this stage, it may be clarified that the Commission in the case of Shri D.P. Verma Vs. Central Information Commission decided vide CIC/WB/A/2007/1193 dated 22.11.2007 and CIC/WB/A/2008/00259 dated 18.1.2008 has held that “the Post Office is a Public Authority other than the CIC and Post Master has not been designated under section 5 as APIO of the Commission.”

 

5. The present application was received in the Commission on 5.1.2010 as per the stamp on its envelope and was diarized on 12.1.2010.

It was ultimately replied by Shri Pankaj Shreyaskar on 5.2.2009 and the reply was dispatched on 8.2.2009.

Admittedly, there are systemic delays, but as far as the CPIO who replied is concerned he has replied within 30 days of the receipt of application by his unit. As such the delay cannot be attributed to him. It is therefore incumbent upon the Public Authority to do a systemic introspection and remove bottlenecks that cause delay in disposing of RTI applications.

 

==========

 

Having been to the CIC many times, the PIO's unit is basically his desk !

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
prbhat_gen

Height of double standards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Atul Patankar
It is therefore incumbent upon the Public Authority to do a systemic introspection and remove bottlenecks that cause delay in disposing of RTI applications.

 

Thats a rich one! What is stopping the honourable CIC from introspecting? Does he need an order from the top?

 

If the CIC considers that PIO is not at fault, but PA is, why not fine PA instead of PIO?

 

It will be nice to watch the CIC mdaking a cheque favouring CIC and then depositing it in its own account!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jps50

This order of PIO needs to be complained against u/s 18 by applicant. I think even email representation by applicant to Chief CIC may also set the matter rolling for correction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rajyadav017

According to me info commissions are also playing around the act , whenever it comes to their functioning.

 

thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira

Forget about the CIC.

Today I had a similar experience with the DoPT - the nodal agency for RTI Act in India.

That too the matter was being heard by FAA of DoPT who is also the Director (RTI) in DoPT !

 

Application: 21 December 2009

Posting by Speed Post: 22 December 2009

Delivery to DoPT: 24 December 2009 (as per India Post website)

 

Reply from PIO: 10 February 2010

Reply posted on 16 February 2010 (as per rubber stamp on enevelope)

(Sent by ordinary Mail)

Reply received by me: 22 February 2010

 

In the meantime, I had already filed a First Appeal for deemed denial of Information.

 

Today was the first appeal hearing by Telephone.

The FAA claimed that there is no delay because th PIO received my RTI Application on 19 January 2010 and that is what the rubber stamp of the Diary shows. So that is the date of receipt. She also said that if I felt that if I felt there were shortcomings in the internal procedures of DoPT (like this delay), the PIO and FAA are not responsible. I should bring it to the notice of the head of the PA !

 

By the way, she also said that DoPt does not maintain any Index or Catalogue of records and they cannot provide me any. On pointing out Sec 4(1)(a), she said "it is not the responsibility of PIO or FAA, it is the responsibility of the PA. If you want you can complain to the head of the PA" !

 

So much so for the nodal agency for RTI Act in India !

 

But I am also smart.......I am going for Second Appeal and will base all my arguments on the famous IC ANT order available here

and the IC had ruled:

I find that appellant has a certain belief that the CPIO as the dispatcher of the information requisitioned by the appellant also bore the responsibility of ensuring that the dispatched documents were received by the appellant. I'm afraid, his assumption is not legally valid. The law requires the CPIO to provide information to the appellant within 30 days of the receipt of appellant’s application. The proof of the dispatch of the information should be enough reason for the CPIO to believe that the dispatched document will reach the appellant's hand in the normal course. He may obtain the proof of delivery by the courier or the postal service to reinforce his assumption that the information reached the addressee. This is what the respondents did in the present case. I see no reason why they should be required to do anything more.

 

Just replace "PIO" with "appellant" vice-versa ! Let us see what CIC says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sidmis

Holes in CIC office monitoring system

As reported by HT Correspondent, Hindustan Times

New Delhi, March 14, 2010

 

Days after Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) Wajahat Habibullah said the Commission has put in place a monitoring system at its office, it has emerged that the instructions are not being followed in letter and spirit.

 

While hearing a complaint by RTI activist and retired Naval officer L.K. Batra in 2009 about National Commission for Women, Habibullah had recommended some steps to be taken by the Ministry of Women and Child Development.

 

“This exercise may be completed within 30 days of the issue of this decision notice under intimation to P.K.P. Shreyaskar, Joint Registrar of Central Information Commission,” Habibullah had said.

 

However, when Batra tried to find out if it has been complied with, his query with the Commission met with several hurdles. “I send my applications by post instead of going to far off offices. The Commission’s office counted the 30 days mandatory period (for giving information) from the date when the Chief Public Information Officer (CPIO) received my application,” Batra said.

 

When he was given a chance to inspect the files he found more issues. “There is a mix up of documents in files. There was no record of documents maintained in files with related note numbers of noting sheets, as per rule,” he said.

 

Habibullah had told HT recently that the Commission’s secretary was authorised to monitor cases of non-compliance. On Friday, Habibullah said, “I am aware that there can be some problems with filing systems but not many.

 

“However, we do regular reviews and for the last two months we have computerised many sections and are streamlining the system. The gap between the day it is delivered and when it reaches CPIO has reduced to three-four days,” Habibullah added.

 

HindustanTimes-Print

© Copyright 2009 Hindustan Times

HindustanTimes-Print

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sunil Ahya

Following is an excerpt from the Guide on Right to Information Act, 2005, by DoPT:

 

Assistant Public Information Officer

 

8. These are the officers at sub-divisional level to whom a person can give his

RTI application or appeal. These officers send the application or appeal to the

Public Information Officer of the public authority or the concerned appellate

authority. An Assistant Public Information Officer is not responsible to supply

the information.

 

9. The Assistant Public Information Officers appointed by the Department of Posts

in various post offices are working as Assistant Public Information Officers for all

the public authorities under the Government of India

 

Link to the Guide: http://rti.gov.in/rticorner/guideonrti.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira
Following is an excerpt from the Guide on Right to Information Act, 2005, by DoPT:

 

 

 

Link to the Guide: http://rti.gov.in/rticorner/guideonrti.pdf

 

That Guide is incorrect.

Also this whole system of APIOs of postal department acting as APIOs for other public authorities is illegal, UNLESS the PA has officially "designated" these APIOs as there own APIOs under Sec 5(2).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

Does this means that DOPT is itself misleading citizens with incorrect information with a a legally invalid procedure ? When DOPT is aware of this what steps are being taken by them to rectify their procedure ?

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

    • momita
      By momita
      Government has deferred the introduction of the Right to Information (Amendment) Bill, 2018 in the wake of reservations from the Opposition over changes in clauses related to the tenure of Information Commissioners and their salaries and allowances.
      Minister of State in the Prime Minister’s Office, Jitendra Singh was scheduled to introduce the Bill in the Rajya Sabha in the post-lunch session on Thursday. Though he was present in the House, the government decided not to introduce it as the Congress and other Opposition parties were against the amendments being moved on the grounds that these would dilute the 2005 Act.

      Sources said the government suggested that the Opposition allow the Bill to be introduced and then sent to a Select Committee of the Upper House. But since the Opposition did not relent, the government deferred the introduction till the time a consensus on the fate of the Bill could be reached.
      The amendment Bill seeks to change the clause dealing with the term of the Chief Information Commissioner and the Information Commissioners and the State CICs and state ICs. As of now, they get a term of five years from the date they assume office. The Bill states this would be changed to a "term as may be prescribed by the Central government”. This would give the Centre the discretion to terminate the service of the CIC, ICs and the state CICs and ICs in case they do not conform to the will of the government.
      The Bill also states that the salaries and allowances of the CIC, ICs, state CIC and state ICs shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central government. Though the amendment also maintains that salaries and allowances and other conditions of service of these officials shall not be varied to their disadvantage after their appointment, the government can reduce it for future appointees.
      As of now, the CIC and ICs get the salary equal to that of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioner respectively. In the states, the state CIC gets the salary of the Election Commissioner and the state ICs get the salary of the Chief Secretary.
      The Opposition does not agree with the NDA government’s view that the salary of the CIC and information commissioners should be reduced as this is equal to that of a judge of the Supreme Court.
       

      View full entry
    • momita
      By momita
      Minister of State in the Prime Minister’s Office, Jitendra Singh was scheduled to introduce the Bill in the Rajya Sabha in the post-lunch session on Thursday. Though he was present in the House, the government decided not to introduce it as the Congress and other Opposition parties were against the amendments being moved on the grounds that these would dilute the 2005 Act.

      Sources said the government suggested that the Opposition allow the Bill to be introduced and then sent to a Select Committee of the Upper House. But since the Opposition did not relent, the government deferred the introduction till the time a consensus on the fate of the Bill could be reached.
      The amendment Bill seeks to change the clause dealing with the term of the Chief Information Commissioner and the Information Commissioners and the State CICs and state ICs. As of now, they get a term of five years from the date they assume office. The Bill states this would be changed to a "term as may be prescribed by the Central government”. This would give the Centre the discretion to terminate the service of the CIC, ICs and the state CICs and ICs in case they do not conform to the will of the government.
      The Bill also states that the salaries and allowances of the CIC, ICs, state CIC and state ICs shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central government. Though the amendment also maintains that salaries and allowances and other conditions of service of these officials shall not be varied to their disadvantage after their appointment, the government can reduce it for future appointees.
      As of now, the CIC and ICs get the salary equal to that of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioner respectively. In the states, the state CIC gets the salary of the Election Commissioner and the state ICs get the salary of the Chief Secretary.
      The Opposition does not agree with the NDA government’s view that the salary of the CIC and information commissioners should be reduced as this is equal to that of a judge of the Supreme Court.
       

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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