No registered users viewing this page.
A perusal of Section 20 of the Act shows that it makes a provision to impose penalty either on Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer. However, there is no provision to initiate a departmental inquiry against the First Appellate Authority as per the Section 20 of the Act.
High Court of HImachal Pradesh
We find no provision in the Act which empowers the Commission to either reduce or enhance this penalty. If the Commission comes to the conclusion that there are reasonable grounds for delay or that the Public Information Officer (P.I.O) concerned has satisfactorily explained the delay then no penalty can be imposed. However, once the Commission comes to the conclusion that the penalty has to be imposed then the same must be @ Rs.250/- per day and not at any other rate at the whims and fancy of the Commission. To this extent the petitioner is absolutely right. The penalty either has to be imposed at the rate fixed or no penalty has to be imposed.
IMPHAL, Dec 31: The Manipur government has made rules called the Manipur Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2006 even though the departments within the purview of the RTI Act are yet to prepare and publish their respective manuals as required under the Act.
The rules were made in exercise of the power conferred by clauses (e) and (f) of sub section (2) of section 27 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
State authorities, while notifying the same, stated that the rules will come into force on the date of publication of the rules in the official gazette of the Manipur government.
The rules indicate the procedure to be followed while a person or persons go to appeal against the state public information officers to the State Information Commission.
The RTI Act, 2005 was enacted in the state with a gazette notification issued on July 12, 2005. Though it was delayed, the chief information commissioner of Manipur was appointed on September 12 this year.
But for such a long time the departments have not published or put up their manuals to the commission.
However, the much needed manuals of the departments or authority within the purview of the RTI are yet to be prepared and published to bring implementation of RTI into proper shape.
Among others, information to be provided by the public authorities are detailed write ups of the powers and duties of its officers and employees. the procedures followed in the decision making process include channels of supervision and accountability and the norms set by the particular organization for the discharge of its functions, budget allocations etc.
Apart from this, a particular public authority or department must maintain all the records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and form which would facilitate the right to information under this Act and ensure that all records that are appropriate to be computerized are within a reasonable time and subject to availability of resources computerized and connected through a network all over the country on different systems so that access to such records is facilitated.
The commission, through the state department of personnel and administrative reforms (administrative reforms division), had for the first time, directed the public authorities and departments of the state government within the purview of the RTI Act, 2005 to submit the action taken reports of heads of the administration on September 22.
The department of personnel and administrative reforms had sent reminders on October 9 but the same could not be submitted to the commissioner as none of the departments prepared or published the manuals.
Almost all the public authorities and departments under the Manipur government except department of personnel and administrative reforms are yet to submit the particulars of the organization, functions and duties along with other details to the state information commission as required under section 4 (1) (b) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Manipur govt makes RTI appellant rules :: KanglaOnline ~ Your Gateway
Petition taints MPSC image
Source: The Sangai Express
Imphal, August 11: No less than 27 candidates who appeared in the Manipur Civil Services Combined Examination, but did not make the grade, have approached legal redressal bodies for annulment of the examination results.
While about 10 of the candidates had formally intimated their apprehension on mark allotment anomaly to the State's Right to Information court praying for production of their respective written test answer scripts and documents pertaining to viva voce, 17 of their colleagues have filed writ petitions before the gauhati High Court praying for quashing of the examination and for conducting a fresh one.
Another new complaint landed before the RTI Commissioner yesterday where in father of a female candidate expressed awe regarding his ward's below-par performance in the examination.
One Oinam Binodkumar of Purana Rajbari, complaining on behalf of her daughter Nomika Oinam, said the candidate's marks secured in both paper I and II of Zoology, her main subjects, 'are 'unbelievable as she did much better and was expected to score over 200'.Nomika reportedly got 98 and 128 marks out of 300 in both papers.
According to the father, his unsuccessful daughter in the MPSC exams achieved first class first in her MSc examination under Dr ambedkar University (Agra) and had confided of doing well in the viva voce and was apparently unsatisfied that the final result showed her daughter score only 150 out of the total possible mark (300).Other candidates had also drawn the attention of the RTI Court on similar contentions.
On the otherhand, following a writ petition filed by 17 unsuccessful candidates, Imphal Bench of the Gauhati High Court had on July 31 asked MPSC authorities to keep all answer scripts and interview documents of the same examination under seal cover.
Passing the interim order, the Court also issued notice of motion to the respondents making them returnable within 3 weeks.
The petitioners, who raised doubts over the allocation of marks in both the main and viva voce, prayed for quashing the exam and conduct a fresh one.
In the MPSC examination, result of which was declared last month, 128 candidates were selected for different posts out of which 25 would be newly inducted for the Manipur Civil Service (MCS) and 32 for the post of Manipur Police Service (MPS).
Petition taints MPSC image : 12th aug07 ~ E-Pao! Headlines
I would like to start a discussion as to whether imposing a penalty to the PIO by the Commissions is a prerogative or a legal obligation?
In this regard, it is submitted that when an opinion has been formed by the Commission that an offence has been committed by the PIO, it is under legal obligation to impose the penalty. The onus of proving that the offence has been committed is not on the appellant. The commission may form an opinion on its own (even without the pleadings of the appellant) during an inquiry or complaint that the offence has been committed, it may initiate proceedings for imposing the penalty. The only thing thereafter, the Commission has to do is to afford an opportunity to the concerned PIO of being heard. Now burden of proving that PIO acted reasonably and diligently is on the PIO himself. It means that the concerned PIO has to change the opinion of the Commission that the offence has not been committed. However, if there is no change in the opinion of the Commission after hearing the concerned PIO, it is under obligation to impose both penalties. This is clear from the words "it shall impose the penalty" in both the subsections of S.20. It would have been the prerogative of the Commission to impose the penalty, if the words "it may impose the penalty" were there. Therefore, I am of the view that when the commission has the opinion that the offence has been committed (whether formed with the pleadings of the appellant or in absence of the pleadings), the only action remains with the Commission is to impose both the penalties i.e. monetary as well as recommendation of disciplinary action.
I am expressing above views on the basis of laws of interpretation of statues only. In these circumstances, whether the Commissions are discharging their legal obligations?
02/21/2018 03:26 AM