Jump to content
News Ticker
  • NPAs under PM Modi's Mudra scheme jumped 126% in FY19
  • shows RTI
  • RTI query reveals banking frauds of ₹ 2.05 Trillion reported in the last 11 years
  • 509 per cent rise in cases under child labour law: Study
  • The Central Information Commission has allowed disclosure of file notings on the mercy petition of a rape and murder convict, rejecting the government's contention that the records cannot be disclosed as these are privileged documents under Article 74(2) of the Constitution.
  • Electoral bonds worth over ₹5,800 crore were bought by donors to fund political parties between March 1, 2018 and May 10, 2019, a Right to Information reply has said.
  • Don't pay 500/- for answer sheet now- Supreme Court says if Answer sheet is asked under RTI, RTI Fees will be governed
jps50

Social Audit of Decisions of CIC

Recommended Posts

Priya De

Dynamic - static- IT Act- RTI Act?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jps50

I understand that concept of social audit is provided in MGNAREG Act [Narega].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
smbhappy

I have also sent a letter to The concerned Information Commissioner with a copy to CIC.I am unable to attach the copy of letter as the "Manage Attachment" link refuse to open. Mr. J.P. Shah may do me a favour by uploading my letter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jps50

Thanks Shri Bhanotji for supporting me. I could get copy of your letter from other portal. It is attached herewith.

copy.doc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
valeria

I am totally agree with this statement that teamwork makes the dream work.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
smbhappy
Vide decision No. CIC/DS/A/2011/004221 dated 24-08-2012, IC CIC has upheld that information posted on website of insurance company amounts to supply of information under RTI Act. I attach the order and invite reference to my blog at http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/blogs/jps50/3342-information-websites-under-rti-act-2005.html.I have decided to give a feed-back to concerned ICs on such decisions as an on-going process. I invite comments from our learned members, before writing to IC.
The information on the website is no match to the Information duly certified (under section 2(j)(ii) of the RTI Act 2005. Moreover it is not in the form in which it has been requested for (physical form duly certified) as per section 7(9) ibid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
smbhappy

The Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.W.P.No.15850 of 2010 decided on 29 February 2012 (Copy attached)has held as under:

 

C.W.P.No.15850 of 2010"The primary contentions raised in the affidavit are the shortage of staff, joining of the petitioner after the notice had been issued, the extension of time for registration of the plots by the Government which led to the rush of registration of plots by the owners and essential duties of Census as per the directions of the Election Commission. These are internal matters which have to be dealt with and taken care of by the Administration and cannot be taken as a ground or a defence for not supplying the information within the time stipulated under the 2005 Act itself. The provisions as contained under the 2005 Act have to be given effect to achieve the objective of this Act which are to bring transparency and accountability of public officials and to establish the right of the citizen to have the information and these excuses, if taken into consideration, the 2005 Act itself will be rendered ineffective and the purpose with which the Statute has been brought into existence would be frustrated. Therefore, the reasons assigned for not supplying the information at an early date to the complainant cannot be accepted."

 

This may of use to you.

 

This may be of use to you

P&H High Court - CWP 15850 of 2010 - shortage of staff ect. is no ground.pdf

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
smbhappy

Mr. J.P Shah has taken up very valid points. Had this been in SC or HC, this would have amounted to structure on the working of CIC. I will followint up on behalf of RTIFED.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira

jps50 and smbhappy,

 

While appreciating your efforts in bringing such orders to the notice of the relevant IC and the Chief IC, I request you that please ensure that the analysis you do is complete and the logic you present to the IC/CIC cannot be argued against in any way.

 

For example, in this case:

 

1. There is no mention as to whether the appellant or the respondent were present or not.

2. There is no evidence that the matter was heard or the order was passed without a hearing

3. This order violates the various sections of the RTI Rules for the Centre - promulgated on 31 July 2012. Read Sec 10(2), 10(3), 11, 12 & 13 of the new RTI rules.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

Honestly, how many of common citizens can approach web site in a country like India ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
smbhappy
jps50 and smbhappy,

 

While appreciating your efforts in bringing such orders to the notice of the relevant IC and the Chief IC, I request you that please ensure that the analysis you do is complete and the logic you present to the IC/CIC cannot be argued against in any way.

 

For example, in this case:

 

1. There is no mention as to whether the appellant or the respondent were present or not.

2. There is no evidence that the matter was heard or the order was passed without a hearing

3. This order violates the various sections of the RTI Rules for the Centre - promulgated on 31 July 2012. Read Sec 10(2), 10(3), 11, 12 & 13 of the new RTI rules.

 

 

Yeh! You are right Karira, We missed these. Well I have drafted the letter and not yet posted it. I will included these too. Thaks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
digal

I salute both Shah-ji n Bhanot-ji for their noble effort to keep the transparency movement in the track.

 

The apathetic CIC Orders attached at Post#33 & 36 shows the disrespect of the ACT.

 

And what would happen after the remand to FAA? The appellant may get a respond with an eschewal reply that the NON-COPLIANCE was JUSTFIED!!! (none other than FAA of CIC!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
smbhappy

I have sent the e-mail communication to Shri Basant Seth, Information Commissioner, Central Information Commission:

 

SOCIAL AUDIT

Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2012/900133/BS/1683 dated 15-01-2013

 

Reference: Mr. J.P. Shah’s letter Dated 20 January 2013 sent to your honour through email

 

Respected Sir,

 

This refer to the email communication dated 20 January 2013 sent to you by Mr. J.P Shah to your address highlighting the utter disregard to the provisions of the Right to Information Act 2005 in particular and the law of the land in general. The arguments put forth by Mr. Shah are cogent and eye-opener for anyone concerned with the implementation of law. It is sheer lack of knowledge of law and legal procedures that allows such blunder to creep in.

 

Apart from what Mr. Shah had pointed out in his mail, I may bring to your notice that not only your Honour has given a go bye to the provisions of the Right to Information Act 2005. The Right to Information Rules 2012. The rules 10(2), 10(3), 11, 12 & 13 have been completely ignored. It is a very bad order. Had this been in SC or HC, this would have amounted to structure on the working of CIC.

Please read the full text of this communication in the attached file.

 

 

And a copy of the same is attached. The P&H High Court Judgement dated 02 November 2012 referred therein is also attched herewith.

Corresspondence with CIC - J.P Shah follow up.pdf

P&HHC CWP-4787 of 2011 Proof of Identity.pdf

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira

Information Commissioners are also public servants and they are bound to discharge their duties as per the provisions of the Act.

 

In future, when members complain about ICs orders and give them feedback, they might like to use the following citation from one of CICs own orders:

 

Smt. Adarsh Sharma vs Border Security Force on 10 August, 2011

 

11. Now, notwithstanding the fact that the Respondent No.2 is an exempt

organization under Section 24 (1) of the RTI Act, it is nevertheless the duty

of Respondent No.2, as an intelligence and security organization, to inquire

into the allegations made by the Appellant in this case. Not discharging its

duty would tantamount to ‘Nonfeasance’, i.e. the omission of acts which a

man was by law bound to do. The following excerpt from the Judgment of

Division Bench of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Union of India (UOI)

and Ors. Vs. V. Shankaran and Anr. [2008 (4) GLT 885] is of relevance

here:

“25. […]"Official misconduct" defines in Black's Law

Dictionary (7th Edition) as a public officer's corrupt violation

of assigned duties by malfeasance; misfeasance; or

nonfeasance, which is also termed as misconduct in office;

misbehaviour in office; malconduct in office; misdemeanour in

office; corruption in office and official corruption.”

 

12. Thus, if the Intelligence Bureau simply refuses to take cognizance of

allegations which are clearly based on reasonably sound legal evidence and

omits to probe into such allegations when it was lawfully bound to do so,

then such nonfeasance clearly amounts to an act of Corruption. If the

nonfeasance results in allowing some allegedly dead person named Dr. Vijay

Kumar Vyas to escape from being brought to justice in a pending legal

proceeding involving him before the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan, then

it will amount to corrupt practice on part of Respondent No.2. Thus, unless

the Respondent No.2 inquires into the truthfulness of the Appellant’s

allegations with respect to the status of Dr. Vijay Kumar Vyas, it will clearly

appear as if the Respondent No.2 has indulged in corrupt practices.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sarbajit
Information Commissioners are also public servants and they are bound to discharge their duties as per the provisions of the Act.

 

In future, when members complain about ICs orders and give them feedback, they might like to use the following citation from one of CICs own orders:

 

Smt. Adarsh Sharma vs Border Security Force on 10 August, 2011

 

11. Now, notwithstanding the fact that the Respondent No.2 is an exempt

organization under Section 24 (1) of the RTI Act, it is nevertheless the duty

of Respondent No.2, as an intelligence and security organization, to inquire

into the allegations made by the Appellant in this case. Not discharging its

duty would tantamount to ‘Nonfeasance’, i.e. the omission of acts which a

man was by law bound to do. The following excerpt from the Judgment of

Division Bench of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Union of India (UOI)

and Ors. Vs. V. Shankaran and Anr. [2008 (4) GLT 885] is of relevance

here:

“25. […]"Official misconduct" defines in Black's Law

Dictionary (7th Edition) as a public officer's corrupt violation

of assigned duties by malfeasance; misfeasance; or

nonfeasance, which is also termed as misconduct in office;

misbehaviour in office; malconduct in office; misdemeanour in

office; corruption in office and official corruption.”

 

12. Thus, if the Intelligence Bureau simply refuses to take cognizance of

allegations which are clearly based on reasonably sound legal evidence and

omits to probe into such allegations when it was lawfully bound to do so,

then such nonfeasance clearly amounts to an act of Corruption. If the

nonfeasance results in allowing some allegedly dead person named Dr. Vijay

Kumar Vyas to escape from being brought to justice in a pending legal

proceeding involving him before the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan, then

it will amount to corrupt practice on part of Respondent No.2. Thus, unless

the Respondent No.2 inquires into the truthfulness of the Appellant’s

allegations with respect to the status of Dr. Vijay Kumar Vyas, it will clearly

appear as if the Respondent No.2 has indulged in corrupt practices.

 

 

I have just written to CIC Satyananda Mishra about this atrocious decision of Mr. Basant Seth . It is my 3rd and final email on this subject before I avail my alternate remedies. It is high time all RTI's forces combine against this order. The text of my email is as below.

 

To:

Shri Satyananada Misra ji

Hon'ble Chief Information Commissioner of India,

Central Information Commission at New Delhi,

August Kranti Bhawan,

New Delhi

 

BY EMAIL

 

15-Feb-2013

 

Respected Sir

 

The RTI activists and all forces opposed to corruption in India are still waiting to be informed if any action has been taken by your good self on our various emails to you concerning the non-feasance by Shri Basant Seth in his order dated 15.0.2013 in case no. CIC/SM/A/2012/900133/BS/1683 dated 15.Jan.2013 titled as "Shri Ishan Chunder versus CPIO/EPFO"

 

We had requested that this matter be taken up at the bi-weekly meeting of 22-Jan-2013. We sincerely hope that the same has been done and the minutes of meeting would be published on the CIC's website to confirm the same.

 

As it stands, the utterly corrupt order of Shri Basant Seth still stands on the website, and it seems that this Hon'ble Commission is unwilling to take steps to clarify the legal basis on which it could ever have been passed - and which give strong hint of corruption.

 

In this connection I may mention that it is very well known that Mr. Basant Seth had been rejected on the short list of the 214 candidates for post of Central Information Commissioner, which list included many eminent persons from civil society. Mr. Basant Seth was only made a Commissioner at the insistence of BJP's Leader of Opposition Ms.Sushma Swaraj purportedly as a quid pro quo for the financial assistance services Mr. Seth had rendered Ms. Swaraj's sponsors the infamous "Bellary brothers" of Karnataka. It seems Mr Seth's old habits are still in place and like another of BJP nominee (former IC Mr. Shailesh Gandhi) corruption rides rampant in your Commission once again.

 

Civil society loses CIC seat to Sushma Swaraj

 

The anti-corruption forces and RTI activists of India eagerly await some explanation from you of the action being taken on our public grievances to you on this issue which we hope shall not be swept under the carpet.

 

 

Yours faithfully

 

Sarbajit Roy

National Convenor

India Against Corruption.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
digal

Similar to infamous decision of IC BS, i found following irrational decisions, where PIOs were condoned for deemed refusals.

 

Errant PIOs would prefer to ignore till Appeals/Complaints are remitted back without any action, thereby forcing hapless information seekers sag for years just to get information.

 

 

 

Not decided by AA

http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SS_C_2012_000821_M_102230.pdf

http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SS_C_2012_000672_M_101874.pdf

http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SS_C_2012_900788_M_101794.pdf

 

 

Deemed refusal

http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SS_C_2012_000914_M_102039.pdf

http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SS_C_2012_900798_M_95768.pdf'>http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SS_C_2012_900798_M_95768.pdf

http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SS_C_2012_900798_M_95768.pdf

http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SS_C_2012_000895_M_94110.pdf

http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_DS_C_2012_001022_M_95612.pdf

http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_LS_C_2012_000902_M_93367.pdf

http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_AD_C_2012_001684_M_96500.pdf

http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_AD_C_2012_001685_M_96499.pdf

http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SM_A_2012_900133_BS_1683_M_101168.pdf

 

 

Bypassed AA

http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SS_C_2012_000826_M_95747.pdf

http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_DS_C_2012_000995_M_94234.pdf

 

Deemed refusal so to enquire by AA who doesn't have power to punish u/s20(1/2)

http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_DS_C_2012_001065_M_102394.pdf

http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_DS_C_2012_001094_M_102412.pdf

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jps50

I also intend to react to attached three decisions of CIC after returning in May 2013-end from my trip. In the mean while I would appreciate view of expert members of this portal to make representation effective.

 

I have randomly selected these decisions. It would be appreciated if Ld. members directly write to concerned IC with copy to Chief IC. Such feedback in the form of social audit would have positive effect on quality of decisions of ICs. In case of repeated faulty decisions, I intend to write to Hon'ble President of India for necessary action [if any].

DIV OF FUNDS SOC AUDIT.pdf

BANK INFO SOC AUDIT.pdf

NO PENALTY SOC AUD.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jps50

Recently I came across decision of Gujarat Information Commission, where by it has decided appeal against High Court of Gujarat. As per CIC well reasoned decision, only CIC has jurisdiction to hear appeals against High Courts. I have drawn attention of GIC to avoid repetition in future. I attach copy of my submission to GIC.

GIC WRONG DECI agt HC 210813.doc

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jps50

I attach copy of CIC decision No. .CIC/SM/A/2013/000075 dated 03-07-2013. I draw attention of our members to the following para:

 

While dealing with this RTI application, one gets the feeling that it is not

a serious enquiry for information of any significant public interest. Seeking

copies of the guesthouse register or the booking requests from guests for the

last two years appears to be an exercise only to cause undue harassment to

the CPIO. The right to information should be exercised in a manner that it does

not cause dislocation in the normal working of the public authority by diverting

its workforce only to the collection of information.

 

In my view, this comment is not in the interest of spirit of RTI. CIC has tried to compel applicant to justify and reason out why he wants information and that he has to prove that he does not want to harass CPIO. Seeking two year old information cannot be termed as harassment. CIC should also ponder over the harassment meted out to appellants/complainants of CIC due to huge delay and 'signed copy awaited' , reasons so much so that information becomes useless by the time it is ordered to be provided. Such personal views and observations become handy tool for CPIOs to bunk information.

 

Our members may respond. I intend to write to CIC, though he is retiring shortly.

HARRASING CPIO 030713.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
harinder dhingra

Respected Shah Sahib,

 

I was given a tip by renowed and much respected and junior by age but very senior in experience of RTI Act, an RTI activist of Gurgaon that while appearing before Hon'ble Mr S Mishra, please plead for opposite to what you want and it worked always. The Hon'ble CIC has a habit of giving sermons and commenting where the "most valuable comments" are not at all warranted from highest presiding officer of RTI Act implementation as far as Central Government/public authorities are concerned.

The above narrated incident/order is classical example of my above observations. How on the earth, two years old information sought by applicant could be "harassment of learned CPIO'" whereas the seasoned colleague of Hon'ble CIC relegates second appeals to first appeal after the waiting for one year and eventually the second appeal filed afresh makes it to hearing, in any case, two years. There is never ending list of these second appeals being relegated and than filed "fresh" again costing two years minimum as a norm rather than exception. Is this not harassment of RTI applicant by CIC itself?

 

The CIC has to sit on it and do serious "manthan" on this as otherwise the day is not far of when the RTI Act implementation would see the fate as of Consumer Protection Bill.

 

harinder dhingra

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

    • Guest Prabeer Panda
      By Guest Prabeer Panda
      I have received information from the PIO and being the information which was disclosed under Large Public Interest, Can I share RTI response in Social Media? Do I need to take permission from the PIO / FAA or the CIC?
    • maneesh
      By maneesh
      Central Information Commission allows you to seach the status of your application at their website. You can search your application by following:
       
      Registration No
      Name of Appellant / Complainant
      Name of CPIO/App Authority/Orgn
      Subject
       
      It gives the status of Only Appeal(s), Only Complaint(s), or Both
       
      You can reach to the search section of CIC here
       
      Central Information Commission - Action Status

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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