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
sabharwal786

CIC Says: effort must be to compile the information centrally after sourcing it from individual divisions and then to provide information to the infor

Recommended Posts

sabharwal786

CIC Says: effort must be to compile the information centrally after sourcing it from individual divisions and then to provide information to the information seeker

 

The Orders of the CIC are as under:

 

Now the issue to be decided is whether the CPIO was obliged under subsection 3 of section 6 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act to transfer the RTI application to the State Government of Maharashtra. In our view, there cannot be any absolute position on this. The decision to transfer any RTI application to an authority outside the Central Government would have to depend largely on the particular case. If, for example, there is anything on record to suggest, even remotely, that the subject matter is definitely concerned with a state public authority, there is no ban under the Right to Information (RTI) Act in transferring the RTI application to that public authority, contrary to whatever the DoPT circular might say. But, this cannot be a rule. That is because both the appropriate governments, the Central and the State, are two distinct bodies and, under different jurisdictions, the former under the CIC while the latter under the SIC. Indiscriminate and mandatory transfer of RTI applications to public authorities outside the appropriate government would, sooner or later, raise issues of jurisdiction and the citizen would find it difficult to approach, in complaint or second appeal, to any particular Information Commission. Therefore, we cannot particularly hold the CPIO responsible for not transferring the RTI application in this case.

 

This brings us to a larger question. We have been noticing for some time that the Department of Personnel and Training has appointed a large number of CPIOs, obviously for the benefit of the citizens. However, RTI applications containing more than one item of information are being split by the RTI Cell of the Department among many of these CPIOs to respond directly to the information seeker. As a result of this, quite often, it is noted that the CPIO representing the individual division/section of the Department responds to the information seeker mechanically by stating that the information is not available or by providing only a piecemeal information. Unless the RTI application contains unmanageably a large number of queries, spread over the entire department, the effort must be to compile the information centrally after sourcing it from individual divisions and then to provide information to the information seeker. We would like the CPIO to place this before the Secretary of the Department for taking an appropriate decision and to revise the present arrangement.

Orders.pdf

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

Is it not prevailing within CIC. CPIO CIC transfers the application to some other CPIO, and after 30 days we receive a reply that So and so has not complied. FAA authority even without mentioning a time frame decides in a meeting of all three CPIO's efforts must be made to furnish information. Even after several reminders one can not get information even after First Appeal orders and CPIO never even peeps into the reminders and CPIO (main) just washes his hands off as the instructions are to some other CPIO's . Strangelly Final appeal made to CIC is being purposefully delayed for years together. In State Government RTI copy is being taken in duplicate, and endorsed to the concerned section with acknowledgment and just a week before due date, a reminder is being sent to concerned section that information was not received. What ever the internal arrangements may be information has to be furnished within mandated period. In case I have personally seen that CPIO of Municipal Corporation appearing before IC is not having any knowledge over the issue of issuing of approvals for building in COrporation limit and thrown blame on District Collector stating that he is responsible for giving Buildings approvals in Corporation and it was informed that approval was not available with Collector. All statements orally. IC not knowing the duties of collector readily agreed and dismissed the case stating that when information is not available Hon. Collector can not pprovide it. The appellant submission that building approval plan is a permanent record, and collector's involvement is not there and even if he officiates, the record has to be with only Corporation. ANother RTI application seeking duties of COllector in approving building plans made to Dt.Collectorate was transferred to Corporation asking them to furnish information on duties of collector. Strange but true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sarbajit
CIC Says: effort must be to compile the information centrally after sourcing it from individual divisions and then to provide information to the information seeker

 

The Orders of the CIC are as under:

 

Now the issue to be decided is whether the CPIO was obliged under subsection 3 of section 6 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act to transfer the RTI application to the State Government of Maharashtra. In our view, there cannot be any absolute position on this. The decision to transfer any RTI application to an authority outside the Central Government would have to depend largely on the particular case. If, for example, there is anything on record to suggest, even remotely, that the subject matter is definitely concerned with a state public authority, there is no ban under the Right to Information (RTI) Act in transferring the RTI application to that public authority, contrary to whatever the DoPT circular might say. But, this cannot be a rule. That is because both the appropriate governments, the Central and the State, are two distinct bodies and, under different jurisdictions, the former under the CIC while the latter under the SIC. Indiscriminate and mandatory transfer of RTI applications to public authorities outside the appropriate government would, sooner or later, raise issues of jurisdiction and the citizen would find it difficult to approach, in complaint or second appeal, to any particular Information Commission. Therefore, we cannot particularly hold the CPIO responsible for not transferring the RTI application in this case.

 

This brings us to a larger question. We have been noticing for some time that the Department of Personnel and Training has appointed a large number of CPIOs, obviously for the benefit of the citizens. However, RTI applications containing more than one item of information are being split by the RTI Cell of the Department among many of these CPIOs to respond directly to the information seeker. As a result of this, quite often, it is noted that the CPIO representing the individual division/section of the Department responds to the information seeker mechanically by stating that the information is not available or by providing only a piecemeal information. Unless the RTI application contains unmanageably a large number of queries, spread over the entire department, the effort must be to compile the information centrally after sourcing it from individual divisions and then to provide information to the information seeker. We would like the CPIO to place this before the Secretary of the Department for taking an appropriate decision and to revise the present arrangement.

 

I hope the moderators allow me to make a strong statement in the interests of RTI.

 

The Justice P.B Sawant report is available at many places all over the internet. It is a scathing indictment of Anna Hazare and his fraud NGOs. Agrawal's friend and advocate Mr. Prashant Bhushan definitely has a copy. Justice Sawant is an upright judge. Subhash Chand Agrawal should be roundly condemned for wasting everyone's time at the CIC with such mass produced publicity seeking drivel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

I honestly see nothing harmful in such decisions. When techonology is so advanced, this is possible within short time through a Centralised Hub and transfer of relevant questions to concerned CPIO;s for consolidation at the hub. The suggestion according to me is meaningful and RTI friendly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
digal
I hope the moderators allow me to make a strong statement in the interests of RTI.

 

The Justice P.B Sawant report is available at many places all over the internet. It is a scathing indictment of Anna Hazare and his fraud NGOs. Agrawal's friend and advocate Mr. Prashant Bhushan definitely has a copy. Justice Sawant is an upright judge. Subhash Chand Agrawal should be roundly condemned for wasting everyone's time at the CIC with such mass produced publicity seeking drivel.

 

Dear Sarabjit-ji,

 

 

The thread was started describing a benevolent decision regarding "compilation of information", so that applicant faces least impediment. It doesn't matter who appeals-the outcome is dulcet.

 

Yes, i partially agree with you: had it been any other ordinary appellant, the decision would be different. Like, the case assisted by you (Cdr Ashok Kumar Anand –Vs- Indian Navy, File No.CIC/LS/A/2010/900026) changed the path of Hon'ble commission's earlier decision. Had Mr. Anand not taken your assistance, the result would be different.

 

 

Now, as you mentioned Anna Hazare's & Justice Sawant's name, which is not at all related to this thread, i must mention few words to express the contra-view:

It may be worth to mention that, commissions instituted by demagogues (and choosing their adherents) to counter the allegations made against them.

You may remember the report of Justice U.C. Banerjee commission instituted by Shri Lalu Yahav for Godhra issue, which was castigated by HC by saying that the panel was "unconstitutional, illegal and null and void", and declared its formation as a "colourable exercise of power with mala fide intentions".

 

However, the order by Hon'ble CIC goes in the spirit of RTI & must be welcomed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sarbajit
Dear Sarabjit-ji,

 

 

The thread was started describing a benevolent decision regarding "compilation of information", so that applicant faces least impediment. It doesn't matter who appeals-the outcome is dulcet.

 

Yes, i partially agree with you: had it been any other ordinary appellant, the decision would be different. Like, the case assisted by you (Cdr Ashok Kumar Anand –Vs- Indian Navy, File No.CIC/LS/A/2010/900026) changed the path of Hon'ble commission's earlier decision. Had Mr. Anand not taken your assistance, the result would be different.

 

 

Now, as you mentioned Anna Hazare's & Justice Sawant's name, which is not at all related to this thread, i must mention few words to express the contra-view:

It may be worth to mention that, commissions instituted by demagogues (and choosing their adherents) to counter the allegations made against them.

You may remember the report of Justice U.C. Banerjee commission instituted by Shri Lalu Yahav for Godhra issue, which was castigated by HC by saying that the panel was "unconstitutional, illegal and null and void", and declared its formation as a "colourable exercise of power with mala fide intentions".

 

However, the order by Hon'ble CIC goes in the spirit of RTI & must be welcomed.

 

Hi

 

Firstly ;let me apologise that I was simultaneously replying to 2 posts by Mr Prasad and some of the text for this thread has been mixed up on the other thread about Mr. Shailesh Gandhi's training courses..

 

So I am inserting what I had posted on the other thread here.

 

"This issue of centralised collection of information for the CPIO to provide is very old. It was first decided on 25.02.2006 in "Er.Sarbajit Roy versus DDA" [http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/CIC_Order_Dtd_25022006.pdf ] It is also very curious how CIC(SM) flipflops in Subhash Agrawal's cases on which PIO will give the info [http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/SM-03122008-01.pdf ]"

 

Secondly, the matter of Anna Hazare and Justice Sawant report is the information which Mr Subhash Agrawal had requested in the RTI which is contained in the PDF order attached in the first post on this thread. When the information is freely in public domain why apply to DoPT (which has nothing to do with it) for it.

 

Thirdly, about Justice UC Banerjee, I have nothing to say except "He who pays the piper calls the tune".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira

Stick to the subject/topic of this thread - ie PIO to make effort in compiling information from different PIos and then providing it to applicant.

 

Any posts after this, which contain even a hint of contents which are irrelevant to the subject/topic - will be immediately deleted, even though they might contain some portion which is relevant. The entire post will be deleted.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

This is possible with minor effort as many Banks resorted to this Hub and spokes model decades back and getting information from remote rural branch . The maximum time to shift to the model may not take much time now as technology has improved a lot. During initial days of RTI implementation in several PSUs Corporate office General Managers were CPIO designated and now even District Managers are being designated as PIOs. Just like PGRMS portal, they can use a separate portal also individually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sharmajee

Raj SIC, in many of its decisions murdered provision of section 5(5) of act which makes it obligatory on PIO, to collect information, if available in same authority. Raj SIC has ruled that with same PA, part of application to be transferred u/s 6(3) to another PIO. One of such decision has been given where JDA (same case as quoted by Sabajit of DDA), where they have appointed many zone wise PIOs. PIOs are now conveniently denying information under same authprity, saying information not available with me so file separate RTI to concerned PIO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sharmajee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
digal
see this order.... in appeal 2286/2011

 

http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/image

 

The image was not properly inserted. However, we have extensively discussed transfer u/s 6(3), in the following thread & there you have attached the erring decisions of Hon'ble SIC. Learned members may find the same there.

 

http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/77637-case-study-section-6-3-a-3.html#post241889

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.


Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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