Jump to content

SIC Punjab dismissed RTI appeal, ban for future hearing & give Police complaint for misbehavior.


skmishra1970

Recommended Posts

skmishra1970

State Information Commissioner (SIC) Punjab Mr. Surinder Awasthi on 27-01-2015 has dismissed RTI Complaint Case No. 151 of 2014 with a remarks that :-

 

"In the light of the foregoing, the instant case is closed and disposed of with a direction that no further complaints/ appeals or requests under RTI be entertained from the said complainant."

 

not only this, SIC Punjab also register a complaint with local police authority at Sector-17 Chandigarh Police Station alleging misbehavior by the complainant and his indiscipline, foul language during the hearing. Copy of SIC Punjab order dated 27-1-15 is enclosed with some news reports.

 

If Right to Information is our Fundamental Rights (as ruled by Hon'ble Supreme Court), than whether SIC has a power to block it ? or to use non-standard behavior towards the complainant / appellant ?

SIC Pb. Final Orders_27-1-15(HS).doc

Police Complaint by SIC Pb - face2news.pdf

Police Complaint by SIC - Punjab Kesri.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 92
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • skmishra1970

    30

  • Prasad GLN

    26

  • harinder dhingra

    17

  • karira

    6

Prasad GLN

This Act of IC needs to be condemned by one and all RTI Activists. How can a fundamental right be curtailed by IC ? IC certainly has no authority to decide that "No complaints/appeals or requests under RTI be entertained from the said Complainant"

Who is he to give that ruling and what authority he is having to decide like that ?

We may not know the facts of indiscipline and foul language during the hearing and IC might have taken a decision to lodge Police complaint and this act of complainant is now before Police to inquire and find out the facts.

But is there any precedent in any Court of law even, that empowers the authority to decide that no proceedings from litigant should be entertained because he had misbehaved in Court ?

O.K. Let us accept without admitting for argument sake that complainant is at fault, but what is the meaning of the decision and what it reflects on IC (stepping out of authority)

Is this not preconceived notion and prejudice against complainant without going into facts of the case ?

Let us stop this before it spreads to other ICS. They are incapable of taking any action against defiant PIOs even when Act empowers them and now resort to such decisions to curtail the rights of citizens.

 

Atleast one must learn from Haryana SIC as to how they are protecting the interests of citizens and safeguarding the interests. If one reads the Haryana SIC decisions, one must get a good impression for their considerations and understanding and they deserve high appreciation.

ICs are not that young to be emotional and react for minor misbehavior by an affected person, out of his anguish and anger.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

As one Ex PM has said law takes it's own course for any offence but the issue is on IC decision. It started at New Delhi, went to Chennai and came back to Punjab. We assure our members that RTI Act stipulates no action against appellants but they are being hanged in the streets in lamp posts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
skmishra1970

Yes if this not rectified in time, it will cover whole of the India.

 

But how we should stop it right now. All are well know that All Information Commissions in India has formed a Federation namely - National Federation of Information Commissions in India (NFICI) having its head office at Hyderabad, who had also participated in arguments before NCDRC on 20-11-2014 against the Information seeker.

 

But there are no any such body for the Information seeker / RTI Activists who may protest before the Government or before any Constitutional Court of Law like HC or SC. This is the main reason due to which some Information Commissioners are working beyond of his limits.

 

Sometimes they challenge DB decision of Karnataka HC in SC but penalise by by SC Rs. 1.00 lac

 

Some times they issue order to Karnataka Consumer Commission not to entertain any complaint related to RTI deficiency, but Karnataka Consumer Commission blindly follow his orders. It is very strainge to see that Hon'ble NCDRC has also no problem on this issues that authorities created under other Acts are deciding what subject matter can be entertain by the Consumer Forum and what are not entertainable. When a Petition filled with NCDRC u/s 24 of the C.P. Act 1986 by myself and Mr. Kiran Kumar to quash such circular, NCDRC replied us in Jan.15 that - challenge the order of Karnataka Information Commission before the appropriate forum (HC or SC).

 

I think in the coming time when RBI issue direction to Consumer forum not to entertain complaint of Banking Law user as there are an authority already existing in the name of BANKING OMBUDSMAN for complete care of Banking Law user, we should not be surprise.

 

We also should not be surprise if IRDA may issue direction not to entertain consumer complaint of Insurance law user as an authority are there named INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN for complete care of insurance consumer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
harinder dhingra

Learned M/s G L N Prasad Sir & S K Mishra Sir,

 

We need to check this before it becomes dangerous. I do not know how to but we must act.

 

hd

Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

They said so. But our ICs are stubborn and state that HC judgments / CIC decisions are not binding on or them. It has to be challenged only in Punjab HC atleast through PIL or directly in SC as fundamental rights are in stake.

Any idea about Information Commissioners Federation is a Public Authority, so that one can seek their objects and way of functioning, funds etc.,?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Moderator

Any idea about Information Commissioners Federation is a Public Authority, so that one can seek their objects and way of functioning, funds etc.,?

 

Yes it is a public authority - since financed entirely by the various state governments.

 

Some details are available on their website:

 

http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/53264-national-federation-information-commissions-india-nfici-born.html

 

Welcome to NFICI

Link to post
Share on other sites
skmishra1970

Dear Mr. Balaraghvan Ji, can you upload the judgement of Karnataka HC in this forum portal or if its not possible, kindly give us the title of that case or case no. etc. so that we may search and upload here.

 

Mr. Prasad, link of NFICI is given below

 

Welcome to NFICI

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Moderator
Dear Mr. Balaraghvan Ji, can you upload the judgement of Karnataka HC in this forum portal or if its not possible, kindly give us the title of that case or case no. etc. so that we may search and upload here.

 

It is already available in our portal under the "Downloads" link:

 

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

 

Here is the direct link:

 

http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/109062-new-file-added-applicant-filing-multiple-rtis.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Moderator

[h=2]पंजाब सूचना आयुक्त का (अ)न्याय, ख़ारिज की अपील, पुलिस में दी शिकायत एवं भविष्य के लिए किया बैन[/h]

चंडीगढ, फेस2न्यूज ब्यूरो:

एक अनूठे घटनाक्रम में पंजाब सूचना आयुक्त सुरिंदर अवस्थी ने एक शिकायतकर्ता की शिकायत को न सिर्फ ख़ारिज किया बल्कि शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा आयोग के ऑफिस में विरोधस्वरूप कुछ बोलने पर स्थानीय पुलिस में दुरव्यवहार एवं सरकारी काम में बाधा पहुंचाने का शिकायत भी दे दी। बात यहीं खत्म नहीं हुई, सूचना आयुक्त ने अपने आदेश में भविष्य में इस अपीलार्थी की किसी भी अपील या शिकायत की सुनवाई पंजाब सूचना आयोग में होने पर प्रतिबन्ध लगा दिया है।

 

पंजाब सूचना आयुक्त सुरिंदर ने सूचना अधिकार के तहत दाखिल शिकायत संख्या 151 ऑफ़ 2014 का निपटारा करते हुए 27 जनवरी 2015 को अपने आदेश में कहा कि "शिकायतकर्ता हरमिंदर सिंह का व्यवहार लोक सूचना अफसर एवं सूचना आयुक्त के प्रति सही एवं आदरणीय नहीं है, शायद इसी कारण से इनका केस सूचना आयुक्त एच एस मान ने सुनने से मना कर दिया और यह केस मेरे समक्ष प्रस्तुत हुआ है। इस केस को बंद करते हुए हम यह निर्देश भी जारी करते है की भविष्य में इस प्रार्थी का सूचना अधिकार के तहत कोई भी अपील या शिकायत पंजाब सूचना आयोग में न सुना जाए।"

 

सूचना आयुक्त सुरिंदर अवस्थी ने अपने उपरोक्त आदेश में तमिलनाडु सूचना आयोग एवं चेन्नई हाई कोर्ट के आदेशों का हवाला देते हुए कहा कि तमिलनाडु सूचना आयोग में अपीलार्थी के दुरव्यवहार को देखते हुए भविष्य में उसके किसी भी अपील / शिकायत के सुनवाई पर प्रतिबन्ध लगा दिया गया था जिसे चेन्नई हाई कोर्ट ने भी (WP 3778 OF 2012) बहाल रखा।

 

Read More: पंजाब सूचना आयुक्त का (अ)न्याय, ख़ारिज की अपील, पुलिस में दी शिकायत एवं भविष्य के लिए किया बैन

FIR-32 Dt. 27-1-15 by SIC Pb. for Harminder Singh.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Moderator

Very very nice !

 

IC has the inclination / motivation / wherewithal to file a FIR against a applicant

 

BUT why hasn't a single FIR been filed by any IC, anywhere in India, against a PIO who refuses to obey his order and / or does not pay penalty ?

 

Here is a list of IPC sections which can be used by ICs against PIOs:

 

Section 186. Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions

Whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his public functions, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

 

 

Section 187. Omission to assist public servant when bound by law to give assistance

Whoever, being bound by law to render or furnish assistance to any public servant in the execution of his public duty, intentionally omits to give such assistance, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both;

 

and if such assistance be demanded to him by a public servant legally competent to make such demand for the purposes of executing any process lawfully issued by a Court of Justice, or of preventing the commission of an offence, or of suppressing a riot, or affray, or of apprehending a person charged with or guilty of an offence, or of having escaped from lawful custody, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

 

Section 188. Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant

Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction,

 

Shall, if such disobedience causes to tender to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance of injury, to any persons lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both;

 

And if such disobedience causes or trends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

 

Explanation-It is not necessary that the offender should intend to produce harm, or contemplate his disobedience as likely to produce harm. It is sufficient that he knows of the order which he disobeys, and that his disobedience produces, or is likely to produce, harm.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

What Sir ? Too much you are expecting from ICs ? Let them perform their duties sincerely that is the greatest service for humanity.T

They are impartial Sir, even in past they have tried to do same thing against CPIO at CIC as reported in the forum and not gone to extent of filing FIR.

(After all they can not do any thing to applicants and most probably all evidences are in their favour and I do not know what ICs driver and others are doing in Hearing Place (court hall) and what about the version of other applicants who were evidencing the incident for 40 minutes and how the next hearing went on with ICs bad moods.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

Why there is lukewarm and poor response from members in such a serious matter ?

Now I feel guilty for being over emotional and responding without waiting for other's comments.

Link to post
Share on other sites
skmishra1970

Mr. Prasad, don't worry for poor response. I am going to ask some Questions in the way of information from Surinder Awasthi SIC Punjab by availing service - Purveying of News or Information which can be availed under any law (not only under RTI) for the time being in force. Questions may be ask like -- Section of Law / rule under which SIC empowered to ban citizen for future. Number of PIO on which FIR has been registered for disobey etc etc. let us know some more points on this issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

At Chennai, when appellant was not permitted to occupy a chair they have made a country wide agitation, the Orissa victim's case was discussed in Assembly, but why there is no response when IC has filed complaint against applicant and that also in a state like Punjab ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
harinder dhingra
Now I feel guilty for being over emotional and responding without waiting for other's comments.

 

Do not worry Sir, let us walk the talk.

 

hd

Link to post
Share on other sites
skmishra1970

One Advocate at Chandigarh has given us positive response either to file WRIT or a PIL in Punjab and Haryana High Court on this matter. Meeting expected on Sunday (15-2-15), outcome will be posted here reg. further development.

 

Now - first and main issue is to quash order dt. 27-1-15 passed by Mr. Surinder Awasthi, SIC Pb. and

 

second point is - how we can make Information Commissioner as a party by name before HC without giving any space to convert his 'good relation' with PIO's into 'good faith' u/s 21 of The RTI Act 2005.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The fir has been lodged in above serious matter .

In coming decision on fir chargesheet ,

will point of human rights or BAN legality will get considered ?

 

or alone mere appellant charge sheet section will get considered .?

 

Can fir result in favour of rti apellant ?

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.   Paste as plain text instead

  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.


  • Tell a friend

    Love RTI INDIA- Online RTI? Tell a friend!
  • Members

    No members to show

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      119,610
    • Total Posts
      427,664
  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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