Jump to content

Modi degree row: Rs. 25000 fine on Delhi University PIO


Sajib Nandi

Recommended Posts

Sajib Nandi

Read the related news article at: CIC Slaps Rs 25,000 Fine On DU Official For Rejecting RTI Query On PM Modi's Degree

 

Also read:

 

Delhi University Official Fined for Rejecting RTI Query on Modi’s Degree

Delhi University Official Fined for Rejecting RTI Query on Modi's Degree

 

Modi degree row: Delhi University asked to allow inquiry into records of 1978 batch of BA students

Modi degree row: Delhi University asked to allow inquiry into records of 1978 batch of BA students

Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

Most pathetic. Unless details are studied, it is not proper to comment. Generally, PIO rejects application and asks the applicant to send Postal order in required manner as per Act./Rules and regulations.

As per the Act, rules and regulations, unless PO is not drawn properly it can not become Valid.

If PIO rejected the application, applicant instead of engaging in further process should have submitted fresh postal order as required by PIO.

Instead it is the applicant who has converted a mole into mountain without following laid down rules.

If DU is governed by Central Government, applicant might have sent the postal order Fvg. Accounts officer, DU --instead of Registrar.

When those PIOs who do not get any action for deliberate and malafide denial, imposing such harsh punishment against PIO of DU is not justified.

Every one calls IC 'discretion"

If DU is having guts, to support their own employee who adhered to laid down rules, they must approach to Delhi HC.

Wait and see whether DU is having such guts.

Further asking DU to recover the same from PIO is not justified, as PIO has only followed laid down rules and regulations.

Infact the primary filtering is done by clerical staff and they reject applications after verification of the payee's name and PIO naturally signs the schedule.

To me it appears that this decision is not fair.

IC SA may rule or DOPT may also state that PIO can provide the information without fee but appellant is not having a right to appeal/complaint.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Moderator
RAVEENA_O

Rule 6(b) of the Central RTI Rules provides that fee under these rules may be paid "by demand draft or bankers cheque or indian postal order payable to the Accounts Officer of the Public Authority." When Fee is made payable to the Accounts Officer, it is a valid mode of payment as per provisions of Rule.

 

The DoPT Guidelines dated 28-11-2013 (now in force) Part-III, Para-6 states as under:

 

6. If the applicant belongs to below poverty line (BPL) category, he is not required

to pay any fee. However, he should submit a proof in support of his claim as belonging

to the below poverty line category. The application not accompanied by the prescribed

application fee or proof of the applicant’s belonging to below poverty line category, as

the case may be, shall not be a valid application under the Act.

 

In this case, the Application Fee was accompanied. Therefore, there was no question of rejection of application.

 

The question is whether DU had published details of payee of RTI Application Fee, for public knowledge, in order to make such payment. The Central RTI Rules provides that the Application Fee shall be payable to the "Accounts Officer' of the Public Authority. If there is specific change in Payee of any public authority, it is necessary to notify the same. Admittedly, none of the Public Authorities do this, causing much practical difficulty to the information seekers, who are general public. Public Authorities cannot use this as a tactics to deny information to innocent information seekers. In absence of such notification by DU, rejection of an application, which was accompanied by a proper fee could not have been rejected merely on technical grounds, that it is not marked to the Registrar of the University. It is not the case that the Applciation was not accompanied by proper Application Fee. Therefore there is no question of rejection of applciation at all. It is an error in name of payee, which was attributable to the laxity on the part of DU in not making public the name of payee of RTI Applciation Fee. In such a situation, the right course of action on the PIO was

 

(1) to seek a fresh IPO Payable to Registrar DU, OR

 

(2) in the right spirit of disclosure, decide the application on merit and advise the applicant about the further fee eg (a) Further Fee for 1 page - Rs.2 (b) Rs.10/- towards RTI Fee, since the IPO was not made payable to Registrar DU (Original IPO returned).

 

That apart, even if the IPO was drawn in the name of "Accounts Officer, DU" or "Delhi University" etc are encashable and simply not rejected by Postal Authorities. Action on the part of CPIO DU in rejecting the application in question was without first trying to encash the IPO, made payable to DU.

 

In one of my RTI cases, CPIO rejected my application on similar ground. I filed First Appeal and simultaneously another RTI seeking the certified copies of (a) counterfoil of pay in slip submitted to PO, (b) letter rejecting encashment of IPO with reasons, © notification issued for public knowledge that the IPO be drawn in the name of xxxxx instead of "Accounts Officer", as mentioned in Central RTI Rules. Within a week, the CPIO suo moto decided my first RTI application on merit.

 

Moreover, it seems that the officer of DU did not responded to the various notices etc issued by IC, and did not explain, which needs to be seen very seriously. Such ignorance of directions of ICs, presumably under political patronage, cannot be ignored to set bad precedent. Therefore there is justified reasons for the erudite professor in imposing penalty of Rs.25,000/-

Link to post
Share on other sites

When Pio rejects application under section-8(1)j one wonders why they don't ask it under sec 8(3)which makes 8(1)j inapplicable as personal information as matter happens 20 years back

 

Sent from my XT1068 using RTI INDIA mobile app

Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

This is expected. There should be frequent rotation of ministries between ICs also, as ICs are developing intimacy with concerned and It is most unfortunate that even eminent professors like IC SA are triggering this kind of controversies. One regarding GU and another regarding DU, both controversial issues related to him directly, and in both the cases the behind curtain is AK. Both the cases, it is apparent that IC transgressed his authority to AAM ADMI.

Link to post
Share on other sites
CHITTABARIK

DU will expend more than 25000/- in court but will not either disclose the information or collect fine from PIO for the same.

 

In this type of cases individuals should come forward to allow the public authority to disclose the authenticity of their qualifications without wasting exchequers money. As they are getting paid from tax payers money, stating the said qualifications(in jobs/politics etc) then public authorities should definitely disclose the qualification details in public. View is personal.

 

Sent from my SM-G550FY using RTI INDIA mobile app

Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

This is exactly what I hoped and expected. I expect two more such stay orders on ESSAY decisions. I will not be surprised if strictures passed on these decisions.

He was in my city for two days, free almost, but I am not aware and missed meeting him to express my views in those forums on his lectures.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
  • Super Moderator
When Pio rejects application under section-8(1)j one wonders why they don't ask it under sec 8(3)which makes 8(1)j inapplicable as personal information as matter happens 20 years back

 

Very correct !

 

But Sec 8(3) has to be applied by the CPIO.....not the applicant.

 

[TABLE=width: 100%]

[TR]

[TD=width: 6%]3)[/TD]

[TD=width: 6%][/TD]

[TD=width: 81%, colspan: 2]Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), © and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under secton 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section:[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

 

This just shows that the IC was also sleeping....maybe that day his wife did not put any chillies in the Sambar.

Link to post
Share on other sites
CHITTABARIK
Very correct !

 

But Sec 8(3) has to be applied by the CPIO.....not the applicant.

 

[TABLE=width: 100%]

[TR]

[TD=width: 6%]3)[/TD]

[TD=width: 6%][/TD]

[TD=width: 81%, colspan: 2]Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), © and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under secton 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section:[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

 

This just shows that the IC was also sleeping....maybe that day his wife did not put any chillies in the Sambar.

Sir please clarify;;

 

As per said section anyone can seek for personnel details of other individual which is more than 20yrs old. Case of third party counts in this or not, I.e. whether PIO has to take the consent of individual(3rd party) to provide the information or not.

 

Sent from my SM-G550FY using RTI INDIA mobile app

Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

Actually this stipulations is most interpreted one in RTI Act.

This stipulation is mainly made for those cabinet papers, internal decisions etc., which were kept confidential for National security etc., must also be disclosed after 20 years. (Netaji papers, Emergency decisions, correspondence between late PMIG and Jail singh etc,)

Unfortunately the most reputed PIOs who boast a command over RTI Act, still misinterpret that PIO need not provide the information that is more than 20 years old.

The main criterion is whether any information is available on record or not.

Another new argument now is that stipulation it applies to personal information also.

This is a complicated and controversial issue. Again application of Sec.11 comes into play on personal information. So different ICs differently interpret those suitable for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Moderator
Sir please clarify;;

 

As per said section anyone can seek for personnel details of other individual which is more than 20yrs old. Case of third party counts in this or not, I.e. whether PIO has to take the consent of individual(3rd party) to provide the information or not.

 

Yes, Sec 11 (third party) will still come into play and CPIO is bound to follow it even if information is more than 20 years old.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Prasad GLN

Sec.11 is just formality to know the objections if any of third party on such information solicited by Applicant. The objections are not binding on PIO, and it is the discretion of PIO to provide information or not depending on larger public interest. At the cost of repetition, this formality has to be complied with irrespective of PIO's opinion on receiving application.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Tell a friend

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

    No members to show

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      119,607
    • Total Posts
      427,647
  • 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