User Tag List

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 8 of 9
  1. #1
    Posts
    79
    Name:
    Mansukhlal
    Blog Entries
    20
    Total Downloaded
    0
    RTI Activity - Stats
    RTI Activity - Bars
    Lv. Percent
    0%
    Monthly Activity
    56.43%
    Problems Posted
    0
    Problems Solved
    0
    Best Answers
    0
    Good Answers
    0

    Default What can be done for such irresponsible disposals?


    I had filed 2 separate Applications on 2 different subjects and not satisfied with replies being given by CPIO & AA, IInd Appeals were filed. 2 rejoinders with request to give hearing through audio were also sent in time. No hearing was given and decision without reasoned Speaking Orders is put in their web site after a month (not yet sent to me). What is the remedy?

    CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
    Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
    File No. CIC/LS/A/2013/000242
    CIC/LS/A/2013/000399
    Appellant : M V Ruparelia
    Respondent : Central Information Commission
    Date of hearing : 27.5.2013
    Date of decision : 27.5.2013
    FACTS
    The above cited appeals have been filed by the appellant
    herein. Hence, they are being disposed of through a common order that follows.
    2. Heard today dated 27.5.2013. Appellant not present. The
    CIC is represented by Shri Pankaj K. P. Shreyaskar, Director & Jt. Registrar
    (CPIO) and Shri D. C. Singh, Dy. Secretary.
    3. It is noticed that in the RTI application dated 20.8.2012, the
    appellant had sent a large number of letters to the CIC and had sought to know
    the date of receipt thereof and the action taken thereon. During the hearing, Shri
    Shreyaskar submits that after collecting information from the concerned
    Registry, he had sent detailed information to the appellant vide letter dated
    1.10.2012. On a query from the Commission, Shri D. C. Singh submits that
    some of the letters relate to the disposal of Appeal No. CIC/SS/A/2011/001738
    filed by the appellant and that this appeal has been disposed of by the concerned
    Information Commissioner vide order dated 15.2.2012. The operative para of
    the Commission’s order is reproduced below:-
    “4. Having heard the parties the Commission hereby directs the CPIO as
    follows:-
    (i) To ascertain from the office of Ministry of Social Justice and
    Empowerment regarding receipt of letter dated 15.1.2011 and action taken
    thereon and to provide the information to the appellant.
    (ii) The CPIO will comply with the directions of the FAA and provide
    complete information, free of cost, to the appellant.”4. Shri Singh submits that the appellant has filed a noncompliance complaint dated 8.7.2012 before the concerned Bench of the
    Commission but it is yet to be disposed of.
    5. In the premises, Shri D. C. Singh is hereby directed to
    produce a copy of the proceedings of this Commission before the Hon’ble
    IC(SS) for expeditious disposal of the non-compliance complaint in question.
    6. This disposes of both the files.
    Sd/-
    (M.L. Sharma)
    Central Information Commissioner
    Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
    application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of
    this Commission.
    (K L Das)
    Dy. Registrar
    Address of parties
    1. The CPIO
    Central Information Commission,
    August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
    New Delhi – 110066
    2. Shri M V Ruparelia
    A 503, Rashmi Utsav, Near Jangid Estate & Vijay Park,
    Mira Road (E), District Thane,
    Maharashtra – 401107
    IInd Appeal under Section 19(3) of The Right To Information Act, 2005. (Senior Citizen Priority Case as per CIC`s Circular no. CIC/Legal/2007/006 dt 13-2-08 and Minutes of Meeting of Commission held on 13-12-11)
    To
    The Central Information Commission (Right To Information Act, 2005),
    Government of India, R.No. 326, Bhikaji Cama Place,New Delhi-110066.
    1) Name of the Applicant: M.V.Ruparelia. Age: 79- d.o.b. 1-3-34.
    Address: A503 Rashami Utsav, Near Jangid Estate & Vijay Park, Mira Road(East). Dist. Thane
    401 107. Telephone No.& E/Mail: M.09821732855. E/Mail: mvrup@yahoo.co.in
    2) Name of CPIO with Address to whom Application was addressed: G.Subramanian, Nodal CPIO & Dy Secretary, CIC, B Wing-August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066.
    3) Name & Address of CPIO, who gave reply to Application: G.Subramanian, Nodal CPIO & Dy Secretary, CIC, B Wing-August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066.Reply received under no. CIC/CPIO/2012/1613 dt 29-10-12 received on 5-11-12 to Application dt 21-9-12.
    4) Name of First Appellate Authority & address who decided the First Appeal: Shri Tarun Kumar, First Appellate Authority and Joint Secretary, Central Information Commission, Government of India, August Kranti Bhawan, B Wing, Room no. 302, 2nd Floor, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110 066.
    5) Particulars of Application: i) Application dt 21-9-12. Ist Appeal dt 19-11-12 (Copies enclosed).
    6) Particulars of the Orders including number, if any, against which the Appeal is preferred: Speaking Orders no.CIC/AA/A/2012/534 & CIC/CPIO/2012/1613 dt 14-1-13 (Copy enclosed) received on 18-1-13.
    7) Brief facts leading to Appeal: Item 1: A.A. has not dealt with Ist Appeal by examining the papers and facts brought out in Appeal nor given any information about streamlining/ rectifying the defects in procedure of giving preference to cases of Senior Citizens, as laid down in CIC`s Circular no. CIC/Legal/2007/006 dt 13-2-08 and Minutes of Meeting of Commission held on 13-12-11. If proper instructions to concerned dealing staff are not issued at the time of issue of circular dt 13-2-08 and Minutes dt 13-12-11, these can be issued atleast now, when pointed out. Instead of appreciating this, AA blames the Applicant of giving advice!! During Hearing, he says there are large number of Senior Citizens applying to CIC and all can not be given preference. It may be true that CIC is an independent Unit and may not be governed by any Rules/Procedures/Instructions issued by DOPT for running an Office/Organization and may not be required to maintain any Records for running the Office/Organization but it also should have some Rules/Procedure/Instructions of their own, which must be laid down and notified!! It is a Public Undertaking and should be responsible to People of India and governed by Policies laid down by Government with approval of Cabinet. Government has laid down National Policy for Older Persons, 99 (NPOP,99), which lays down various preferences/facilities/concessions to Elders and these orders dt 13-2-08 (perhaps earlier to that also, some orders were given by CIC) and 13-12-11 were issued by CIC due to this Policy. In each of my IInd Appeal/Complaint, it was indicated that case is from Senior Citizen & requires to be given preference as per CIC`s Orders but no one read it nor gave any preference at any time to any of Appeals and even registration is not done even after 8 months (e.g. IInd Appeal dt dt 30-6-12 against Postal Department under Ministry of Communication & I.T.), as no instructions to dealing staff are issued and no records are maintained, as required by any office/organization and attitude is just to say boldly that no records are maintained and that is the information to be given as per Act. This will not improve working of this Public Authority and main Aim of the Act to streamline the working of such Public Authority will never be achieved!! AA is of the opinion that earlier Circular dt 13-2-08 issued to Public is withdrawn and minutes of 13-12-11 are more transparent but he does not have a single case in which these 2 Orders of giving preference to cases of Senior Citizens are followed in last 2 to 5 years!! He has not given proper opportunity to hear me for all items even on third day of fixing the Hearing, except only for item i) & ii). After hearing about these ii items, he went away with promise that he will again talk to me but never talked and has sent his Speaking Orders by incorporating completely incorrect versions of CPIOs in his Speaking Orders!! Sec 19(8)(a)(iv) of the Act gives powers to CIC to make necessary changes to its practices in relation to the maintenance, management & destruction of records and this may kindly be done. The factual position of each of the items of 1st Appeal is as under:-
    ii) a): 12-8-10: As desired by AA, full set of IInd Appeal dt 12-8-10 is sent 4th time by incurring avoidable expenditure of zeroxing 4 sets with copy to CPIO & AA. Each IInd Appeal, just as in this IInd Appeal containing 23 enclosures as per Index and 4 pages of IInd Appeal (Total 27 in to 4 sets=108 pages at Rs 2 per page) works out to Rs 216. Again, sending multiple applications in one envelop to save postage should not result in registering only one application & throw away or pinned up others with one letter in any office!! If 12-8-10 IInd Appeal is now traced due to proper efforts of AA, why again ask for full sets? Anyhow, this has been done and 4 sets prepared and sent to IC (@ sets) and one each to CPIO & AA of Ministry of S.J.& E. Please, give preference atleast now after 30 months to this Public Interest IInd Appeal from Senior Citizen and get the information from Ministry of S.J.& E.
    b) 1-2-12: Dy Registrar has linked the letter (IInd Appeal dt 1-2-12) to the file after more than one year and has now fixed Hearing on 21-2-13 by calling unconcerned APIOs instead of dealing CPIOS/AAs of Ministry of Railways to make mockery of Hearing! He is not reading any contentions made in IInd Appeal. He has taken more than 1 year to link this Appeal to the file for action!! Can any Office work like this?
    c) 18-5-12: This is not an endorsement, as stated by CPIO but IInd Appeal dt 18-5-12 to CIC for Application dt 9-1-12 and is pending Hearing. This IInd Appeal dt 18-5-12 is now advised as registered under 002144 dt 29-10-12. Kindly, get it given preference and get information requested in Application dt 9-1-12 atleast after more than 12 months from Rail Ministry, if not within 30 days, as laid down in RTI Act.
    d) 5-7-08: It has been stated by Shri Subramanian that there is no non-compliance and case is decided vide CIC/SM/A/2011/0002469+2470 as per copy enclosed. Kindly, see Speaking Order for item 3 of Information sought (RTI-2), ``As per our Receipt Management System, your letters have not been received in the commission. You may send a copy of the same so that necessary action can be taken``. Copies of all letters were sent on 25-6-11. As per item 2 of the same speaking orders, some information was to be given within 15 days but no information is yet given by him. As per item 5 of same speaking order for RTI-1, it was stated in Speaking Order that without prejudice to duties and responsibilities of CPIO, the matter is to be relooked in case there is error in facts or error in application of law. All errors in facts are shown repeatedly and errors in application of law as under was also pointed out:- `` As per Gazette Notification for Central Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2005 as per Sec 27(2) e and Guidelines issued by Central Government under their Memorandum no. 1/4/2009-IR dt 5-10-09, the Commission has to decide an Appeal/Complaint by inspection of documents produced by the Applicant, peruse or inspect documents, public records or copies thereof; and inquire through authorized officer further details or facts etc. Deciding Appeal is a quasi-judicial function. It is therefore necessary that A.A. should see to it that JUSTICE is not only done but it should also appear to have been done. In order to do so, the ORDER passed by A.A. should be a SPEAKING ORDER giving justification for the DECISION arrived.`` No examination of any papers out of 35 documents sent with IInd Appeal dt 5-10-11 nor facts repeated in rejoinder dt 19-4-12 nor in letter dt 3-5-12 were considered nor an opportunity was given to speak in this case. What is requested in this item is to see your own IC`s orders dt 6-10-09 & 19-1-10 given in case no.00634 and get them complied by Ministry of Railways for giving information requested in Application dt 10-1-08 or to fix date of Hearing for IInd Appeal registered as early as 9-7-08 under no. CIC/OK/C/2008/00634 by giving preference to IInd Appeal dt 5-7-08 for which no Hearing is fixed even after more than 4 years!! It is repeatedly requested to stop giving such incorrect information in all such cases and IC also accepting such incorrect information by CPIO as ``understood to have been supplied by Shri Subramanian`` in same speaking order for item 1 & 2 of same Speaking Order for RTI-1 without examining any papers and not giving opportunity to speak on phone. If any IC disposes of cases only to show that he is the only one, who can dispose of maximum cases in shortest time compared to other ICs without reading & examining any available papers and does not give opportunity to applicant to speak and accept completely incorrect versions of CPIOs without examining available papers, there should be the authority of CIC or Bench to look into such pitiable disposals by ICs. Even Judges of High Court are taken up for such lapses! I request CIC to examine the disposal of this IC in cases no. CIC/SM/A/2011/0002469+2470 and CIC/SM/A/2011/000611/SG/18358 instead of directing to go to Court, as Sec 23 of the Act bars the jurisdiction of courts and recommends an Appeal under the Act.
    e) 12-4-11: Please, see my Application for this item. It talks about IInd Appeal dt 12-4-11 against Ministry of Finance, whereas completely incorrect information is given by Shri Subramanian, nodal CPIO in his letter dt 29-10-12 that no such letter is received in the Commission and no information is given about letters dt. 4-11-11, 20-3-12, 12-5, 15-6-12 for this IInd Appeal dt 12-4-11, copy of which was enclosed for giving preference and fixing date of hearing atleast after 22 months!! Shri Vijay Bhalla, concerned CPIO in his letter dt 17-10-12 talks of some other Appeal dt 13-4-11 and blames the appellant of giving wrong date!! It is not clear why he should waste his valuable time in giving information about case against President instead of Ministry of Finance with which he is concerned and information is requested for his portion of work and why should he go on blaming appellant for giving wrong date again!! He has not given remarks for 4 reminders sent to him for this specific Appeal mentioned in each of these 4 letters!! AA has miserably failed to examine and again sent the wrong version of CPIO Shri Vijay Bhalla as Enclosure 1 to his Speaking Order!!
    f) 25-11-10: Here again wrong information is being repeated for a long time inspite of repeated clarification. IInd Appeal pertains to PMO and simple information is requested as to how many representations were received by PMO. This information can not be given by Ministry of Social Justice to whom he has transferred IInd Appeal dt 25-11-10 and kept pending for more than 2 years!! In this Application, it is requested to give preference, which may now be given. All 12 letters/reminders are specifically for this IInd Appeal and not for some irrelevant appeals with IC(SS) or CIC (SM), as brought out by him in his letter dt 19-9-12. AA has again miserably failed to read & examine the contention made by appellant in his 1st Appeal and repeated the wrong version of CPIO in his Speaking Orders!!
    g) 8-7-12: Shri D.C.Singh, CPIO has stated in his letter dt 23-10-12 again sent by AA as Enclosure 2 in his Speaking Orders without examining the contention of appellant in his 1st Appeal that this IInd Appeal is registered as 2708 and the contention of CPIO that information asked does not fall within the meaning of information is incorrect!! This appeal was registered on 29-9-12 after more than 2 months and no intimation about registration and preference is ever given as per one way practice!! He is not aware of any Circular issued to Public under no. CIC/Legal/2007/006 dt 13-2-08 nor minutes of meeting held by Commission on 13-12-11. It is requested that necessary preference, as decided from time to time may be implemented and working streamlined.
    h) 3-5-12: It has been stated by Shri Das that letter dt 3-5-12 was sent to IC(DS) but has come back and no provision exists for review. Please, see the speaking order for item 5 of RTI-1, which reads as under:- ``However, without prejudice to the duties and responsibilities of CPIO, the matter is relooked in case there is error in facts or errors in application of law.`` All errors in facts & all errors in application of law are pointed out in my letter dt 3-5-12 and decision no.2469 & 2470 require to be reviewed and proper detailed reply by competent reviewing authority of Bench or CIC is required to be given, giving preference to Review Appeal dt 3-5-12. AA is insisting that there is no provision for review, as requested in my letter dt 3-5-12 and I should not waste time of Commission. As explained above in item d), Sec 23 of the Act requires resort to Appeal and my letter dt 3-5-12 is an Appeal to CIC to verify facts and decide.
    8 Prayer or Relief: Kindly review these cases sympathetically and fix dates of Hearing early by giving preference, as laid down by CIC.
    9) Grounds for Prayer/Relief: Explained in detail above.
    10) Whether 2 sets sent: Yes.
    11) Page numbering: Done bottom toward top.
    12) Whether self attested all documents: Yes.
    13) An Index: Attached.
    14) 1 full set to CPIO & A.A.: Sent.
    (M.V.Ruparelia)
    Mira Road 6-2-13. Signature of the Applicant
    Copy along with all enclosures forwarded to:-
    i) Shri G.Subramanian, Nodal CPIO & Dy Secretary, CIC, B Wing-August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066.
    ii) Shri Tarun Kumar, First Appellate Authority and Joint Secretary, Central Information Commission, Government of India, August Kranti Bhawan, B Wing, Room no. 302, 2nd Floor, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110 066.
    Index:
    Sr No. Name of Document. Page No.
    1 Application dt 21-9-12 1-2
    2 Reply of CPIO no. CIC/CPIO/2012/1613 DT 29-10-12. 3 TO 15
    3 Ist appeal dt 19-11-12. 16-18
    4 Reply of A.A. dt 14-1-13 received on 18-1-13. 19-23


    (CIC/LS/A/2013/00242)
    IInd Appeal under Section 19(3) of The Right To Information Act, 2005. (Senior Citizen Priority Case as per CIC`s Circular)
    To
    The Central Information Commission (Right To Information Act, 2005),
    Government of India, R.No. 326, Bhikaji Cama Place,New Delhi-110066.
    1) Name of the Applicant: M.V.Ruparelia. Age: 79- d.o.b. 1-3-34.
    Address: A503 Rashami Utsav, Near Jangid Estate & Vijay Park, Mira Road(East). Dist. Thane
    401 107. Telephone No.& E/Mail: M.09821732855. E/Mail: mvrup@yahoo.co.in
    2) Name of CPIO with Address to whom Application was addressed.: Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Dy Registrar & Nodal Central Public Information Officer, Chief Information Commission, Government Of India, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110 067.
    3) Name & Address of CPIO, who gave reply to Application: G.Subramanian, Nodal CPIO & Dy Secretary, CIC, B Wing-August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066.Reply received under no. CIC/CPIO/2012/1613 dt 29-10-12 received on 5-11-12 to Application dt 21-9-12.
    4) Name of First Appellate Authority & address who decided the First Appeal: Shri Tarun Kumar, First Appellate Authority and Joint Secretary, Central Information Commission, Government of India, August Kranti Bhawan, B Wing, Room no. 302, 2nd Floor, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110 066.
    5) Particulars of Application: i) Application dt 21-9-12.Ist Appeal dt 19-11-12.
    6) Particulars of the Orders including number, if any, against which the Appeal is preferred: Orders no.CIC/AA/A/2012/455 & CIC/CPIO/2012/1505 dt 23-11-12 (Copy enclosed).
    7) Brief facts leading to Appeal: A.A. has not dealt with Ist Appeal by examining the papers and facts brought out in Appeal nor given any information about streamlining/ rectifying the defects in procedure of showing status position in Web Site for date of letters/Appeals given by citizen and details of Ministry to which that letter/Appeal pertains in each case, which has resulted in such type of incorrect and fudged up replies by CPIOs for all items of Application. Main grievance was not lack of registration of 2 appeals only but also lack of registration and dealing of all 6 letters pertaining to IInd Appeal dt 12-8-10 pertaining to Ministry of Social Justice and not Railway Ministry, as contended and 13 letters pertaining to IInd Appeal dt 25-11-10 pertaining to PMO but contended to be pertaining to Ministry of Social Justice!! Based on these wrong contentions, IInd Appeal no. CIC/SM/A/2011/002469 & 2470 (Item no. 4 of current Application & Current Ist Appeal) is turned down by IC in his Speaking Orders no. 18665 dt 30-4-12 without following the laid down procedure in Gazette Notification for Central Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2005 as per Sec 27(2) e of RTI Act, 2005 and Guidelines issued by DOPT under their Memorandum no. 1/4/2009-IR dt 5-10-09 and without examining any papers submitted in IInd Appeal and rejoinder and no opportunity was given of being heard. CPIO has advised for this item no.4 that my representation dt 16-4-12 for this incorrect decision was forwarded to IC and no further action is required, though such cases of error in facts and application of law are required to be reviewed. Joint Secretary (A & P- A.A. in this case) in para 1(ii) of his letter no. 151817/July/2012/CIC dt 30-8-12 has advised that Petitioner can go to High Court through Writ Petition , if not satisfied. CIC may like to consider this for review. It would be observed from the following that requested information is not yet given in other 2 items also:-
    Item 5: IInd Appeal dt 12-8-10: A.A. has advised that concerned IC has been requested to register & fix date of hearing on receipt of duplicate set of papers. He has not given information as to whether original 2 set of papers sent on 12-8-10 and 6 letters on this subject are received or not, though he has advised that this confusion arose, as all letters of the same date to the same office were sent in one envelope!! He was explained during hearing that each paper costs Rs 2 for zeroxing and separate sending letters by Registered Post costs heavily and 2 sets for CIC office & 2 for CPIO & AA of Public Authority is excess burden on Applicant for no fault of his for matters pertaining to Public Interest matters for 12 crore Elders of the Country. CIC may kindly give requested information about receipt of original papers and get them dealt with.
    Item 6: IInd Appeal dt 25-11-10 pertaining to PMO under jurisdiction of Chief CIC: AA has talked about every 4th letter is addressed to CIC by name but has given no information about fate of 13 letters pertaining to this Appeal, which is concerned with Chief CIC for PMO nor any information as to why this IInd Appeal pertaining to PMO was transferred to IC of Social Justice and what is proposed for disposal of this Appeal pertaining to PMO after more than 2 years !!
    Para 7 of A.A.`s Speaking Orders may be seen. Instead of considering the plight of Petitioners due to not dealing with important IInd Appeals and not rectifying the defects prevailing in office and not considering sympathetically the advice of an elder, he has passed strictures against the Petitioner!!
    8 Prayer or Relief: Kindly review 3 cases sympathetically.
    9) Grounds for Prayer/Relief: Explained in detail above.
    10) Any other information relevant to the Appeal::Lot but will be taken as whims & fancies!
    11) Verification by Appellant: Facts are verified.
    12) Whether 2 sets sent: Yes.
    13) Page numbering: Done bottom toward top.
    14) Whether self attested all documents: Yes.
    15) An Index: Attached.
    16) 1 full set to CPIO & A.A.: Sent.
    (M.V.Ruparelia)
    Mira Road 27-12-12. Signature of the Applicant
    Copy along with all enclosures forwarded to:-
    d) Shri G.Subramanian, Nodal CPIO & Dy Secretary, CIC, B Wing-August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066.
    e) Shri Tarun Kumar, First Appellate Authority and Joint Secretary, Central Information Commission, Government of India, August Kranti Bhawan, B Wing, Room no. 302, 2nd Floor, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110 066.
    Index:
    Sr No. Name of Document. Page No.
    1 Application dt 20-8-12 1
    2 Reply of CPIO no. CIC/CPIO/2012/1505 DT 1-10-12. 2 TO 9
    3 Ist appeal dt 11-10-12. 10-11
    4 Reply of A.A. dt 23-11-12 received on 6-12-12. 12-13

    M.V.Ruparelia, A503 Rashmi Utsav, Near Jangid Estate & Vijay Park, Mira Road (E). District Thane, Maharashtra. 401 107. M.09821732855. E/Mail: mvrup@yahoo.co.in

    To Date: 21-5-13.
    Shri K.L.Das, Dy Registrar, Room No. 308, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, B Wing, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110 066.

    Sub: Notice of Hearing for CIC/LS/A/2013/000242 dt 9-5-13, dispatched by RK Puram Post Office on 17-5-13 and received on 20-5-13.

    1. Thank you for fixing the date of Hearing on 27-5-13 at 11-10 hrs in Room No. 308 of CIC Office, Delhi. I am 80 and will not be able to come to Delhi. I shall be obliged, if I am given the opportunity to be heard on telephone on Mobile no. 09821732855 or landline 02228123691. If this is not permissible/possible, kindly decide the case on the basis of detailed position brought out in my IInd Appeal dt.27-12-12.
    2. As per Gazette Notification for Central Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2005 as per Sec 27(2) e of RTI Act, 2005 and Guidelines issued by DOPT under their Memorandum no. 1/4/2009-IR dt 5-10-09, the Commission has to decide an Appeal/Complaint by inspection of documents produced by the Applicant, peruse or inspect documents, public records or copies thereof; and inquire through authorized officer further details or facts etc. Deciding Appeal is a quasi-judicial function. A.A. should see to it that JUSTICE is not only done but it should also appear to have been done. In order to do so, the ORDER passed by A.A. should be a SPEAKING ORDER giving justification for the DECISION arrived for each of the items in IInd Appeal dt 27-12-12, Ist Appeal dt 11-10-12 and Application dt 20-8-12.
    3. Practice of not showing date of letter/Appeal given by Applicants in Status Position in Web Site is still continuing resulting in difficulties to locate the receipt of letter/appeal in your office. This may please be looked into seriously and procedure got rectified.

    Thanking You,

    Yours Sincerely,

    (M.V.Ruparelia).













    M.V.Ruparelia, A503 Rashmi Utsav, Near Jangid Estate & Vijay Park, Mira Road (E). District Thane, Maharashtra. 401 107. M.09821732855. E/Mail: mvrup@yahoo.co.in

    To Date: 21-5-13.
    Shri K.L.Das, Dy Registrar, Room No. 308, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, B Wing, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110 066.

    Sub: Notice of Hearing for CIC/LS/A/2013/000399 dt 9-5-13, dispatched by RK Puram Post Office on 17-5-13 and received on 20-5-13.

    4. Thank you for fixing the date of Hearing on 27-5-13 at 12-10 hrs in Room No. 308 of CIC Office, Delhi. I am 80 and will not be able to come to Delhi. I shall be obliged, if I am given the opportunity to be heard on telephone on Mobile no. 09821732855 or landline 02228123691. If this is not permissible/possible, kindly decide the case on the basis of detailed position brought out in my IInd Appeal dt 6-2-13.
    5. As per Gazette Notification for Central Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2005 as per Sec 27(2) e of RTI Act, 2005 and Guidelines issued by DOPT under their Memorandum no. 1/4/2009-IR dt 5-10-09, the Commission has to decide an Appeal/Complaint by inspection of documents produced by the Applicant, peruse or inspect documents, public records or copies thereof; and inquire through authorized officer further details or facts etc. Deciding Appeal is a quasi-judicial function. A.A. should see to it that JUSTICE is not only done but it should also appear to have been done. In order to do so, the ORDER passed by A.A. should be a SPEAKING ORDER giving justification for the DECISION arrived for each of the items in IInd Appeal dt 6-2-13, Ist Appeal dt 19-11-12 and Application dt 21-9-12.
    6. In addition to position brought out in IInd Appeal, it is brought to your kind notice that IInd Appeal dt 30-6-12 against Postal Department is not yet given any number nor registered as received in your office even after almost one year inspite of reminders to Shri A K Jha, Dy Registrar on5-2-13 and to Shri Basant Seth, IC on 21-3-13. There are some more cases in which, no number is given.
    As desired by AA, full set of IInd Appeal dt 12-8-10 was sent 4th time on 23-1-13 by incurring avoidable expenditure of zeroxing 4 sets with copy to CPIO & AA but date of Hearing is not yet fixed. There are almost 15 cases for which dates of Hearing is not fixed and no preference given to these cases of Senior Citizen.

    Thanking You,

    Yours Sincerely,

    (M.V.Ruparelia).



  2. #2
    Posts
    7,729
    Name:
    Dr. S.Malhotra
    Blog Entries
    47
    Total Downloaded
    0
    RTI Activity - Stats
    RTI Activity - Bars
    Lv. Percent
    13.77%
    Monthly Activity
    56.43%
    Problems Posted
    0
    Problems Solved
    0
    Best Answers
    0
    Good Answers
    0

    Default Re: What can be done for such irresponsible disposals?


    Plz bring out the salient points and make a brief of the matter for creating interest for members .

  3. #3
    Posts
    6,216
    Total Downloaded
    0
    RTI Activity - Stats
    RTI Activity - Bars
    Lv. Percent
    40.32%
    Monthly Activity
    48984.2%
    Problems Posted
    0
    Problems Solved
    19
    Best Answers
    2
    Good Answers
    9

    Default Re: What can be done for such irresponsible disposals?


    In view of very large content, few of us though interested in issue, are not able to read in monitor all these submissions, hence, please post only salient features as to how you find the disposal irresponsible and also name the concerned official, so that it can help others in knowing the attitude of that particular official.
    On 19th Jun, 13, on behalf of al very senior citizen I represented for First appeal against Shri K.L.Das and First appellate Authority was Shri Tharunkumar. FAA has received the reply to hearing notice for personal representation notice very late due to postal delay, he has post poned VC, confirmed the same over phone same day, gave email address of him for further correspondence.
    I do not know the outcome, but during VC, FAA Shri Tharun had lot of patience to hear all submissions withut interrupting in the middle, whereas CPIO is looking elsewhere as though he is not related to any issues. Though it is not relevant in the issue, indifferent attitude of CPIO and member's complaints on delay was explained to him. VC for a simple issue went on for 30 mts.
    During on previous occasions, CPIO for every information used to state that file is very old (2012 ) and missing. FAA used to hear simply, and ask CPIO to trace the file and submit information within 15 days and close the issue. Even after one year CPIO has never cared to submit any information later and used to keep silent for all the reminders.
    Now CPIO has even without looking into files for any information, if it is more than 8 months simply stated that file was weeded out and provided such information not relevant.
    This time FAA has made temporary order, asked appellant to note his email id, communicate to him further submissions if any, sent temp decision through e mail, telephoned twice (first time to inform that e mail was sent, and after one hour for knowing whether mail was received or not )and hard copy was sent immediately.
    So to say that there are dedicated and committed officials everywhere even in CIC and indifferent officials at many of the places, and those appllicants whose hearing is posted before such sincere official is lucky.
    Whether responsible (Very rare) or most irresponsible disposal, the alternative remedy on every body's tip of the gongue is 'GO TO COURT' and they are aware that none of senior citizen every approached court for simple matters inspite of their importance. Supreme Court Legal Services Authority, HC LSA never entertained any writs from RTI Appellants as far as my knowledge goes. There may be exceptions.

    So now even like one's fate, even RTI deisions are also left to luck not as per stipulations under RTI Act.

  4. #4
    Posts
    13,555
    Name:
    J.P. SHAH
    Blog Entries
    79
    Total Downloaded
    0
    RTI Activity - Stats
    RTI Activity - Bars
    Lv. Percent
    87.42%
    Monthly Activity
    13121.9%
    Problems Posted
    0
    Problems Solved
    13
    Best Answers
    0
    Good Answers
    3

    Default Re: What can be done for such irresponsible disposals?



    I have perused CIC decision dated 27-05-2013. I think it is fair, even without audio hearing. While video hearing is arranged by most of ICs, audio is unheard. Perhaps this IC may not be having video facility as yet. I am attaching the order. I think we should be concerned with final out come than procedure etc.

    You may also refer:

    Not satisfied with IC
    http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/blogs/...missioner.html

    Social Audit:
    http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/101711...t=social+audit
    Attached Files Attached Files
    It takes each of us to make difference for all of us.

  5. #5
    Posts
    40,373
    Name:
    C J Karira
    Blog Entries
    9
    Total Downloaded
    0
    RTI Activity - Stats
    RTI Activity - Bars
    Lv. Percent
    74.15%
    Monthly Activity
    45085.78%
    Problems Posted
    0
    Problems Solved
    1
    Best Answers
    1
    Good Answers
    2

    Default Re: What can be done for such irresponsible disposals?


    To me a the ICs decision seems fair.....even though it is this IC.
    In my case, he has heard similar matters on 24 April but has still not passed any orders.

  6. #6
    Posts
    79
    Name:
    Mansukhlal
    Blog Entries
    20
    Total Downloaded
    0
    RTI Activity - Stats
    RTI Activity - Bars
    Lv. Percent
    0%
    Monthly Activity
    56.43%
    Problems Posted
    0
    Problems Solved
    0
    Best Answers
    0
    Good Answers
    0

    Default Re: What can be done for such irresponsible disposals?


    Thanks,Kariraji. Kindly elaborate as to how this decision is considered fair in view of the following factual position and advise further line of action:-
    i) ) In my Application dt 20-8-12, I had requested simple information under item 5 & 6 as to when my 2 IInd Appeals with 14 reminders were received and what action was taken and when reply will be sent in terms of para 66 of Office Manual. Reply given by CPIO was for other than those letters and not for letters mentioned by me. e.g. When I had requested information about IInd Appeal against Ministry of Social Justice, reply was given for some other ordinary letter of the same date pertaining to Ministry of Railways; when I requested information about letters pertaining to PMO, reply is given about Ministry of S.J. etc. This was brought to the notice of A.A., who advised in his speaking order dt 23-11-12 that IInd Appeal dt 12-8-10 is now traced and IC (SS) has been requested to register it and fix date of hearing. Inspite of sending all papers, as desired, this has not been registered nor date fixed. A.A. did not deal with item 6 and gave general remarks and IInd Appeal against PMO is neither registered nor date fixed. This was brought out in IInd Appeal dt 27-12-12 and after hearing Shri Shreyaskar, CPIO and without hearing me or examining my IInd Appeal containing 15 pages in duplicate, Shri M.L.Sharma, IC turned to Shri D.C. Singh of IC(SS), who stated that some of the letters relate to disposal of Appeal no. CIC/SS/A/2011/001738 etc. When the whole case is for 2 specific Appeals dt 12-8-10 & 25-11-10, it is not clear what Appeal no. 1738 has to do with this case. However, Shri M.L. Sharma disposed of the case without giving reasoned Speaking Order and examining the incorrect and irrelevant contentions of S/Shri Shreyaskar and D.C. Singh and without even mentioning what was asked in 2nd Appeal no.000399.

    ii)Case no. CIC/LS/A/2013/000399: i) There is no discussion of this case except that both cases are being disposed of through a common order that follows in the beginning of Speaking Orders.
    In my Application dt 21-9-12, I had requested to advise the procedure/instructions as to how preference is being given to Senior Citizens Appeals in terms of last decision of CIC in Meeting held on 13-12-11 and number of appeals/complaints given preference in last 2 years and number of Applications/Appeals from Senior Citizens pending such preference and whether my 8 IInd Appeals shown in Application and pending since dates shown therein, the oldest being 5-7-08 come under such preference and if so, when these will be given numbers and when hearing will be fixed. CPIO advised under his letter dt 29-10-12 that no preference is given in registration, examination for admission etc and sent a copy of minutes of meeting held on 13-12-11 and left to me to conclude accordingly. For my 8 specific cases, no information was given about whether they come under preference and when preference will be given nor about number pending for last 2 years etc. AA stated in his Speaking Orders dt 14-1-13 that information about pending cases of Senior Citizens for 2 years is obviously not available and preference varies from case to case basis and preference will be part of decisions. This is not a correct information. CIC was therefore requested in IInd Appeal to examine the incorrect contention of CPIO & AA and to take action to change this practice in terms of Sec 19(8)(a)(iv) of the Act.
    Speaking Order has atleast to mention as to what is requested by citizen in his Application and reply given by CPIO/AA is correct or otherwise.
    iii) For both cases, on receiving the Notice of Hearing fixed on 27-5-13 under letter dt 9-5-13 on 20-5-13, I had requested under my letter dt 21-5-13 to give me hearing through phone, as it would not be physically possible for me at 80 to go come to Delhi nor to Thane Video Conferencing Centre, which is more than 20 km away from my residence. No opportunity to be heard was given in spite of my talking to Shri Das, Dy Registrar on phone on 21-5-13.

  7. #7
    Posts
    79
    Name:
    Mansukhlal
    Blog Entries
    20
    Total Downloaded
    0
    RTI Activity - Stats
    RTI Activity - Bars
    Lv. Percent
    0%
    Monthly Activity
    56.43%
    Problems Posted
    0
    Problems Solved
    0
    Best Answers
    0
    Good Answers
    0

    Default Re: What can be done for such irresponsible disposals?


    Kariraji,
    I need your Help & Guidance. If you feel Speaking Orders is correct, I will close the cases. If any thing is required to be done and if any remedy is available, I shall do that. Pl advise.

  8. #8
    Posts
    79
    Name:
    Mansukhlal
    Blog Entries
    20
    Total Downloaded
    0
    RTI Activity - Stats
    RTI Activity - Bars
    Lv. Percent
    0%
    Monthly Activity
    56.43%
    Problems Posted
    0
    Problems Solved
    0
    Best Answers
    0
    Good Answers
    0

    Default Re: What can be done for such irresponsible disposals?


    Where are the comments of Shri Karira and dr s.malhotra?



About RTI INDIA

    RTI INDIA: Invoking Your Rights. We provide easy ways to request, analyze & share Government documents by use of Right to Information and by way of community support.

Follow us on

Twitter Facebook youtube Tumblr RTI Microblog RSS Feed Apple App Store Google Play for Android

Newsletter Subscription