How do the topmost PA's in India handle Sec 4 disclosure ?

[karira]

Applicant asked for information, presumably in Jan 2008, from:

1. Ministry of Home Affairs,
2. Prime Minister’s Office,
3. Lok Sabha Secretariat and
4. President’s Secretariat,

The information asked for was:

“1. That what action has been taken in relation to loading information on 17 points, on the website of your subordinate and attached offices, as per sub sec. (a) & (b) of Sec. 4 of RTI Act 2005 from 12.10.2005 the effective date of this rule to this date. The details may kindly be provided on day to day basis.
2. That I may be provided with a copy on C.D. about the information provided on website with regard to your subordinate and attached offices.
3. That name, address, telephone number of persons responsible for delay in loading the above information on website may be provided alongwith details of action taken against them for their negligence for not providing such information on website within 120 days as per sub sec. (a) & (b) of Sec. 4.”


MHA replied:

“For the information relating to attached and subordinate offices the application of Shri Dwivedi was transferred to all the attached and
2
subordinate offices of MHA vide O. M. Dated 5.3.2008 (copy enclosed) for taking necessary action for providing the information to him. In respect of information pertaining to MHA (proper) he was informed vide our letter dated 18/ 19-3-2005 (copy enclosed) that the requisite information was available on the official website of MHA. He was further informed that, however, if he desires to have the information in CD, he will have to deposit a sum of Rs. 50/- towards the cost of CD as per RTI (cost & fees) Rules, 2005.
Shri Dwivedi filed first appeal dated 20.3.2008 (received on 28.3.2008) complaining that he did not receive the information sought by him under RTI Act, 2005 vide his application dated 20.2.2008.
Vide his letter dated 17.4.2008 Shri R. P. Nath, Joint Secretary and appellate authority intimated the appellant that as he had also asked for information in respect of attached and subordinate offices of MHA. Therefore, a copy of his RTI application was forwarded to them for providing him the requisite information. In respect of the information relating to the Ministry, he was informed by the appellate authority a reply has already been sent to him by the CPIO.”

PMO replied:

“In this connection, it is submitted that in response to the complainant’s application dated 20.2.2008 under the Right to Information Act, 2005, a reply was sent to him informing him that since the Prime Minister’s Office is not a Ministry or a Department, it has no attached/ sub-ordinate offices. The complainant’s appeal dated 20.3.2008 was also disposed of by the appellate authority in this office.
None of the conditions enumerated under section 18 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 are met in the instant case and, therefore, the complaint filed before the Commission is not tenable.’

FAA of PMO stated:

“On going through the relevant rules, it has been found that the Central Public Information Officer of P.M.O has replied to your application dated 20.2.2008 vide which you have asked for information about the Office & Subordinate Offices under to the Prime Minister’s Office’s vide his letter dated 27.3.2008.
Therefore, no further action is required on your application. The same is disposed off accordingly.”

Lok Sabha Secretariat replied:

“An appropriate reply was sent to him on 25.3.2008 informing him that the information is available on the internet and the same is being updated from time to time and the information can be downloaded from the website of Parliament of India
“Information is available on the internet and the same is being updated from time to time. The information can be downloaded from the website Parliament of India
I am further to inform you not to send any currency note with RTI application in future correspondence as the correct mode of depositing application fee of Rs. 10/- to obtain any information relating to this Secretariat under Right to Information Act, 2005, is either to deposit it at ‘Reception of Parliamentary Library Building, Lok Sabha Secretariat’ against proper receipt (if paid in cash) or send it through money order or demand draft or bankers cheque or Indian Postal Order payable to Drawing and Disbursing officer, Lok Sabha in terms of Lok Sabha Secretariat Right to Information (regulation of Fee & Cost) rules 2005 and Amendment Rules 2007.”

FAA of Lok Sabha said:

“I find that your application dated 20.2.2008 was received in this Secretariat on 25.2.2008 and information has been forwarded to you on 25.3.2008 i.e. within the time period of 30 days from receipt of your application in this Secretariat as stipulated in the RTI Act, 2005.
+
You are further informed that details under sections 4 (1) (a) & 4 (1) (b) of RTI Act, 2005 maintained by this Secretariat are generally of static nature. These are revised and updated as and when the occasion arises. All the information about the organisation can be viewed by accessing http://parliamentofidnia.nic.in on the Internet. The information provided on this website is also freely downloadable and can be copied on CDs, DVDs etc.”

Rashtrapati Bhawan replied:

“He has been replied vide letter of even number dated 13.3.2008 (inadvertently written 13.1.2008) that point (i) is not available, point (ii) may be viewed on our website on The President of India's Secretariat and third one is also not available with this Secretariat (copy enclosed). Thereafter, he has preferred first appeal with the appellate authority of this Secretariat on 20.3.2008 and 22.3.2008 and these were rejected by the appellate authority vide letter no. A-27011/155/06-RTIA (AA), dated 11.4.2008 (copies enclosed). Therefore, it is clear that there is no question of denial of information on account of this Secretariat. An FR related to this matter of the applicant dated 20.6.2008 has also been replied vide letter of even no. Dated 27.6.2008.”
“1. Such type of information is not kept on record.
2. For this information you can see official website of this Secretariat at “www.rashtrapatisachivalaya.gov.in”
3. No such information is available with this Secretariat.”

And the Hon'ble CIC Orders:

Since this Commission has received detailed responses from each of the respondent public authorities, without going into the details of what may or may not have been received by appellant Shri Dwivedi and to allow him to satisfy himself that the RTI Act 2005 is indeed fully functional and effective, a copy of all these responses together with their enclosures is now sent to appellant Shri Shiv Sagar Dwivedi, as an attachment to this Decision Notice. However, on the substance of the appeal, since the information provided to Shri Shiv Sagar Dwivedi by each of the Public Authorities, that are respondents in this case, has not been challenged in second appeal, appellant Shri Shiv Sagar is advised that after receiving the complete information provided by these Public Authorities, he will still be free to move a second appeal before us should he wish to contest any issue The appeal is disposed off accordingly.


Members are requested to visit the websites of the four PA's and see the page on Sec 4 disclosure themselves.

Also read: http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/7292-m...er-passed.html ('The most radical law ever passed')

As Chief Information Commissioner, are you satisfied with the functioning of the RTI Act?

Wajahat Habibullah I am not yet fully satisfied because there is a key element that is lagging. And unless we look into that, the Act itself may not be successful. That element is the suo motto disclosure. Under a section of the Act, records of all departments are to be computerised and connected through a network. And the information should be available on the Internet, so that one can access information from not just within the country but in any part of the world. If that is done it will mean the Act has been fully implemented. Otherwise a lot of information will not be available due to the old record keeping system.

[vijendra singh]

After reading whole material; it is revealed that neither the govt ; nor the CIC acted its pious duties to respect the RTI Act 05. They all willfully ,& in connivance disregarded the RTI Act shrewdly.
Then the citizens have no alternative than to go to High court/ Supreme court. But there also no surity of justice.

[DineshK]

I have filed my application on the same subject to the following PA of Delhi.
1. DDA
2. MCD
3. Dept of Food & Supply
4. Dept of Social Welfare
5. Chief Election Electoral Office, Delhi

The results:
1. RTI cell of DDA forwarded the application to more then 10 PIOs and they all replied that the information does not pertains to them.
2. MCD - No reply.
3. Dept of Food & Supply - No reply
4. Dept of Social Welfare - No reply
5. CEO Delhi - Replied (Though some of the answer are unsatisfactory)

Since I have filed the application on 24 Nov. I am still waiting replies from them. I will file my first appeal on 01 Jan 2010.