Difficult to believe.

[colnrkurup]

My second appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/00464 was heard by CIC on 6-8-2008. I find it difficult to believe following facts emerged in connection with the above hearing

1. The CIC's office has suddenly become ultra-efficient that the decision of yesterday is available to-day
2. The Army Hqs says that they have not detailed a CPIO in one of their important Wing dealing with medical fcilities of the entire retired pesonnel of the Armed Forces and as a result the CIC could not get a neck to hang even when he found someone guilty.
3. RTI Act is strong enough even to make the Ministry of Defence move. I would rather call it a success story.
4. One can succeed without the attendance of appellant during the hearing ..
xxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx
Decsion of CIC

x x x

It is, therefore, recommended to ECHS that the
suggestions and apprehensions of appellant Col. Kurup may be taken into
consideration in redesigning the functioning of ECHS.

On the question of delay in response to the initial application of 11.7.06,
Brig. Sangam has submitted that ECHS does not have a CPIO of its own. RTI
applications addressed to ECHS are serviced by CPIO-Army, Ministry of
Defence. The ECHS, therefore, had received the application from Col. Kurup as
a complaint and not as a request for information, hence the reply of 12.9.06 in
which each question had not sought to be answered. This is an unacceptable

9

explanation. Under the RTI Act every Unit is to have at the very least an APIO.
Even if there was no such authority the matter should have been referred
immediately to the CPIO Army since it clearly states the sections with subsections
of the RTI Act under which the questions had been raised. However,
since there was no CPIO designated for the purpose, we cannot hold any
authority liable for the delay and, therefore, consider imposing penalty. Ministry
of Defence will, however, review this system within one week of the date of issue
of this Decision Notice and take steps to ensure that such a fault does not recur
to ensure that an RTI application addressed to any Unit of the Ministry of

Defence is addressed immediately on receipt.

[The Great]

Congratulation Col.Saab.
While dealing with one NCC querry, I felt, the PIO gave no importance to my aplication. Only on 58 days of my application, when I made the Ist Appeal, addressing the same person requesting him to forward my application to the right authority as I do not know the address, he replied me, which was not satisfactory. When I wrote him "Whether my Ist Appeal is disposed off ?" he became alert and responded me positively.
Though strictly discplined, I think army people have no time to bother with this type of matter. However with a few RTI Application they will become conscious.

[taurus]

If someone has failed to nominate a CPIO, should that person not be taken to task? Why CIC should fight shy of such a course of action even after three years of implementation of the Act.

[karira]

Originally Posted by taurus

If someone has failed to nominate a CPIO, should that person not be taken to task? Why CIC should fight shy of such a course of action even after three years of implementation of the Act.

The full decision can be read here:

http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/WB-06082008-02.pdf

The main reason is the Sec 20 (1) and Sec 20 (2).
All penalties etc. will lie with the PIO.
The AA and the administrative head of the PA go scot free or only with a mild;y worded "suggestion" or "direction".

[colnrkurup]

Mr.Karira has pointed out a vital aspect which I did not notice so far. The RTI Act gave the public authorities only 120 days but depite lapse of nearly 3 years the public authoority viz., Ministry of Deence did not detail a PIO as stated by the respondents. Is this acceptble ? Can the public authority go scot free for this lapse ? As an appellant I do not have any power to press this aspect or complain to anyone. CIC has sated in his judgement that
"On the question of delay in response to the initial application of 11.7.06,
Brig. Sangam has submitted that ECHS does not have a CPIO of its own. RTI
applications addressed to ECHS are serviced by CPIO-Army, Ministry of
Defence. The ECHS, therefore, had received the application from Col. Kurup as
a complaint and not as a request for information, hence the reply of 12.9.06 in
which each question had not sought to be answered. This is an unacceptable
explanation. Under the RTI Act every Unit is to have at the very least an APIO.
Even if there was no such authority the matter should have been referred
immediately to the CPIO Army since it clearly states the sections with subsections
of the RTI Act under which the questions had been raised. However,
since there was no CPIO designated for the purpose, we cannot hold any
authority liable for the delay and, therefore, consider imposing penalty. Ministry
of Defence will, however, review this system within one week of the date of issue
of this Decision Notice and take steps to ensure that such a fault does not recur
to ensure that an RTI application addressed to any Unit of the Ministry of[/left]
Defence is addressed immediately on receipt."

Is this stand acceptable ?

[poonam agarwal]

Delay of 3 years???? responsibility should be fixed appropriately.

[taurus]

There can be one query under RTI as to why no PIO was appointed and who is responsible for the same. That may lead to some action.