Uttar Pradesh chief secretary slammed for not implementing RTI

[sidmis]

Uttar Pradesh chief secretary slammed for not implementing RTI
as reported in ThaiIndian by IANS - August 19th, 2008

New Delhi, Aug 19 (IANS) Uttar Pradesh's RTI commission has come down
heavily on the state's chief secretary for not implementing the Right
to Information Act in its true spirit even three years after its
enactment. This happened after a petitioner filed a plea before the
Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission (UPSIC) complaining that
information he had sought from the chief secretary's office (CSO) had
not been provided to him.

Petitioner Paras Nath Verma had sought to know from the CSO why he was
not appointed as an assistant teacher and what action had been taken
on various applications he had filed at various levels.

At a hearing on this before the UPSIC in Lucknow July 18, the CSO had
contended that the chief secretary was the controlling officer of the
state secretariat but his office did not come under the definition of
public authority - and was thus not bound to provide information under
the RTI Act.

The UPSIC had initially reserved judgement on this. In an order on Aug
4, the commission's acting chief, Gyanendra Sharma, declared that the
CSO was a public authority and directed it to name its Public
Information Officer (PIO) and first appellate authority within 15 days
of receiving the order.

The CSO was also directed to make public the name, address and
telephone numbers of the PIO and the appellate authority.
Sharma also directed the chief secretary to trace out a letter that
had been sent from his office along with Verma's query to the state's
basic education secretary and to inform him when this had reached the
officer concerned.

Sharma also asked the chief secretary to explain why Verma was not
informed about his letter being transferred from one officer to
another.

The chief secretary was also asked to respond to these two issues
within one month.

The commission also termed as "laughable" the chief secretary's
contention that his office did not have a website of his own to
respond to queries from the public as the UPSIC's chief also did not
have one.

"The reasons given by chief secretary are not only irrelevant but
unnecessary too. The submission that because (the UPSIC chief) doesn't
have its own website for supporting his argument of not having his own
website is laughable," the commission said.

"Does he have to be told that the country's prime minister and cabinet
secretary of the central government also have own websites," the
commission added.

"The central government's cabinet secretariat, which is the nodal
agency for coordination amongst various ministries has its own
website. Thus, is it not important for the office of the chief
secretary, the controlling officer of the state government's
secretariat, to have its own website, appoint a PIO and disclose
information under various sections of RTI Act?" the commission asked.

Speaking to IANS about his order, acting commission chief Sharma said:
"The sole purpose and intent was to hold someone responsible in the
chief secretary's office under the RTI Act.

"I have only asked them to appoint a PIO and an appellate authority
and make their details public, which should have been a suo motu
disclosure under the act.

"As far as the website is concerned, I have left this decision to the
chief secretary."


Uttar Pradesh chief secretary slammed for not implementing RTI

[vijendra singh]

If top beureaucrates are unaware of national laws , what will be the fate of our country ?

[sidmis]

Chief Secy Office not above RTI, says Information Commission
as reported in Indian Express, Oct 02, 2008

Lucknow, October 1 Refusing to allow the state Chief Secretary to keep his office above the Right To Information Act, the State Information Commission has asked Atul Kumar Gupta to appoint a Public Relations Officer (PRO) in the next 15 days and make the related information public.

While issuing the order, Acting Chief Information Commissioner Gyanendra Sharma quoted judgments of other states in similar cases. The Chief Secretary’s Office, he said, comes under the category of “Public Authority” under Section 2(H) of the RTI Act.

Hearing the appeal of petitioner Paras Nath Verma, on June 26, the Commission had asked the Chief Secretary if any public information officer had been appointed in his office. Sharma had also asked the Chief Secretary to explain why his office does not figure on the Government website along with other departments.

In reply, the Chief Secretary had stated that his office does not fall under the purview of “public authority” and could not be listed for seeking information through RTI.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/Chief-Secy-Office-not-above-RTI--says-Information-Commission/368497

[sidmis]

Finally, CS office becomes RTI-enabled
as reported in the Times of India, 25 Oct 2008, TNN

LUCKNOW: The office of chief secretary has nominated a Public Information Officer (PIO) and the first appeals authority after State Information Commission (SIC) did not agree with its argument that it was not a ‘public authority’ as defined under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

The commission in its order on September 25 had given a fresh deadline to the office of CS to appoint a Public Information Officer (PIO) and an appellate authority within 15 days from the date of receiving the order.

The commission had also asked the office to make public the information pertaining the same. The order dated September 25 was a repetition of the August 4 order of the commission.

In compliance with the SIC directions, the office has nominated personal secretary of the CS, Bansh Bahadur Singh (contact no 0522-2211212) as the PIO to look into the applications filed under RTI Act, while staff officer RD Paliwal (0522-2238170) has been nominated to look into the first appeals cases. The case was disposed off by chief information commissioner (officiating) Gyanendra Sharma on Friday.

However, the ‘repeated’ order came after CS in a letter dated August 22 had requested the SIC to re-look into the matter on the grounds that it is not a Public Authority (PA). The office, on earlier hearings, had also maintained that since it has no department under it and is the nodal authority, it does not come within the ambit of PA. Therefore, appointment of PIO or maintenance of a website is not expected of it. It had further clarified that it can not provide information under RTI but applications received by it are forwarded to the departments concerned.

SIC, on the other hand, had contested the version of the office of the CS on the ground that when the Prime Minister, chief minister and cabinet secretary can have separate websites and PIOs, why not the chief secretary? To supplement its contention, SIC has held a PA, as defined under the Act, to be any authority or body or institution of self government established or constituted — by notification issued or order made by the appropriate government.

Meanwhile, the fact that the office of the CS did not have a PIO was affecting the timely release of information to the applicants who were submitting their applications with the said office. The applications from CS office were being transferred to the departments concerned by the staff officer, and the commission observed that only the PIO could forward the applications received under RTI to the officials concerned, if the need arose. Since, RTI applications were being forwarded by the staff officer and not the PIO, they were not getting the needed attention by the other departments, it said.

Finally, CS office becomes RTI-enabled-Lucknow-Cities-The Times of India