IC M Ansari's orders regarding Penalty...

[karira]

Over the last week or so, IC Ansari has been issuing many orders with the following words:

The CPIO is directed to furnish the information within 15 working days from the date of issue of this decision, failing which penalty proceedings u/s 20 (1) of the Act would be initiated.

My question is, that for a matter to reach Second Appeal, it would have definitely taken more than 60 days (from the date of application or receipt by PIO) in the least case scenario. Even if the IC heard the case on the 61st day, the time limit for the CPIO to provide information is overshot by 31 days. Therefore penalty should be levied at the rate of 250 X 31 = Rs. 7750.00.

Then, if information has not been given till now, why isn't a show cause notice being issued immediately ?

Why is the IC giving another 15 days to the PIO to supply information and ONLY THEN willing to consider Penalty proceedings under Sec 20(1) ?

There cannot be so many cases in a week wherein no applicant has asked for penalty or partial information already provided, etc. Can members throw some light as to what is going on ?

[jps50]

Unless non-babus are inducted this type of things will continue. Alternatively if High or Supreme Courts interpret section 20 of RTI Act and pull up ICs for violating RTI provisions, the things may change. If ICs mean serious business as to penalty, it will reduce work load on ICs and pendency of appeals/complaints. As on today, PIO/FAA are hardly serious in discharge of their duties under the Act. In fact learning time is already over for PAs.

[vijendra singh]

Dear Karira , the appellant is nowhere in RTI Act expected to pray for penalty on PIOs. ICs are morally & mandatorily bound to punish the erring PIOs. If the I.Cs are not performing diligently their duties ; poor appellant can pray only in high court. & there also a clear fault of PIO shown / written by the I.C. will be required. Hence , only & only one solution is there --- --I.Cs must be non-bureaucrates & punishable.

[nk agarwal]

Allowing time by IC to CPIO is to fullfill the requirement of "providing opportunity of being heared" before imposing penalty.
My experience says that applicants should rremain patient in the whole process.
nk agarwal

[nk agarwal]

Allowing time by IC to CPIO is to fullfill the requirement of "providing opportunity of being heard" before imposing penalty.
My experience says that applicants should rremain patient in the whole process.
nk agarwal

[abhi987]

CIC / SIC have been appointed by PM / CM respectively.

If one finds any problem with the functioning of CIC / SIC, PM (ofcourse with pulls and pressures from the coalition) and CM are to be blamed.

There is no point finding any fault with CIC / SIC.

PM / CM are the key.

CIC / SIC are the mirrors of PM / CM.

[karira]

Originally Posted by nk agarwal

Allowing time by IC to CPIO is to fullfill the requirement of "providing opportunity of being heard" before imposing penalty.
My experience says that applicants should rremain patient in the whole process.
nk agarwal

Patience ?
The applicant waits nearly a year to get his case heard in the CIC !

Under Sec 20(1) it is obligatory to impose Penalty if there is a delay in providing information beyond the mandated 30 days provided the PIO is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before penalty is imposed:

".....refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, ....."
"Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him:"

In ALL such orders issued by IC Ansari, the wordings are exactly the same as above. He wants the PIO to supply information within 15 days failing which he shall initiate penalty proceedings under Sec 20(1).

Can you please point out where do you find "asking for explanation", "asking PIO to explain". "issue show cause notice", etc. in those orders ? Maybe they are in invisible font !

The information is already long overdue (although with all benefit of doubt and being over optimistic with the RTI process) I have taken only a 31 day overshoot of the time limit. If you go through CIC decisions and make a date chart, 31 days is more optimistic than waiting for a elephant to fall from Heaven - generally it is closer to a year.

And you want applicants to have more patience.

[karira]

nk agarwal,

I request you to please refer to the Minutes of Meeting held in the CIC on 12th August 2008. Item 6(i) and 6(iv) of the minutes, state:

6. Commission directed that the following procedure may be followed
while imposing penalty and the same may be incorporated in the CIC
(Management) Regulations 2007.

i) Wherever there is no response of the PIO within the time specified
in section 7(1) or there is a complaint that the PIO refused to accept
application, the Commission shall issue a notice to him to show
cause why penalty should not be imposed upon him. In such cases,
the response of the PIO has to be assessed on whether the
explanation offered by him provides “reasonable cause” or not.

......
......
......

iv) If it is found during first hearing that any of the above situations
prime exists, then show cause notice shall be issued in the notice of
the first hearing only to save time of a separate hearing for
imposition of penalty. The PIO shall be expected to present his/her
explanation in the hearing.

Procedure to be followed while imposing penalty by CIC....IMPORTANT

Therefore, the Show Cause Notice has to be issued along with the notice for first hearing.