Stinging Order of CIC against AA in CBDT - Important issues raised...

[karira]

Attached is a recent order of the CIC, passing stinging strictures against the AA of CBDT. Several important points to be noted:

1. CIC passed a order on 20/6/2007 allowing disclosure (inspection).
2. AA on his own passed another order on 25/1/2008 with holding some part of information under Sec 8(1)(j).
He also condescendingly ordered that photocopies may be provided to the applicant.

Appellant went back to the CIC and the order is:

http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/AT-17072008-09.pdf

"...................The order of the Appellate Authority is wholly misconceived and, shows an utter ignorance of the RTI law. First, once the orders of the Commission had been issued, it was not open to the Appellate Authority to sit in judgement on how to apply that order. Nowhere in the order of the Commission dated 20.06.2007, it was stated that Appellate Authority, or for that reason any other respondent, would decide which part of the information to be withheld from inspection once the order was for the inspection of the entire file. Second, there was no reason for the Appellate Authority to condescendingly record in his order that the appellant could be provided photocopies of the documents in spite of the fact that no such orders were contained in the Commission’s above decision. It is surprising that the Appellate Authority did not know the elementary fact that it is the right of a petitioner to receive photocopies of documents ― especially the documents he had inspected ― under Section 2(j) of the RTI Act.
It is this incapacity of the officers such as this Appellate Authority to comprehend the RTI law that proceedings are prolonged and they multiply.
...........
Notices may issue to the Appellate Authority, Shri M.D.Sinha, Director (Ad.VI) to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed on him, as holder of the information; for distorting the Commission’s orders and failing to provide to the appellant his rightful information. Returnable in two weeks.
..........
A notice may also separately issue to the head of the public authority, viz. Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, repeated to the Appellate Authority, as to why a compensation of Rs.50,000/- not be awarded to the appellant for the detriment suffered by him due to the deliberately dilatory and evasive action of the Appellate Authority, Shri M.D.Sinha in the matter of disclosure of information. Returnable in two weeks.

=====================

Note: AA is being penalised here not as a AA BUT as a "holder of information"

[vijendra singh]

Thanks for such good news. It shows that the erring I.Cs of the Commissions have started to perform qualitatively now. All citizens / activists have been demanding since long such quality improvement in ICs' functioning. All the PIOs or officers withholding info must always be punished in the above manner without fail. I saw such a honest ,diligent decision of an IC first time in 3 years. Hope , other ICs will also perform like this.

[karira]

What a tame ending to this order of the Hon'ble IC A N Tiwari !

http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/AT-15112008-04.pdf

The order of the Commission is as follows:
“Parties called, present.
In view of the explanation submitted by the Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes and Appellate Authority, and especially their assurance that such incidents won’t recur, matter is dropped. There should be no further action.”

Just seems to be a case of "much ado about nothing" !

[vijendra singh]

Integrity of the Info Commissions has always been below standard since past 3 years. How the quality can be brought there -- it is big matter of concern for the activists today. Gandhiji started some work. All must support him by 'tan & man'.

[rajub]

What if such thing recurs?

Will IC punish the guilty? (There may be different IC and different AA from same PA)

I doubt.

I know one such case. IC reprimanded AA (just reprimanded). The AA repeated the mistake an year later. The second appeal has been made before same IC. I am curious to see what does IC do now?

[vijendra singh]

Rajub !
That is why I emphasized on qualitative output of the ICs. Had the IC punished that guilty PIO/ AA already at first instance ; further misdeeds of the same PIO /AA were not to be expected again & again . These are the ICs who are pardoning the guilty PIOs knowingly & against RTI spirit; & consequently abetting the violation of RTI Act directly / indirectly. I read a CIC/ICPB decision no. 3007 dt 12.11.08 where the IC knowingly/ unknowingly wrote,''PIO is supposed to give info within 30 Years''. Hence I think it is totally wrong / injustice to give such bad , unjustified decisions in haste just to minimise anyhow the pendency of CIC appeals.God bless RTI.