Written submission during appeals

[MK Singhal]

Dear Sir,
I send you a note on the experience I had during the 2nd hearing on my 2nd appeals held by Hon SCIC, Lucknow on 17.04.07 just for your information and advice as to how best it should be handled now for expeditious action by Hon SCIC, Lucknow. I will be happy to come and iscuss this matter with you and your experts at any time you may like to fix for this purpose. My two 2nd appeals, were first taken up for hearing by Hon SCIC (Sri Saxena) in his office on 30.03.07. Written submissions were made by me with regard to both these cases on that day. PIO Noida Authority did not submit any written statement/submission on the status of supply of information asked for by me and only submitted duplicate Photostat copies of some information he had already sent to me in the past. He could not confirm if the required information as asked for and mentioned in my written submissions was really supplied by him on my applications. Hon SCIC (Sri Saxena) therefore postponed the hearing for 17.04.07 and directed the Respondant PIO to ensure and confirm that all the information asked for by the applicant is provided by that date. During the second hearing on 17.04.07, Respondant PIO again did not submit any written statement/submission on the status of supply of information asked for by me and only submitted duplicate Photostat copies of some more letters he had already sent to me in the past. In the meanwhile, I had received copies of some documents from Noida Authority file got
inspected by me on 20.02.06, after the hearing on 30.03.07, and found that some information supplied was incomplete and some misleading and/or false. I had informed PIO, Noida Authority about these inconsistencies vide my letter dated 10.04.07 to him. Based on all these developments, I prepared my written submission again for submission to Hon SCIC (Sri M A Khan) during the 2nd hearing on 17.04.07 (attached herewith as Annex 1). Sri M A Khan, Hon SCIC, Lucknow however did not accept the same during the hearing. He remarked, without reading my submission or asking any clarifications from Respondant PIO, that I was unnecessarily trying to prolong the matter and directed that I file a separate complaint in this regard for further orders. This means, on the one hand, that proper supply of full information on my applications pending since 15.11.06 and 11.12.06 will be delayed further due to lack of requisite orders by Hon SCIC, Lucknow and my having to submit another complaint to Hon SCIC, Lucknow u/s 18(e) of RIA 05, wait for a date of hearing on it (which may take another say 3 months) and on the other hand, that it will help in increasing the number of appeal/complaint cases being handled by the office of Hon SCIC, Lucknow, whereas the efforts of Hon SCIC, Lucknow should be to reduce the same.
This experience also shows that whereas Mr Saxena, Hon SCIC, Lucknow did take the written submission from me during the first hearing on 30.03.07 and directed the Respondant to ensure and confirm that all the information asked for by the appelant is provided by 17.04.07, the second date fixed by him for hearing in this matter, Sri M A Khan, Hon CIC, Lucknow who was present at the 2nd hearing on 17.04.07 did not accept my written submission, did not like to direct the Respondant PIO, Noida Authority to supply a written submission under copy to me on the points raised in my 1st and 2nd submissions regarding supply of information found incomplete, misleading and/or false u/s 18(e) of RTIA 05, did not like to penalize PIO, Noida Authority or the official concerned, as may be identified by him, for causing such abnormal delays in supply of information, as recorded under Section II of y 2nd submission, under section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act 2005 and did not provide me relief u/s 19(8)(b) of RTIA 05, if it is proved that information provided by PIO, Noida Authority against para 1 of Section 1 of my 2nd submission, regarding approval of change of use status of cabin nos 206, 207 & 208 from Industrial Software to Commercial in Feb 06 was false, by directing the Respondant, Noida Authority, to restore cabins 206, 207 & 208 to the Appelant's Coy, Eclipse Systems Pvt Ltd, extending it's rent lease deed for further 5 yrs as per rules in force, compensating it for all the losses incurred by it due to the sealing of it's offices on 24.11.06 on the pretext of this false change in use status of these cabins, and ordering disciplinary action against the officials who submitted such false information.
I shall be grateful if some of your experts could advise me of the proper
future course of action that I should adopt to get early relief in this
matter. Your samiti may also like to take up to take up this case with Hon
SCIC, Lucknow in the wider interest of proper implementation of RTI Act 05.
Thanking you and assuring you of my full cooperation in this vital campaign,

Sincerely,
(M K Singhal)
Attached: Copy of my 2nd submission dated 17.04.07 not accepted by Hon
SCIC, Lucknow during the 2nd hearing on 17.04.07

[MK Singhal]

Dear Sir,

I have a number of cases pending with Hon'ble SCIC, UP, Lucknow office. I would be grateful if you could clarify me on the following points as far as known to you and pressurize/take up these points for implementation by the Office of Hon SCIC, Lucknow through your esteemed NGO, if deemed fit by you.

• Why does Hon SCIC, Lucknow not require the Respondent to file a written statement/submission on the points raised by the Appellant/Complainant in their appeal/complaint and on the written statement/submissions by the Appellant/Complainant to both parties before finalizing orders on such cases and levy suitable punishment on the Respondent u/s 20(1) and 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act 05 if default is established to ensure non recurrence of such defaults in future.

Explanatory Note:

My two 2^nd appeals, were first taken up for hearing by Hon SCIC in his office on 30.03.07. Written submissions were made by me with regard to both these cases on that day.

PIO Noida Authority did not submit any written statement/submission on the status of supply of information asked for by me and only submitted duplicate Photostat copies of some information he had already sent to me in the past. He could not confirm if the required information as asked for and mentioned in my written submissions was really supplied by him on my applications. Hon SCIC therefore postponed the hearing for 17.04.07 and directed the Respondent PIO to ensure and confirm that all the information asked for by the applicant is provided by that date.

During the second hearing on 17.04.07, Respondent PIO again did not submit any written statement/submission on the status of supply of information asked for by me and only submitted duplicate Photostat copies of some more letters he had already sent to me in the past. In the meanwhile, I had received copies of some documents from Noida Authority file got inspected by me on 20.02.06, after the hearing on 30.03.07 and found that some information supplied was incomplete and some misleading and/or false.

I had informed PIO, Noida Authority about these inconsistencies vide my letter dated 10.04.07 to him. Based on all these developments, I tried to submit my written submission again to Hon SCIC (Sri M A Khan) on 17.04.07 but he did not accept the same. He remarked, without reading my submission or asking any clarifications from Respondant PIO, that I was unnecessarily trying to prolong the matter and directed that I file a separate complaint in this regard for further orders.

This means, on the one hand, that proper supply of full information on my applications pending since 15.11.06 and 11.12.06 will be delayed further due to lack of requisite orders by Hon SCIC, Lucknow and, on the other hand, that it will help in increasing the number of appeal/complaint cases being handled by the office of Hon SCIC, Lucknow, if it is of any significance to him.

• Why does the office of SCIC not give the appeal/complaint number and the date of hearing in his office, on the appeals/complaints received by him from time to time soon after their receipt by him, say, within a week and not after very long .

Explanatory Note: In the normal courts, appeal number and date of hearing is fixed soon after the appeal is received and accepted for hearing (generally within a week of receipt of such appeal). A perusal of Annex 1 shows that the appeal number and dates of hearing were fixed in my cases after over one and a half months of their receipt by the office of SCIC,Lko. This period must be reduced to a week as in normal courts. It is of course understood that the date of hearing would be fixed according to the time schedule of the Hon SCICs and could be long after.

• Why does the office of SCIC, UP not give at least one reference, say, the date of appeal/complaint, for reference in the notices for hearing issued by him.

Explanatory Note: In the notices of hearing received by me in the first four cases, there is no mention of the date of my appeal/complaint or any other reference to my appeal/complaint (eg subject, PIO registration no or date of receipt etc) and hence it becomes very difficult to connect SCIC notice to the particular appeals/complaints submitted by me. Hence, it would be desirable if Hon SCIC, gives at least one reference, say, the date of my appeal/complaint for reference in such notices. It is specially important if many appeals/complaints are filed against the same Respondent by the Appelant/Complainant as in y case.

• Why are 4 copies of 2^nd appeals/complaints submitted to Hon SCIC, for action. Normally, Hon SCIC, should require the Appellants/Complainants to submit only two copies of the appeal/complaints to him and one copy directly to the Respondent for submitting a written statement/submission on the points raised therein. Such appeals/complaints are heard by only a single judge and hence only two copies at the most should be enough for his office.
• Why does the office of SCIC, not give notice of its decision, including any right to appeal, to the appellant/complainant and the Respondant under section 19(9) of the Right to Information Act 2005. In my particular case, Hon SCIC, did not send copies of his orders on my appeals heard on 08.03.07, 09.03.07 and 30.03.07 yet. The office of SCIC, should be pressurized to follow this important provision in the RTI Act 2005.
• Under section 19(10) of the Right to Information Act 2005, the SCIC Lucknow is to decide the appeals/complaints in accordance with the procedure as may be prescribed. Why has Hon SCIC, not got such procedure for his office finalized yet. He needs to be presuurised in this regard.
• Under section 7(1) of the Right to Information Act 2005, PIO is required to give the requested information within 30 days of the receipt of request to do so. Similiarly, it would be desirable if the office of SCIC, also responds to all letters received by him within 30 days, if not earlier. In fact, all authorities of the government covered by this Act must ensure that they respond to all letters/representations received by them from the public within a month of their receipt by them. This has to be propogated in a big way. In fact, I have started giving the following foot note on all the letters/representations sent by me to govt authorities (of course to no avail yet): ‘I am entitled to receive information about action taken by you on this letter/representation under sec 6 of RTI Act 05. It will therefore be desirable if you will send me copies of any letters you may write or inform me of any action taken by you in this regard to reduce further correspondence under RTI Act 05 in this matter’.

I hope that your samiti would like to take up these suggestions with SCIC, in the wider interest of proper implementation of RTI Act 05. Thanking you and assuring you of my full cooperation in this vital campaign.

Sincerely,
(M K Singhal)

[kushal]

Hello Shri. Singhal,

Your post is more of a suggestion for improving the operative parts of SCIC office there fore I am transferring this post from 'Ask for RTI query' to 'RTI General Discussions".

On a similar post was made by you which I have added to the 'Suggestion for improvement of RTI' thread in the same 'RTI General Discussion' forum.

[karira]

M K Singhal,

The following thread will be of interest to you:

State info panel turns one: People unhappy with prevalent machinery

What you complained about 2 months ago is coming to boil now.