Raj SIC upheld spirit of RTI act- Unique Decision

[sharmajee]

Appellant filed RTI on 12.1.11 seeking information on 5 points from PIO, M.D., Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd, along with IPO. On that date MD, JVVNL was designated PIO.

Respondent returned the said IPO and application to Appellant on 24.1.11, giving reference to dept’s circular dated 24.1.11, through which new PIOs were designated. Respondent requested appellant to file RTI with IPO to newly designated PIO.

During II appeal hearing appellant submitted that he had applied to correct PIO only. On this, LD SIC noted in its decision order, there was no counter argument submitted by Respondent PIO.

Ld SIC also noted that appellant did not commit any mistake by addressing his application and IPO to MD, JVVNL, as his name, existed as PIO, in the list of RTI guide published by home dept of state govt.

Ld SIC also noted that PA has by order dated 24.1.11, designated new PIOs on a later date. Ld SIC noted perhaps this information could not reach public. However Respondent said this updation was available on its website.(No mention of since when).

Ld SIC than concluded since fee of application has not been deposited, therefore no legal error committed by PIO by denying information.

However Ld SIC further noted in its decision order dated 29.2.12, merely on technical ground if any applicant is denied information is totally against the spirit of RTI act, when still appellant is interested to get the information.

In the light of this Ld SIC finally ordered to PIO that if with in 15 days, appellant submits his RTI application with IPO to new PIO, he should provide information as per law within stipulated time.

JAI RTI.

[sharmajee]

Sponsorer

See the Contrast now:

Appellant filed a RTI application to Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority (JDA), Jaipur on 24.12.10, seeking details of compliance done in Decision order (Complaint No. 26/10), in the matter of Giriraj Prasad v/s Secretary, JDA, Jaipur. As per appellant First appeal remained undecided. Hence II appeal.

Counsel of Respondent (JDA), filed his objection, on acceptance of this appeal, on following grounds:

1. RTI application was not addressed to correct PIO, but addressed to Secretary JDA, therefore not only this appeal, but RTI application is not maintainable.
2. Appeal has been done at the level of Commissioner, JDA, who is not designated as an appellate authority
3. Since RTI Application, was not related to any other Public Authority, Therefore, Respondent was not under legal obligation in this case, to transfer the same to any other PIO.

Ld SIC noted in its decision dated 6.3.12:

1. that Secretary, JDA, Jaipur was PIO in the instant complaint 26/10 , therefore Appellant has not made any error by referring his RTI to concerned PIO.
2. Appellant is right in seeking details of compliance of order from PIO, who was party in that complaint 26/10.
3. Appellant cannot be expected to know that among so many PIOs which PIO has been designated by Secretary to maintain sought information.

On above Ld SIC held that neither RTI application was addressed to wrong PIO.

Ld SIC also cited provisions of section 6(3) and noted, it says transfer to other ‘Public Authority’ not PIO. Ld SIC further gave reference to its own decision in which it was held that in any single PA where more than one PIO are there, than transfer in 6(3) will be done within same PA too, to facilitate information.
SIC also deliberated on filling of First appeal to commissioner was right on the ground that as per section 19(1) its not mandatory to designate First Appeal Officer ( FAO). First appeal can be filed to senior officer in the rank of PIO and there are many PA’s where more than one FAOs are there. This system is practical and in public interest too. Therefore in instant case, SIC noted in its decision that appellant was right in filling First Appeal to Commissioner, JDA, considering Secretary as PIO.
Based on above SIC opined that appellant’s RTI application should have been transferred at appropriate level to concerned PIO, which was done on 6.1.11.

Respondent in its reply submitted decision of First Appeal in which SIC did not feel need to intervene.

Note: JDA had earlier only secretary as PIO and Commissioner as FAO.
Later JDA designated many zone wise PIOs and designated Secretary as FAO.

[sharmajee]

Appellant filed a RTI application to Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority (JDA), Jaipur on 17.1.11, seeking details ( of compliance, day wise progress, if no action taken reason) of Decision in Complaint No. 103/10 dated 28.6.10, in the matter of Shrikrishan Khandelwal v/s Deputy Commissioner Zone-9, JDA, Jaipur. As per appellant First appeal remained undecided. No information was provided by PIO till now. Hence II appeal, seeking information and penalty.

Counsel of Respondent (JDA), filed his objection dated 13.2.12, on maintainability of this appeal, on following grounds:

1. RTI application was not addressed to correct PIO, but addressed to Secretary JDA, therefore not only this appeal, but RTI application is not maintainable.
2. First Appeal has been done to officer who is not designated as an appellate authority

Ld SIC noted in its decision dated 14.3.12:

1. In the para 6 of order on complaint 103/10, SIC had directed Secretary, JDA, Jaipur to conduct enquiry for the missing records and take disciplinary action against staff after pinpointing their responsibility.
2. Therefore Appellant has not made any error by referring his RTI to Secretary, who was responsible for taking action .
3. Even if there was any technical lacuna, than it was duty of PIO to inform Appellant about it
4. Since First Appeal has been filed to Commissioner, JDA not Secretary, JDA (who is designated FAO), than also since both sit in same office building, it could have transferred to FAO designate. SIC noted he failed to understand what was the problem in this?
5. SIC further noted if there is any deficiency, the same could have been rectified. In his opinion Respondent was focussing more on technical issues than practicability.

Ld SIC also noted that Respondent has failed to submit any reason of delay in reply to notice issued u/s 20(1) to him. Respondent only informed through DC (Zone-9), that Addl Commissioner was informed to take action after pin pointing responsibility in the said decision on 22.3.11.

Respondent was provided information on Point 3,4.
Addl Commissioner (Admin) has been written for enquiry on missing file. He should inform with 21 days out come of enquiry to SIC under copy to Appellant.

Appeal is decided as above. JAI RTI