CIC (Management) Regulation No. 23 is illicit and violating Section 2(g), 27 and 29 of the RTI Act
by, 19-03-12 at 11:41 AM (9785 Views)
KIND ATTENTION OF Hon’ble Shri Harish Chandra Singh Rawat,
Minister of State for Parliamentary Affairs.
It was a historical moment when the Parliament has enacted The Right to Information Act, 2005 on 15th June, 2005 with an object that democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold Government and their instrumentalities accountable to be governed. To secure aforesaid object a Central Information Commission was constituted under the Act for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
2. I am pained to bring to your kind notice that the authorities of the Central Information Commission are functioning contrary to the basic object of the RTI Act, not only by tainting the explicit words and expression assigned to them under the RTI Act but also misinterpreted Section 12(4) while formulating the Central Information Commission (Management) Regulation, 2007 by redefining the definitions of Section 2 and substituting same under their Regulation 2 with unwarranted modifications. Similarly, the Registrar of the CIC has been considered as a statutory authority under CIC Regulation 4(xi) which is absolutely inconsistent to Section 12 & 13 of the RTI Act.
3. It is ridiculous to state that the word “PRESCRIBED” is well defined under Section 2(g) of the RTI Act but the CIC authorities have tainted the same by defining as ‘prescribed by or under the Act or under the Rules or Regulations’.
4. Section 2(e) explicitly identified the posts and designations of the ‘Competent’ authorities that are competent to frame the Rules under Section 27 and 28 of the RTI Act.
5. The Chief Information Commissioner is neither recognized as a Competent Authority under Section 2(e) nor the word ‘REGULATION’ is inserted under Section 2(g) of the RTI Act as tainted under CIC Regulation 2(i).
6. While the Competent Authority has already laid down the CIC (APPEAL PROCEDURE) Rules, 2005 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (e) and (f) of Section 2 and Section 27 of the RTI Act, the CIC (MANAGEMENT) Regulations, 2007 are unwarrantable in terms of Rule 2(d) of the CIC (Appeal Procedure) Rules and Section 12(4) of the RTI Act.
7. The Information Commissioner Shri Shailesh Gandhi has not even complied with the compliance of CIC Regulation 12 by not ensuring to provide me a copy of Counter Statement from the Appellate Authority despite of my explicit request to him vide my submission dated 18.10.2008.
8. The Information Commissioner has excluded my second appeal No. CIC/OK/A/2008/00397, duly registered by the CIC vide Dy. No. 8363 dated 11/02/2008 at the time of hearing of appeal under Criminal conspiracy. He himself generated a fabricated second appeal by stating the date of filing as on 19/02/2007 in his decision No. CIC/OK/A/2008/00467+00397/SG/0921 dated 07/01/2009. The said cheating of the Information Commissioner is exposed by indicating the date of my second appeal in his decision, apparently one year before the date of my second appeal dated 11/02/2008. I am enclosing herewith a copy of the decision of the Information Commissioner for your kind perusal and testimony of the said manipulation vide Annexure I.
9. The Information Commissioner is hopelessly unable to identify the domain of the RTI Act in his decision with specific reference to clause (b) of Section 19(8) of the RTI Act.
10. My request for rehearing/review of the illicit decision dated 05/06/2009 has not been considered by the CIC and I was informed vide letter No. CIC/OK/ A/2008/00467/00397 dated 17/06/2009 that the Rule 23 of the CIC (Management) Regulation now stands as “a decision or an order once pronounced by the Commission shall be final”. I was confident that no such amendment of the RTI Act has taken place and the said Regulation of CIC is also beyond jurisdiction and inconsistent to Section 23 of the RTI. Act.
11. In view of above, I preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority of Lok Sabha Secretariat for seeking the confirmation of any amendment of Section 23 of the RTI Act by the Parliament in terms of Section 29 of the RTI Act. The Lok Sabha Secretariat has very kindly informed me vide letter No. 1(522)/IC/09 dated 06 November 2009 that no Government Bill seeking to amend the RTI Act has been introduced in Lok Sabha so far. The same finding was also conveyed to Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Deputy Secretary & Joint Registrar of CIC vide letter of even number dated 22 March 2010.
12. It is a matter of great surprise that the CIC authorities are functioning arbitrarily against the explicit provisions of the RTI Act and the CIC (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2005. The said invalid Regulation of the CIC is still down loaded on the web site of the CIC despite the clarification, communicated to the CIC by Shri Harish Chandra, Deputy Secretary, Lok Sabha Secretariat.
13. I am appending below the Second Appeal Rules and Procedure under the Regulations 23 of the CIC (MANAGEMENT) REGULATIONS which has been amended by the CIC on 20th October 2008 arbitrarily under misinterpretation of Section 12(4) and thereby violated Section 29 of the Act. in terms of Rule 2(d) of the CIC (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2005:-
No application format or First Appeal format is prescribed.
FEES for Public Authorities under the Central RTI Rules:
Application Fee (Sec 6(1))
• Rs. 10.00 payable in Cash or by Bankers Cheque, Demand Draft or IPO payable to “Accounts Officer” or the designated authority
Further Fees (Sec 7(1), 7(3), 7(5))
• Rs. 2.00 for each page created or copied (A3 or A4 size)
• Actual charge or cost price in larger size paper
• Actual cost or price for samples and models
• Rs. 50.00 for each Floppy or CD
• As per price fixed for the Publication, or photocopy charges of Rs. 2.00 per page
• First hour of inspection is free and Rs. 5.00 for each subsequent hour or fraction thereof
(Note: The original GO's are attached to this post)
Second Appeal Rules & Procedure:
The Second Appeal to The Central Information Commission (CIC) has to be as per guidelines given in The Central Information Commission (Management) Regulations, 2007. These are available here: https://www.cic.gov.in/CIC%20Regulations,%202007.pdf
These Regulations have been amended on 20 October 2008, whereby Regulation 23 now states that the decision of the Commission shall be final that is no review is possible. (https://www.cic.gov.in/CIC-Notificati...7-006-Amdt.pdf )
A detailed article on drafting and filing a Second Appeal with the CIC has been written by our member and is available in the Guide segment of the portal: https://www.rtiindia.org/guide/how-to...l-under-rti-3/
14. The above invalid stipulation against Section 23 of the RTI Act vide the CIC (Management) Regulation 23 as amended on 20 October 2008 by the CIC is tantamount, not only to undermine the prerogatives of the PARLIAMENT, supreme legislative body of the country, but also paid disrespect to the Constitution of India with specific reference to Article 19.
15. Such arbitrary stipulation in the RTI Act leads to a state of anarchy whereby the bureaucrats would be at liberty to implement the Act indiscriminately. Such an indiscrimination is reflected in the enclosed decision of Shri Shailesh Gandhi, Information Commissioner. Excluding of my second appeal at the time of hearing, tantamount to commissioning of an offence under Section 202 of IPC. The decision is prima facie against Section 18(3) and clause (b) of Section 19(8) of the RTI Act. Besides the prescribed procedure, laid down under Rule 3 & 5 of the CIC (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2005, is completely and malafidely not followed at the time of hearing of appeal. The false and fabricated reply of the Public Information Officer of IIT Kanpur, fuilly covered under Section 199 of the IPC, is also purposely not recorded in the decision which could have exposed the illegitimacy of the decision. The said decision of the Information Commissioner is not even authenticated by the Registrar, as mandatory under Rule 8 of the CIC (Appeal Procedure) Rules.
Sir, it is humbly prayed that the sanctity of the RTI Act is to be ensured to the
citizenry as per spirit of the Act and any attempt to amend the word or Section of the RTI Act by an executing authority may kindly be dealt with severely by fixing suitable responsibility against the authority concerned for committing such violation in order to restore the sanctity of the Act, enacted by the Parliament with a very noble vision.
RTI India Message
Total Trackbacks 0