Dear ganpat Ji,
Thanks for pointing out the mistake. Actully, appeals are filed under Article 227 and no appeal lie from the decision of the Information Commissions. Therefore, the only remedy available is to file a WRIT in the High Court against the violation or FRs and other rights under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since the violation of rights have been due the decision of the Commissions, therefore the Commissions are required to be made a party. Article 32 of Constitution also provides that in case of the violation of FRs, one can also approach the Hon'ble SC. However, the scope of the Art. 226 is much wider than Art 32, and hence it is safer to approach the HC rather than the SC. Moreover, it is not proper to bother the Hon'ble SC in small matters. <!-- google_ad_section_end -->
<?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O /><O:p> </O:p> Dear Ganpat.<O:p></O:p> As per your suggestion I submitted the following application stating background information of the matter . Then I followed your queries with required addition etc as below. Reply of that application has recently been received. I really feel pity for the Officer who replied it, just to avoid all the queries. This is the manner , how the RTI application is being treated by some SPIOs in our state (WB).<O:p></O:p> I am writing all those reply 9 marked as R1, R2 etc for your comments/suggestions , which will be very much helpful for drafting the appeal, which I am going to submit at the earliest. <O:p></O:p> <O:p></O:p> <O:p></O:p> In this connection please furnish the following information in terms of the RTI Act 2005.
1. Please inform me all the specific guidelines/rules to be followed by the Coop Dept. if financial/other irregularities on the part of the Managing Committee of a Regd coop society are brought out.<O:p></O:p>
2. Please furnish me the details of names and designations of the officials who are empowered to take action as per the rules, in the event of the revelation of such irregularities.<O:p></O:p> R1 & R2 It is guided by the prevailing WBCS & RTI Acts and Rules thereunder.
3. With particular reference to the above hsg society, the Hon’ble HC has issued certain directives during the year 1985,1990,1996 to initiate action against outgoing members of the Managing Committee. Please furnish me the complete details of all such actions taken by the coop dept till the year 2006. R3-The matter was finally disposed of by the Hon’ble Court, Kolkata by its order in FMA-1230 of 2003. Applicant’s comments( So what ?) 4. Please furnish a certified copy of the compliance report submitted by the Registrar if any, submitted to the Calcutta High Court in terms of the orders of the Hon. Division Bench of the said court.
5. Please furnish details of all the actions taken against the members of the Managing Committee of .Metropolitan Co op Hsg Soc in respect of their illegal acts pointed out in the report of the Govt Administrator Sri Anil Kr. Mukherjee in 1988
6. Please furnish me the details of relevant rules/ regulations/guidelines/or any other law in force in your department under which the authorities concerned need not take any action despite directives of the High Court during October 1997 to August 2003.
7. Please furnish me the names and designations of all the officials who were entrusted with handling the file of Metropolitan Co operative Housing Society<O:p></O:p> during the period 1997 to 2006. R,4,5,6 & 7- Does not arise in view of reply to the query no 3. (why?)
<O:p></O:p> <O:p></O:p> 8. Please furnish me certified copies of all the file notings of these officials in respect of their views/recommendations on initiation of appropriate action against the members of the corrupt Ex managing committee of Metropolitan co operative Housing Society as per the High Court directives. R8- The matter may kindly be considered in the light of present information.<O:p></O:p> Applicant’s comment- sorry sir, the present applicant is not kind enough to consider it. He will ask clarification of not furnishing certified copies 9. Is there any rule/regulation/service condition in the coop department to take disciplinary action against its erring officials, in the event of any laxity on their part while complying with the directives of the HIgh Court. If yes, then furnish me the details of all such actions taken for non-compliance of the court orders from October 1997 to August 2003, when there was no restriction from High court case to take proper action against those corrupt persons.<O:p></O:p> R9 WBS (C.C.A) Rules is applicable ( Be specific) and for the second part of the query , why the SPIO is silent ?
<O:p></O:p> 10. Did Sri Surath Biswas, Ex Administrator who worked from the Coop. Directorate take proper steps as revealed from the report submitted by Sri Anil Mukherjee, (previous Administrator of this Hsg. Society) and which was approved by the Hon’ble Division Bench and RCS was directed to take action against the illegalities of the Ex. Managing Committee members of the Metropolitan Co op. Hsg. Society ?<O:p></O:p> R10- Relevant records are lying with the concerned society.- comments- this reply is the only one which is little acceptable. The concerned office should have those records also. It was also a party of the case. So question of not having the records does not hold good.
11. Please furnish me the action taken report on this RTI petition form the date of its receipt till the date of reply (within 30 days as per RTI Act, 05 )<O:p></O:p> <O:p></O:p> R11- SPIO level. Applicant’s comment--- why they are so much reluctant to furnish even this SIMPLE query.<O:p></O:p> <O:p></O:p> <O:p></O:p> I have added short comments against each reply provided. Requesting all members to go through it and suggest their valued comments for improvement of the appeal to be submitted I should thank you all for patient reading and providing comments/ views etc.
Last edited by abhijeet; 27-11-07 at 09:58 PM.
Draft of First Appeal is attached in .txt form (notepad)
Please go through it, make changes if you feel necessary, fill in the blanks, etc.
If you have any queries/doubts, please point our so that we can discuss.
Good morning. I have gone through your well drafted mail . Thank you for your so nicely prepared draft and thus helping us for our just cause.
I have one query for the q no 10. Whether the Coop Directorate, the concerned PA has power to get the information from a private Co op Society ( It is under control of that PA) ? They are always avoiding ' queries' on that plea.---- Abhijeet
A very good morning ! (although a very early one for you)
Please remember that this is a appeal against a decision of the PIO, under the RTI Act. Either in your application or during the appeal proceedings, do not get into arguments of who has the information and who does not, high court orders, names of officers and other such matters...thereby diverting your attention and diluting the merits of your strong case under RTI Act 2005. Just stick to the merits/demerits under the RTI Act.
I reproduce below Section 19(5) of the Act:
5.In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request.
You just sit back and "enjoy" the show.
Your job is to just point out the loopholes in the defence put up by the PIO.
Even if the AA starts the proceedings by asking you something, just say "Sir, as per Section 19(5) of the RTI Act,.........(read out the section adverbatim to him)" and then keep quiet. He will not ask you anything further till you interject as and when the PIO says something incorrect and you point out the loophole.
I started my career under the tutelage of one of the finest Marketing men ever in India. During a fierce battle for market share for a newly launched FMCG product, he once told me "Whenever you are fighting a enemy, always leave a small window open for him to make a honourable escape. Otherwise a cornered enemy will fight like a wounded tiger and hurt you". I always followed that principle till I came across my problems with a particular Government Department in AP and read the RTI Act for the first time in March 2007 (you can read about it in my post http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/690-ca....html#post3497). Since then, I have totally changed my strategy while using the RTI Act. I don't even leave a small crack open for the PIO or the PA to escape.
Approach the whole thing not as "game of skill" but a "game of wit"...just like a chess or a bridge player.
Apologies for giving you homilies, but just wanted to encourage you.
This forum is helping us to enlarge our horizon. I had never realised the importance of Section 19(5) earlier. Now I find that this is the crux of the RTI Act. This exactly is the main factor which distinquish RTI Act from other enactment. In all other enactments, the appellant has to present his case and PROVE it. The respondent can just sit and deny the plaint and start finding the loope-holes in the plaint. Section 19(5) shift the responsibility from the appellant to Respondent. As Mr.Karira has brought out, all that the appellant to do is to sit and enjoy the drama. The responsibility to justify his denial rests on the PIO. But the problem is that the CIC/SICs are not conscious of it. Most of the SICs who are the products of yester-year's old school of thought just cannot grasp it or rather refuse to grasp it. At their present age they cannot change their old mind set up. There are SICs who does not find anything wrong in ordering that the appellant did not present his case the way a prosecution does it. There are SICs who just not grasping that it is futile to call an appellant for hearing when he state in writting that he has nothing more to add than what he has stated in his application and appeals. Such SICs are not sparing the appellant even when the PIO and AA is deemed refused the information and has not submitted any comment to the Second appeals/complaint. At least there is one SIC who has suo motu converted a complaint on deemed refusal of reply by PIO and AA into second appeal and dismissed it on a ground that the appellant did not attend the hearing when called or given an opportunity to present his case. The reasion ? The information sought for if given will expose a deep rootted corruption of vested interest. No one will believe it. It is true. The above information has been obtained from other souce, corruption exposed, the Special Judge,vig & Anti-corruption Bureau has ordered an enquiry, the Directorate also sanctioned it and the enquiry is likely to start next month.
.In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request.
During one previous aoppeal hearing I had to mention it also, but neither the PIO nor the AA did bother at all. In spite of my repeated request, the order of the AA was not at all correct. I submitted 2nd appeal to the SIC, but it is very time taking process. - Abhijeet