Topic Identifier

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 9 to 16 of 27

Thread: IG in dark over RTI application status

  1. #9

    Re: Compensation of Rs 50.000 imposed by SIC, West Bengal


    The decision of the SIC is othewise laudable. But they have let off the PIO very lightly. That is against the spirit of the Act. As rightly contended by Dr Islam (#5 above) he should pursue it further to the logical conclusion. For that he may have to approach the High Court rather than the SIC.



  2. #10
    Posts
    26
    Name:
    saroj khettry
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    8

    Re: Compensation of Rs 50.000 imposed by SIC, West Bengal


    Under the provision of Section 20(1) the Information Commission SHALL IMPOSE A PENALTY OF 250.00 FOR EACH DAY OF DELAY. In one of my appeals the commission directed the public authority to provide requested information. As the information was not received another application was submitted to commission and show cause notice was issued. The commission observed that on receipt of show cause notice the public authority found that the requested information was not available. The commission directed the public authority to pay compensation. In another case the commission
    disposed the appeal as the public authority placed before the commission subsequent
    developments namely grievance has been taken care after 7 years.
    The commission is required to be removed for incapacity U/s 14(1) of the Act.
    I as President of RTI Forum have received number of such complaints and the same will
    be taken up for consideration in the next meeting.

  3. #11

    Re: Compensation of Rs 50.000 imposed by SIC, West Bengal


    A letter written by Dr. Islam to the Chief Minister on 23.05.2006 and submitted to Chief Minister’s secretariat . Thus the matter started.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
    <o:p></o:p>
    Another person submitted one complaint <?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" /><v:shapetype id=_x0000_t75 stroked="f" filled="f" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" o:preferrelative="t" o:spt="75" coordsize="21600,21600"><v:stroke joinstyle="miter"></v:stroke><v:formulas><v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"></v:f></v:formulas><v:path o:connecttype="rect" gradientshapeok="t" o:extrusionok="f"></v:path><o:lock aspectratio="t" v:ext="edit"></o:lock></v:shapetype><v:shape style="WIDTH: 7.5pt; HEIGHT: 7.5pt" id=_x0000_i1029 o:button="t" alt="" type="#_x0000_t75"><v:imagedata o:href="https://www.rtiindia.org/forum/images/misc/vbglossarlink.gif" src="file:///C:\DOCUME~1\P4\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtml1\01\clip_image001.gif"></v:imagedata></v:shape>letter dated 15.5.2007 to Chief Minister’s Secretariat.<o:p></o:p>
    I would like to inform the fate of that letter after 30 months . The information received through a series of RTI applications.<o:p></o:p>
    <o:p></o:p>
    In response to one RTI<v:shape style="WIDTH: 7.5pt; HEIGHT: 7.5pt" id=_x0000_i1025 o:button="t" alt="" type="#_x0000_t75"><v:imagedata o:href="https://www.rtiindia.org/forum/images/misc/vbglossarlink.gif" src="file:///C:\DOCUME~1\P4\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtml1\01\clip_image001.gif"></v:imagedata></v:shape>application , information<v:shape style="WIDTH: 7.5pt; HEIGHT: 7.5pt" id=_x0000_i1026 o:button="t" alt="" type="#_x0000_t75"><v:imagedata o:href="https://www.rtiindia.org/forum/images/misc/vbglossarlink.gif" src="file:///C:\DOCUME~1\P4\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtml1\01\clip_image001.gif"></v:imagedata></v:shape>furnished by the concerned SPIO<v:shape style="WIDTH: 7.5pt; HEIGHT: 7.5pt" id=_x0000_i1027 o:button="t" alt="" type="#_x0000_t75"><v:imagedata o:href="https://www.rtiindia.org/forum/images/misc/vbglossarlink.gif" src="file:///C:\DOCUME~1\P4\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtml1\01\clip_image001.gif"></v:imagedata></v:shape>, as below :-
    “ Receiving a series of complaints, the Registrar of Co operative Societies( RCS), was requested to solve the problems and send a report in this regard vide this Department’s letter No. xxxx dated 01.06.2007 .
    After receiving your complaint<v:shape style="WIDTH: 7.5pt; HEIGHT: 7.5pt" id=_x0000_i1028 o:button="t" alt="" type="#_x0000_t75"><v:imagedata o:href="https://www.rtiindia.org/forum/images/misc/vbglossarlink.gif" src="file:///C:\DOCUME~1\P4\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtml1\01\clip_image001.gif"></v:imagedata></v:shape>letter dated 15.5.2007 from Chief Minister’s Secretariat, the RCS, West Bengal was requested to cause an enquiry vide this Department’s Memo No. yyyy dated 28.6.2007.
    But no report has been received from RCS, West Bengal till date, in both cases from Registrar of Co –operative Societies, <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:place w:st="on">West Bengal</st1:place> . ’’<o:p></o:p>
    <o:p></o:p>
    In this matter, ‘information’ had been provided , but the required ‘action’ against corruption had not been taken even after a period of 30 months. <o:p></o:p>
    In response to another RTI application , SPIO of the Registrar’s office admitted----<o:p></o:p>
    “Department No xxxx dt 07-11-2006 was received by Registrar of Co op. Societies who marked it to the Dy.R.C.S on 13-11-2006. Dy .R.C.S transferred the letter to Asstt. R.C.S. and he marked it to one C.D,O on the same day. The file was duly processed and placed before Dy. R.C.S on 22-11-2006.”<o:p></o:p>
    That was the ‘action ’ taken by one P.A in response to a grievance in connection with gross irregularities & corruption and Registrar was asked to take ‘immediate action ‘<o:p></o:p>
    <o:p></o:p>
    Home Department is not efficient enough in dealing with this type of ‘allegation’ or grievance , it seems.<o:p></o:p>
    It simply could not locate the concerned ‘representation ‘ . So this type of ‘compensation’ ! Above mentioned example clearly shows how nicely ‘action’ was taken against corruption and ‘information’ furnished , by the office of the Registrar of Co op Societies, <st1:place w:st="on">West Bengal</st1:place>. No problem. <o:p></o:p>
    Media is not at all interested in this type of ‘small’ incidents or ‘ corruption ‘. They are busy with more ‘attractive’ incidents. So, people’s grievance and proper action against ‘corruption and corrupt officers will thus nicely be avoided .<o:p></o:p>
    Last edited by GAUTAM BHATTA; 31-12-09 at 06:10 AM.

  4. #12
    Posts
    26
    Name:
    saroj khettry
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    8

    Re: Compensation of Rs 50.000 imposed by SIC, West Bengal



    Keep fighting. The D.R.C.S in reply to an RTI application has informed me that 19 pages of note sheet is missing. He has also informed me that as per present note sheet 4 enquiries were ordered but reports are are not found. In another case I could not get information whether a report submitted by a Board of Administrators submitted on 30.10.08 has been received. You have to co-operate in the way known to public servants as yoy are at mercy of them. Dont give up I am fighting for 30 years.

  5. #13
    Posts
    3,420
    Name:
    Atul Patankar
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    50

    Re: Compensation of Rs 50.000 imposed by SIC, West Bengal


    As reported by Shiv Sahay Singh at indianexpress.com on January 1, 2010

    State information panel asks state to pay relief to top cop


    Kolkata : The West Bengal Information Commission has ordered the state home (political) department to pay a compensation of Rs 50,000 to Nazrul Islam, the additional director general of police (traffic), for failing to provide him the information he had sought under the RTI Act about the chief minister’s noting on a complaint he had earlier sent to him about a few senior police officers. Islam, however, has shot off a letter to the state information officer saying the compensation amount should be paid to him by the State Public Information officer (SPIO) of the home department, and not the department itself, which will have to use taxpayers’ money for the purpose.
    The order to state home department to pay the compensation to the police officer was given by the state Information Commission on December 15, which set a month’s deadline for the payment.
    Islam’s ordeal began on June 4, 2007, when he filed an RTI seeking information on noting made by the chief minister on his letter of complaint against senior police officers and the action taken.
    On May 23, 2006 Islam wrote to the CM saying a vigilance inquiry had been initiated against him for acting in an impartial way. The police officer urged the CM to act against the then Chief Secretary A K Deb, Vigilance Commissioner Shyamal Dutta and the then IG (Vigilance) M K Mukherjee for their alleged involvement in corrupt activities. The Calcutta High Court too had directed the state government to quash the Vigilance inquiry and slapped it with a fine of Re 1.
    After Islam got no reply in the 30 days of filing RTI, he made the first appeal to the appellate authority the SPIO of home department. In August 2007, he filed a second appeal to the State Information Commission, but it did not take up any hearing on the issue. According to sources in the commission, Islam had given nearly two dozen reminders on the issue it.
    On August 27, 2008, the Calcutta High Court directed to State Information Commission to dispose of all his appeals in four weeks.
    Despite attempts by Islam and later by the Information Commission, the CM Secretariat said no record of the letter was kept. The home secretary said they had not also received the original application from the Director General of Police.
    After a rap from the court, the state Information Commission finally started the proceeding and the order was given on December 15, 2009.
    In its order, the commission rapped the home department. “The Commission considers that the home department, being one of the most important departments, shall have to pay a price for such procrastination,” it observed.
    Islam, a 1981 batch IPS officer, however, is not satisfied and has written back to the State Information Commission saying it should make the SPIO of the home department pay the compensation amount.
    “I request for an order that the amount should be deducted from the salary of the person responsible because the name of the department, which is inanimate, cannot be the offender and the person responsible is the offender,” Islam has said in his latest letter to the Information Commission.
    Meanwhile, the West Bengal RTI Manch said it is a case of partisan act by the Commission. “I would not like to comment on the issue. Once an order is passed, this is best we could manage from the provision of the Act,” said Arun Bhattacharjee, the state chief Information Commissioner, when asked why a penalty was not slapped on the erring official.

    Source: State information panel asks state to pay relief to top cop

  6. #14
    Posts
    26
    Name:
    saroj khettry
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    8

    Re: Compensation of Rs 50.000 imposed by SIC, West Bengal


    The Information Commission has failed perform its duties in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Section 20 (1) clearly states that "it shall impose a penalty of two
    hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished..."
    The Act does not provide any power to the information commission to avoid imposing penalty. The Commission must perform under the provisions of the Act. As penalty has not been imposed the reason for the same must be recorded. Compensation is not a valid reason for not imposing penalty.

  7. Re: Compensation of Rs 50.000 imposed by SIC, West Bengal


    Compensation is not a valid reason of not imposing penalty. But how many times SIC, W. Bengal had imposed penalty till date ? SPIOs are nicely exempted , so some of them almost have stopped furnishing information within the period of 30 days. One SPIO did not provide information within the period of 30 days, at least for 7 times within 8 months period and the matter was intimated to the SIC , but all in vain. Probably SIC thinks that the concerned SPIO has legitamate ground in each case to provide information in such a manner. SIC had, ' always the same opinion that the concerned SPIO had "reasonable cause" but without mentioning it in 'ORDERS', So what should we do ? Even in one instance the SPIO was served with so cause notice for furnishing delayed information ( 84 days) , but status of that show- cause notice could not be known , even after five months or so.SIC is not at all interested to look after the interest of applicants. Rather it is better to save SPIOs from imposing penalty.
    President of RTI Forum, West Bengal is probably aware of this fact.

  8. #16

    Re: Compensation of Rs 50.000 imposed by SIC, West Bengal


    It is high time CIC and SICs try to wield the stick more frequently against delinquent PIOs.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


About RTI INDIA

    RTI INDIA: Invoking Your Rights. We provide easy ways to request, analyze & share Government documents by use of Right to Information and by way of community support.

Follow us on

Twitter Facebook Apple App Store Google Play for Android