Please mail your RTI application and reply received from PIO for any kind of further discussions(if any)
Please mail your RTI application and reply received from PIO for any kind of further discussions(if any)
my appeal filed in this matter against Registrar of Socities, New delhi is for hearing at CIC on 15/4/08.
CIC also issued notice them separately on the matter, why action should not be taken.
Just out of curiosity and my inability to understand or comprehend the technicality of the language of the members use here....................
I will put it in a simple question answer form (Engineer ,,,,,,, so lingually handicapped )
Q.What happens when some one says "record not traceable"
A.We file one more RTI and wait for another 35 days to find out who is responsible for maintaining the document
Q.how does that help me,i still do not have the information i am seeking?
Q.Do i get some kind of compensation
Q.does the guy responsible for my loss get fired or suspended or fined,if yes then what is the clause ?
Q.So there is a loop hole in the system, rite? I can get away with any thing buy burning the required documents......what is the worst that can happen..a few days suspension ...a few thousand rupees fine.....sure i can afford that?
(that is what a gov.t official can do )
Just a thought
but do answer a few of my questions.
It would be batter if you post your application under RTI Act-2005 and reply of PIO on the web site.Even then I am posting one Decision Notice of CIC which clearly states that:-
If however, it is found that information cannot be provided because the file remains untraced, we hold that it is the responsibility of the Public Authority concerned as custodian of the file to ensure their safe custody. For having failed to do so and thus having resulted in harassment and undue delay in response to appellant Shri Ram Prakash’s request for information, we accept the plea for
compensation for detriment suffered u/s 19 (8) sub0section (b). In that case we direct that an amount of Rs. 3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) be paid to him by the Sum & JJ Wing of the DDA
To issue in Hindi
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2008/00216 dated 4.1.2008
Right to Information Act 2005 – Section 19
Appellant - Shri Ram Prakash
Respondent - Municipal Corp. of Delhi (MCD) Slum & JJ
By an application of 15.2.07, assigned ID No. 690, Shri Ram Prakash of
Raghubir Nagar, New Delhi applied to Slum & JJ Dep’t. M.C.D. seeking the
1. “What was the area of Shop No. D-2, when allotted. In lieu of which
place it was allotted. Against which shop No. it was allotted and in
whose name it was allotted.
2. We gave an application regarding Shop No. 2D on 12.1.05. Again
gave an application on 14.6.05. In these applications, we made a
complaint about unauthorized construction up to road on roadside
of this shop by my younger brother Shri Kishan Lal, which consists
of first and second floor. By this unauthorized construction, he is
earning Rs. 9000 to 10000/- per month. This unauthorized
construction be demolished, which action has not been taken till
date. What action has been taken and with whom these
applications are lying. Was MCD informed of this Shop No. 2.
Please provide full detail and take immediate action to demolish
this unauthorized construction, even if so desired in collaboration
3. Copies of application dated 12.1.06 submitted by us along with
documents for proof and map etc. be provided and copies of
documents furnished on 14.6.05 along with application by my
brothers including wrong wills in favour of their wives be provided.
These documents should be attested one and should contain all
stamps along with allotment letter for Shop No. 2 and other relevant
papers in the file.
4. Copies of photos taken by employees of Zone on 16.6.05 in
connection with unauthorized construction over shop No. D-2 along
with measurements recorded by them on 15.2.06 for Shop No. D-2.
What measurements were recorded by them for House No. 21-A
including constructed area on it may please be provided. Zone
employees included one Shri Malik and the other we recognize by
face and do not know his name.
To this he received a reply from PIO Slum & JJ Dep’t, MCD. on 7.3.07
attaching a report received from the Director (JJR) as follows:
1. “We are unable to provide information because the file relating to
this shop is untraceable. In this connection, applicant has already
been informed vide DRIA No. 24/06 regarding information sought
by him earlier.
2. This action is under consideration in JJ Survey Dep’t.
3. Information asked vide Para No. 3 does not relate to this
Department. Therefore, photo copies of information vide
applications dated 12.1.05 and 14.6.05 from Zonal Office are not
being provided. We are also unable to certify it as it is not in record
of our office.
4. Zonal Office (West) has not issued any orders regarding taking of
photographs or taking measurement of this unauthorized
construction. Therefore, we are unable to provide any information.”
This response also invited the applicant to inspect the files in the Office of
Director (JJR), a curious invitation since the Director JJR’s report stated that
there was no file to inspect. Not satisfied with this response, Shri Ram Prakash
moved his first appeal on 9.4.07 contesting the response received. Upon this an
order was issued on 1.8.07, a copy of which was not received by appellant Shri
Ram Prakash, even though a hearing had been held by Shri A. B. Shukla, First
Appellate Authority and Addl. Commissioner, Slum & JJ on 30.7.’07. However, a
report stated to be in compliance with these orders dated 22.8.07 was received
by Shri Ram Prakash, which stated as follows:
“With reference to your application in DRIA, it is inform you that the
competent authority has approved the sealing of plots No. D-1 to DVII
Subhash Market, Raghubir Nagar, New Delhi and the sealing
action is in process.”
Subsequently on 1.1.08 Shri Ram Prakash moved a further complaint
before First Appellate Authority for non-compliance as below:
“Officers against whom complaint has been made:
Director of Estate Shri D.P.Ture
Asstt. Director Shri Kundan Lal
Dy. Director Shri M. R. Sharma
Two Officers of Zonal Office: 1. Shri Kamal Singh and other’s name
we do not know.
We had also made written complaints on 8.10.07 and 15.11.07.
Those complaints be read with this complaint carefully. – Ram
This complaint is against these officers as well as against Shop No.
D-1 o D-7, Subhash Market, JJ Colony, Raghubir Nagar.”
Almost at the same time he also moved his second appeal before us
submitting that he had not received the information sought, as below:
“We request you to read details of dates of hearing carefully and
then fine them Rs. 25000/- and provide us little justice. For
balance justice and compensation, we will move Hon’ble High
Court and Consumer Forum, because we have been harassed
intentionally. We have paid fees as also charge of Rs. 2/- per page.
Later on we came to know that those having BPL Ration Card are
not charged for this amount. They have taken advantage of our
ignorance about it and also our inability to understand English.”
The ground on which he has based this appeal is as below:
“We had given written complaints to Appellate Authority on every
date of hearing i.e. 26.9.07, 8.10.07 and again on 15.11.07 and
1.1.08 along with proof that these officers are telling lies and
furnishing misleading information but the Appellate Authority has
not taken any action and continued giving dates again and again
whereas it is mandated to furnish information within 30 days.
Therefore, they may be fined Rs. 25,000/- so that we get little
peace of mind. All these five officers and Appellate Authority are
aware that I am suffering from four big disease including Asthma. “
This was followed by a prayer of 30.5.08 requesting an out of turn hearing
on grounds of appellant’s age. The appeal was heard on 25.8.08. The following
Shri Ram Prakash
Shri M. R. Sharma, Dy. Director
Shri D.P.Ture, PIO
Because there was no copy of the orders of the First Appellate Authority on
file, even though a copy of the compliance report was included, we sought and
obtained in the hearing the order of Shri A. B. Shukla, First Appellate Authority of
1.8.07. This reads as follows:
“Jt. Director (DRIA) is directed to give complete reply before the
next date of hearing.
The case is adjourned to 22.8.07 at 11.00 a.m.”
A copy was also handed over to appellant Shri Ram Prakash in the
hearing. Shri Ram Prakash made a written submission with the following prayer :
a) You are requested to call First Appellate Authority Shri A.B.
Shukla in the hearing.
b) All those officers, who have given first information may be
asked to appear in the hearing.
c) Shri M.R.Sharma, who had heard an appeal on 22.8.07 and
provided a small portion of information may be called to
appear in the hearing.
d) The Survey Department of this Zone may be asked to bring
details of first survey done on 15.2.06 and second survey
done on 8.3.07 including maps for Shop Nos. 1 to 7, defining
area on which construction has been done, so that it could
be established that misleading information has been
furnished that file is in Court and CBI . Only then it can be
established that information provided on 3.3.06 is also
wrong. Survey Diary No.:
First Survey 15.2.06 or 16.2.06 Sh. G.S.Mehra 3/50/JJR/06
Second survey : 8.3.07 R-93 Survey Officer Sh. D.P.Ture”
From the above, it is clear that all what Appellant Shri Ram Prakash is
seeking is compliance with the orders of the First Appellate Authority. On the
other hand Shri M. R. Sharma, Dy. Director MCD submitted that the original file
on this subject is untraced and has remained untraced despite efforts to recover
it since last year.
The applicant Shri Ram Prakash has approached this Commission
submitting, inter-alia, that in spite of the orders passed by the First Appellate
Authority, which he had not received but was aware of from the hearing before 1st
appellate authority, the PIO has not complied with the orders and the information
requested has not been furnished till date.
From the facts above, it appears that this is a case of malafide denial of
information by the PIO. However since it is the responsibility of the First
Appellate Authority to ensure that the orders passed by him are duly complied
with by the PIO, and some inadequacies in exchanging documents now stand
addressed, the Commission has decided to remand the case back to the First
Appellate Authority Shri A. B. Shukla, Addl. Commissioner (Slum & JJ) to ensure
that his orders under section 19 (1) are duly complied with and the requested
information furnished in terms of the order so passed. In doing so, he will ensure
the supply of specific information sought to appellant Shri Ram Prakash.
If the compliance is not ensured within 15 days from the date of receipt of
this order, the FAA should approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings
under section 20 of the RTI Act for imposition of penalty and / or recommending
appropriate disciplinary action. This will be without prejudice to the right of the
first Appellate Authority to initiate other penal action under the Indian Penal Code
against the PIO for willful violation of lawful orders promulgated by a public
servant while exercising statutory powers.
If however, it is found that information cannot be provided because the file
remains untraced, we hold that it is the responsibility of the Public Authority
concerned as custodian of the file to ensure their safe custody. For having failed
to do so and thus having resulted in harassment and undue delay in response to
appellant Shri Ram Prakash’s request for information, we accept the plea for
compensation for detriment suffered u/s 19 (8) sub0section (b). In that case we
direct that an amount of Rs. 3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) be paid to
him by the Sum & JJ Wing of the DDA under intimation to Shri Pankaj K.P.
Shreyaskar, Joint Registrar of this Commission. This payment will follow on the
elapsing of the fifteen days allowed to respondents for tracing and providing the
information sought and take no more than twenty days from the date of receipt of
this Decision Notice.
The appeal is allowed. Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision
be given free of cost to the parties.
Chief Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO
of this Commission.
If the PIO/FAA/PA claims that records are missing, a good solution is to immediately file another RTI Application, with the same PIO, asking for the following information:
(a) Certified copy of Report of Diligent Search made for the file
papers not traceable, as stated in your letter under reference.
(b) Name & designation of the Official/s, responsible for safe
keeping of the concerned file/s.
(c) Name, Designation of Officer responsible for filing FIR and details of FIR, if any, filed with the Police for the missing. Please provide a certified copy of the FIR
(d) If no FIR is filed, as required under the law for loss of Public Property, reasons recorded for the same. Inspection of the file wherein such reasons have been recorded.
(e) Certified copy of penal action, if any, taken against the
official/s, as in b) above.
(f) Any other information and inspection of all files relevant to the missing record/file.
Let us hypothetically suppose that the PIO has furnished following reply to the above :
(a)Certified copy is enclosed as desired.
(c)Mr.Y is responsible to file the FIR. Since no FIR is seen filed, not possible to provide its copy
(d)No reason seen recorded
(e)No penal action is seen taken and hence it is not possible to provide its copy
(f) No other information regarding the alleged missing file is held in records
As for as RTI Act is concerned the matter end. Maximum we can do is file one more RTI application under Section 4(1)(d) seeking reasons for certain action/inaction. The reply is likely admissission of the lapse stating that "No reason is seen recorded or any informartion for the reason is held"
What is next ?
The above is not hypothetical. It is happening in this part of our country. A District Collctor or even a Principal Secretary to govrnment does not bother even if you establish deriliction of duties of public servant and loss by neglect the public property entrusted in one's custody.
In case you start filing complaints, even to the Chief Minister, it will ultimately reach the delinquent public servant who will repeat more or less the same reply or, reply to the effect that "the matter has been enquired into and found that no dereliction of duties or loss by neglect has happened'. The same reply will be quotted in all further correspondence - Even if you rise the issue to the President of India's level .
Last edited by colnrkurup; 30-10-08 at 04:48 PM.
It is avery difficult situation.
In one case the CPIO of UPSC replied me "Copies of the minutes of DPC meetings for promotion to the post of Director (Geology) for the period from 1997-1998 to 2007-2008 are 57 pages in number. You are therefore requested to deposit a sum of Rs 114/ at the rate of Rs 2/- per page to this office to obtain copies of the minutes of above mentioned meetings. Despite best efforts files numbrer of DPC meetings files for the period from 1990 to March 1997 could not be located in this office[/COLOR]".
I sent the required fee for copies, CPIO sent me a covering letter after 30 days of receiving the fee by speed post stating that "I am forwarding herewith a copy of minutes of each DPC meetings held for promotion to the post of Directorr (Geology) during the period from 1997-98 to 2007-08" but without the enclosure. I phoned him yesterday (29.20.2008 requesting him to send the cpies which he failed to enclose.- I prefereed this course of action (rather than filing the Ist appeal) to cut down time in getting the required info.
In another case PIO of my own department replied taht "records not available"and took no action inspite oh he being the custodian of the records as Director and head of Office.
In another case on my request for copies of proposals for DPC in which UPSC is involved, the CPIO replies that "documents asked for by you have been emanated from by the Ministry of Mines as such the copies of the same may please be obtained from that Ministry.
These are some examples to show the plight ofinfo seekers and callous approach of the Public Authorities.
My point is, in the context of on going discussions - that once the CPIO or the custodian of records comes to know of the loss of records/documents the action of fixing the responsibilities should commence automatically. If this is not done all "unpleasant documents can be destroyed and the info seeker could be told "records not available". This is avery serious matter, I wish CIC and SICs should take stern actions on such pleas by CPIOs
As far as weeding is concerned, records weeded out should be replied as such- records not available can not come under this category by any stretch of imagination.
Last edited by nk agarwal; 30-10-08 at 05:23 PM. Reason: spellings
If such a stand is taken by the PIO/AA/PA, then the only option is to go upto CIC/SIC and hope for the best.
What else can one do ?