After more than a year, this chapter of the saga has ended:
1. I do not get the information I asked for
2. All the information given and the file inspection allowed in the presence of the CIC had no reference to "Amendment to Rule 5" - the subject of my RTI application.
3. The file had no records to show how, why and by whom was this amendment done / recommended
4. The committee that supposedly worked on this had representatives of 2 consumer organisations/bodies - each of whom get Rs. 4 and Rs. 3 Crore respectively per year from the Department of Consumer Affairs. The best part is only one representative of one of the bodies attended only one of the meetings held - a meeting during which no amendments were discussed.
End result was a Penalty of Rs. 1000 on the PIO. Although the delays was 34 days as per the IC's calculations (72 days as per my calculations), he excused the 30 days after "serious consideration", due to:
1. PIO went on leave
2. PIO went on tour
3. PIO was busy with parliamentary work
Not a very encouraging order from CIC.
Shri Sanjay Singh would submit that the appeal documents purported to have been received in the Department on 21.7.2008 were not received in his office as per record maintained for the purpose. It is also his submission that in the absence of date of receipt and signature of the person who received in the centralised Receipt and Dispatch of the Department, it is difficult to identify the person who received the concerned documents. It is also his say that the first appeal was received in his office on 20.8.2008, whereupon vide his letter dated 17.9.2008, he had directed the CPIO to provide information on all points. Thus, there has been no delay whatsoever on his part in disposing of the first appeal. The clarification given by Shri Singh appears to be satisfactory.Do we really need to submit additional RTI applications asking for certified extracts/copies of their inward and dispatch registers every time? Or submitting copies of RPAD receipts and asking for the signatory to be identified?
ठीक है. जरूरत पड़ी तो वोह भी करेंगे.
Anyway, appreciate your effort Kariraji.
Last edited by sandeepbaheti; 27-06-09 at 02:24 AM.
Attaching the following to this post:
1. CIC first interim order dated 6 April 2009
2. PIO's reply to Show Cause Notice
3. AA's reply to CIC notice
4. My comments on PIO and FAA's reply
5. My comments on notice of hearing for second hearing
6. CIC second interim order dated 19 May 2009
7. My comments on notice of hearing for third hearing
8. CIC third and final interim order
Members and guests can read each of the attachments and see that how in spite of best efforts of the appellant, the CIC passes orders which ignore the prayers of the appellant, the commenst of the appellant, don't even care if information is given or not and moreover how they create the grounds for not levying penalty, or as in this case, levying the minimum amount of penalty.
In the first hearing when I was physically present, I had to argue for about 45 minutes (the whole hearing lasted 4 hours) as to why it was obligatory for the IC to issue a show cause notice to the PIO for the delay in providing information - a fact which is reflected in the first interim order by the use of the words like "forceful", "forcefully" and "vehemently" etc. The IC was trying to convey to me as to what is the point in issuing a show cause notice when he is not going to penalise in any case.
The FAA got away by stating that the no responsibility could be fixed since there was no signature on the Registered AD card - it can be clearly seen form page 4 of the first attachment, that the AD card has a rubber stamp of the department !
As I have mentioned in one of my comments, all this for "no personal pecuniary benefit".
Must think seriously now, as to how to:
1. Use RTI to dig deeper into this unfair and anti consumer amendment
2. Possibility of a WP in the AP High Court on the unreasonableness of imposing minimal penalty
Inviting suggestions from members.
Next two attachments attached to this post.
The final order of the CIC dated 16 June 2009 is attached to post # 26, in this thread.
Reading this thread is nauseating.
Only an affluent man/woman of steel with excellent physical, mental and emotional health, with no family or social commitments (I mean page3 kind of social) should be legally allowed to file applications under RTI. I think LIC should charge higher premium to cover RTI activists, as it does to cover other high risk workers like miners, divers etc.
Thank you, Karira.
Was this an exceptional kind of RTI request for it to have received such treatment? Or is it the normal treatment that is routinely meted out to normal applications?
Then God said, "Let there be light"... but we said, no, we want first the RTI! Then we will light up our own lives, and those of our fellow beings. But God said, "No, I can't. I am not a fool to open my books to you. Go away!"
The matter has not yet ended:
1. I still do not have the information I asked for
2. The Penalty of Rs. 1000.00 imposed by the IC has still not been confirmed as paid and complied with. I must have spent Rs., 1500 just in STD calls to check with the Registry of the IC whether the penalty has been paid. Each time I am asked to call after 2 weeks.
Now thinking of filing a RTI with the PIO once again to get a certified copy of the penalty payment.
3. The problem has become even more acute: One particular brand of popular biscuits has reduced its pack size twice in 2 months - and no one has noticed it.
What to do ?
As our member jps50 says everytime : "Laage Raho !"