I could remember that once a single bench judge heard appeal against his judgment as a member of Division Bench; experienced members are requested to share his experience. It seems it was not against the procedure followed in the High Court;- but our Sr. Advocate remarked this act as 'unethical'
At last Hon'ble Justice in the division bench modified his earlier direction given as Single Bench Judge.
All these arguemnts do not make a concrete case to file a complaint before CIC which becomes tenable.I am trying the convince the local press also May be I am able to make a arguement through press also.
Please let me know a similar case any where or a judgement in similar case even from a state Commission.
Chandigarh, May 28 Jan Sampark centres not routing RTI applications
The appointment of the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) in the office of Administrator has again come under fire. A resident, R K Garg, has lodged a complaint with the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC), New Delhi, questioning the appointments of Bhupinder Singh (Joint Secretary, Home) as the CPIO and MP Singh (Secretary to Punjab Governor) as the Appellate Authority.
Garg alleged that even after appointing the CPIO, there is no fixed procedure, wherein the applications under the RTI Act could be routed to the Administrator's office.
Quoting a few instances, Garg said that he has even written to Bhupinder Singh, stating that the e-Jan Sampark Centre at Sector 40 does not have any arrangement to receive the RTI applications addressed to Joint Secretary (Home) and booked applications to Superintendent Home-1.
In his complaint, Garg has mentioned that besides Bhupinder Singh, even the Secretary to the Governor, M P Singh, is not an employee of the Union Territory and has nothing to do with the UT Administration.
“Thus, his discharging of duties as the Appellate Authority to the CPIO in the office of Administrator will not be within Section 5 of the RTI Act, which says that information officer has to be appointed from the office of Public Authority which is Office of Administrator in this case.”
Garg has requested that the UT Advisor may be designated as the Appellate Authority to the CPIO because information with regard to the office of administrator is held by all offices of the UT and only a senior officer is expected to lay hands on records and provide the information to the applicants.
Garg said: “The appointment of Secretary to Governor as Appellate Authority to the administration may also be quashed as he does not have any reach or say in offices.”
Chandigarh, July 01 RTI act: Activists said the official website has incomplete and incorrect information
The Chandigarh Administration claims that they have published the requisite information under the Right to Information Act, in connection with the designation of Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) in the office of UT Administrator. However, the information available on the Chandigarh Administration’s official website is incomplete.
According to RTI activists, the website not only has incomplete but incorrect information.
Under Section 4 (1) (b) of the RTI Act, the CPIO has to publish the duties and nature of job of the office where he is appointed.
For example, the UT Administrator has to publish the details of how he had used his discretionary powers to grant remission of sentence to prisoners, despite the fact that it is known to everyone. However, the official website gives no such details.
There is no any mention regarding the name and address of the Advisory Council constituted by the UT Administrator.
It is pertinent to mention that, in a complaint filed by social activist Hemant Goswami, the Chief Information Commissioner, on May 13, had directed the office of the UT Administrator to publish all information as prescribed under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act.
Goswami said: “The Administrator’s office continues to maintain secrecy in its functioning and has published the incomplete information under the provision of Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Not even an iota of useful information has been published in the proactive disclosure. It’s a mockery of the law. If such incomplete and incorrect information comes from the office of the highest authority of the State, it is indeed shameful.”
Speaking about the discrepancies in the disclosures under RTI Act, Goswami said that in most of the columns where information is to be provided, the Administrator mentions that “since there is no staff, so no information is to be provided”.
“We shall be again complaining to the Chief Information Commissioner and the Ministry of Home about this,” said Hemant.
“What kind of transparency is this? When UT Administrator’s own office is maintaining such secrecy about its functioning, one can imagine the situation in other offices of Administration.
The UT Administrator’s office should rather be an example for all the other offices, as far as transparent and thorough implementation of RTI Act is concerned. Such an incomplete information, rather, raises many eyebrows,” added an advocate of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
I had made an application for looking into implemenation of section 4(1)(b) in UT administartion.THe application is shuttling between CPIO o/o Adminstrator and CPIO Home 1.No one is serious here.Following letter has been released to local press.
As directed by CIC the Chandigarh administration has issued Proactive Disclosures for office of administrator. After browsing through the official web site it is observed that Administration has failed to maintain and update the official website with help of NIC ( a hefty fee is paid to NIC for maintenance of website ).Time and again the short comings have been pointed out by this reader directly and through press but nothing has happened. Once again following is pointed out :
1. Sh S K Sandhu is still Finance Secretary on the official website.
2. The salary figures provided on web site are as old as 31st July 2007
3. In rep[ly to my application the CPIO Home 1 has supplied me a list of CPIO and Appellate Authorities situated on 4the Floor of Secretariat. As per section 4 (1)(b) of RTI the official & Residential address and phone numbers need to be publicized but it has not been done.
4. In the grievance session on 17th March 2008 the Administrator had appointed Sh Manjit Singh Brar Director IT his officer to look after the complaints and follow up. The Annexure to Section 4(1)(b) does not disclose this.
5. he Secretary to Governor of Punjab has been appointed Appellate Authority for the o/o Administrator and files are being dealt and retained there as such it wrong to say that the records are not retained by the administrator. Even a Assistant State Public Information Officer (ASPIO)is dealing with administrator officer matter. This reader received a letter from ASPIO recently.
6. The Administration is doing just cosmetic surgery on the official website and rarely looks into the Annexures I to XVI .As such it felt that The administration neither has will nor infrastructure to look into RTI affairs.Perhaps a dedicated officer is required for RTI
Fine This is pure passmism.If we take the things as they are than what is use of all these efforts.We should see that web sites are updated regularly as procedure through RTI is very lengthy and costly especially in Chandigarh Don't loose heart continue every thing written or conveyed has its importance