RTI Group (www.rtigroup.org) India

RTI Activists preparing for Satyagraha during current Parliament Session

2009-07-13T22:14:00.000+05:30

RTI Activists in Mumbai and Delhi are planning a big push during the current session of Parliament to prevent possible amendment of RTI Act 2005, and to force the central government to make meaningful commitments for its proper implementation by DoPT and Information Commissioners. Multi-pronged efforts being made for this are outlined below:

1) Through joint efforts of over a dozen activists in Mumbai and elsewhere, the RTI Charter of Demands in English and Hindi were posted to around 1,100 members of Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha, Chief Information Commissioners, leaders of political parties etc.

[See photos of eight Mumbai activists preparing 1,100 letters and envelopes for mailing:http://www.box.net/shared/2z1gsuojk7

Download mailing list: http://www.box.net/shared/ymmntzbxua

Read contents of letters sent:http://www.box.net/shared/j6g1pgstf9 ]

The activists who participated in drafting, translating, compiling address lists, printing envelopes, dispatching etc. were: Sunil Ahya, G R Vora, Mohammed Afzal, Krishnaraj Rao, Sumer Bais, Bimal Khemani, Sherley Singh, Prashant Sawant, Ravi Kiran Haldipur, Vijay Chauhan, Sanjay Ghatalia and K N Singh. This mailing campaign happened over three weeks of preparation to coincide with the ongoing session of Parliament. The last batch of around 200 letters is to be posted today at the General Post Office.

2) MP Sanjay Nirupam, who held several meetings with Mohammed Afzal and others, is planning to highlight these issues in Parliament. He is focusing on the issue of improper implementation of Right to Information, and also, persecution of RTI Activists around the country. (Read about seven incidents of persecution: http://www.box.net/shared/ijbb4p2osy )

3) Rakesh Agarwal of Nyaybhoomi, New Delhi, is putting up flex posters/banners in English and Hindi on the backs of 100 auto-rickshaws. They exhort the citizens to defend their Right to Information, as it is a valuable weapon against corruption by bureaucrats and politicians. (See designs of the autorickshaw banners here: http://www.box.net/shared/zyfusyqia4 )

4) Sunil Ahya, Krish and a few other undertrials in Mumbai are planning to get their surety cancelled on Monday, 19th July, and go back to jail as a Satyagraha to press for implementation of their Charter of Demands. By staying in jail, they intend to bring the government to the negotiating table to talk about the Charter of Demands. Legal opinions have already been sought, and the homework is currently going on for their return to jail for a pre-determined or indefinite period.

The possible outcome – success in some degree or failure that may be mild or disastrous – is not a constraint for a Satyagraha, given the willingness to suffer for the cause of RTI implementation. Authorities can prevent us from agitating only if we are keen on sleeping in our own bedrooms after a day of agitating. If we volunteer to sleep on a cold stone floor, eat Spartan jail food and put up with rough treatment, then who can stop us? We want to go beyond idle speculation and exchange of ideas, and find out for ourselves how things can turn out.

Wish us luck in our venture.

Warm Regards,
Krishnaraj Rao
98215 88114

M.P. FAILS, RTI APPLICANT SUCCEEDS

2009-07-10T11:36:00.002+05:30

In response to an RTI application, Central Govt. provided the report of Justice Ranganath Mishra Commission on the identification of Dalits belongings to different religions to the applicant.

Mr. Ali Anwar, M.P. (Rajya Sabha) has been demanding this report and discussion on this for the last two years but had not succeeded.

Now, M.P. has asked if the RTI Act is above Parliament.

For many reports, Govt never declares that the report is confidential or will not be made public but simultaneously, does not provide copy of the same or puts it before the Parliament.

Similar is the case with DDA Internal Committee Report constituted to look in to the charges of irregularities in the Housing Scheme draw. All the three concerned offices i.e. DDA, LG, Delhi office or Urban Affairs Ministry are not providing copy of this report. Even Govt. has never said that the report is confidential. However, DDA claims that the report has given a clean chit to the staff.

RTI activists want CCTVs in State Information Commissioner's Office

2009-07-07T23:39:00.001+05:30

RTI activists want CCTVs in State Information Commissioner's office to ensure transparency in hearings, so that public authority can be made accountable.

Activists fighting to make Right To Information (RTI) Act a potent tool, are now demanding that all the hearings and interactions that the State Information Commissioner hold with activists, appellants and public be recorded to ensure accountability and transparency in hearings.

This demand is a part of the Charter of Demands that activists have prepared for proper implementation of the RTI Act in Maharashtra.

A delegation of five prominent RTI activists in the city, which Andheri resident Mohammed Afzal led, handed over the same to Chief Minister Ashok Chavan early this week. Accompanying the activists was Mumbai North MP Sanjay Nirupam, who the activists feel is convinced that Right to Information (RTI) Act 2005 was not being properly implemented in Maharashtra.

Says Mohammed Afzal, "There should be a CCTV or digital video recorders to record all meetings, so that a copy of it can be made available to the applicant or any citizen on payment of a small fee, say Rs 50." In fact, Afzal also happens to be one of the 11 activists that Mumbai Police arrested on the evening of May 19 and jailed for two days for allegedly trespassing and rioting at the office of the Chief State Information Commissioner (SIC) Suresh Joshi. Adds Afzal, "Had there been a recording of that meeting, such gross injustice would not have been meted out to 11 activists, who have been crusading to strengthen the RTI Act. If there was a CCTV used, applicants, activists and even the bureaucrats would feel safer, as every action can be put on record, when required. No Information Commissioner should have an objection with this suggestion until and unless he has something to hide."

States Krishnaraj Rao, "We are happy that the Chief Minister, State Govt. and even the Central Government are showing keenness to ensure proper implementation of the RTI Act, which is a powerful tool in the common man's hand. The CM has assured us that he will look into the matter, which is encouraging. The crusade we have initiated shall not stop till we ensure proper implementation of RTI Act, and stop the bureaucratic abuse of this important Act."

Asserts MP Sanjay Niruapm, "It's a priority for our Government to correct the faulty implementation of RTI Act. We have taken up the issue with the CM, along with these activists, and will keep following it up at the highest level if required."

SOME IMPORTANT POINTS IN THE CHARTER

Maharashtra Government must direct every Information Commissioner (IC) to serve show-cause notice to Public Information Officer (PIO) along with notice of hearing. The purpose of hearing is to determine whether the PIO and the public authority acted diligently under the RTI Act and if not, what penalty and disciplinary action is to be imposed. The purpose of hearing is not to enter into discussions, negotiations and grievance redressal.

· Whatever transpired during the hearing between the Information Commissioner, Public Information Officer, Appellant authority and the applicant -- it has been seen many a times that the final order does not reflect the hearing proceedings. A Speaking Order (gist of the facts during the hearings) is very much required for the applicant.

· Maharashtra Govt. must put in place a mechanism, whereby if PIO and public authority do not comply with IC's orders, disciplinary action is automatically initiated against both PIO and head of the public authority, and the same is recorded in their Annual Confidential Report and Service Book.

· Maharashtra Govt. must set up clear and realistic mechanisms for implementation of Section 4 of RTI Act (suo moto disclosure of information) by each public authority.

· If it is discovered that the method of selection of any Information Commissioner was flawed, Maharashtra Govt. must set aside the appointment of that Information Commissioner as being unlawful ab initio.

· Maharashtra Govt. must ensure transparency in new appointments of SICs.

virat.singh@timesgroup.com
-------------------------------------------------
Report in 4th July 2009 Bombay Times (West Mumbai supplement circulated from Bandra to Virar)

Dead man comes alive using RTI

2009-07-02T10:52:00.000+05:30

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-4727008,prtpage-1.cms

2 Jul 2009, 0650 hrs IST, Paul John, TNN

AHMEDABAD: Sulochna Shah, 70, could not believe her eyes when a letter from the Records of Rights (RoR) of the revenue department in July 2006 declared her a widow and that Champaklal, her husband, had four more sons and daughters other than her six children!

But here was her husband , who was alive and sitting beside her and pleading that all that the four new "stepchildren" in the revenue department letter did not exist.

Champaklal, like many others, was caught in the web of lies spun in the revenue records as part of a major land scam masterminded by land sharks in the state.

It's one of the ways land sharks in Ahmedabad, conniving with village talatis, buy huge tracts of agricultural land without possessing legal farmers certificates.

Without wasting any time Champaklal filed an RTI application to know exactly how it happened. After a lot of resistance the revenue department parted with the records. It was an eyeopener for the deputy collector of Viramgam.

A local talati of Dethraj taluka, in Vasna Saniyar village helped miscreants sharing the same 'Champaklal' surname, get their names included as inheritors in revenue records of Shah. These miscreants were then provided farmer's certificate. The deputy collector noticed that the talati had used the same modus operandi in records of other people, alerted the district development officer (DDO) of the scam in 2007 and requested an enquiry.

The matter is hushed up and the DDO is yet to react to the letter. "People owning land or any sort of property should file RTI to ensure that their records are straight--almost every year. This would ensure that there is no meddling in the revenue records. Such cases happen in the case of large land owners. These miscreants just need a farmer's certificate to start with, then buy agriculture land in surrounding areas.

After buying huge tracts they will forge a "power of attorney" document and enter their names as inheritors and even sell of your land," says Champaklal. The revenue department is yet to institute an inquiry into the incident after Shah's RTI application. The department's reluctance is plausible as land holdings of all those who are found possessing farmer's certificates by making such false entries would be considered null and void under section 84 (c) of the Tenancy Act, the land would be seized by the government or returned to the real owner.

On July 26, 2006 Sulochna Shah, Champaklal's wife, receives a letter from revenue dept declaring her a widow Champaklal files RTI to find out about the entries made in the revenue records for Dethraj taluka The RTI also reveals similar cases in the revenue records Deputy collector of Viramgam pranth requests the district development officer (DDO) to initiate an enquiry into the scam.

Mayawati Appoints Tainted Official as CIC: RTI Activists Cry Foul

2009-07-02T10:43:00.003+05:30

RTI activists have joined hands in their fight against the appointment of a tainted IAS (PCS promotee) Ranjit Singh Pankaj as as the state’s chief information commissioner (CIC).

Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati is now drawing flak for appointing an alleged tainted bureaucrat

In a related development lawyer Himanshu Shekhar Awasthi, in his PIL before the Allahabad High Court has questioned Pankaj’s appointment by Mayawati Goverment citing his tainted track record.

Pankaj’s stint as district magistrate of Gorakhpur had come under cloud over appointment of 300 safai karamcharis (sweepers) not very long ago.

Awasthi has also questioned the appointment on the ground that the selection had been made in the absence of the leader of opposition in the state assembly, who was an essential part of the three member selection committee headed by the chief minister. In his PIL he has also pointed out the objections made by the Leader of Opposition Shivpal Yadav were simply ignored by the chief minister. The bench comprising Justices Rajeev Sharma and Satish Chandra fixed July 10 as the date for the next hearing.

Remove Info Commissioners: RTI Activists

2009-07-02T10:28:00.001+05:30

Analysis of the Orders of Maharashtra CIC Dr Joshi

2009-07-01T12:19:00.003+05:30

Five Examples with Analysis
of Mandatory Sections of RTI Act 2005
violated by Orders

You may download the below-mentioned orders and analysis in word or pdf format from here: http://www.box.net/shared/go8sxhi4yi

EXAMPLE 1:

Appeal No.2007/1263/02

Shri P.P.Talati, Aderbad, Flat no.43,

34, N.S.Patkar Marg, Mumbai 400 007. .. Appellant

V/s

Appellate Authority & Dist.

Deputy Registrar Coop Societies,

Malhotra House, Mumbai .. Respondents

GROUNDS

The hearing in respect of 2nd appeal filed by Mr. P.P.Talati of Mumbai against the order of District Deputy Registrar dt. 21.3.2006 was heard on 8.10.2007 when the Appellant, Mr. Talati, PIO and Appellate Officer were present.

The PIO by his letter dt. 3.2.2006 has informed the Appellant in response to his application under RTI Act, 2005 that his application has been sent to his Cooperative Society with the directions that the required information should be given to Mr. Talati since the information sought is not available in their office. The intimation of this was given to the Appellant. This was confirmed in the appeal and it has been specifically mentioned that if the Appellant does not receive the information from the Society a complaint to that effect should be made to the Deputy Registrar. During argument the Appellant insisted that he should get the information either from the Deputy Registrar’s office or from the Federation.

Under RTI Act, 2005 if the information is held by another public authority the public authority to which such application is made should transfer the said application to the concerned public authority. In his case the application has been sent by the PIO of Deputy Registrar’s office to the concerned Cooperative Society with the direction to give the information to the Appellant i.e. as per the provisions of the Act. The Act gives the right to the Appellant to get the information but he cannot insist that I must get the information from a particular office. In the instant case if he has not received the information from his Coop. Housing Society he should bring this fact to the notice of the concerned Deputy Registrar who will intervene and see that the required information is given to the Appellant.

ORDER

Appeal is thus disposed off.

(Dr. Suresh V. Joshi)

Chief Information Commissioner

Place: Mumbai.

Date: 9.10.2007

ANALYSIS OF EXAMPLE 1:

Dr Suresh Joshi’s Order is based on a perverse reasoning that transfers the onus of RTI compliance from Dy. Registrar of Cooperatives — a public authority — to the cooperative housing society, which is not a public authority. it absolves the PIO at Dy. Registrar of Cooperatives of responsibility, and passes the buck to nobody in particular, as Cooperative Housing Societies can have no “PIO”.

The correct section applicable is section is 2(f) “information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force.”

Instead, Dr Joshi invokes Section 6(3) with malafide intent to dilute the responsiility of the Deputy Registrar of Cooperatives.

6(3): “Where an application is made to a public authority requesting for an information,—

(i) which is held by another public authority; or

(ii) the subject matter of which is more closely connected with the functions of another public authority,the public authority, to which such application is made, shall transfer the application or such part of it as may be appropriate to that other public authority and inform the applicant immediately about such transfer...”

SUMMARY: This order violates sections 2(f) and 20(1).

EXAMPLE 2:

Appeal No.2007/1363/02

Shri Kishor Totaram Lulla, Abhyankar Complex,

Amrai Road, Sangli 416 416. .. Appellant

V/s

Appellate Officer and Deputy Secretary .. Respondent

Food & Civil Supplies Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.

GROUNDS

Shri K.T.Lulla had sought the following information under RTI Act, 2005 on 28.8.2006 from the PIO & Under Secretary, Food & Civil Supplies Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai for the period 2001-2002 to July 2006:

“As per section32(7) of the MVAT Act and 38(6A) of the BST Act, 1959, the amounts forfeited and recovered is to be transferred to the Consumer Protection and Guidance Fund. It is to be utilised for the purpose of Consumer Awareness. In this connection following information may please be given:

i) How much amount is forfeited in every above mentioned year in the State of Maharashtra by the Sales Tax Department. This information may have been received by you from the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State or by the Finance Department

ii) How much amount is transferred in the above mentioned fund in every year.

iii) Details of utilisation of the said fund as per Sec. 32(7)(iii) of MVAT Act and 38(6A)(iii) of the B.S.I.Act;

iv) Copies of guidelines given by State Government in respect of the above.”

The PIO vide letter dt. 15.11.2006 gave the available information to the Appellant but Appellant filed 1st appeal u/s 19(1) with the Appellate Authority, Consumer Protection Department, F&CSD, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32 stating that the PIO has not given the details of utilisation of excess fund. Having not heard anything from the 1st Appellate Officer, the Appellant filed 2nd appeal with this Commission on 2.5.2007 which was heard on 26.9.2007 when the Appellant, Shri Lulla and Shri T.R.Dhaygude and Shri D.M.Nayak, US, F&CSD & Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, were present.

At the time of hearing the Appellant stated that the PIO has given incomplete information. The Respondents were directed to give the figures regarding Maharashtra Consumer Protection & Guidance Fund received from the office of the Accountant General, Maharashtra State for the period 2001-2002 to 31.7.2007 within 10 days to the Appellant to which they agreed. This has been complied by the department very next day on 27.9.2007.

ORDER

Appeal is thus disposed off.

(Dr. Suresh V. Joshi)

Chief Information Commissioner

Place: Mumbai.

Date: 19.10.2007

ANALYSIS of example 2:

Dr Joshi’s Order is bad in law on two counts:

I. DELAY is condoned without application of mind:

Date of Application was 28.8.2006. Date of PIO’s reply was 15.11.2006.

As per Section 7(1), the deadline for reply was 28.9.2006. PIO’s reply was delayed by over 45 days. This eligible to be fined Rs 250x45 = Rs 11,250

Section 7(2) clearly states, “If the PIO fails to give decision on the request for information within the period specified under sub-section (1), the PIO shall be deemed to have refused the request.

Further, Section 19(5) states: In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the PIO who denied the request.

Finally, Section 20(1) states: Where the Information Commission, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the PIO has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 ... it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished...

But as per the Order passed, Dr Joshi neither sought a justification under Section 19(5), nor did he even apply his mind to penalties for delay/denial under Section 20(1).

II. PROVIDING INCOMPLETE INFORMATION is also condoned without application of mind.

The last para of the “grounds” establishes that Dr Joshi upheld the appellant’s contention of incomplete information, which is also punishable under Section 20(1). But instead of asking the PIO to justify his actions as per section 19(5) and last para of 20(1), Dr Joshi disposes off the appeal without even applying his mind to the mandatory penalty clause.

SUMMARY: This order violates sections 7(2), 19(5) and 20(1).

eXAMPLE 3

Appeal No.2008/3245/02

Shri. Harinarayan S. Mishra

Room No. 2, Bldg. No. 4, Praijat Co-op. Housing. Society,

New MHADA Colony, Sion-Pratiksha Nagar,

Mumbai – 400 022. ..… Appellant

V/s

First Appellate Officer cum Dy. Commissioner of Police,

Zone III, Central Control Office, Bawla Compound,

Dr. B. A. Road, Byculla (E), Mumbai. ….. Respondent

Public Information Officer cum Asst. Commissioner of Police,

Zone III, Central Control Office, Bawla Compound,

Dr. B. A. Road, Byculla (E), Mumbai.

GROUNDS

The Appellant Shri. Harinarayan S. Mishra has made unsigned second appeal on 30.01.2008 to the Commission on the following grounds.

a) The Commission be pleased to direct the concerned person to give the Accidental Death Report (A.D.R.) of Santosh Goswami.

b) The concerned person be punished for not giving the A.D.R. within stipulated period.

c) Disciplinary action pleased be initiated against the concerned person for misguiding the appellant by giving incorrect information.

The hearing of the appeal was arranged on 24.10.2008 in the office of the Commission. At the time of hearing the Appellant, the Public Information Officer and the First Appellant Officer, were present.

The Appellant had filed the application on 09.10.2007 to the Public Information Officer for all Emergency Police Register record of 13.03.2007 of Register maintained at K.E.M. Hospital’s Police Counter and the Accidental Death Register records etc. The

Public Information Officer has provided information on 08.11.2007 to Appellantexcept information on the Accidental Death Register on the ground that it was submitted to the Court.

As the incomplete information was provided by Public Information Officer, the Appellant had made first appeal on 07.12.2007. The First Appellate Officer on giving hearing on 19.12.2007 had passed the order on 19.12.2007 itself. It is stated in the order that the First Appellate Officer has no power to take action on Public Information Officer for giving misleading information. In view of that he has recommended for taking action against the Public Information Officer and disposed of the appeal.

The Appellant has made unsigned second appeal on 30.01.2008 on the grounds stated in para one above. The Commission has heard both the parties and gone through all the papers available before the Commission.

It is seen that later on expected information is made available to the Appellant. This fact has also been taken note by Addl. Senior Judge Bombay at Sewree in his order dated 18.12.2007. As the appeal is unsigned, the Commission is passing following order.

ORDER

The Appeal is dismissed.

(Dr.S.V.Joshi), Chief Information Commissioner, Maharashtra.

Place: Mumbai

Date: 31.12.2008.

ANALYSIS OF EXAMPLE 3:

Dr Suresh Joshi’s Order is bad in law. PIO’S DELAY & PROVIDING INCOMPLETE INFORMATION is condoned without application of mind.

The Order mentions that even the First Appellate Authority noted that PIO had given misleading and incomplete information, and recommended action in his Order. But Dr Joshi does not even seek the PIO’s explanation. Based on the twisted logic that the PIO gave the information “later on” on some indeterminate date, and on the technical grounds that the appellant had not signed the second appeal, Dr Joshi does not apply Section 19(5) and Section 20(1). He dismisses the appeal.

Section 19(5) states: In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the PIO who denied the request.

Section 20(1) states: Where the Information Commission, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the PIO has,

... knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information ... or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information ... it shallimpose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished...

EXAMPLE 4:

Appeal No.2008/3225/02

Shri.Moin Akhter Qureshi

Baitul Akhter Bldg., First Floor, Room No.18 /19,

Above Delhi Darbar Hotel, Patthe Bapurao Marg,

Mumbai – 400 004. …Appellant

V/s

First Appellate Officer cum Asst.Municipal Commissioner

Office of the “D” Ward, M.C.G.M.,

Nana Chowk, Mumbai – 400 007. …. Respondent

Public Information Officer cum Asst. Engineer,

(Building & Factories), Office of the “D” Ward, M.C.G.M.

Nana Chowk, Mumbai – 400 007.

GROUNDS

The appellant has made second appeal to the Commission on 6-12-2007 on the ground that the Public Information Officer has given false reply and further order dated 30-8-2007 which was given by the First Appellate Authority to give reply and document within seven days is not followed by the P.I.O., therefore penalty be imposed on P.I.O.

The hearing of the second appeal was fixed on 22-10-2008 in the office of the Commission. At the time of hearing the Appellant, the P.I.O. and the First Appellate Officer were present.

The appellant has asked for the details information on 14 points regarding notices issued to 15 illegal construction in Baitul Akhtar Building, Mumbai – 400 004 under his letter dated 11-6-2007. The nature of information asked for is like action taken after issuing notice with number of notice, whether illegal construction have demolished, if yes or no, why, whether the party has himself removed illegal construction, whether court injunction has brought, what steps have been taken to vacate court injunction, no. of notices pending to prosecute in the Hon. Metropolitan Court, action deem fit for lowering of plinth level, action deem fit for removed of brick partition wall, notice pending for demolition, why action has not been taken on the lowering of plinth level of Yadgar Punjab Hotel and Delhi Darbar Hotel and illegal window of Yadgar Punjab Hotel, copy of fresh notices, if issued in above complaints, copies of correspondence done with various departments such as Legal department, Police department, Municipal commissioner, Addl. Municipal commissioner (City), Chief Officer (Enquiries) V.O.S.D., D.M.C. zone – 1, A.M.C. “D” or any other department and documents and reply submitted as proof after notice were served on occupier or illegal constructor etc.

The P.I.O. under his letter No. ACD/9325/B, dated 6-7-2007 has informed to the appellant that particular of information required by appellant does not contain any details about any notices and hence no information can be furnished to the appellant.

Being aggrieved by the letter of the P.I.O. the appellant has made first appeal on 23-7-2007 to the First Appellate Officer requesting to him to imposed penalty according to the R.T.I. Act, 2005. The First Appellate Officer has arranged hearing on 23-8-2007.

The appellant and the P.I.O. were present for hearing. As the First Appellate Officer was not satisfied with the reply given by the P.I.O., he has passed the order on 30-8-2007 to provide proper information as requested by the appellant within seven days and thus first appeal is disposed off.

The appellant has made second appeal on 6-12-2007 to the Commission as the P.I.O. has not given reply and document to the appellant as per the order passed by the First Appellate Officer. The appellant has also requested to impose penalty on the P.I.O.

At the time of hearing of the second appeal on 22-10-2008, the Commission has heard both parties and gone through the documents available in the office of the Commission. It is also brought to the notice of the Commission that the appellant has made complaint letter on 1-1-2008 to the various officers / department on the same subject which is replied under letter dated 28-1-2008.

On going through the papers available in the office of the Commission and on hearing of both the parties, it is observed that the P.I.O. has not given required information to the appellant even after order of the First Appellate Officer which is negligence on the part of the P.I.O. The P.I.O. should henceforth obey the order of the First Appellate Officer under the R.T.I. Act, 2005.

If appellant is still not satisfied with the information given by letter dated 28-1-2008 the P.I.O. should give inspection of the concerned files to the appellant and give him copies of the documents required by him within a period of one month from the receipt of this if the applicant has not taken inspection 15 days before. The applicant should note also that he is entitles to get the information as per the definition of information in the Act. The following order is passed in the matter.

ORDER

The appeal is disposed off.

(Dr. Suresh V. Joshi)

Chief Information Commissioner, Maharashtra.

Place: Mumbai

Date: 07.01.2009.

ANALYSIS OF EXAMPLE 4:

Again, this Order of Chief SIC
Dr Suresh Joshi is totally illegal under RTI Act 2005.

He condones PIO’S TOTAL DENIAL OF INFORMATION without application of mind:

Even the First Appellate Authority had ordered PIO to give the requested information. But PIO persisted in denial of information.

Dr Joshi evidently did not even ask for PIO’s justification as mandated by Section 19(5). He disposed off the appeal without considering the mandatory penal provisions, with only an instruction to PIO to give the requested information in a month if appellant has not taken inspection in 15 days time.

It is significant that the information requested pertains to demolition of 15 illegal constructions. Dr Joshi’s strange Order raises suspicions of undue favours and corrupt considerations.

SUMMARY: This order violates sections 7(2), 19(5) and 20(1).

EXAMPLE 5:

Complaint No.2007/225/02

Shri Julio Rebeiro,

C/o Indian Music Industry, 266, Kaachwala Building,

2nd floor, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Opp. Passport Office,

Worli, Mumbai 400 030. .. Complainant

V/s

Public Information Officer,

Office of CEO, SRA, Griha Nirman Bhavan,

Bandra (East), Mumbai 400051. .. Respondent

GROUNDS

Shri Julio F. Rebeiro had given application u/s 6 of RTI Act, 2005 to the SPIO, SRA, Mumbai on 28.6.2007 seeking the following information:

“ Certified true copies of entire file of Project under construction at village Juhu, Taluka Andheri, having CTS No.35 and its adjoining land, etc. near JVPD Circle – K/West Ward – Developer: M/s Kunal Builders and Developers, A/3, Everest Building, Tardeo, Mumbai 400034 – Society: Shri Juhu Taj CHS – SRA IOD Ref. No. SRA/ENG/540/KW/MHL/AP, dt.20.5.2004 and C.C. Ref. SRA/ENG/540/KW/MHL/LOT, dt. 30.12.2004.”

The said application was received by the SRA on 4.7.2007 and since Mr. Rebeiro did not receive the information within a period of 30 days he filed complaint application u/s 18 of RTI Act, 2005 with this Commission on 9.8.2007 which was received in this Commission on 14.8.2007. Enquiry into this complaint was conducted on 31.8.2007 and 1.9.2007 when Mr. Kewal Semlani on behalf of Mr. Julio F. Rebeiro and Mr. Tidke, Dy. Collector and Shri R.R.Tripathi, Assistant PIO, SRA were present. The Assistant PIO explaining the delay has stated that the information sought through this application was voluminous more than 300 number of documents and several number of approved plans and they had taken considerable time to take out xerox and prepare the set. Moreover, it has been pointed by the Asst. PIO that criminal investigations are in progress by the Economic Offence Wing of CID in respect of this case, hence the information cannot be furnished u/s 8(1)(h) of RTI Act, 2005 and, therefore, though the documents required by the Appellant were kept ready, were not issued. He, however, rendered apology for not informing the Appellant within stipulated time.

Mr. Semlani who represented Mr. Rebeiro stated that such type of plea could be taken by the Police Authorities who are investigating the case, however, the same plea cannot be taken by the non-investigating authority like SRA. He also pleaded that since there has been delay in giving the information the Appellant desires that penalty should be imposed on the PIO.

Section 8(1)(h) of the Act is as follows: “8(1)(h) – information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension, or prosecution of offenders;” Sheri Rebeiro, the Applicant himself was Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, Director General of Police, Government of Punjab, held gubernatorial posts and eminent personality. If the required information is in such hands, by no stretch of imagination it would be surmised that this would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders.

Since such an eventuality must have arisen in respect of PIO for the first time the predicament of PIO is also understandable. However, he ought to have informed the applicant about the possible delay in furnishing the desired information. In this case, the PIO ought to have sought the guidance from the CEO, SRA as regards whether such information should be given or not. In this case, however, he simply did not take any initiative and put-forth this argument only at the time of hearing before this Commission. Since the information has been kept ready, it should be immediately given to the Complainant without charging any fee since there has been delay on the part of the PIO in giving the information. Since this is a peculiar case, the Commission is imposing penalty of just Rs. 1,000/- which would serve the purpose of enforcing time limit for giving the information under RTI Act.

ORDER

(a) Information should be given to the Applicant free of cost immediately;

(b) PIO should pay a penalty of Rs. 1,000/- for his lapse.

The CEO, SRA should see that this amount of Rs. 1,000/- is recovered from the salary of PIO for the month of September 2007 paid in October 2007 and deposited under proper head prescribed by the Government and compliance be reported to the Commission by 15th October, 2007.

(Dr. Suresh V. Joshi)

Chief Information Commissioner

Place: Mumbai.

Date: 1.9.2007

ANALYSIS OF EXAMPLE 5:

This is a high-profile case where Julio Ribeiro, represented by Kewal Semlani, was the respondent. The matter was concerning illegal construction work involving crores of rupees.

Dr Suresh Joshi was clearly on the horns of a dilemma.

Dr Joshi condoned PIO’S NON- REPLY, WHICH AMOUNTS TO DENIAL OF INFORMATION AS PER SEC. 7(2), by pleading that this is a “peculiar case”.

Nonetheless, to avoid antagonizing Kewal Semlani and Julio Ribeiro, he imposed a token penalty of Rs 1,000.

Dr Joshi’s addressed the PIO’s objection under section 8(1)(h) with specious arguments: “Shri Rebeiro, the Applicant himself was Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, Director General of Police, Government of Punjab, held gubernatorial posts and eminent personality. If the required information is in such hands, by no stretch of imagination it would be surmised that this would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders.”

As the information requested pertains to large-scale illegal construction being investigated by CID’s Economic Offence Wing (EOW), Dr Suresh Joshi’s peculiar Order raises suspicions of undue favours and corrupt considerations.

SUMMARY: This order violates sections 7(2) and 20(1) and looks fishy, as Dr Joshi pulls off a balancing act.

Do you feel that the above analysis of Dr Suresh Joshi’s Orders is correct? Or do you feel that it is unfair or illogical?

Please feel free to comment, and also to email other obviously bad Orders of other Information Commissioners at SIC and CIC.

Warm Regards,

Krish

98215 88114

sahasipadyatri@gmail.com

__._

ARC's Positive Recommendations for Improving The Implementation of RTI Act Rejected

2009-06-16T20:14:00.002+05:30

Please find reproduced below mail from Venkatesh of Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI):

Dear friends,

Yesterday you received a note on the probable amendments to the RTI Act based on the recommendations of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission. Readers will remember that the very first report of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) focused on strengthening the RTI Act describing it as the 'master key to good governance'. GOI has made public its decisions on all the recommendations made by ARC through the website of the Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances

[http://darpg.nic.in/arpg-website/Right%20to%20Information%20-%20Master%20Key%20to%20Good%20Governance.pdf].

Given below is a list of important and practical recommendations of the ARC rejected by GOI:

Official Secrets Act to stay: The ARC had recommended and rightly so, the repeal of the Official Secrets Act (OSA) and incorporation of some of its anti-espionage provisions in the National Security Act. GOI has rejected this recommendation on the ground that the offences under the OSA are substantive offences and cannot be placed in what is essentially a preventive detention law. This argument cannot be flawed but the anti-espionage provisions may be placed in the Indian Penal Code without much difficulty. There is no reason for treating OSA as a treasured heirloom that must be preserved for posterity.

Oath of Secrecy to stay: The ARC had recommended that the oath of secrecy administered to Ministers be replaced with an oath of transparency. GOI has rejected this recommendation on the ground that Ministers will still be expected to maintain secrets in the RTI era. So even if Parliament signaled its will to change the underlying paradigm of governance from secrecy to openness by passing the RTI Act GOI wants its Ministers to be sworn to secrecy- the numerous calculated leaks of government information notwithstanding- praan jaaye par vachan na jaaye.

Composition of the selection committee for Information Commissions remains unchanged: The ARC had taken note of the monopoly enjoyed by the government on the committee mandated with the selection of members of Information Commissions. It had recommended that the Cabinet Minister on the committee be replaced by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court at the Central level and the Chief Justice of the respective High Courts at the level of the States. GOI has rejected this decision stating that the existing arrangements have no infirmity.

Refusal to end the bureaucratic domination of Information Commissions: A vast majority of Information Commissioners appointed at the Centre and in the States are officers who retired from senior positions in government. Individuals who swore by the OSA were made champions of transparency overnight. Recognising this anomaly, the ARC recommended change in the RTI Rules to ensure that at least 50% of the Commissioners are drawn from fields of expertise outside the bureaucracy. GOI has rejected this recommendation merely stating that the Act provides for the appointment of eminent persons from different fields of expertise. Apparently the necessity of giving detailed reasons for a decision of rejection applies only to the domain of PIOs and appellate authorities, and not to GOI as a whole.

Refusal to print suo motu disclosure documents: Recognising the fact that less than 5% people in India are internet literate, the ARC had recommended printing of proactive disclosure documents of public authorities periodically in order to make them easily accessible to people. GOI has rejected this recommendation on the ground that this would be an expensive affair to be undertaken periodically. Instead public authorities would upload their proactive disclosure documents on the RTI portal set up by GOI. No mention is made of the fact that the existing disclosures are not regularly updated on this portal and in any case they are inaccessible to non-english-speaking and internet-illiterate citizens.

Shortchanging records management: Recognising the poor state of management of public records all over India, the ARC had recommended the setting up of a well networked series of public records offices at the Central and state level. It had also recommended setting aside 1% of the budget of flagship programmes of each ministry for this purpose. GOI has rejected the 'public records office' idea stating that the Public Records Act and the National Archives would be adequately strengthened for this purpose. The fact that the Public Records Act does not cover the States has been conveniently forgotten. GOI has rejected the funding idea also on the ground that no separate allocation needs to me made for improving records maintenance, the same could be met under the existing budgetary provisions. Behind this rejection there is little realisation of the fact that records management is an area of least concern in several public authorities. The question that begs consideration is how many public aurhorities take records management seriously to make budgetary provisions for this item of expenditure every year as it is a continuous exercise. The provision about records management found in the RTI Act has only enthused many public authorities to hasten the destruction of records that are past their stipulated lifespan.

Refusal to set up single window system: Based on the strong backing from civil society the ARC had recommended that a single window system manned by Assistant PIOs be set up at the district level for receiving applications from citizens. The obvious purpose was to create convenience for citizens who would otherwise have to go through considerable difficulty identifying the correct PIO. GOI has rejected this recommendation stating that complaints would pertain to different areas and time would be lost in distributing them to the relevant offices. The possibility of linking up with the State Governments for setting up such facilities has been ignored. The example of Nawanshahr district in Punjab where such a system was functional has been ignored.

Refusal to effectively monitor the implementation of the RTI Act: Recognising that a large number of public authorities function at the regional, state, district and sub-district level the ARC had recommended that a nodal officer be appointed by the relevant Information Commission as a monitoring authority to ensure proper implementation of the RTI Act. GOI has rejected this recommendation on the pretext that it may lead to inter-departmental conflict. Surely, making the District Collector/Deputy Commissioner's office as a monitoring authority at the district level may not lead to any conflict as they perform a supervisory role on many accounts including the maintenance of law and order. Another good suggestion has been rejected on incredible grounds.

Bureaucrats have not accepted most of the important recommendations that civil society has been advocating for since the inception of the RTI Act. People have the right to know why. We advocators and activists should demand that the entire file on the ARC recommendations along with notings must be proactively disclosed by GOI. This is indeed the mandate of clauses (c) and (d) of section 4(1) of the RTI Act:

"Every public authority shall.

(d) provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons."

People have the right to know the details of why such progressive and practical recommendations have been rejected.

What can you do to demand transparency and resist amendments?

Please send emails demanding your right to know and insisting on the public authorities to proactively disclose detailed reasons for rejection. Please also strongly voice your opposition to making any amendments to the RTI Act.

A sample email is given below which you are free to adapt:

"Dear----------------------------,

I would like to exercise my right to know the detailed reasons behind the acceptance of some and the rejection of various other recommendations made by the Second Administrative Reforms Commission in its first report- Right to Information: Master Key to Good Governance. I urge you to place the entire contents of the file relating to the said report including all file notings on your website. I would like to remind you that you have an obligation to proactively disclose all facts relating to the decisions taken on the recommendations contained in the said report under clauses (c) and (d) of sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Right to Information Act (RTI Act).

As a citizen of India I would like to assert that there is no need to amend anything in the RTI Act which guarantees my fundamental right to seek and obtain information from public authorities.

Yours sincerely,

Name of the sender."

"NO AMENDMENTS - LEAVE OUR RTI ACT ALONE."

Please send this email along with the slogan to the Minister and Secretaries mentioned below:

1) Mr. Prithviraj Chavan, Minister of State, Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India.

Email: mos-pp@... or chavanprithviraj@...

2) Ms. Rajni Razdan, Secretary, Department of Administrative Reforms, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India.

Email: rajni.razdan@...

3) Mr. Rahul Sarin, Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India.

Email: secy_mop@...

Please circulate this email within your networks. Please build up pressure against any attempt to amend the RTI Act. If each email group decided to send a 1000 mails from its members we could create some impact.

Our Slogan: NO AMENDMENTS - LEAVE OUR RTI ACT ALONE.

Thanks

Venkatesh Nayak

Programme Coordinator

Access to Information Programme

Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative

B-117, I Floor, Sarvodaya Enclave

New Delhi- 110 017

tel: 91-11- 2686 4678/ 2685 0523

fax: 91-11- 2686 4688

website: www.humanrightsinitiative.org

email:

Activists against proposed amendments to RTI Act

2009-06-15T23:26:00.000+05:30

http://www.hindu.com/2009/06/15/stories/2009061554750600.htm

Special Correspondent

JAIPUR: The campaigners for transparency and right to information are worried about the proposed amendment to the country’s path breaking law, the Right to Information Act 2005, diluting its effectiveness. If the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) Government goes ahead with the changes, as announced by President Pratibha Patil in her address to Parliament on June 4, nothing good is to come out of it, they insist.

After the Magsaysay award winner Aruna Roy last week expressing serious doubts about the intention behind the move to amend the existing Act, it was the turn of Shailesh Gandhi, Commissioner with the Central Information Commission, to give out similar sentiments here on Saturday. “We have to fight this move as it is not an attempt to improve upon the existing law,” said Mr. Gandhi, speaking as the chief guest at the launch of an orientation workshop on the second phase of the RTI project being implemented by the Jaipur-based NGO, CUTS Centre for Action, Research and Training(CUTS CART).

“My fear is that with the amendment the present provision in the law to provide copies of file noting would go. In the next 100 days this can happen and the people have to remain vigilant against any such move,” said Mr. Gandhi, a businessman turned RTI activist.

“People are only familiarizing themselves with the existing law and changes in them would only complicate the situation and obstruct the implementation of the law,” he warned. “The Governments in general are no great advocates of right to information,” he pointed out.

As such education of the masses was taking considerable time in making the law more effective, Mr. Gandhi, who created a record of sorts in clearing the pending applications with the Central Information Commission, said. “What I have come across while dealing with the applications is that many of the applicants do not know how to seek information. Perhaps people should be taught to be more focused in their queries,” he felt.

“In three years the Act has made a big impact. However it should be pointed out that initially only 15 per cent in Rajasthan knew how to file an application under the law to get information. With advocacy their number has gone up to 35 per cent in the past three years,” observed George Cheriyan, director CUTS CART.

The collective concern of the civil society organizations (CSOs) was about the dilution of the provisions of the Act to suit the powers that be, he said.

Harinesh Pandya of JANPAT, a network of civil society organizations in Gujarat, said RTI had rekindled a new hope in the minds of the public on the effectiveness of the system. The law had not only opened up immense possibilities for the ordinary citizen but also was helping the bureaucracy in withstanding undue pressure from the politicians, he pointed out.

The gathering , which included grass root level of RTI activists and CSOs from Rajasthan unanimously resolved to raise their collective concern to the Government of India over the announced ‘suitable amendments’ to the RTI.

It also asked the Rajasthan Government to take necessary steps for the effective implementation of the RTI act by appointing required number of Information Commissioners and by providing required infrastructure.

DoPT wants full CIC to hear all complaints, appeals

2009-06-15T23:25:00.001+05:30

13 Jun 2009, 0444 hrs IST, Himanshi Dhawan, TNN

NEW DELHI: After clashing on the issue of disclosure of file notings, the Central Information Commission (CIC) and DoPT are at loggerheads again. If the ministry is to be believed, all decisions taken by CIC and state commissions in the past three years are illegal. Unfazed by the DoPT's big brother attitude, the CIC has asked DoPT to keep off its turf.

In a recent circular, DoPT said appeals and complaints could not be heard by a single member or a double member bench but must be heard by the full commission.

Citing advice from the department of legal affairs, the DoPT communique said, "The matter has been examined in consultation with the department of legal affairs which has pointed out that the CIC or state commissions could function through benches only if there was a specific provision in the Act regarding constitution of benches." It went on to add that since there was nothing in the RTI Act about constitution of benches, the full commission should hear all cases.

The commission, however, is firm on its stand. "We, in a decision two years ago, made it clear that a single or double bench will hear cases. In fact, the department of legal affairs was taken into confidence on the decision and it has not been challenged in the court either," chief information commissioner Wajahat Habibullah said. He added that the CIC would respond to DoPT.

Pointing out that the decision would not only serve to increase pendency and delay hearings further, Habibullah said, "Our rate of disposal has gone up drastically but the number of appeals has also increased so there is still a long wait before hearings for complaints can be held."

The rate of disposal has increased from 689 cases in October 2008 to nearly double at 1,495 in April 2009. But there are still 26,869 cases pending before the information watchdog.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/DoPT-wants-full-CIC-to-hear-all-complaints-appeals/articleshow/4650200.cms

Land prices in Noida jumps about 200 times in 2 decades

2009-06-15T23:20:00.000+05:30

http://www.zeenews.com/news539401.html

New Delhi, June 15: Property prices in Noida, the satellite city of the National Capital, have skyrocketed about 200 times in the last two decades, reveals an RTI reply.

According to the reply, residential plots in all the sectors of Noida, which were available at a price of Rs 175 per metre in 1980, have now spiralled to Rs 39,600 mark per square metre in some sectors of the satellite township.

The highest surge of Rs 39,600 per square meter in the prices of residential lands has come in sectors 14, 14A, 15A, 17 and 44, the reply said.

As per official records, residential lands in other sectors are available in the range of Rs 14,400 per square metre to Rs 27,600 per square metre.

Exercising his Right to Information, an RTI activist, Lokesh Batra, has filed an application to the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) asking it to furnish information on categories for which the authority is selling or allotting lands and regarding the prices of plots as per the record.

The Authority is selling land under five categories, namely Residential Land, Residential Group Housing, Industrial Land, Commercial Land and Institutional Land.

There is a definite procedure for fixing and revising land allotment rates for various sectors.

"For Industrial and other institutional activities land cost is subsidised. For commercial land, prices are fixed on ad hoc basis keeping in view the market rates," the reply said.

Industrial allotment rates of NOIDA has risen over 350 times to Rs 14,400 per square metre from Rs 40 per square metre since 1976.

Lands in First, Second and Third phase of NOIDA were available at Rs 40 per square metre in 1976, which has now touched Rs 14,400 per square metre for Phase I, Rs 5,550 for Phase II and Rs 5,750 in Phase III, the reply said.

"There is a lot of discrepancy in allotment of lands in Noida. Considering which I decided to inform people about the procedure and government rates under which the lands is being sold and allotted," Batra said.

Bureau Report

How serious is Indian Railways about implementing RTI Act!

2009-06-14T22:11:00.004+05:30

On 19-12-06, Shri Bimal Khemani, Senior Citizen and Aligarh based RTI Activist, filed an RTI application in the name of CPIO, Indian Railway, Aligarh Jn., Aligarh asking for some information about Passenger Reservation System at Aligarh Jn.. The application was not accepted by any staff or Sr. Station Manager or any other staff at the station, and on being refused the same was forwarded through the CAPIO, the Deptt. Of Posts, Aligarh, which was also returned back by CAPIO on 05-01-07 with a remarks from Railway authority isha nam ka post bharatiya rail me nahI hai Against this an appeal was filed before the CIC on 24-02-07, which has never heard nor rejected till date.

On 13-10-07, he filed another RTI application with the CPIO, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi, with the following points:

Railway prashasan ke antargat karyarat vibhinn station me kitane station/junction par jan suchana adhikari namit kar mul kanun ki bhawananusar unake nam pate sarvajanik kiye kripaya suchit kare. , Dilli, nai-dilli evaM Aligarh junction ke jan suchana adhikari ken am pate evaM niyukti ke dinank sahit suchit kare

On 02-11-07, Mr. P.P.Pandey, Dy. GM Law and CPIO informed

1) CPIO, Northern Railway, Dy. GM Law , Northern Railway HQs office, New Delhi (for any information pertaining to Northern Railway)

2) PIO, Delhi Division, Northern Railway, Sr. DMM, DRM Office, State entry Road, New Delhi for any information pertaining to Delhi Division, Delhi, New Delhi and Aligarh are part of Delhi Division

Being not satisfied, 1st appeal with FAA Sri A.K.Goyal, Addl. Member (Com) Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi was filed on 16-11-07 and later on 2nd appeal with CIC filed on 09-01-08, which was heard on 15-10-08 by CIC, Mr.O.P.Kejriwal, through AUDIO conferencing, and order CIC/OK/A/2008/00226, 00490, 00569 dt. 24-11-08 was passed with following directions

After listening to both the parties, the commission still felt that arrangements could be made at Railway Junctions to declare a senior official like the station master or his immediate sub-ordinate to act as an APIO to receive RTI applications together with the fee and provide a receipt to the applicant and forward them to concerned PIO as suggested by the applicant.

On receipt of this order, the CPIO Northern Railway HQ, vide his letter dated 19-03-09 informed as under the matter was taken up with the concerned authorities to examine the feasibility of the suggestion. After due deliberation it has been decided that Station Master or his immediate sub-ordinate perform a highly specialized job. They need to remain totally focused towards operational requirements of safe running of train, as a result of which the job such as

dealing with RTI application can not be entrusted to the Station Master or his immediate sub-ordinate On being dissatisfied , a complaint u/s.18 for non-compliance of CIC decision was filed on 20-04-09 with following points:

Brief facts leading to the complaint :

Sec. 5 (2) of RTI Act,2005, reads as follows: 5. (2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), every public authority shalldesignate an officer, within one hundred days of the enactment of this Act, at each sub-divisional level or other sub-district level as a Central Assistant Public Information Officer or a State Assistant Public Information Officer, as the case may be, to receive the applications for information or appeals under this Act for forwarding the same forthwith to the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or senior officer specified under sub-section (1) of section 19 or the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be

The PIO in his above reply stated tha Station Master or his immediate subordinate perform a highly specialized job. They need to remain totally focused towards operational requirement of safe running of train.

This is not a true statement of the PIO. Railway administration has various departments viz, COMMERCIAL, ENGINEERING, CATERING etc. apart from train running. The work of CAPIO can easily be entrusted to them without hampering the job of safe running of the train. Likewise many other Govt. departments will seek exemptions viz. AIR PORT AUTHORITY, ELECTRICITYBOARDS, BANKS etc.etc.

************************************************

On 09-02-09, another RTI application was moved as follows:

1. Please provide me with the name and addresses of APIO appointed by the Northern Railway authority in their jurisdiction as per decision no. CIC/OK/A/2008/00226, 00490, 00569 dt. 24-11-08 issued by the Central Information Commission

2. Please provide me with the self attested copy of the file noting and note sheet about appointment of APIO with reference to above decision.

3. Please provide me with the status of Aligarh Jn. , whether it is sub-divisional level or below than name all the sub-divisional level Railway station under your jurisdiction

On 20-03-09 First appeal with FAA made but no any response

On 01-04-09 Reply from PIO received as under .

1. The reply has already been sent to commission. The copy of same has again enclosedherewith for information.

2. As desired the photocopy of PP-1 and PP-8 are enclosed herewith for information.

3. You are requested to approach CPIO,NCR as the said station falls under NCR

On 23-04-09 2nd appeal before CIC filed with the following facts.

Point no. 1 . Reply is not correct hence can not be accepted.

Point no. 3 The portion must have been forwarded by the CPIO to the appropriate authority as per sec.6(3)

This appeal is now fixed for hearing on 16-06-09 at 3.00 p.m. before CIC Mrs. Omita Paul, and the above complaint is said to be under process.

BIMAL KUMAR KHEMANI,

09359724625

Reveal admission test marks, CIC tells FMS

2009-06-11T23:57:00.001+05:30

Publication: Times Of India Delhi; Date: Jun 8, 2009; Section: Times City; Page: 4

Manash Pratim Gohain | TNN

New Delhi: The dean of Faculty of Management Studies, Delhi University has been served a showcause notice by the Central Information Commission (CIC) for not furnishing information under RTI regarding the marks break-up of students admitted to its MBA programme.

The RTI was filed by the student who had topped the FMS written test in 2008 but could not make it to the flagship management programme as his extempore, interview and GD marks were not good enough. CIC has asked FMS to give the information sought — an order that may force B-schools across the country to disclose their admission test marks breakups too or be flooded with RTIs.

CIC has asked the Public Information Officer (PIO) to explain why penalty should not be levied under Section 20 (1). The commission held dean J K Mitra (deemed PIO) guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified has said that it raises doubt about the refusal being malafide. The order came in response to the student’s appeal.

On April 9, 2008 Nitesh Duhan, a MBA (Management Services student) of the 2010 batch filed an RTI seeking information on written, group discussion (GD), extempore and personal interview (PI) marks of each of the candidates who were admitted to the MBA programme. The DU registrar who is the first appellate authority had asked FMS to give the information to the PIO by July 31, 2008 so that the appellant gets it by August 14, 2008.

On May 6, 2008 Duhan received a reply stating that information is denied under section 8 (1) (j) as ‘‘disclosure of the same to the applicant can be objected to by the candidates concerned.’’ It came with a copy of the merit list for the MBA MS programme. Duhan then approached the DU registrar on June 3, 2008.

‘‘Despite the order I received no information and I told this to the FAA in February 2009. I wrote three more applications, the last one on March 25, 2009. Finally I was provided given a copy of the MBA merit list on March 31, 2009 but there was still no break-up of marks,’’ said Duhan.

The CIC notice said: ‘‘It is also apparent that inspite of the clear order of the FAA to give the information by August 14, 2008, the information had not been provided to the appellant until March 31, 2009. The respondents were asked to explain the reasons for this and it appears from their statements that dean, FMS had taken a position that this information could not be given. All officers in public authority have to understand that they are bound to obey the laws and the structures thereof. It appears that Professor J K Mitra, dean, FMS has taken a position to defy the order of the FAA under RTI.’’

In its decision allowing the appeal CIC said that the PIO will give the information mentioned before June 15, 2009. The CIC said: ‘‘From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the deemed PIO Professor J K Mitra, dean FMS, is guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per requirement of the RTI Act. He has further refused to obey the orders of his superior officer, which raises a reasonable doubt that the denial of information may also be malafide. The FAA has clearly ordered the information to be given.’’

Mitra refused to comment. But sources say the admission committee would soon meet to discuss the reply to the notice.

manash.gohain@timesgroup.com

RTI applies to JNMF, say 3 commissioners

2009-06-06T13:11:00.000+05:30

YOUR RIGHT TO KNOW

RTI applies to JNMF, say 3 commissioners

Abhinav Garg | TNN

Publication: Times Of India Delhi; Date: Jun 4, 2009; Section: Times City; Page: 9

New Delhi: Going against the legal opinion rendered by their chief, three information commissioners of CIC have declared Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Fund (JNMF) a public authority under the RTI Act.

‘‘In the interest of justice, transparency and accountability, the Commission declares the JNMF to be a public authority under the RTI Act,’’ observed a bench of IC’s Annapurna Dixit, M M Ansari and Satyananda Mishra on Tuesday, giving the trust 15 days’ time to put in place a mechanism to receive and dispose of RTI pleas.

The CIC’s stand is contrary to that adopted by chief information commissioner Wajahat Habibullah, who in a separate legal opinion sent to the Trust in 2007, had concluded that it was not a public authority so the RTI Act wasn’t applicable to it.

The case stemmed from an RTI filed by B R Manhas, a senior citizen in JNMF in November 2006. Manhas’s plea was a modest one, asking ‘‘year-wise financial grant given by HRD ministry and its purpose.’’

JNMF shot off a letter to CIC wanting to know if ‘‘charitable trusts set up in memory of national leaders come within RTI Act’’. Habibullah replied the RTI Act didn’t apply to the fund so it wasn’t bound by it.

But it was Manhas’s argument that was upheld by CIC in its latest ruling — since the trust received government funds and was housed within government property — Teen Murti House — it was accountable to the public.

Infact, Manhas had taken the battle to the Delhi HC alleging ‘‘judicial indiscipline’’ on behalf of Habibullah because he first gave an opinion on his RTI plea, then was also a part of CIC bench that heard his appeal against JNMF’s refusal to disclose information.

HC had then asked Habibullah to ‘‘consider the appropriateness of his participation’’ in hearing the appeal, suggesting the CIC convene a three commissioner bench to reconsider the case.

Now, apart from appointing a PIO, the trust will also have to furnish the information asked by Manhas in the RTI.

abhinav.garg@timesgroup.com

President's Address: RTI Ambit to be Broadened

2009-06-06T13:03:00.001+05:30

Publication: Times Of India Delhi; Date: Jun 5, 2009; Section: Times Nation; Page: 21

RTI great, but more transparency coming

TIMES NEWS NETWORK

New Delhi: A recurrent theme in the President’s address to Parliament on Thursday was transparency. The Right to Information (RTI) Act is clearly something the UPA sees as a significant achievement of its first tenure and it appears the government will seek to push the envelope further in this direction in its second stint.

Some of what the President said on the subject was not too specific, for instance the assurance about suitably amending the law to provide for disclosure by government in all non-strategic areas. But there were also concrete promises. A key example of the latter was the assurance that transparency in the flagship rural employment (NREGA) programme would be enhanced by enforcing social audit and setting up an independent grievance redressal mechanism at the district level in the form of an ombudsman. There were also specific commitments on the creation of an Independent Evaluation Office at an arms length from the government, which would work with social science research organisations to evaluate flagship schemes and place the findings in the public domain. Also, the government promised it would come out with annual reports on five key areas education, health, employment, environment and infrastructure.

Similarly, a Delivery Monitoring Unit in the PMO would monitor all flagship programmes and iconic projects and report on their status publicly, while ministers from the relevant ministries would publicly report on progress under Bharat Nirman every quarter. A public data policy is to be drawn up to place all non-strategic information in the public domain to help citizens challenge the data and engage directly in governance reforms.

CIC cracks down on DOPT over file notings

2009-06-03T16:33:00.001+05:30

2 Erring Officials Could Face A Year In Jail

Manoj Mitta | TNN

Publication: Times Of India Delhi; Date: Jun 3, 2009; Section: Front Page; Page: 1

New Delhi: In an unprecedented move, the Central Information Commission on Tuesday issued notices to two officers of the department of personnel and training (DoPT), the nodal department of RTI, to show cause why they should not be prosecuted for offences that could land them behind bars for a whole year.

The provocation was DoPT’s refusal despite repeated directions to correct the misleading claim on its website that file notings were not part of the information that could be disclosed under RTI.

CIC chief Wajahat Habibullah summoned joint secretary S K Sarkar and deputy secretary Anuradha Chagti to appear on June 17 to explain why they should not be prosecuted under the Indian Penal Code and penalized under RTI.

While other public authorities, including the Supreme Court, have long accepted the CIC’s ruling that file notings were not exempt from disclosure, DoPT has maintained otherwise on its website, much to the CIC’s chagrin.

TAKING NOTE

Despite repeated directions, DoPT has refused to correct misleading claim on its site that file notings are not part of info that can be disclosed under RTI

CIC chief Wajahat Habibullah has summoned joint secretary S K Sarkar and deputy secretary Anuradha Chagti to explain why they should not be

prosecuted under Indian Penal Code

CIC says two officers liable under Section 166 IPC, which punishes ‘public servant disobeying law with intent to cause injury to any person’ DoPT officials may have to pay 25k fine

New Delhi: CIC chief Wajahat Habibullah has taken exception to DoPT’s refusal to correct the misleading claim on its website that file notings were not part of the information that could be disclosed under RTI. Habibullah found it “appalling” that the nodal department of RTI had “sought to emasculate the mandate” of Section 19(7) which stipulates that the CIC’s decisions were “binding”.

On an appeal filed by RTI activist Subhash Chandra Agrawal, the CIC said that by disobeying its directions, the two DoPT officers had rendered themselves liable to be punished under Section 166 IPC, which imposes imprisonment up to one year on a “public servant disobeying law with intent to cause injury to any person.” The other two offences cited in the order are punishable with imprisonment up to six months: while Section 187 pertains to “omission to assist public servant when bound by law to give assistance”, Section 188 deals with “disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant.”

Besides responding to allegations of committing criminal offences, Sarkar and Chagti will have to explain on June 17 why each of them shouldn’t be imposed the maximum prescribed penalty under RTI of Rs 25,000.

HC refuses to share info on errant judges

2009-06-03T16:31:00.000+05:30

Publication: Times Of India Delhi; Date: May 31, 2009; Section: Times City; Page: 6

Abhinav Garg | TNN

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court thinks any transparency on action taken against errant trial court judges is ‘‘an unwarranted invasion of their privacy’’.

For it has quelled an attempt to access these details in an application made to it under the Right to Information Act. HC has sought refuge behind its rule 5 (b) of Delhi HC (RTI rules) to block information as the rule allows it to withhold information on this ground.

‘‘A number of complaints against judicial officers have been received in the vigilance branch during the last 10 years and on the basis of that, necessary action has been taken against erring judicial officers. The details of same can’t be disclosed as it would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual’’ says an RTI reply received from HC.

The reply came on an RTI filed by a lawyer who had asked the method by which HC monitors the conduct of trial court judges, along with details of action taken against whom complaints were received pertaining to corruption or misconduct.

While HC was quick to acknowledge that it has a vigilance branch for ‘‘supervizing and keeping watch on the conduct of trial court judges’’ it chose to be non-transparent when asked to elaborate. For instance, the RTI pleas’ pointed query on details of 10 oldest complaints still pending against trial court judges was shot down, again on the ground that it would cause ‘‘unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual.’’

Similarly, when the RTI plea demanded to know the standards on which performance of judges is evaluated, HC promptly outlines these as — knowledge of law/procedure, disposal of cases, quality of judgments, efficiency, reputation for honesty etc. But it remained unyielding on disclosing anything more. On being pressed for details like ‘‘how many judges have failed to meet the required evaluation consideration’’ or ‘‘what action is taken against a judge who fails to meet the standard’’ — HC relied on its special RTI rule to deny information.

The most that the court was willing to reveal was that whenever a complaint is received against any judicial officer, it is ‘‘laid before chief justice for consideration and necessary action is then taken.’’

abhinav.garg@timesgroup.com

Compensation to be paid if info not provided under RTI

2009-05-31T22:11:00.001+05:30

PNS | Bhubaneswar

The Right to Information Act would be followed in a more stringent way in the State. If any department fails to provide the information as sought by the public, the department would be liable to pay compensation to the person. Earlier, the concerned official was only liable to pay the penalty.

A decision to this effect was taken at a high level high level meeting on Implementation of RTI held at the State Secretariat on Friday. While the Chief Secretary presided over the meeting, the State Commissioner Jagadananda attended the meeting. Secretaries of all the department all attended the meeting.

It was decided that a special cell would solely be created whose basic job is to provide the information to the public. This scheme has already been introduced in the Bihar and it has been a huge success.

Information and Public Relation (I&PR) Department would act as a nodal agency. All the departments will provide the information to the department on a monthly basis. By the end of May 31, a detailed annual report would be prepared.

Steps would be taken to provide information to the people under the RTI in the tribal areas without any charge. So far action has been taken against 145 officials for not imparting information under the RTI

RTI will be made more accessible: Chavan

2009-05-30T08:21:00.000+05:30

30 May 2009, 0116 hrs IST, TNN

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-4594992,prtpage-1.cms

NEW DELHI: The government will study practices in other countries before establishing a separate directorate for prosecution, minister of state for personnel, public grievances and pensions Prithviraj Chavan said. Chavan, who took over formal charge on Friday, said that various systems will be taken in to consideration and the proposition of setting up a directorate of prosecution will be put up before Cabinet soon.

"We are studying the practices in other countries and will bring the proposal to Cabinet soon,'' Chavan said. Prosecution is currently under the CBI that is overburdened with more than 8,000 cases under investigation.

The minister added that efforts would be made to make Right to Information Act more accessible. Replies to RTI queries on the Internet and filing of RTI on phone were facilities that were being looked at. "We have already kickstarted work on setting up a call centre so that people can ask for information on the phone. The system is already operational in Bihar and we will introduce some refinements before introducing it in some states. The facility is likely to start in Delhi soon,'' he said. Chavan however refused to specify any deadline on these plans.

Denying that CBI was under any political interference, Chavan admitted that there was a public perception that the agency worked on the direction of its political masters. "This perception exists and we must change it. The government will work towards making CBI a more effective and efficient agency,'' Chavan said.

RTI Query Forces Jamia to Set up Panel to Probe Allegations Against VC

2009-05-29T23:51:00.003+05:30

Publication: Times Of India Delhi; Date: May 29, 2009; Section: Times City; Page: 4

TIMES NEWS NETWORK

Jamia sets up panel to probe allegations against Hasan

New Delhi: Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI) has set up a committee to probe allegations against vice chancellor Mushirul Hasan that he misused his office during appointments and naming some buildings on the campus. The inquiry committee will be headed by retired judge of Delhi High Court S K Aggarwal.

Hasan, whose term as VC ends on June 9 this year, is alleged to have misused his office in the appointments for AJK Mass Communication and Research Centre (AJK MCRC) and the newly established dental institute. Questions are also being raised over the naming of the history department block after his father Mohibbul Hasan.

Complainant Mohammad Shadab Sami filed an RTI after he was not allowed to join the varsity despite being appointed as lecturer by Jamia committee.

Said Sami, ‘‘I had received an offer letter from Jamia’s selection committee, stating that I was appointed as a lecturer of still photography at AJK MCRC. However, I was not allowed to join despite completing all formalities. I was supposed to join by April 13, 2009. I just wanted to know if there was a valid cause for the inability of the VC to issue my joining letter. I sent him letters regarding the above enquiries and got no reply. In the mean time, candidates who got the appointment letters for other departments assumed their duties.’’

While Iftikhar Ahmed, director, AJK MCRC refused to comment on the issue, Hasan said: ‘‘I have nothing to say as I have acted according to the statues and ordinances.’’ However, a senior faculty of AJK MCRC commented: ‘‘There can’t be smoke without any fire.’’

Sami also said according to HRD regulations, no VC of central universities can either appoint or hold any appointments two months prior to his last date of tenureship. Rakhshanda Jalil, director, media and culture, JMI, said an inquiry committee was constituted once it was brought to the notice of the VC that the complainant was the nephew of the then registrar. Jalil said: ‘‘During the last few months we had to hold selection committees in AJK MCRC and the Faculty of Dental Studies. We informed the secretary, human resource development, about it vide a letter dated April 9, 2009.’’

48-hour Jail Experience of RTI Activists: Part I

2009-05-27T16:39:00.003+05:30

Mumbai: RTI activists waiting in the lobby of SIC for the police to arrive and arrest them!

How we landed in Jail – a brief account

Dear friends,

Since our release last Thursday after 48 hours in police and judicial custody, we have been repeatedly asked: “What exactly happened? Why were you charged with trespass, rioting, assault etc? Did you go on a rampage in Dr Suresh Joshi’s office or courtroom? How can singing Jana Gana Mana get somebody into so much trouble?”

People also ask, “How did it feel to be in jail? How are you feeling now? Aren’t you ashamed of being branded as criminals?”

On behalf of our small group of jailbirds, who proudly call themselves the Jana Gana Mana group, let me put the facts on record. I shall write this in three parts:

Part I: What exactly happened at Maharashtra State Information Commission on Tuesday, 19th May? Why did we get arrested? Why did CSIC Dr Joshi lodge an FIR with the Police?

Part II: What were the events in the earlier months that built up to this incident? Were we very aggressive or did we misbehave in earlier meetings? What put Dr Joshi into his negative / angry / vindictive frame of mind?

Part III: How did it feel to be in police lockup, taken around in police vans, marched barefoot to the Magistrate court, and sleep among 130 assorted inmates at Arthur Road jail? How was the food, and how were our conversations with undertrials and hardened criminals?

Today, I shall write only Part I.

What happened on the afternoon of 19th May

Dr Srikant Prabhu, a 67-year-old veterinarian, had a second appeal hearing before Dr Suresh Joshi at 4.30 pm. He was accompanied by G R Vora and Mohd Afzal. They completed that hearing before the other activists arrived one by one at the State Information Commission.

In fact, we were not one homogenous group. Two groups and some individual activists pursuing their own cause were together at this meeting to press for clean implementation of the RTI Act.

· Krishnaraj Rao, G R Vora, Mohd Afzal and Sunil Ahya comprise one group. They had been following up Dr Suresh Joshi for proper implementation of RTI Act since November 2008.

· Another group consists of Mukund Parikh, Dr Srikant Prabhu, Sanjay Ghatalia and K N Singh.

· Vijay Chavan is a social activist who had been pursuing a number of second appeals, and successfully got several PIOs penalized.

· Ravi Kiran Haldipur was an appellant who had recently become interested in our cause and our methods.

Our group – the first one -- submitted a letter (Pl scroll down to view the letter) to the inward department. The letter warned that if Information Commissioners implemented penal provisions of RTI Act in an arbitrary or mala fide way, then Sec. 217 & 218 of the Indian Penal Code would be applicable. They could be hauled to court and jailed for such action. Attached to this letter were relevant judgments of High Courts and Supreme Court.

Having submitted the letter, we spoke to Dr Joshi’s Executive Assistant Kalpana Gavas, and asked for a time to see Dr Joshi. She said that he was too busy to see us, as he had a doctor’s appointment at 5.30.

So we said we would go inside and observe his court hearings. (This is something that we have been doing a couple of times every month, in groups of varying sizes.) Again, she consulted Dr Joshi and said that only five of us could go inside at one time. We decided to disregard this.

We entered, stood or sat at the back, and observed one hearing. After the hearing was completed, we requested Dr Joshi (who had a band-aid on his forehead) for a brief meeting to submit our letter personally. He granted us five minutes and asked us to come to the front. Dr Joshi said that he would henceforth meet us and other activists only on the first Monday of every month. We told him that this was unacceptable, as the list of things that he had promised and had not implemented was growing longer, requiring more frequent meetings.

Suddenly, a well-known social activist who had come with us for the first time, stood up and announced that he always began this kind of meetings by singing the National Anthem in order to invoke a patriotic spirit. (He had earlier sung the National Anthem at the office of Dr Patangrao Kadam, Maharashtra Housing Minister.) He then unilaterally started singing Jana Gana Mana. The rest of us joined him in chorus. Dr Joshi remained seated for the initial three lines, and then shook his head in dismay, got up and left the room by the back door which leads to his chamber.

After we finished singing, we waited a few minutes for him to return, and then someone went outside to find that Dr Joshi was leaving. Standing in the lobby, he said loudly that this was not the way, and he was calling police. We said that if that was indeed the case, they we would wait for the police to arrive.

When we asked Ms Gavas again whether we were required to wait any longer, she asked us to wait. Approximately an hour after Dr Joshi’s departure, around 15 policemen arrived, took the statements of Ms Gavas and other office staff, took the group to Marine Drive Police Station in a police van and told us to sign us the arrest/surrender form. We were put in police custody at Azad Maidan Police Station overnight. Next day we were produced in Court and granted bail on a surety of Rs 20,000 per head. As we could not produce this at short notice, we were sent to Judicial Custody at Arthur Road Jail.

We were charged with the following offences:

Section 143- Whoever is a member of an unlawful assembly shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six month, or with fine, or with both.

Section 145- Joining or continuing in unlawful assembly, knowing it has been commanded to disperse- Whoever joins or continues in an unlawful assembly, knowing that such unlawful assembly has been commanded in the manner prescribed by law to disperse, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Section 146- Rioting- Whenever force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly, or by any member thereof, in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, every member of such assembly is guilty of the offence of rioting.

Section 448- Whoever commits house-trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine or which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

Section 452- House-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint- Whoever commits house-trespass, having made preparation for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any person, or for wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting any person in fear of hurt, or of assault, or of wrongful restraint, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 353- Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty- Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Dear friends, many of us agree that the Jana Gana Mana singing was unnecessary and distracting. It happened in an unpremeditated way, and was not to our liking… but once someone in our large group started singing, we felt that the only gracious thing to do was stand at attention and join in. We could not stop him midway by poking his ribs or kicking his shin, could we?

Our conduct as a group may at worst be described as inappropriate or unruly. However, does this justify the serious charges levelled against us viz. assault, rioting, house-trespass etc? Does this justify the police harassment?

The response by Dr Joshi and the police was out of proportion... a bit like throwing someone into jail for crossing the road when the light was red. Don't you think so?

Warmly,

Krish

98215 88114

Source: Yahoogroup: [rti4empowerment]

===================================

19.5.2009

Dr Suresh V Joshi,

Chief Information Commissioner,

New Administrative Bldg., 13th Floor,

Opp. Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400032.

Sub: YOUR ACTIONS ARE A JAILABLE OFFENCE

Sir,

We wish to bring to your notice that your non-adherence to the RTI Act while conducting hearings and passing Orders on Second Appeals and Complaints, making a mockery of the Act and aiding and abetting corruption amount to an offence that may attract imprisonment, fines or both.

The very purpose for which this Act was enacted was to bring about transparency, accountability, better governance and reduction of corruption. Your Orders lead to the exact opposite. Your filibustering tactics are causing other SICs in Maharashtra also to shun transparency. This is clearly reflected in their Orders.

Being a retired public servant and an IAS officer, you may be aware of the below provisions of Sec. 217 and 218 of Indian Penal Code under which you are punishable.

IPC Section 217. Public servant disobeying direction of law with intent to save person from punishment...
“Whoever, being a public servant, knowingly disobeys any direction of the law as to the way in which he is conduct himself as such public servant, intending thereby to save, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby save, any person from legal punishment, or subject him to a less punishment than that to which he is liable… shall be punished with imprisonment… for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”

IPC Section 218. Public servant framing incorrect record or writing with intent to save person from punishment…
“Whoever, being a public servant… charged with the preparation of any record or other writing, frames that record or writing in a manner which he knows to be incorrect, with intent to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, loss or injury to the public or to any person, or with intent thereby to save, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby save, any person from legal punishment… shall be punished with imprisonment… for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”

Please consider this as a final warning and mend your ways. Otherwise we shall be constrained to file FIR and move the judiciary to pass strictures against you, dismiss you for dereliction of duty, non-implementation of laws and award you imprisonment and fines for aiding and abetting corruption.

We are already initiating legal action against you under these sections, and recent orders of High Courts and Supreme Court (copies attached) in favour of mandatory penalty under RTI Section 20 and reasoned Speaking Order.

If you improve your functioning subsequent to receiving this letter, kindly inform us of the same with evidence. We hope you will not face the ignominy of being dismissed from service, and/or being jailed at the end of your career.

Thanking you,

Yours Sincerely,

G R Vora Mohd. Afzal Sunil Ahya Krishnaraj Rao

CC: Chief Justice of Bombay High Court

Encl:

1) Recent Delhi High Court Order on RTI Penalties

2) Order of Punjab & Haryana High court on Mandatory Penal Provisions

3) Supreme Court on the importance of reasoned Orders by appellate authorities

=============================================

Another bureaucrat for information panel raises hackles

2009-05-27T16:37:00.000+05:30

HT Correspondent, Chandigarh : May 26

(From: http://epaper.hindustantimes.com/artMailDisp.aspx?article=27_05_2009_006_004&typ=1&pub=722)

WITH ANOTHER bureaucrat on the verge of being appointed as Chief Information Commissioner (CIC), a host of citizen groups, civil society organisations and legal activists have come together to condemn the move.

Punjab Chief Secretary Ramesh Inder Singh is tipped to take over as CIC, with the government reported to have already got the mandatory approval from the Leader of the Opposition.The top IAS officer is expected to take premature retirement for the purpose, as he is otherwise due for retirement only in October 2009.

Speaking at a press conference here today, many social activists said the appointment would be in violation of the spirit of the RTI Act and the Constitution of India.

Vowing to fight against the “brazen and illegal action tooth-and-nail”, Hemant Goswami of the Citizens Voice said that under the RTI Act, for the appointment of a commissioner, a committee had to be set up to deliberate on all applications received for the post.

As per the Act, members of the Information Commission were supposed to be eminent personalities with wide experience in law, science, social service, management, etc.

However, in Punjab most information commissioners were from government background.

Goswami said that in this case, the government had not even advertised the position or set up any committee for the selection.Applications sent in by social workers were not even considered. “The government has moved the file for the Chief Secretary even while he is in service. This in itself is against IAS service rules,” he added.

Advocate H.C. Arora said even the present commissioners from bureaucracy were not performing their job satisfactorily.

Most of them attended to work only 20-30 hours a month. “Except for General P.K. Grover (retd), none of the information commissioners appear to be serious in the discharge of their job,” he alleged.

Earlier, several social activists and organisations have sent a joint representation to the Punjab Governor, the Chief Minister and the Leader of Opposition against the appointment of another bureaucrat in the commission.

“We are even contemplating criminal action under Sections 166, 217 and 219 of the IPC against some of the information commissioners,” Goswami said. The representation to the Chief Minister read, “…none of the commissioners holds hearing for more than six hours a week…. Each commissioner costs the exchequer at least Rs 1.50 lakh a month. The new appointment seems nothing more than reward for sycophancy.”

Anna Hazare says, “Get jailed in large numbers!”

2009-05-24T23:09:00.000+05:30

“Good work, boys!” said Anna Hazare to us -- the 10 activists jailed for 48 hours on false charges of rioting, assault and trespass by Maharashtra CSIC Dr Suresh Joshi.

See video-clip of our conversation with Anna yesterday at Sahyadri Guest House: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XIhIT40mQk

“I was told about what you fellows did. Going to prison isn’t a bad thing,” Anna laughed. “Remember, our Freedom-fighters did lots of that. I too was sentenced to three months imprisonment, but they kicked me out after only 8 days when things got too hot to handle for the State government. It rocked the government. We must organize in large numbers to have lots more of this sort of action and really shake these guys to their senses,” he said, soon after his meeting with Chief Minister Ashok Chavan.

We thanked Anna for inspiring us, and assured him that we would stay aggressive for the cause of proper RTI implementation.

Posted by Krishnaraj Rao on rti4empowerment@yahoogroups.com on Sun, May 24, 2009 at 2:38 AM

98215 88114

MPs' Expenses controversies in UK

2009-05-24T23:06:00.000+05:30

Our press and media has been pre-occupied with with election related news. During the same period, there have been fascinating and dramatic developments in UK. Records obtained with the help of Freedom of Information law and other sources revealed massive misuse of public money by Members of Parliament.

Daily Telegraph had deployed 10 journalist to probe into records, which revealed blatant misuse of public money by MPs. This is an ongoing political scandal following the disclosure of expenses of British Members of Parliament. It involves the disclosure of widespread alleged misuse of the permitted allowances and expenses claimed by Members of Parliament. There was an attempts by MPs to exempt themselves from Freedom of Information legislation. Ultimately information had to be revealed and was given extensive coverage in press and media.

There is genuine concern among MPs that Parliament has never been held in lower regard by members of the public. Even MPs who have done nothing wrong are reported to be considering quitting as they are considered "crooks" by the public.

There are several important lessons for India:

(A) RTI /FOI law leads to effective public accountability.

(B) Beneficiaries of corrupt practices try to avoid transparency. Transparency is essential to prevent misuse of public money.

(C) Press and media can make good use of information revealed with the help of RTI/FOI laws. It is also their social responsability to educate the readers/audience.

Posted by Dhirendra Krishna on rti4empowerment@yahoogroups.com on

Sun, May 24, 2009 at 1:26 PM

Eleven RTI activists held for rioting

2009-05-20T07:33:00.000+05:30

Viju B, TNN

20 May 2009, 0132 hrs IST,

MUMBAI: It was supposed to be a peaceful meeting with state chief information commissioner Suresh Joshi for addressing the grievances of RTI activists. But 11 prominent RTI activists ended up getting arrested by the Marine Drive police for rioting and forceful entry.

The RTI activists-Krishna Raj Rao, Gaurang Vora, Mohmmed Afzal, Sunil Ahya, Mukund Parekh, Vijay Chuahan, Sanjay Ghadalia, K N Singh, Ravi Haldipore, Dr Srikant Prabhu and Pramod Kadam met Joshi to apprise him of various issues that had been plaguing the RTI Act, on Tuesday evening.

Chauhan said he wanted to sing the National Anthem. "Joshi went out of the room after we sang the first line. This is punishable under the Constitution,'' he added.

They then found out that Joshi had lodged a police complaint. A State Information Commission official said that this was not the way to register a grievance.