Viju B I TNN, Mumbai: Withholding information under the Right To Information Act on frivo l o u s g ro u n d s can cost public information officers dear. For the first time, a senior official (appellate authority) of an organisation has imposed a penalty on a couple of subordinate information officers for not providing information under the act.
The appellate authority of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Dombivli, also penalised the PIO and APIO for charging an RTI applicant a fee of Rs 2,477 without giving him an estimate or explaining how the calculation was arrived at. Bhiwandi resident Kumar Dhotre, the applicant, had last year sought details of a building commencement certificate issued to three units in the MIDC area.
“I learnt that many units were functioning without the BCC being granted and that officials were turning a blind eye to this activity,’’ Dhotre said, adding that the PIO told him that he would have to pay a fee of Rs 2,477 for the information.
Dhotre then approached the appellate authority saying that as the PIO had failed to give him an estimate of the cost involved, he should not be charged for the information under Section 7(6) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dhotre also urged that the PIO be penalised for his actions under Section 20(2) of the act.
During the course of the hearing, the PIO and APIO admitted that they had failed to provide the details of the expenses to the complainant. The appellate authority ruled that under the provisions of Section 7(6) of the act, the information sought should have been given free of cost. “As the detailed estimate was not given to the applicant, the information should be provided free... and the fees of Rs 2,477 should be recovered from the PIO and APIO, respectively.’’
In another case last week, the State Information Commission penalised the PIO—assistant registrar—of University Institute of Chemical Technology for not providing information to a blind person.
The SIC had imposed a fine of Rs 24,750 on the PIO after Balwant Joshi, the applicant, was forced to make numerous trips to UICT to get information on the refund of his son’s fees. “These penalties will definitely act as a deterrent to erring bureaucrats who withhold information out of vested interests or due to sheer inefficiency’’ noted RTI activist Shailesh Gandhi.
viju.balanarayanan@timesgroup.com
Publication: Times Of India Mumbai; Date:2007 Sep 04; Section:Times City; Page Number 7
For More Info Log on to www.rtigroup.org
|
Subscribe to RTI Group | |
| Browse Archives at groups.google.com | ||
Saturday, September 8, 2007
Appeals to be heard even if RTI applicants are absent: info chief
Viju B | TNN , Mumbai: This will come as a relief to applicants who invoked the right to information (RTI) act but found their appeals rejected on the grounds that they were not present at the time of the hearing. The State Information Commission (SIC), in a landmark order, has ruled that an appellate authority cannot dispose of an appeal on the grounds that an applicant did not turn up for the hearing.
“If the applicant is not present for the hearing, the memo and papers provided along with the appeal should be taken into consideration. The hearing should be carried out and a decision arrived upon,’’ state chief information commissioner Suresh Joshi said while issuing the order.
An appeal under the RTI act is usually filed when the applicant is not satisfied with information provided by the Public Information Officer (PIO) of a government department. The applicant has to file the first appeal against the PIO’s reply within 30 days of receiving the response.
The issue of an applicant’s presence during the hearing of an appeal came up after activist Shailesh
Gandhi filed an RTI query asking the Maharashtra home department for instances when files remained with a government servant for over seven days, violating section 10(1) of the Maharashtra Government Act 21, 2006 (MGA). The MGA transfer and delays act has been been effective since July 1, 2006. “Section 10(1) states that files should be cleared in seven working days by all government servants or else disciplinary action could be taken against erring officials,’’ Gandhi said.
Responding to Gandhi’s query, the PIO replied that the information which
the applicant had sought could not be categorised as ‘information’ under the purview of the act. Aggrieved by the reply, Gandhi filed an appeal with the appellate officer of the home department. The appellate officer, however, disposed of his appeal because Gandhi was not present on two dates for thehearings.
Gandhi then went in for a second appeal before the SIC challenging this order. In the course of the hearing, the SIC clarified that the PIO had a mistaken notion of what construed ‘information.’ “The legislature passed Act 21 in 2006 which prescribed a timetable for disposal of files. The chief secretary had also given instruction to implement this act. Monitoring would have been done by the department in the form of documents and this falls within the definition of information,’’ the commission said.
Joshi also pointed out that the appellate authority had disposed of the case without looking into the merits of the appeal and even if the appellant was absent, memos and papers presented by him could be taken into consideration and a decision taken by the appellate authority.
viju.b@timesgroup.com
Publication: Times Of India Mumbai; Date:2007 Sep 04; Section:Times City; Page Number 4
“If the applicant is not present for the hearing, the memo and papers provided along with the appeal should be taken into consideration. The hearing should be carried out and a decision arrived upon,’’ state chief information commissioner Suresh Joshi said while issuing the order.
An appeal under the RTI act is usually filed when the applicant is not satisfied with information provided by the Public Information Officer (PIO) of a government department. The applicant has to file the first appeal against the PIO’s reply within 30 days of receiving the response.
The issue of an applicant’s presence during the hearing of an appeal came up after activist Shailesh
Gandhi filed an RTI query asking the Maharashtra home department for instances when files remained with a government servant for over seven days, violating section 10(1) of the Maharashtra Government Act 21, 2006 (MGA). The MGA transfer and delays act has been been effective since July 1, 2006. “Section 10(1) states that files should be cleared in seven working days by all government servants or else disciplinary action could be taken against erring officials,’’ Gandhi said.
Responding to Gandhi’s query, the PIO replied that the information which
the applicant had sought could not be categorised as ‘information’ under the purview of the act. Aggrieved by the reply, Gandhi filed an appeal with the appellate officer of the home department. The appellate officer, however, disposed of his appeal because Gandhi was not present on two dates for thehearings.
Gandhi then went in for a second appeal before the SIC challenging this order. In the course of the hearing, the SIC clarified that the PIO had a mistaken notion of what construed ‘information.’ “The legislature passed Act 21 in 2006 which prescribed a timetable for disposal of files. The chief secretary had also given instruction to implement this act. Monitoring would have been done by the department in the form of documents and this falls within the definition of information,’’ the commission said.
Joshi also pointed out that the appellate authority had disposed of the case without looking into the merits of the appeal and even if the appellant was absent, memos and papers presented by him could be taken into consideration and a decision taken by the appellate authority.
viju.b@timesgroup.com
Publication: Times Of India Mumbai; Date:2007 Sep 04; Section:Times City; Page Number 4
PAC custodial killers get good conduct certificate: RTI reveals
By TwoCircles.net staff reporter
Lucknow: More than 40 Muslims were massacred by UP state paramilitary force PAC in Hashimpura. The survivors and relatives of victims are fighting a long battle for justice for 20 years. Recently on the 20th anniversary of this massacre, 615 Right To Information (RTI) applications were filed in Lucknow to find out what if any action was taken by the state against these PAC men.
613 applications filed by the survivors and families of the victims asked the State "why the accused PAC men charged by a Delhi Sessions Court for the murder of 42 Muslim men, continue to be in active service of the PAC? Was any departmental inquiry initiated against them? Was any disciplinary action taken against them? Or were they rewarded with promotions in rank and emoluments? Were the 19 accused PAC men ever suspended from service? What were the grounds on which they were reinstated?" They also asked for copies of the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of each of the accused persons to be made available.
The reply by Public Information Officer of UP reveals that custodial massacre of Muslims gets no mention on the ACRs of the accused PAC men. Instead of negative comment these accused get positive report. Of the 14 ACR that have been made available to the public, the year 1987 entry is "Kaam aur Aacharan Achha Hai. Satyanishtha Pramnit hai. Shreni Achha." (Work and conduct is good. Proven Honesty. Category Good). CID inquiry did not in any way hamper the career prospects of those accused of cold blooded murders of over 40 innocents.
A serious charge of custodial killing did not invite any Departmental Enquiry. None of the 19 accused PAC men faced and disciplinary action either.
In 1995 when Crime Branch of CID submitted charge sheets against the accused that they were suspended briefly the documents obtained through RTI reveals. But within a year most of the accused were reinstated on flimsy and untenable grounds. Reasons for their reinstatement were that PAC required their services or that these men were facing financial hardships. Advocate Vrinda Grover, who have been representing survivors and victims family in courts for their fight for justice asked "so are we to conclude that PAC requires the services of those men who have been charged with and are currently being prosecuted for the murder of over 42 innocent Muslim men." Similarly, no thought was spared for the families of Hashimpura victims and their hardships. .................
http://www.twocircles.net/2007sep04/pac_custodial_killers_get_good_conduct_certificate_rti_reveals.html
Lucknow: More than 40 Muslims were massacred by UP state paramilitary force PAC in Hashimpura. The survivors and relatives of victims are fighting a long battle for justice for 20 years. Recently on the 20th anniversary of this massacre, 615 Right To Information (RTI) applications were filed in Lucknow to find out what if any action was taken by the state against these PAC men.
613 applications filed by the survivors and families of the victims asked the State "why the accused PAC men charged by a Delhi Sessions Court for the murder of 42 Muslim men, continue to be in active service of the PAC? Was any departmental inquiry initiated against them? Was any disciplinary action taken against them? Or were they rewarded with promotions in rank and emoluments? Were the 19 accused PAC men ever suspended from service? What were the grounds on which they were reinstated?" They also asked for copies of the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of each of the accused persons to be made available.
The reply by Public Information Officer of UP reveals that custodial massacre of Muslims gets no mention on the ACRs of the accused PAC men. Instead of negative comment these accused get positive report. Of the 14 ACR that have been made available to the public, the year 1987 entry is "Kaam aur Aacharan Achha Hai. Satyanishtha Pramnit hai. Shreni Achha." (Work and conduct is good. Proven Honesty. Category Good). CID inquiry did not in any way hamper the career prospects of those accused of cold blooded murders of over 40 innocents.
A serious charge of custodial killing did not invite any Departmental Enquiry. None of the 19 accused PAC men faced and disciplinary action either.
In 1995 when Crime Branch of CID submitted charge sheets against the accused that they were suspended briefly the documents obtained through RTI reveals. But within a year most of the accused were reinstated on flimsy and untenable grounds. Reasons for their reinstatement were that PAC required their services or that these men were facing financial hardships. Advocate Vrinda Grover, who have been representing survivors and victims family in courts for their fight for justice asked "so are we to conclude that PAC requires the services of those men who have been charged with and are currently being prosecuted for the murder of over 42 innocent Muslim men." Similarly, no thought was spared for the families of Hashimpura victims and their hardships. .................
http://www.twocircles.net/2007sep04/pac_custodial_killers_get_good_conduct_certificate_rti_reveals.html
I-T dept puts RTI tasks in juniors’ hands
Manju Menon | TNN , Mumbai: The Right to Information (RTI) Act—perhaps one of the best tools in the hands of the common man—has become a pain to senior officers in the government. If they fail to respond to requests for information under the Act, they are compelled to pay a fine of Rs 25,000.
To get around the problem, the income-tax (I-T) department has started re-designating junior officers to perform the role. Until now, only the chief public information officer (CPIO) could respond to any request for information. In a recent circular, however, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), has said that junior officers at the level of assessing officers be assigned additional responsibilities as CPIOs. In the earlier dispensation, CPIOs had to be at least at the level of a commissioner, if not a chief commissioner.
‘It’s clearly a retrograde move. Senior officials should stay in-charge of passing information under an important Act like the RTI,’’ said Narayan Varma, a leading chartered accountant and an active member of the RTI cell run by the Bombay Chartered Accountants Society. Shailesh Gandhi, an RTI activist, agrees. ‘‘By redesignating juniors as CPIOs, the tax department is just passing the buck which in the long run will prove very expensive.’’
RTI experts say senior officials should continue to play a key role especially in departments like I-T that deal with sensitive information
Publication: Times Of India Delhi; Date:2007 Sep 01; Section:Times Business; Page Number 26
To get around the problem, the income-tax (I-T) department has started re-designating junior officers to perform the role. Until now, only the chief public information officer (CPIO) could respond to any request for information. In a recent circular, however, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), has said that junior officers at the level of assessing officers be assigned additional responsibilities as CPIOs. In the earlier dispensation, CPIOs had to be at least at the level of a commissioner, if not a chief commissioner.
‘It’s clearly a retrograde move. Senior officials should stay in-charge of passing information under an important Act like the RTI,’’ said Narayan Varma, a leading chartered accountant and an active member of the RTI cell run by the Bombay Chartered Accountants Society. Shailesh Gandhi, an RTI activist, agrees. ‘‘By redesignating juniors as CPIOs, the tax department is just passing the buck which in the long run will prove very expensive.’’
RTI experts say senior officials should continue to play a key role especially in departments like I-T that deal with sensitive information
Publication: Times Of India Delhi; Date:2007 Sep 01; Section:Times Business; Page Number 26
CIC notice to cops on child labour issue
The Central Information Commission has issued a showcause notice to Delhi Police for its alleged failure to provide information on the extent of child labour and its sensitisation programme, if any, to deal with the problem in the Capital. Raaj Mangal Prasad has filed an RTI application with the police, seeking details on whether identification of child labour had been undertaken by the Delhi Police. PTI
Publication: Times Of India Delhi; Date:2007 Sep 06; Section:Times City; Page Number 3
Publication: Times Of India Delhi; Date:2007 Sep 06; Section:Times City; Page Number 3
Complaints against cops: No data
New Delhi: The Delhi Police does not maintain data about complaints received against its own personnel — this surprising piece of information was provided by the public information officer of the vigilance branch in response to an application under RTI Act by Dev Ashish Bhattacharya. The rights activist had sought information from the Union home ministry about petitions filed against police personnel and the action taken on them. The ministry’s director and chief public information officer Labh Singh Chane said no data was maintained by the ministry about such petitions.PTI
Publication: Times Of India Delhi; Date:2007 Sep 05; Section:Times City; Page Number 6
Publication: Times Of India Delhi; Date:2007 Sep 05; Section:Times City; Page Number 6
CIC pulls up finmin, Sebi for aiding IFCI bid to beat RTI Act
UTI Claim Of Not Being Public Authority Also Draws Flak From Commission
Girish Kuber MUMBAI
THE Central Information Commission (CIC) has slammed the government and two public sector units, the Industrial Finance Corporation of India (IFCI) and the Unit Trust of India (UTI), for refusing to part information under the RTI Act. The CIC has not only rejected IFCI’s claim that it’s not a ‘public authority’ but has also slammed the Union finance ministry and the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) for shielding it.
In an order on August 9, a copy of which is with ET, CIC has criticised the finance ministry for certifying that IFCI doesn’t come under the RTI Act. It also has criticised the market regulator Sebi for buying the finance ministry’s argument without examining it.
“It’s incorrect for the ministry to issue such certificates,” the CIC has said and asked the ministries and government departments to “refrain from such actions as they are not competent to do so”.
The issue pertains to bonds issued by the IFCI in the form of promissory notes worth Rs 800 crore way back in 1996. The IFCI decided to exercise the call option in 2003 and had asked bondholders to surrender their papers on or before November 6, 2003. The IFCI promised to issue cheques by the first week of December 2003.
But the payment did not reach to all investors promptly. VT Gokhale from Dombivli, just outside Mumbai, received the cheque after more than a few years and they were only paid after a prolonged battle with the concerned authorities.
Incensed by the treatment meted out to him, Mr Gokhale felt that many other bondholders would have also received similar treatment from IFCI. He decided to take up the issue with Sebi. “The bond issue yielded Rs 1,237.06 crore for IFCI. There must be a large number of investors with a substantial cumulative interest involved. I decided to fight for their cause,” Mr Gokhale said.
He sought information about the total number of bondholders, the total outgo on interest and datewise payment details. The market watchdog upheld the IFCI’s contention that it’s not a public authority and as such doesn’t come under the purview of the Right to Information Act 2005. To substantiate its claim, the IFCI also submitted a certificate from the ministry of finance.
“It was unfortunate that the market regulator didn’t stand by for the common investor and helped IFCI avoid giving information,” Mr Gokhale said and challenged the Sebi decision and the finance ministry’s act before the CIC. He pointed out to CIC that the IFCI is a listed body and comes under the Sebi jurisdiction. “The Sebi as a market regulator can access the information sought,” notes the petition.
The CIC in its order categorically stated that the IFCI is a public authority and as such comes under the purview of the RTI Act. The order notes that “the certificates given by government ministries and departments about an organisation being or not being a public authority have no validity”. The CIC also castigated Sebi for accepting the finance ministry’s version on IFCI’s status. Sebi was required to examine the IFCI’s claim thoroughly and should not have uncritically accepted its argument, the CIC opined.
The CIC also assailed a similar stance taken by UTI. The UTI claimed that UTI Mutual Fund, UTI Trustee Company and UTI Asset Management Company are not “public authority” and are not bound to give information under the RTI Act.
PUBLIC DEFENDER
CIC has criticised the ministry for certifying that IFCI doesn't come under the RTI Act
It has pulled up Sebi for buying the ministry's argument without examining it
UTI claimed that UTI Mutual Fund, UTI Trustee Company and UTI Asset Management Company are not public authority
CIC has said that certificates given by ministries and government departments about an organisation being or not being a public authority have no validity.
Publication: Economic Times Delhi; Date:2007 Sep 03; Section:Economy; Page Number 18
Girish Kuber MUMBAI
THE Central Information Commission (CIC) has slammed the government and two public sector units, the Industrial Finance Corporation of India (IFCI) and the Unit Trust of India (UTI), for refusing to part information under the RTI Act. The CIC has not only rejected IFCI’s claim that it’s not a ‘public authority’ but has also slammed the Union finance ministry and the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) for shielding it.
In an order on August 9, a copy of which is with ET, CIC has criticised the finance ministry for certifying that IFCI doesn’t come under the RTI Act. It also has criticised the market regulator Sebi for buying the finance ministry’s argument without examining it.
“It’s incorrect for the ministry to issue such certificates,” the CIC has said and asked the ministries and government departments to “refrain from such actions as they are not competent to do so”.
The issue pertains to bonds issued by the IFCI in the form of promissory notes worth Rs 800 crore way back in 1996. The IFCI decided to exercise the call option in 2003 and had asked bondholders to surrender their papers on or before November 6, 2003. The IFCI promised to issue cheques by the first week of December 2003.
But the payment did not reach to all investors promptly. VT Gokhale from Dombivli, just outside Mumbai, received the cheque after more than a few years and they were only paid after a prolonged battle with the concerned authorities.
Incensed by the treatment meted out to him, Mr Gokhale felt that many other bondholders would have also received similar treatment from IFCI. He decided to take up the issue with Sebi. “The bond issue yielded Rs 1,237.06 crore for IFCI. There must be a large number of investors with a substantial cumulative interest involved. I decided to fight for their cause,” Mr Gokhale said.
He sought information about the total number of bondholders, the total outgo on interest and datewise payment details. The market watchdog upheld the IFCI’s contention that it’s not a public authority and as such doesn’t come under the purview of the Right to Information Act 2005. To substantiate its claim, the IFCI also submitted a certificate from the ministry of finance.
“It was unfortunate that the market regulator didn’t stand by for the common investor and helped IFCI avoid giving information,” Mr Gokhale said and challenged the Sebi decision and the finance ministry’s act before the CIC. He pointed out to CIC that the IFCI is a listed body and comes under the Sebi jurisdiction. “The Sebi as a market regulator can access the information sought,” notes the petition.
The CIC in its order categorically stated that the IFCI is a public authority and as such comes under the purview of the RTI Act. The order notes that “the certificates given by government ministries and departments about an organisation being or not being a public authority have no validity”. The CIC also castigated Sebi for accepting the finance ministry’s version on IFCI’s status. Sebi was required to examine the IFCI’s claim thoroughly and should not have uncritically accepted its argument, the CIC opined.
The CIC also assailed a similar stance taken by UTI. The UTI claimed that UTI Mutual Fund, UTI Trustee Company and UTI Asset Management Company are not “public authority” and are not bound to give information under the RTI Act.
PUBLIC DEFENDER
CIC has criticised the ministry for certifying that IFCI doesn't come under the RTI Act
It has pulled up Sebi for buying the ministry's argument without examining it
UTI claimed that UTI Mutual Fund, UTI Trustee Company and UTI Asset Management Company are not public authority
CIC has said that certificates given by ministries and government departments about an organisation being or not being a public authority have no validity.
Publication: Economic Times Delhi; Date:2007 Sep 03; Section:Economy; Page Number 18
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)