Functioning of CIC Office, Delhi.

"Democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of
information which are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to
hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed".

M.V.Ruparelia, A503 Rashmi Utsav, Near Jangid Estate & Vijay Park, Mira Road (East) Dist. Thane. 401107.       M. 09821732855.     E/Mail: mvrup@yahoo.co.in

To   Smt. Pratibha Patil,                                                                                 21-5-12.

President of India,

Rashtrapati Bhawan,  New Delhi-110001.

Respected Madam,

Sub: Functioning of Central Information Commission.

It is observed for last five years that functioning of Office of Central Information Commission, Delhi and some of the Information Commissioners is deplorable and is getting deteriorated day by day and requires to be looked in to at the highest level at an early date before it becomes too late. Action is required to be taken under Sec 27 (e); 29 & 30 of RTI Act, ignoring the proviso of 2 years limitation to Sec 30.

1. As per Gazette Notification for Central Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2005 as per Sec 27(2) e  of RTI Act, 2005 and Guidelines issued by DOPT under their Memorandum no. 1/4/2009-IR  dt 5-10-09,  the Commission has to decide an Appeal/Complaint by inspection of documents produced by the Applicant, peruse or inspect documents, public records or copies thereof; and inquire through authorized officer further details or facts etc.   Deciding Appeal is a quasi-judicial function. A.A. should see to it that JUSTICE is not only done but it should also appear to have been done. In order to do so, the ORDER passed by A.A. should be a SPEAKING ORDER giving justification for the DECISION arrived. These orders are not being complied by ICs/CIC in most of the cases and cases are being decided on the basis of verbal presentations of representatives of Public Authority during Hearing in cases, where Applicants are not present.. Large number of documents and arguments put in IInd Appeals and rejoinders are not even discussed or taken note of in Speaking Orders.  Even request to hear on phone instead of Video at faraway places is ignored. In all my cases, where hearing is not given, the Appeals/Complaints are thrown out on the basis of incorrect verbal information given by CPIO?AA or their representatives (even APIOs, who are not allowed by the Act to give information). Instead of requesting you to go through arbitrary decisions in all my cases during last 5 years, I would request you to see last two decisions, which will give the sorry state of affairs prevailing .I am not talking about my experience in respect of functioning of CIC Office but many citizens are just fed up with such working. I enclose the comments of Shri Karira of RTI India Team in the Web Site of RTI India on 7-5-12(Annexure A) in which, he clearly mentions that ``The offices of the CIC are in one big MESS``   

i)                    Decision no. CIC/SM/A/2011/000611/SG/18358 dt 12-4-12 12 by Shri Shailesh Gandhi, IC:

In this decision, position brought out in IInd Appeal dt 3-2-11 with 20 enclosures and rejoinder dt 26-3-12 (received and diarized under no. 124441dt 3-4-12 (9days before Hearing) along with E/Mails to IC and others, which were received by them on 26-3-12 (17 days before Hearing) {Copy of rejoinder dt 26-3-12 enclosed as Annexure B}were not at all considered nor request for hearing on phone and Appeal disposed of without giving any reasons. Shri Dhirendra Kumar, Dy Secretary & Dy. Registrar had informed that my letter dt 26-3-12 was sent to IC before Hearing. Representation dt 16-4-12 Annexure C} against this decision dt 12-4-12 is also not considered and it has been advised under letter no. CIC/SM/A/2011/000611/SG dt 3-5-12 that`` the Commission has decided not to take any further action on this matter. The matter is now closed at the commission`s end.` In this Appeal, rejoinder for Hearing of earlier case was sent by Registered Post & E/Mails to CIC, Secretary, Coordinating CPIO & Concerned CPIO but nothing was put on file, though received 23 days before Date Of Decision. Even 2 copies by post were diarized on 23-7-10 & 27-7-10, again many days before Decision on 9-8-10 and wrong information was given by concerned CPIO (Shri Shreyaskar) that it was received on 10-8-10 after day of Decision. Dated acknowledgement for these 2 diarized letters is not being given nor the procedure about sending diarized letters from Central Registry to concerned Registry. This wrong information was required to be rectified in this Decision dt 12-4-12 but here also, neither IInd Appeal with 20 enclosures nor rejoinder dt 26-3-12 diarized on 3-4-12 (9 days before Hearing) was considered.

ii)                  Decision no. CIC/SM/A/2011/0002469+002470/SG/18665 dt 30-4-12 by Shri Shailesh Gandhi, IC:

In this decision also, IInd Appeal dt 5-10-11 with 35 enclosures and rejoinder dt 19-4-12 {Annexure D} sent by registered post & E/Mail to IC and others were not considered nor request for hearing on phone and Appeal was disposed of without giving any reasons. Rejoinder was delivered by Post Office to CIC Office on 24-4-12(6 days before Hearing but was purposely not diarized till 1-5-12), as advised by Supdt of Post Offices, Thane Division in writing vide their letter no. 400500-22473 dt 3-5-12.

2. CIC has laid down that IInd Appeal with all enclosures should be sent to them in duplicate and one copy of the entire batch should be sent to Ist A.A. & all CPIOs. Each IInd Appeal with enclosures consists of more than 40-50 pages in most of the cases. Thus, citizen is forced to get very large number of papers typed & zeroxed. Each page typing costs Rs 10 and zeroxing Rs 2 per page. One has to spend more than Rs 500 for more than 200 copies. Registration & Speed Post Charges for heavy packages also cost heavily. One has to pay more than Rs 100 for postage. Thus after spending more than Rs 600, IInd Appeals are filed, which come for Hearing after more than one or two years from date of IInd Appeal/ Application. Rejoinders are called for by CIC, which are not put on file nor brought to the notice of ICs/CIC. Once you are not present, no cognizance is taken of 40-50 pages of IInd Appeal sent at a huge cost nor rejoinder and Appeals are disposed off without discussion of any arguments of appellant by Information Commissioners in Speaking Orders.
3. No action is taken on E/Mails sent by citizens, though Internet facilities are provided to large number of officers and ICs and CIC at very high public cost. E/Mails are not registered nor put on files and they say that no rules/procedure exists for registering E/Mails or taking action on E/Mails. Such a procedure is not notified under Sec 4 that E/Mails will not be registered nor action taken on E/Mails. Even Appeals recorded on their Web Sites (specifically created for direct recording of Appeals etc) are not considered till hard copy is received by post. This is too much!!
4. Maintenance of records: No letters, even if followed by large number of reminders, are replied. Recording of letters, Applications, Appeals, and Complaints in Status Position of Web Site is defective, resulting in non location of receipts of letters from Status Position. Dates of letters etc given by citizens are not entered. In many cases, Departments/Ministries to which they pertain are also not indicated. On asking information about that through Application under RTI (as no reply is ever given to any letters), information is not given or wrong information is given by CPIOs and no action taken by Appellant Authority & Information Commissioner on Ist & IInd Appeals. This is nothing but an example of anarchy and carelessness prevailing in office of CIC, Delhi, as would be seen from Annexure B & D. They do not follow any rules laid down by DOPT and give in writing boldly that there is no procedure in their office for any matters;`` there is no record of daily movement of files within the Commission. There is no system of a file being given to various officers and any notings or record of this being on the files.``   Each case is dealt with as per whim/discretion of the dealing Registrars & ICs. Such irresponsible procedures followed for last 7 years have to be notified for information of citizens under Sec 4 of the Act. They treat any properly filed IInd Appeals under Sec 19 (3) as Complaints under Sec 18 (1) and do not give opportunity to be heard for Complaints. Even after treating them as Complaints at whim/discretion, these complaints are also not examined as required under Sec 18 (2) & (3) by discussing the arguments put forward in IInd Appeals, their large number of enclosed documents and rejoinders.
5. Now Director & CPIO(Shri Shreyaskar) has started to refuse Applications on the plea `` It is stated that though you have mentioned in your RTI Application that you have submitted Rs 10 as fee at Post Office, I am not willing to treat as a valid RTI Application, since the Post Office is not an APIO of this Commission. In view of this, I am returning your application (in original) herewith.`` ( Letter no. CIC/CPIO/2011/1953 dt 2-11-11). As per notification of Department of Posts, their nominated Post Offices are ACPIOs of all Central Government Public Authorities. Commission was accepting all Applications with fee deposited with such nominated Post Offices. Now   taking such funny & discretionary stand by CPIO, who are required to help Applicants in all respects is not understood. Going in Appeal to A.A. & I.C. will not bring any result, as they will side their CPIO, as in all cases.
6. More than 2 years is taken for Decisions, mostly negative, after the date of IInd Appeal & from date of Application due to improper functioning of CIC at huge cost to Public Exchequer and they are not keen nor prepared to remove or reduce anarchy prevailing in their office inspite of requests from citizens.

Thanking You with a hope that Justice will be done,

Yours Sincerely,

 (M.V.Ruparelia)

                                   INDEX

1.    Annexure A- Comments of RTI India Team Leader Shri Karira.

2.    Annexure B- Rejoinder dt26-3-12.

3.    Representation dt 16-4-12 after Decision.

Rejoinder dt 19-4-12.

Annexure A- Position of working of CIC Office by Shri Karira, Leader of RTI India Team.

The offices of the CIC are in one big MESS !

No one knows what is going on............not the commissioners, nor the registry staff, nor the other staff.

Papers get lost, disappear and are never found.

DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME by sending letters/emails/rejoinders - by email or through the Internet.

The staff and officers of the CIC are computer illiterate and lethargic (ie even if they can read your emails, they will not do anything about them). No rejoinders will ever reach any file etc....if sent by email or internet or filed online.

(I sent 1 email and 7 email reminders + 1 letter and 4 letter reminders + met him 4 times personally in Delhi + complained against him to the Chief Commissioner, the Secretary....and everything else. And guess what - he got a promotion recently !)

I have learnt the hard hard way and in spite of all the shouting that I have done for the last 4 years, the situation has become worse. Since you and me cannot change the obstinate and lethargic staff of the CIC (and the Commissioners are unwilling to do anything about training their staff), the only option is to change ourselves !

Annexure B- Rejoinder dt 26-3-12.

M.V.Ruparelia, A503 Rashmi Utsav, Near Jangid Estate & Vijay Park,

Mira Road (East) Dist. Thane. 401107. T.No. 022-28123691. M. 09821732855.

To                                                                  Date: 26-3-12.

The Central Information Commissioner (Right To Information Act, 2005),

Club Building, Opp. Ber Sarai Market,  Old JNU Campus, Government of India,

New Delhi-110 067.

Sub: Hearing of Case no. CIC/SM/A/2011/000611/SG on 12-4-12 at 11-15 a.m.

Ref: Your letter no. CIC/SM/A/2011/000611/SG dt 16-3-12 received on 24-3-12.

Thank you for fixing the date of Hearing. Venue fixed for Hearing at NIC District Centre, Thane is 17 km away from my residence and being 79, it will not be possible for me to be present there. I shall be obliged, if Tele-Conference is arranged and I am heard. If this is not possible, kindly decide the case on the basis of representations made as under.

My IInd Appeal dt 3-2-11 with enclosures may kindly be examined. In addition,  my further submission is given below with a hope that it will be put up to Shri Gandhi, Information Commissioner before Date of Hearing and shall not meet the same fate, as of my submission dt 15-7-10, under dispute, though received on 23-7-10 and 27-7-10 and not put up to CIC on day of hearing on 9-8-10.

Item wise position of Application dt 14-10-10 is as under:-

i)                    Item no. i to iv of Application: My rejoinder dt 15-7-10 to PMO`s Comments on CIC`s letter dt 24-6-10 was received in CIC office on 23-7-10 (Diary no. 50387) & 27-7-10 (Diary no. 51935) as advised vide CPIO of CIC under his letter no. CIC/CPIO/2010/1679

 dt 17-1-11 and sent to the Registry of Hon IC (AD) by their CR Section. CPIO under his earlier letter dt 15-11-10 had advised that Designated Officer had received this letter dt

15-7-10 on 10-8-10 after the matter was decided on 9-8-10. This information given by concerned interested Designated Officer is incorrect, as 2 Diaries sent by CR section on 23 & 27-7-10 can not reach next door Designated Officer after 17/13 days!! No one gives information as to when these 2 letters were sent by CR Section and what date these were received by Designated Officer/his section and who failed to put up to CIC before deciding the case on 9-8-10! This requires investigation for giving correct information & may kindly be done in interest of Justice. Again, this designated officer had received this letter dt

15-7-10 by E/Mail on his personal E/Mail address on 15-7-10 but no action was contemplated by him on that!! Even CIC himself was sent a copy of this letter dt 15-7-10 by E/Mail on his personal E/Mail address but it was not put up to him by staff dealing with his E/Mail! Secretary of CIC was also sent a copy and he had received it on the same date but he has also not put up to CIC!  This also needs investigation for giving correct information and Justice. The very Designated Officer treated regular IInd Appeal as Complaint, though Complaint under Sec 18 is for only those cases, where CPIO is not appointed or CAPIO is refusing to accept the Application. In this case, CPIO exists in PMO`s Office and regular IInd Appeal in prescribed proforma & details is preferred against CPIO & AA of PMO for not giving information on wrong plea that his APIO (nominated Post Master) has not sent enclosure of receipt, even after Appellant has sent copy of receipt of payment made to APIO to CPIO of PMO & also CIC. In such complaints also, CIC has to inquire by summoning, discovery and inspection of documents, receiving evidence on affidavit etc as laid down in Sec 18 of the Act. This has not been done and whatever is stated by CPIO of PMO in her letter dt 7-7-10 is recorded in Speaking Order without examining with reference to my IInd Appeal with enclosures and various letters to CIC from time to time and withholding rejoinder dt 15-7-10. I enclose a copy of PMO`s letter dt 9-1-10 to Sub Post Master, Mira Road asking him to  confirm the payment of fee by the applicant for my Applications dt 7-10-09 & 1-12-09. These two are replies to their letters and not Applications for information under RTI Act, 2005. Application was dt 8-7-09 for which no letter is ever written by PMO to Post Master, Mira Road. This has been repeatedly explained in my letters to PMO & CIC from time to time.

It was requested to give Copies of existing instructions/Procedure Office Orders etc indicating how letters received from complainant are to be dealt with and disposed off and whether all letters are required to be dealt with promptly and put on relevant files, indicating the names & designation of concerned staff, who have failed in this case. If any target is fixed for putting up papers to concerned officers & by concerned officers to CIC may also be given. For this, information given by CPIO of CIC in his letter dt 15-11-10 is no such information is available. AA in her Speaking Order dt 6-1-11 states that there are no written instructions as to how letters received from complainants are to be dealt with. This means that this office has no procedure, no rules to follow and any one can keep any papers any where he likes and there is no authority to make them work as required in any Public Authority! As one of the aims of RTI Act is to streamline the working of Public Authority, Information Commissioner is requested to look in to this anarchy prevailing in this office and adopt the procedure already laid down by DOPT for all Public Authorities under Government of India, if CIC Office is a Public Authority under Government of India and if not, lay down and notify a procedure for following, so that Citizens do not suffer! He may also lay down a Procedure for making out Speaking Orders, which must discuss in Speaking Order all  points raised by Appellant in his IInd Appeal & enclosures to that Appeal, as many of the Speaking Orders are based on what is stated by CPIO or his representatives present at the time of Hearing. Procedure for treating IInd Appeal as Complaint may also be examined. Incidentally, Practice followed by ICs  of remitting the case to First Appellate authority to avoid dealing with IInd Appeal may also be looked in to, as there is no such provision in RTI Act.

ii)                  Item v of Application: List/details of all documents put up to CIC at the time of Hearing in this case may please be given. Whether my letter dt 7-10-09 sent to CIC under my letter endorsement dt 15-1-10  (CIC/WB/C/2009/000486) explaining in detail and giving copy of Receipt of Rs 10  dt 11-7-09 paid as fees for Application dt 8-7-09 to Post Master, Mira Road and letter         endorsement dt 17-6-10 explaining that no fees are prescribed for my replies dt 7-10-09 & 1-12-09 were put up to CIC at the time of taking decision on 9-8-10 or at any time earlier, giving copy of relevant notings. This is denied and correct information is not given.

iii)                Item no. vi of Application reads as under: It has been stated in Decision announced on 9-8-10 that ``it is clear that the communication received from the Post Office, Mira Road does not explain the details of the fee paid by the complainant``. Kindly, send copy of communication received from Post Office, Mira Road, which led to this clarity. This is not given yet. This may be given.

Thanking You with a hope that Justice will be done,

Yours Sincerely, 

(M.V.Ruparelia)

Annexure C: Representation after Decision.

M.V.Ruparelia, A503 Rashmi Utsav, Near Jangid Estate & Vijay Park, Mira Road (East) Dist. Thane. 401107.       M. 09821732855.     E/Mail: mvrup@yahoo.co.in

To                                                                    Date; 16-4-12

The Central Information Commission (Right To Information Act, 2005),

Club Building, Opp. Ber Sarai Market, Old JNU Campus, Government of India,

New Delhi-110 067.

Sub: Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000611/SG/18358 dt 12-4-12.

Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000611/SG.

Ref: Your letter no. CIC/SM/A/2011/000611/SG dt 16-3-12 received on 24-3-12.

1. In response to your above letter dt 16-3-12, rejoinder & request to hear on phone were sent under my letter dt 26-3-12 diarized at yours under no. 124441dt 3-4-12 (9days before Hearing) along with E/Mails to you and others, which were received on 26-3-12 (17 days before Hearing). As no phone came till 12 hrs on 12-4-12, I contacted phone no.011-26161796 and I was informed that I may see the Decision on CIC Web tomorrow. On seeing Decision, I was surprised to see that there was no mention of rejoinder in Your Speaking Decision. I contacted Shri Dhirendra Kumar, your Dy Secretary & Dy. Registrar, who informed that my letter dt 26-3-12 was sent to you before Hearing and I may write to you for any clarification. We shall be obliged, if you kindly advise whether this rejoinder dt 26-3-12 was received by you and it was decided by you consciously not to give telephonic hearing and to ignore the rejoinder or the dealing person had not sent the rejoinder to you before Hearing, as done in the earlier case.

2. As per Gazette Notification for Central Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2005 as per Sec 27(2) e and Guidelines issued by Central Government under their Memorandum no. 1/4/2009-IR  dt 5-10-09,  the Commission has to decide an Appeal/Complaint by inspection of documents produced by the Applicant, peruse or inspect documents, public records or copies thereof; and inquire through authorized officer further details or facts etc.   Deciding Appeal is a quasi-judicial function. It is therefore necessary that A.A. should see to it that JUSTICE is not only done but it should also appear to have been done. In order to do so, the ORDER passed by A.A. should be a SPEAKING ORDER giving justification for the DECISION arrived. No justification is given in the Decision dt 12-4-12 and all points raised for each of the items of Application by Applicant are just ignored, as will be seen from the following:-

a)      Item 1 of your Decision: My IInd Appeal dt 3-2-11 and rejoinder dt 26-3-12 (Diary no. 124441 dt 3-4-12) are not examined in the Speaking Order and JUSTICE has not been done to 10 crore Elders of the Country, who are deprived of information on their representation dt 27-5-09 to Prime Minister of India due to  deliberate action of not putting up a single copy out of 5 copies of our rejoinder dt 15-7-10 to CIC before date of Hearing on 9-8-10 by Shri P.K.P.Shreyaskar, CPIO of the then CIC and in this Application, he has given wrong information that it was received on 10-8-10, though sent by Central Registry through Diary no. 50387 dt 23-7-10 & Diary no. 51935 dt 27-7-10. (CPIO`s letter no. CIC/CPIO/2010/1679 dt 17-1-11). This wrong statement is not examined by you in your decision by examining the office records of DS (P), which has received documents/letters etc from Central Registry. This factual position by verifying registers of receipt of these letters in the concerned Department/Section is required to be examined to give correct information instead of just accepting the wrong verbal statement that it was received on 10-8-10, though sent by Central Registry on 23-7-10 and 27-7-10.

b)  Item 2 & 3  of your Decision: There must be some clerical assistance, who receive letters & put on relevant file and each letter sent by Central Registry to concerned Section/Department, some one must be giving dated acknowledgement to Central Registry and maintain some records of all letters received from day to day. If no staff is provided for this and Dy Registrar himself receives letters, he also must be giving dated acknowledgement to Central Registry and must be maintaining some diary for all letters/documents received by him. There may not be any written instructions to receive letters & maintain records for all letters received in their Section/Department and CIC`s Office may not be governed by various rules/procedures laid down by DOPT for all Public Authority under the Government of India but CIC Office must be following some procedure, as office of CIC is functioning since last 7 years. Such procedure, though unwritten is an established procedure for 7 years and that is also denied. This practice followed may be given instead of saying that no information is available. 4 E/Mails were also ignored and correct information about orders of competent authority not to take action on E/Mails (System provided at huge Public Cost) is required. Decision taken on 3-3-09 and appearing in CIC Web Site reads as under:  The Commission in its meeting dt 3-3-09 has decided that the Appeal/Complaint received through e/mail can not be registered unless filed on-line or other wise.in meeting dt 3-3-09T

This restriction is only for not registering Appeals and not for not taking any action on all the E/Mails!!!! There are no orders to ignore other communications received through E/Mails and as per rules/procedure from DOPT for all Public Offices, all E/Mails are to be registered and promptly dealt with. However, as CIC Office may not be governed by such rules, practice followed for 7 years for opening E/Mails, registering, placing copy on file etc. may be an unwritten procedure in CIC Office and that information is denied.

c) Item 4 of your Decision: Rules for Complaints are given in Chapter V-Sec 18 of RTI Act, 2005 and Appeals in Sec 19. Complaints are also required to be dealt with under Sec 18 (3) a to f .No records like my IInd Appeal dt 29-9-10 followed by detailed letters dt15-1-10 & 17-6-10 nor PMO`s records to verify whether my Application dt 8-7-09 was accompanied by postal payment of Rs 10 or not were not examined. Even after receiving 5 copies of Rejoinder dt 15-7-10, it was recorded in Decision dt 9-8-10 that no rejoinder was received.

d) Item 5 of your Decision: My 2 letters dt15-1-10 & 17-6-10 were enough to convince that fees of Rs 10 were paid and copy of receipt was sent to PMO & CIC under these letters much before date of hearing (9-8-10). These letters, though sent much before date of decision were not examined and brought to the notice of CIC. The procedure for dealing with Complaints is laid down in Sec 18 (3) a to f and was not followed.

e) Item 6 of your Decision: No remarks are given by you on this item, though it is an  information on which reliance was placed by CIC.You have accepted Grounds for the Second Appeal as Incomplete and unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO and unfair disposal of the appeal by the FAA but not examined above aspects indicating that  incomplete and unsatisfactory information was provided by the PIO and FAA had unfair disposal of the appeal.We shall be highly obliged, if the Decision dt 12-4-12 is reconsidered and JUSTICE done to 10 crore Elders of the Country, who are deprived of information on their representation dt 27-5-09 to Prime Minister of India due to deliberate action of not putting up our rejoinder dt 15-7-10 to CIC before date of Hearing on 9-8-10 by Shri P.K.P.Shreyaskar, CPIO of the then CIC.

Thanking You with a hope that Justice will be done,

Yours Sincerely,

 (M.V.Ruparelia)

Annexure D- Rejoinder dt 19-4-12.

(Diary no. 130647 dt 1-5-12. CIC/SM/A/2011/002469)

M.V.Ruparelia, A503 Rashmi Utsav, Near Jangid Estate & Vijay Park,

Mira Road (East) Dist. Thane. 401107.  M. 09821732855. E/Mail: mvrup@yahoo.co.in

To                                                                  Date: 19-4-12.

The Central Information Commission (Right To Information Act, 2005),

Club Building, Opp. Ber Sarai Market,  Old JNU Campus, Government of India,

New Delhi-110 067.

Sub: Hearing of Case no. CIC/SM/A/2011/002469+002470/SG on 30-4-12 at 2.45p.m.

Ref: Your Office letter no. CIC/SM/A/2011/002469+002470/SG dt 4-4-12, booked for Speed Post at JNU Post Office on 11-4-12 and received on 17-4-12 A.N.

1.      Thank you for fixing the date of Hearing. Venue fixed for Hearing at NIC District Centre, Thane is 17 km away from my residence and being 79, it will not be possible for me to be present there. I shall be obliged, if Tele-Conference is arranged and I am heard. If this is not possible, kindly decide the case on the basis of representations made as under.

2.      A) Detailed facts brought out in my IInd Appeal dt 5-10-11 containing 35 enclosures in duplicate (copies of all documents given to 2 CPIOs & AA also).

B) A.A.`s orders to CPIOs in her Speaking Order dt 26-7-11 are not complied with by CPIOs. My letter dt 19-8-11 to Shri M.C.Sharma with reference to his incorrect and incomplete reply under his no. CIC/CPIO/2011/464 dt 5-8-11 is not replied. Reply from Shri G.Subramanian, CPIO under his letter no. CIC/CPIO/2011/464 dt 23-8-11 was incomplete and incorrect and as such detailed position was brought to the notice of A.A. under my letter dt 5-9-11, on which she has not taken action to either supply correct information herself or initiate action to take Disciplinary action on CPIOs for not carrying out her Orders as per Guidelines issued by DOPT in their Memorandum no. no. 1/4/2009-IR dt 5-10-09.  Letter dt 5-9-11 to A.A. may kindly be examined, while taking Decision. Efforts were made to get information through AA under my letter dt 5-9-11 but AA has perhaps not considered the necessity of giving information and asked P.K.P. Shreyaskar, Dy secretary & CPIO to advise me to go in IInd Appeal to you as per his letter dt 23-9-11 received on 3-10-11, stating that  THERE IS NOTHING ABSOLUTELY THAT CPIO CAN DO IN THESE MATTERS!!!!!!. Shri Shreyaskar has not stated in his letter as to whether he is writing this letter, as directed by AA or has taken over as CPIO in place of Shri Sharma or Subramanian.

C) As per Gazette Notification for Central Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2005 as per Sec 27(2) e and Guidelines issued by Central Government under their Memorandum no. 1/4/2009-IR  dt 5-10-09,  the Commission has to decide an Appeal/Complaint by inspection of documents produced by the Applicant, peruse or inspect documents, public records or copies thereof; and inquire through authorized officer further details or facts etc.   Deciding Appeal is a quasi-judicial function. It is therefore necessary that A.A. should see to it that JUSTICE is not only done but it should also appear to have been done. In order to do so, the ORDER passed by A.A. should be a SPEAKING ORDER giving justification for the DECISION arrived.

3.  The following information is still not given:-

    My Application dt 8-4-11 :

i) When my IInd Appeals dt 12-8-10 & 16-11-10 against Ministry of S.J.& E. were received. (My letter dt 19-8-11 to CPIO & letter dt 5-9-11 to A.A.). This simple information was requested on 8-4-11 and not yet given even after 375 days as against statutory limit of 30 days. No information is given even after 375 days for IInd Appeal dt 25-11-10 against PMO. Para 5 of A.A.`s Orders to CPIO may also be seen with para 5 of my letter dt 5-9-11 to A.A.

ii) Copies of Rules/Procedure to register various kinds of letters/applications/appeals etc , intimation to citizens about receipt/position of their letters/applications/appeals etc, were requested, as present procedure of showing in Status Position in Web Site, dates of communications by citizens is not shown in any case and to which Ministry these pertain are not  shown in many cases. If no written orders exist, at least practice followed for last 7 years during which CIC Office is working can be given. Each case has to be dealt with uniformly and as per predecided and notified procedures and not as per discretion/whim of dealing staff. As per CIC`s Notification No.  CIC/Legal/2007/006 Dated, the 13th February, 2008, cases of Senior Citizens are to be given preference but no cognizance of these orders is taken and dates of hearing is delayed abnormally.

iii)  Procedure followed for dealing with E/Mails is not given. As per Sec 4, (3 & 4) of the Act, all materials are to be disseminated widely and also in electronic format. If procedure is not to register E/Mails and not to take any action on E/Mails, it has to be notified under Sec 4, so that citizens do not send any E/Mails and waste their energy. Correct and authentic information about practice followed for 7 years for dealing with E/Mails may kindly be given. Decision taken on 3-3-09 and appearing in CIC Web Site reads as under:  The Commission in its meeting dt 3-3-09 has decided that the Appeal/Complaint received through e/mail can not be registered unless filed on-line or otherwise.  t 3-3-09T

This restriction is only for not registering Appeals and not for not taking any action on all the E/Mails!!!! There are no orders to ignore other communications received through E/Mails and as per rules/procedure from DOPT for all Public Offices, all E/Mails are to be registered and promptly dealt with.

iv)  Rules for Complaints & Appeals are laid down in Chapter V of the Act. Reasons for treating Appeals as Direct Complaints; Appeals & Combined Complaints/Appeals and showing same items in both categories in Status Position in Web Site may kindly be advised and notified, so that citizens may take care in preparing proper Appeals.

v) Reasons for classifying Appeals as `Remanded`; Dismissed without Hearing and without informing the Appellant about such decisions; Not fixing dates of Hearing for years together without informing the Appellant may kindly be advised and notified, as required under Sec 4 (b) iii of the Act  for information of Citizens. 

vi) CIC/AD/C/2009/001260 dt 21-12-09: This is still pending.

      My Application dt 25-3-11.

 vii) Information was requested on action taken on 11 letters to which information was given that only 2 letters dt 12-8-10  & 16-11-10 are received, though all were sent and action on letter dt 16-11-10 is pending.If Delhi Post Office is contacted, they may show the signature of receiving persons. During Hearing, copies of all letters were called for and copies of all 11 letters were sent to CPIO in my letter dt 25-6-11 and no information is given.

  viii) It was requested to take action against Railway Ministry for non-compliance of orders of CIC under no. 4582/IC/A/2009 dt 6-10-09 & CIC/OK/C/2008/00634 dt 19-1-10 and to fix date of Hearing for IInd Appeal registered as early as 9-7-08 under no. CIC/OK/C/2008/00634 but no action is taken nor proper information is given.

Thanking You,

Yours Sincerely,

 (M.V.Ruparelia)