Thursday, February 7, 2013

Working of Central Information Commission, Delhi.


IInd Appeal under Section 19(3) of The Right To Information Act, 2005.              (Senior Citizen Priority Case as per CIC`s Circular no. CIC/Legal/2007/006 dt 13-2-08 and Minutes of Meeting of Commission held on 13-12-11)
To
The Central Information Commission (Right To Information Act, 2005),
Government of India, R.No. 326, Bhikaji Cama Place,New Delhi-110066.
1) Name of the Applicant:             M.V.Ruparelia. Age: 79- d.o.b. 1-3-34.
Address: A503 Rashami Utsav, Near Jangid Estate & Vijay Park, Mira Road(East).  Dist. Thane 
 401 107. Telephone No.& E/Mail:   M.09821732855. E/Mail: mvrup@yahoo.co.in
2) Name of CPIO with Address to whom Application was addressed: G.Subramanian, Nodal CPIO & Dy Secretary, CIC, B Wing-August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066.
3) Name & Address of CPIO, who gave reply to Application: G.Subramanian, Nodal CPIO & Dy Secretary, CIC, B Wing-August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066.Reply received under no. CIC/CPIO/2012/1613 dt 29-10-12 received on 5-11-12 to Application dt 21-9-12.
4) Name of First Appellate Authority & address who decided the First Appeal: Shri Tarun Kumar, First Appellate Authority and Joint Secretary, Central Information Commission, Government of India, August Kranti Bhawan, B Wing, Room no. 302, 2nd Floor, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110 066.   
5) Particulars of Application: i) Application dt 21-9-12. Ist Appeal dt 19-11-12 (Copies enclosed).  
6) Particulars of the Orders including number, if any, against which the Appeal is preferred: Speaking Orders no.CIC/AA/A/2012/534 & CIC/CPIO/2012/1613 dt 14-1-13 (Copy enclosed) received on 18-1-13.
7) Brief facts leading to Appeal: Item 1: A.A. has not dealt with Ist Appeal by examining the papers and facts brought out in Appeal nor given any information about streamlining/ rectifying the defects in procedure of giving preference to cases of Senior Citizens, as laid down in CIC`s Circular no. CIC/Legal/2007/006 dt 13-2-08 and Minutes of Meeting of Commission held on 13-12-11. If proper instructions to concerned dealing staff are not issued at the time of issue of circular dt 13-2-08 and Minutes dt 13-12-11, these can be issued atleast now, when pointed out. Instead of appreciating this, AA blames the Applicant of giving advice!! During Hearing, he says there are large number of Senior Citizens applying to CIC and all can not be given preference. It may be true that CIC is an independent Unit and may not be governed by any Rules/Procedures/Instructions issued by DOPT for running an Office/Organization and may not be required to maintain any Records for running the Office/Organization but it also should have some Rules/Procedure/Instructions of their own, which must be laid down and notified!! It is a Public Undertaking and should be responsible to People of India and governed by Policies laid down by Government with approval of Cabinet. Government has laid down National Policy for Older Persons, 99 (NPOP,99), which lays down various preferences/facilities/concessions to Elders of the  and these orders dt 13-2-08 (perhaps earlier to that also, some orders were given by CIC) and 13-12-11 were issued by CIC due to this Policy. In each of my IInd Appeal/Complaint, it was indicated that case is from Senior Citizen & requires to be given preference as per CIC`s Orders but no one read it nor gave any preference at any time to any of Appeals and even registration is not done even after 8 months (e.g. IInd Appeal dt dt 30-6-12 against Postal Department under Ministry of Communication & I.T.), as no instructions to dealing staff are issued and no records are maintained, as required by any office/organization and attitude is just to say boldly that no records are maintained and that is the information to be given as per Act. This will not improve working of this Public Authority and main Aim of the Act to streamline the working of such Public Authority will never be achieved!! AA is of the opinion that earlier Circular dt 13-2-08 issued to Public is withdrawn and minutes of 13-12-11 are more transparent but he does not have a single case in which these 2 Orders of giving preference to cases of Senior Citizens are followed in last 2 to 5 years!! He has not given proper opportunity to hear me for all items even on third day of fixing the Hearing, except only for item i) & ii). After hearing about these ii items, he went away with promise that he will again talk to me but never talked and has sent his Speaking Orders by incorporating completely incorrect versions of CPIOs in his Speaking Orders!! Sec 19(8)(a)(iv) of the Act gives powers to CIC to make necessary changes to its practices in relation to the maintenance, management & destruction of records and this may kindly be done.The factual position of each of the items of 1st Appeal is as under:-
ii) a): 12-8-10:  As desired by AA, full set of IInd Appeal dt 12-8-10 is sent 4th time by incurring avoidable expenditure of zeroxing 4 sets with copy to CPIO & AA. Each IInd Appeal, just as in this IInd Appeal containing 23 enclosures as per Index and 4 pages of IInd Appeal (Total 27  in to 4 sets=108 pages at Rs 2 per page) works out to Rs 216. Again, sending multiple applications in one envelop to save postage should not result in registering only one application & throw away or pinned up others with one letter in any office!! If 12-8-10 IInd Appeal is now traced due to proper efforts of AA, why again ask for full sets? Anyhow, this has been done and 4 sets prepared and sent to IC (@ sets) and one each to CPIO & AA of Ministry of S.J.& E. Please, give preference atleast now after 30 months to this Public Interest IInd Appeal from Senior Citizen and get the information from Ministry of S.J.& E.
b)     1-2-12: Dy Registrar has linked the letter (IInd Appeal dt 1-2-12) to the file after more than one year and has now fixed Hearing on 21-2-13 by calling unconcerned APIOs instead of dealing CPIOS/AAs of Ministry of Railways to make mockery of Hearing! He is not reading any contentions made in IInd Appeal. He has taken more than 1 year to link this Appeal to the file for action!! Can any Office work like this?
c)     18-5-12: This is not an endorsement, as stated by CPIO but IInd Appeal dt 18-5-12 to CIC for Application dt 9-1-12 and is pending Hearing. This IInd Appeal dt 18-5-12 is now advised as registered under 002144 dt 29-10-12. Kindly, get it given preference and get information requested in Application dt 9-1-12 atleast after more than 12 months from Rail Ministry, if not within 30 days, as laid down in RTI Act.
d)     5-7-08: It has been stated by Shri Subramanian that there is no non-compliance and case is decided vide CIC/SM/A/2011/0002469+2470 as per copy enclosed. Kindly, see Speaking Order for item 3 of Information sought (RTI-2), ``As per our Receipt Management System, your letters have not been received in the commission. You may send a copy of the same so that necessary action can be taken``. Copies of all letters were sent on 25-6-11. As per item 2 of the same speaking orders, some information was to be given within 15 days but no information is yet given by him. As per item 5 of same speaking order for RTI-1, it was stated in Speaking Order that without prejudice to duties and responsibilities of CPIO, the matter is to be relooked in case there is error in facts or error in application of law. All errors in facts are shown repeatedly  and errors in application of law as under was also pointed out:- `` 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 examination of any papers out of 35 documents sent with IInd Appeal dt 5-10-11 nor facts repeated in rejoinder dt 19-4-12 nor in letter dt 3-5-12 were considered nor an opportunity was given to speak in this case. What is requested in this item is to see your own IC`s orders dt 6-10-09 & 19-1-10 given in case no.00634 and get them complied by Ministry of Railways for giving information requested in Application dt 10-1-08 or to fix date of Hearing for IInd Appeal registered as early as 9-7-08 under no. CIC/OK/C/2008/00634 by giving preference to IInd Appeal dt 5-7-08 for which no Hearing is fixed even after more than 4 years!! It is repeatedly requested to stop giving such incorrect information in all such cases and IC also accepting such incorrect information by CPIO as ``understood to have been supplied by Shri Subramanian`` in same speaking order for item 1 & 2 of same Speaking Order for RTI-1 without examining any papers and not giving opportunity to speak on phone. If any IC disposes of cases only to show that he is the only one, who can dispose of maximum cases in shortest time compared to other ICs without reading & examining any available papers and does not give opportunity to applicant to speak and accept completely incorrect versions of CPIOs without examining available papers, there should be the authority of CIC or Bench to look into such pitiable disposals by ICs. Even Judges of High Court are taken up for such lapses! I request CIC to examine the disposal of this IC in cases no. CIC/SM/A/2011/0002469+2470 and CIC/SM/A/2011/000611/SG/18358 instead of directing to go to Court, as Sec 23 of the Act bars the jurisdiction of courts and recommends an Appeal under the Act.
e)     12-4-11: Please, see my Application for this item. It talks about IInd Appeal dt 12-4-11 against Ministry of Finance, whereas completely incorrect information is given by Shri Subramanian, nodal CPIO in his letter dt 29-10-12 that no such letter is received in the Commission and no information is given about letters dt. 4-11-11, 20-3-12, 12-5, 15-6-12 for this IInd Appeal dt 12-4-11, copy of which was enclosed for giving preference and fixing date of hearing atleast after 22 months!! Shri Vijay Bhalla, concerned CPIO in his letter dt 17-10-12 talks of some other Appeal dt 13-4-11 and blames the appellant of giving wrong date!! It is not clear why he should waste his valuable time in giving information about case against President instead of Ministry of Finance with which he is concerned and information is requested for his portion of work and why should he go on blaming appellant for giving wrong date again!! He has not given remarks for 4 reminders sent to him for this specific Appeal mentioned in each of these 4 letters!! AA has miserably failed to examine and again sent the wrong version of CPIO Shri Vijay Bhalla as Enclosure 1 to his Speaking Order!!
f)       25-11-10: Here again wrong information is being repeated for a long time inspite of repeated clarification. IInd Appeal pertains to PMO and simple information is requested as to how many representations were received by PMO. This information can not be given by Ministry of Social Justice to whom he has transferred IInd Appeal dt 25-11-10 and kept pending for more than 2 years!! In this Application, it is requested to give preference, which may now be given. All 12 letters/reminders are specifically for this IInd Appeal and not for some irrelevant appeals with IC(SS) or CIC (SM), as brought out by him in his letter dt 19-9-12. AA has again miserably failed to read & examine the contention made by appellant in his 1st Appeal and repeated the wrong version of CPIO in his Speaking Orders!!
g)     8-7-12: Shri D.C.Singh, CPIO has stated in his letter dt 23-10-12 again sent by AA as Enclosure 2 in his Speaking Orders without examining the contention of appellant in his 1st Appeal that this IInd Appeal is registered as 2708 and the contention of CPIO that information asked does not fall within the meaning of information is incorrect!! This appeal was registered on 29-9-12 after more than 2 months and no intimation about registration and preference is ever given as per one way practice!! He is not aware of any Circular issued to Public under no. CIC/Legal/2007/006 dt 13-2-08 nor minutes of meeting held by Commission on 13-12-11. It is requested that necessary preference, as decided from time to time may be implemented and working streamlined.
h)     3-5-12: It has been stated by Shri Das that letter dt 3-5-12 was sent to IC(DS) but has come back and no provision exists for review. Please, see the speaking order for item 5 of RTI-1, which reads as under:- ``However, without prejudice to the duties and responsibilities of CPIO, the matter is relooked in case there is error in facts or errors in application of law.`` All errors in facts & all errors in application of law are pointed out in my letter dt 3-5-12 and decision no.2469 & 2470 require to be reviewed and proper detailed reply by competent reviewing authority of Bench or CIC is required to be given, giving preference to Review Appeal dt 3-5-12. AA is insisting that there is no provision for review, as requested in my letter dt 3-5-12 and I should not waste time of Commission. As explained above in item d), Sec 23 of the Act requires resort to Appeal and my letter dt 3-5-12 is an Appeal to CIC to verify facts and decide.
8 Prayer or Relief:  Kindly review these cases sympathetically and fix dates of Hearing early by giving preference, as laid down by CIC.
9) Grounds for Prayer/Relief: Explained in detail above.
10)  Whether 2 sets sent: Yes.
11) Page numbering: Done bottom toward top.
12) Whether self attested all documents:  Yes.
13) An Index:  Attached.                                                                            
14) 1 full set to CPIO & A.A.:    Sent.
                                                                                                              (M.V.Ruparelia) 
Mira Road   6-2-13.                                                                               Signature of the Applicant 

No comments:

Post a Comment