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