1) I am already in the highest Constitutional Court of India on this issue. (Whether ICs can sit as single bench or not) The Opposite party (CIC) has repeatedly evaded serving me, despite 3 adverse notices from the court to do so - incl 2 "last chances"). I am seriously considering filing a contempt petition against the AG of India's office who is representing the CIC. The CIC knows very well all the information I intend to list in my counter-affidavit which shall expose the complete corruption and rot within the CIC's functioning due to utterly incompetent and corrupt ICs like WB and SG etc.
2) In the impugned decision, I (unlike the 2 of you) completely discount the posturing Mr Gandhi has adopted which plays to the gallery of the mythical aam aadmi. My point of view is purely a legal one. The judgment of the single judge in wp(c)720/2010 was not final (but was appealable). The appellant duly filed an LPA well in time along with applications for stay which was duly registered and listed. Up till 2-March-2011 the Court had not disposed of the matter including the stay application. As a result (under the law of the land) the Appellant was under no obligation to comply with the order of the single judge or the CIC. This is all very well settled law. Had the LPA bench dismissed the stay application the situation would have been different. While Mr Gandhi's decision make for very good theatrics, it is completely ungrounded in law. If anything it is decision like this which reveal that Mr Gandhi is incompetent AND corrupt.
Furthermore if Mr Gandhi is aggrieved that the orders of the single judge were not complied with by DSGMC, the proper course of action would have been to advise the RTI apellant to file a motion for contempt in the High Court.
Insofar as my remedy goes, I have availed it by bringing my grievance to the notice of the Chief Information Commissioner.
Sarbajit
Dear Roy sir, the reading of the Decision made by shri Shailesh Gandhi shows that it is one of the best judgments and Citizens of this country need more of such decisions. The Public Authority is adopting all kinds of delaying tactics to harass the information Seeker . The decision of this type will surely send a warning signal to the such erring PIOs. we should welcome such decisions from CIC.
It appears that you are making vague and baseless allegations without any merits against the information Commissioner and there is no need for review of such decisions by other information Commissioner. please restrain yourself from making such meaningless attempt . If you are not happy with the decision , approach the constitutional courts as per law.
regards.
umapathi.sOn Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 5:42 PM, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Kindly quote intemperate language used by Shri Shailesh Gandhi, Information Commissioner, CIC. Strange that a member who generally uses terms like harami, fool and so on is talking about the intemperate languge which I fail to find out.
Such boldness at CIC is the need of the hour as, of late, some public authorities have stopped taking CIC seriously and the hapless applicants are unable to knock the door of the High Court against the CIC.
Mr Gandhi, IC is right in stating that when there is no stay on his order, the information cannot be denied merely on the intent of the PA of filing an appeal against the HC order.
I send my thanks to Shri Gandhi for this strong decision. If the PA is further aggrieved, the door of Hon'ble HC is open filing contempt of court case.
I request members to go through the attached decision thoroughly before arriving at a conclusion on the submissions of both i.e. Shri Roy and mine. In fact, I wish that Mr. Gandhi should be the next CCIC in the interest of maintaining the effectiveness of the RTI Act .
Regds,
M K Gupta
The decision
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003231/10734
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003231
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Inder Mohan Singh
K-92 A, Krishna Park Extension,
New Delhi-110018
Respondent : Mr. H. B. Singh
Public Information Officer
Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee
Guru Gobind Singh Bhavan,
Gurdwara Rakab Ganj Sahib,
New Delhi-110001
RTI application filed on : 25/10/2010
PIO replied : 08/11/2010
First appeal filed on : 09/11/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 16/11/2010
Second Appeal received on : 19/11/2010
Information Sought:
1) Employment details of the concerned committee was sought such as whether according to the
provision in Regulation and functions of DSGMC, no member of DSGMC or relatives will be
employed in the office of DSGMC, school, institution and Gurdwaras under DSGMC.
2) Whether any action is taken against those who violate these provisions.
3) The authority which has the power to take action against the aforementioned people,
Reply of the Public Information Commissioner:
The proceedings in this regard were stayed by the High Court of Delhi till the final disposal of writ
petitions.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
The reply given was not in order as the writ petitions talked about had already been disposed of on
22/07/2010. Therefore the plea taken was false.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
FAA upheld the reply of PIO without even hearing the appellant.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The information sought should be given to the appellant and respondents should be punished.
Page 1 of 3
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant : Mr. Inder Mohan Singh;
Respondent : Mr. H. B. Singh, Public Information Officer ;
The Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee (DSGMC) was held to be a Public Authority
by a decision of this Commission in its decision no. CIC/SG/A/2009/000226/4219 dated 22/07/2009. The
DSGMC had challenged this decision before the Delhi High Court. The Delhi High Court by its order in
WP(C)720/2010 had upheld the decision of the Commission on 22/07/2010. The Appellant had filed a
RTI application seeking information as mentioned above on 25/10/2010, and the PIO has given false
information on 08/11/2010 stating that the High Court of Delhi has stayed the decision of the
Commission. The Appellant states that the First Appellate Authority (FAA) during its hearing gave him a
letter dated 16/11/2010 stating that a LPA was pending before the High Court of Delhi. Thus it is clear
that there is no stay of the order of the Commission or of the order of the High Court concurring with the
CIC that DSGMC is a Public Authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
The DSGMC has been flouting the law of the land and refusing to operate as per the law. It appears that
DSGMC seems to believe that merely by stating that it intends to file a case in the court, they can flout
orders given by the statutory authorities and courts. No individual or institution can disobey order given
by statutory authorities or courts and unless a valid stay order is obtained. This is most unfortunate and the
Commission strongly condemns such unlawful actions of DSGMC. The Public Authority is denying
citizens their fundamental right to information by these actions. The Commission sees that the Appellant
has been unnecessarily harassed by denying information and forcing him to file a second appeal before the
Commission. This is also putting a burden on the public finances since this Commission is needlessly
being called upon to adjudicate in a matter repeatedly.
Harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impermissible. It
may harm him personally but the injury to society is far more grievous. Crime and corruption thrive and
prosper in the society due to lack of public resistance. Nothing is more damaging than the feeling of
helplessness. An ordinary citizen instead of complaining and fighting succumbs to the pressure of
undesirable functioning in offices instead of standing against it. Therefore the award of compensation for
harassment by public authorities not only compensates the individual, satisfies him personally but helps in
curing social evil. It may result in improving the work culture and help in changing the outlook
The Commission under its powers under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act awards a compensation to the
Appellant for the loss and detriment suffered by him. The Commission awards a compensation of
Rs.1000/- to be given to the Appellant.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the complete information as per the available records
to the Appellant before 20 January 2011.
He is also directed to ensure that a cheque of Rs.1000/- as compensation is sent to the
Appellant before 15 February 2011.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO
within 30 days as required by the law.
Page 2 of 3
From the facts before the Commission it appears that the PIO 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 the
requirement of the RTI Act.
It appears that the PIO's actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is
being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty
should not be levied on him.
He will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 25 January 2011 at 12.00pm
alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated
under Section 20 (1). He will also bring the information sent to the appellant as per this decision
and submit speed post receipt as proof of having sent the information to the appellant.
If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant the
PIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before the
Commission with him.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
31 December 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (PBR
From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: s.mishra@nic.in
Sent: Mon, 21 March, 2011 5:05:36 PM
Subject: [HumJanenge] PUBLIC GRIEVANCE: Intemperate language used in decisions of the Commission
To:
The Chief information Commissioner of India
August Kranti Bhawan, New Delhi
BY EMAIL
Respected Sir
I am constrained to bring to your kind notice the intemperate language used by Shri Shailesh Gandhi in the following decision at URL [http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SG_A_2010_003231_10734_M_49087.pdf]
I am constrained to mention that the language used by Shri Gandhi at paras 2 and 3 of page 2 lowers the dignity of the Information Commission, betraying as it does a gross ignorance of the legal process, rights of litigants (including the right to exhaust all legal remedies) etc. Had Shri Gandhi cared to avail the section 4 disclosure process of the High Court of Delhi by its website, he would easily have learned that an LPA no 606/2010 has been very promptly filed in the matter along with application for stay of the single judge's decision. All daily orders of the Court in the matter are accessible over the internet. That the stay was not granted was quite evidently due to technical reasons beyond the control of the appellant/public authority.
Accordingly to uphold the dignity of the Commission, I request you to kindly ensure that Mr Shailesh Gandhi is not allowed to sit in a single bench and/or pass such kind of intemperate and poorly reasoned orders. In the alternative, and considering the current shortage of Information Commissioners, I request that all decisions of Mr Gandhi may kindly be reviewed carefully before being pronounced / placed in public domain.
I would be obliged if my grievance is acknowledged within 3 days as per the DARPG norms.
Yours faithfully
Sarbajit Roy
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.