Re: [HumJanenge] PIO’s RESPOBSIBILITY AFTER RETIREMENT - ADVICE SOUGHT FROM EXPERTS

Sandeep Ji,   Please search out various orders of R.I. Singh given by him immediately after he joine as CIC Punjab. He has given a detailed order to the effect that legal opinion given by an advocate to the Public authority is liable to be dislocse, as it is not in fiduciary capacity.   Regards,   H.C. Arora --- On Sat, 21/5/11, sandeep kumar <drsandgupta@gmail.com> wrote: From: sandeep kumar <drsandgupta@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] PIO's RESPOBSIBILITY AFTER RETIREMENT - ADVICE SOUGHT FROM EXPERTS To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com Date: Saturday, 21 May, 2011, 8:02 AM The work carried out by the IC is public activity so no question of section 8(1)(j). The advice given by the legal expert is not done in fiduciary capacity. It is based on payment received from public authority and is very much public information. On 5/20/11, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote: > > PIO's RESPOBSIBILITY AFTER RETIREMENT - > > I requested a copy of the legal advice given to the Information Commissioner > from the PIO, CIC about the action that can be legally taken against the > retired CPIO under section 18 and 19 of the RTI Act. > > Shri G. Subramanian, CPIO denied the information citing section 18(1) (e) > (Fiduciary Relationship) and Section 8(1) (j) (no relationship to any public > activity or would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the > individual).  The issue is of immense importance. > > My first appeal against the above decision is listed for hearing on 25th > May, 2011.  I request for forwarding the additional grounds for the > hearing. > > In the first appeal, I have made following points: > > 1.                 That Section 18 (1)(e) states that it is the duty of the > Information Commission to receive and inquire into a complaint from any > person who believes that he has been given incomplete, misleading or false > information under the RTI Act. Thus, this nowhere bars the PIO to disclose > the aforesaid information. > 2.                 That if the advice is disclosed and disseminated, it will > help the Central and State Information Commissioners in the discharge of > their duties viz in taking decision in the cases where the PIO has retired. > 3.                 That the disclosure will also assist the Public > Authorities and PIOs by guiding and assisting them in the discharge of their > duties. > 4.                 That the disclosure will also help the RTI applicants as > they will know the scope to the RTI Act in cases where PIOs have retired and > will thus reduce the number of complaints and appeals. > 5.                 That the disclosure will end the vagueness in the matter > and every stake will have the clarity in such circumstance and will not act > in dark. > 6.                 That the section 8(1) (j) bars personal information which > has no relationship to any public activity or interest or which would cause > unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the PIO is > satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such > information.  This section also states that the information which cannot be > denied to the Parliament shall not be denied to any person. > 7.                 That the onus is on the PIO to substantiate as to how the > legal advice on the accountability of a retired PIO has no relationship to > any public activity, would cause unwarranted invasion on the privacy of the > individual (PIO) and is not in the larger public interest. > 8.                 That again the onus is on the PIO to justify as to how > the clarification obtained on the legal provisions/ service rules can be > denied to the Parliament. > 9.                 That retirement of PIOs and government servants is an > on-going process and every month hundreds PIOs retire and the retirement of > the PIO in the aforesaid case is not a stand alone case. > 10.             That by disclosure of information will enable the PIOs to > know in advance, before retirement, about the action that can or cannot be > or cannot be taken against them for the act of Commission and Omission while > discharging their official duties. > 11.             That the RTI appellants/ complainants  should also know > about the feasible action so that they can make a follow-up of their cases > in the right direction for taking their cases to the logical conclusion > without leaving them half way or do not drag the case unnecessary. > ON FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP > > 12.             That the advice has been taken by one Constitutional > Authority from the other Constitutional or Government Authority in the > discharge of official duties assigned to them.  There are many decisions > that in the above circumstances, the information cannot be treated in > fiduciary relationship and its disclosure is in warranted under the RTI Act. > M K Gupta > -- Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta 989, Sector 15-A, Opposite bishnoi Colony, Hisar-125001, INDIA Phone: 91-99929-31181