Dear Mr. Manoj,
I found some RTI activists give undue importance to occasions when any CIC imposes penalty on any PIO who is/was not ready to provide information
sought under the RTI Act. We should analyse seriously what is the percentage of such cases where penalty is imposed. In my five years' experience
I find that in 95% cases CIC is not prepared to impose penalty even when months together information is denied to the applicant/appellant. CIC Shri
SG is particularly hesitant to listen to the applellant in this matter of penalty (u/s 20(1) and 20(2)) even when all the documentary evidence was submitted
and when the High Courts have decided that imposition of penalty under the RTI Act is not discretionary but mandatory.
Please make the RTI Act implemented in letter and spirit by the RTI Activists and Central/State information Commissioners. In this battle, opposition to
make RTI Act successful is too strong as some of the Chief Ministers are determined to kill this Act. This I am saying with my personal experience and for
which I am continuously fighting.
With regards and best wishes,
Dr. H. D. Goyal
former Faculty Member, LBS National
Academy of Administration, Mussoorie (U.P.)
rtidwarka@yahoo.co.in
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 12:07:41 -0700
From: manojpai@yahoo.com
Subject: [HumJanenge] CIC SM Imposed full penalty on CPIO IDRBT
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
In a rare case CIC SM has imposed full penalty of Rs.25,000/- on CPIO - Mr. Vijay G. Belurgikar, Asst. General Manager, IDRBT, Hyderabad for knowingly refusing to provide information Under RTI Act 2005.
It is interesting to learn that the respondent CPIO had "communicated to this Commission that the RTI Act is not applicable to IDRBT as it is not a "Public Authority" under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005.". However, the CIC SM quoting two separate High Court Orders decided to impose full penalty on the CPIO. Check link for decision.
http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SM_C_2009_000665_M_64771.pdf
A peek at their website at the following link states that it was established by the RBI.
http://www.idrbt.ac.in/
An earlier decision, in a similar case, ruled that the body established by a Public Authority fails to be a PA U/s 2(h). Since access to most of the information on the website of IDRBT is difficult and links seem to fail, it is still not clear, if the respondent is indeed a PA. Would the respondent now approach the High Court?
Manoj
(I am neither the applicant nor the respondent)
|
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.