Re: [rti4empowerment] FW: [HumJanenge] CIC SM Imposed full penalty on CPIO IDRBT

Mr. Goyal,

 

We are responsible for this.

 

WEDS

From: Hari Goyal <haridgoyal@hotmail.com>
To: chetankothari53@yahyoo.com; rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com
Cc: Dr Goyal RTIDWARKA <rtidwarka@yahoo.co.in>
Sent: Wednesday, 17 August 2011, 19:12
Subject: [rti4empowerment] FW: [HumJanenge] CIC SM Imposed full penalty on CPIO IDRBT

My experience with Mr. Shailesh Gandhi may be noted for your kind information. 

From: haridgoyal@hotmail.comTo: humjanenge@googlegroups.comSubject: RE: [HumJanenge] CIC SM Imposed full penalty on CPIO IDRBTDate: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 00:42:28 -0600

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 -0700From: manojpai@yahoo.comSubject: [HumJanenge] CIC SM Imposed full penalty on CPIO IDRBTTo: 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)