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

Judgement of Delhi High Court ........ WP(C) No 3845/2007 ..... Pronuncrd 28.04.2009 ..... Mujibur Rehaman Vs Central information commission & others CORAM Hon'ble Justice S Ravindra Bhat N vikramsimha , KRIA Katte , #12 Sumeru Sir M N Krishna Rao Road , Basvangudi < Bangalore 560004. --- On Wed, 17/8/11, Abhimanyu <who.will.file.rti@gmail.com> wrote: From: Abhimanyu <who.will.file.rti@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [rti4empowerment] FW: [HumJanenge] CIC SM Imposed full penalty on CPIO IDRBT To: rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com Date: Wednesday, 17 August, 2011, 11:13 PM yes plz give reference to high court order on mandatory penalty plz On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 11:02 PM, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote: There was a hearing of my complaint before Shri M.L. Sharma, Central Information Commissioner against the CPIO, Krishna Nagar Post Office, Delhi. The CPIO had not provided complete information and the First Appellate Authority has even not replied to the First Appeal. All these facts were brought before the IC in written submissions and verbally also.  In an order dictated in the presence of the parties, IC ordered compensation of Rs. 700/- to me though my demand was for imposition of penalty and disciplinary action against the CPIO u.s. 20 of the RTI Act. However, the order dictated was strong.   The issue is that the imposition of penalty should be as per RTI Act or at the will of the ICs.  RTI has mandated the penalty and disciplinary action both. --- On Wed, 17/8/11, Manoj Pai <manojpai@yahoo.com> wrote: From: Manoj Pai <manojpai@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [rti4empowerment] FW: [HumJanenge] CIC SM Imposed full penalty on CPIO IDRBT To: rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com Date: Wednesday, 17 August, 2011, 8:55 PM When in Rome, do as the Romans do! List moderators / owners of the HJ Google groups has already laid down the rules against cross posting. I hate to inform Mr. Goyal that he has erred gravely by cross posting the contents in this list. So I would not be posting my response here. Pl come over to the HJ Google groups, or make a fresh post in this list with a seperate subject heading. Manoj --- On Wed, 8/17/11, DSouza Wilberious Evanglist <wilevades@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: From: DSouza Wilberious Evanglist <wilevades@yahoo.co.uk> Subject: Re: [rti4empowerment] FW: [HumJanenge] CIC SM Imposed full penalty on CPIO IDRBT To: "rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com" <rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com> Date: Wednesday, August 17, 2011, 8:19 PM 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.com To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [HumJanenge] CIC SM Imposed full penalty on CPIO IDRBT Date: 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 -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)