Dear Freinds , The penalty of Rs 25000/-mposed will be Contested ^ Questioned in the High Court and the HC Will certainly give a stay order . in KHC we have a case where the HC has Given the Benefit of Doubt and Stated that Imposing penalty is at the Discretion of the Authority . There is a Stay order given to the PIO Door dharshan Blore , on CIC orders . This plaint Questions the Very Authority of the Penalty clause and CIC/KIC to issue Notice of hearing . In one reorted Case of the SC it well known that the Court deciding the Penalty when the word"SHALL" is used should ensure what are the legislative intentions .In Another Delhi high court Case the Court has Clarified Why Penalties are linked to Mandatory time limits . therefore it Should Be first ensured that the Information is to be parted , We Known of cases where Penalty is paid but no information sought is revealed . Very recently I was consulted/ contacted by an Advocate Freind to assist in drafting of a Plaint to HC where the PIO has been imposed penalty of Rs 5000/- only . ofcourse the IC has erred in not getting a Submission from the respondent and Certainly the Court will Give stay and then Dismiss the imposing of the penalty
N vikramsimha , KRIA Koota , #12 Sumeru Sir M N Krishna Rao Road , Basvangudi < Bangalore 560004.
--- On Tue, 11/10/11, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
From: M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] IAS officer fined Rs 27K for holding back information
To: "humjanenge@googlegroups.com" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
Cc: "Rina Mahindra" <rina17@gmail.com>, "sudhakar hegde" <sudhakarhegde733@gmail.com>, "lalita_c" <lalita_c@indiatimes.com>, "surisureshsuri23" <surisureshsuri23@yahoo.com>, "Dhyan -" <dhyan40@hotmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, 11 October, 2011, 9:26 AM
It is more important to know whether the information has been given or not than to discuss the quantum of penlty. If by refusing the infn. an scam worth crores is being covered, the amount of penalty is immaterial for the PIO etc.
From: Dwarakanath <dwarakanathdm@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Cc: Rina Mahindra <rina17@gmail.com>; sudhakar hegde <sudhakarhegde733@gmail.com>; lalita_c <lalita_c@indiatimes.com>; surisureshsuri23 <surisureshsuri23@yahoo.com>; Dhyan - <dhyan40@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, 10 October 2011 9:45 PM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] IAS officer fined Rs 27K for holding back information
Frinds, The SIC Karnataka fining an IAs officer, is richly deserved for his negligence of Law. It is not that the Gulbara Dc may have been also an IAS Officer and might have arbitrarily ignored the SIC communications. The implication is the DC is not ignored the SIC but ignoring the Law for which he might have taken an Oath to abide by The constitution and the Laws of the Land. At this juncture, I would like to reproduced Secgtion 175 Indian Penal Code : " Omission to produce document to public servant by person (section 11 of IPC) legally bund to produce it"- Whoever, being legally bound to produce or deliver up any document to any public servant, as such, ingtentionally omits so to produce or deliver up the same, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extent to one month or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both. xxxx xxx" Section 176: - Omission to give notice or information to public servant by person legally bound to give it:- Whoever, being legally bound to give any notice or to furnish information on any subject to any public servant, as such, intentially omits to give such notice or to furnish such information in the manner and at the time required by Law, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may exgtend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both xxx xxxxx ": It would be very judicial to examine whether in addition to the specific provisions in the RTI Act, whether the "public Servant" defined u/s 21 IPC can take action under any of the provisions of Secgtion 175 or 176 of IPC against the erring person (defined u/s 11 if IPC (which is inclusive definition). I would be delighted to have a resoned decision in this regard. In adition I have come across a few officers of IAS who are ignoring providing information to applicants under RTI for their own reasons. It would be interesting to find out whether the SIC will treat these IAS Officers the same way as the Deputy Commissioner of Gulbarga. Regards. dwarakanathdm
|
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.