[rti4empowerment] CIC LINENT ON PIO AND FAA OF INDIAN OIL - IGNORES PROVISIONS OF RTI ACT.

EMAIL

Mrs. Deepak Sandhu,

Chief Information Commissioner,

Central Information Commission,

New Delhi-110066.

d.sandhu@nic.in

                                                                                         Date: 11.11.2013.

Sub: SMT. SUSHMA SINGH, IC LINENT ON PIO AND FAA OF INDIAN OIL - IGNORES PROVISIONS OF RTI ACT.

Ref – Order No. CIC/LS/A/2013/001370/SS dated 05.11.2013. 

Hon'ble Madam,

The Central and State Information Commissions have been constituted as primary bodies responsible for the implementation and regulation of the provisions of the RTI Act in regard to the various public authorities but some Information Commissioners are not working to fulfil these objectives.  We come across many such examples proving that the appellants and complainants are not getting justice in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act.  I cite a latest example from the decision given on 4th November by Mrs. Sushma Singh on my appeal against the CPIO and FAA, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.  I request your honour to review this decision details of which has been mentioned below: 

2. My RTI application was delivered on 18th December, 2012 and the CPIO replied on 25th January, 2013, dispatched on 29.1.2013. The reply appeared to have been backdated as 25th Jan. was a Gazetted Holiday on account of Id. Moreover, subsequent two days were also Holidays on account of Saturday plus Republic Day and Sunday. The RTI had not been transferred to any other PIO u.s. 6 (3) of the Act. This fact was mentioned in the second appeal with documentary proofs and was also brought before Smt. Sushma Singh, Information Commissioner during the hearing but in the order, IC has incorrectly mentioned, "the Commission is of the view that as far as RTI is concerned, requisite information has been provided to the appellant within the stipulated period and no delay on the part of the CPIO is established."  In fact, the reply was at least 7 days late if we consider that it was really signed on 25th January and as per RTI Act, a penalty @ Rs. 250/- per day should have been imposed.

3. It has also been mentioned in the appeal and brought to the notice of Information Commissioner that the first appeal was personally delivered on 6.2.2013 and the FAA has replied on 13.5.13 that too after a reminder delivered personally on 10.4.2013. As per section 19(6) of the RTI Act, first appeal should be disposed within 30 days or within such extended period not exceeding a total of 45 days for reasons to be recorded in writing but the CIC has disposed this issue by writing in her decision, "Aggrieved with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed appeal on 6.2.2013 before the FAA. The FAA vide letter No. RTI/DSO/3092/1619/535 dated 12.2.2013 informed the appellant that comments from the CPIO were being sought and on receipt of the same, he would deal with his appeal. However, no order of the FAA has been brought on record."  Though the IC has mentioned that no order of the FAA has been brought on record, she has issued any stricture against the FAA and advised the FAA to desist with such delays in future.

4. The CPIO has given wrong information that my complaint against the Indane dealer was received with the RTI application only when the same was sent on 22.10.12 by speed post to the Manager, IOC, World Trade Centre, New Delhi. Before replying that the complaint was received with the RTI application only, CPIO should have checked this with the Manager. However appreciably, IC has mentioned in the order, "the respondents are advised to streamline their dak receipt system so that complains reach the concerned Officer of the IOCL". 

5. That after filing the RTI application in December, Ms. Sunita Thakur, Field Officer, Indian Oil phone me on my mobile on 17th January asking me in an authoritative manner to withdraw the complaint but I firmly refused to do so. In this respect, the information Commissioner has rightly mentioned, "As far as the allegations of the appellant regarding threat received from the Field Officer is concerned, the CPIO may look into the matter and apprise the appellant accordingly."

6. From this, it can safely be concluded that if I had not filed the RTI application to know the action taken, IOC may not have taken any action on my complaint. It can also be concluded that the Smt. Sushma Singh, Information Commissioner has been lenient on the PIO and FAA by not enacting the applicable sections of the RTI Act.  Such an approach encourages the Public Authorities to ignore the RTI Act by delaying and denying the supply of information.

7. In the face of the above facts, I pray for the review of this order and revise a fresh order to do away the above mentioned flaws. 

(M K Gupta)

Jt. Secy. & Media Advisor, Dwarka Forum (Regd) 

and free lance journalist 

Email: mkgrti@gmail.com

Phone: 9810478972.

Copy to Smt. Sushma Singh – by email on sushmas@nic.in.