Thursday, August 18, 2011

Re: [HumJanenge] Recent interesting & +ve decisions by IC SS

Manoj Bhai, u r doing a commendable work.

--- On Thu, 18/8/11, Manoj Pai <manojpai@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Manoj Pai <manojpai@yahoo.com>
Subject: [HumJanenge] Recent interesting & +ve decisions by IC SS
To: "HJ GG" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
Date: Thursday, 18 August, 2011, 9:04 PM

Here are some analysis of interesting and positive decision by IC SS.

In the matter of Smt. Satya Mishra v/s Delhi Police, the decision reveals how the Delhi Police handles cases of Kidnapping and reveals things we normally see in Hindi movies "the place of occurrence did not fall within their jurisdiction, hence no further action was taken by the local police". IC SS directed the "provide authenticated copy of enquiry report dated 31.3.2010 on the complaint of appellant's son, within two weeks of the receipt of this order:. Link below

http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SS_A_2011_000376_M_65098.pdf

In a matter of M K Gupta v/s Min of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi; IC SS has correctly ruled "appellant has filed the RTI-application before a private company, which is not a public authority". Funny, how does one expect a citizen to file an RTI Application with a Pvt. Company - M/s. Vintron Communication Pvt. Ltd in this case and expect them to provide you the information. The appellant had preferred an First Appeal with the Ministry of Corp. Affairs as well. It is a good thing that the FAA of the Ministry of Corp. ruled "The queries raised in the application from Sr. No. 1 to 7 relate to the internal personnel matters of the Company and the company is not required to submit such details with the ROC Office". There was no need for the FAA to hear the matter all, but dispose it off on the grounds that the company was not a PA at all. Am glad that IC SS has upheld the decision of the FAA which you can download from the link below.

http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SS_A_2011_000749_M_65087.pdf

In the matter Shri Harish Kumar Agarwal, v/s Indian Grassland & Fodder Research Institute, Jhansi IC SS overuled the demand of the applicants' life and liberty clause as "no concern was involved" for for point
No. 1 to 21, information as available on record and could be supplied under RTI Act, was provided. What I fail to understand is that since the applicant himself resides in the IGFRI(respondents) campus, what the need for him to file the original RTI Application with ICAR, New Delhi? Read the decision for yourself

http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SS_A_2011_000693_M_65097.pdf

The matter between Shri R.N. Dwivedi v/s Coal India Ltd, Kolkata reveals a duel between the PIO & the FAA. This is something rare to come across in CIC decision and sincerely thank IC SS for putting these details in her decision. The information requested by the appellant had been denied by the PIO U/s 8 etc. The appellant had preferred an appeal and the FAA had ruled in the favor of disclosure vide order dated 12.10.2010. However, instead of compling with the FAA decision, the PIO continued to write to the FAA to review the decision. Finally  FAA again heard the matter on 27.6.2011 and held that "The undersigned being the FAA, CIL, is of the view that no change is required in the decision already communicated vide order dated 12.10.2010." 

The FAA should not have held a second hearing for reviewing the FAA order dated 12.10.2010. However, I am glad the the FAA stuck to his guns. I wish IC SS had issued a show cause notice for penal to the CPIO for not adhering the FAA decision at the first place.

http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SS_A_2011_000540_M_65096.pdf

In this matter of Shri C. Krishnan v/s Min of Finance, IC SS directed the CPIO to "intimate the appellant, the reasons on the basis of which S/Shri C. Krishnan & N. Murali Kumaran were not considered for appointment as senior counsel even though their names were in the list dated 15.2.2000, within three weeks of the receipt of this order."  Wish she had quoted Section 4(1)(d) here. But never mind, the purpose is served. Maybe many in this list might like to quote this decision for seeking similar information.

Let me reproduce what exactly the applicant had asked ""what are the specific administrative reasons on the basis of which S/Shri C. Krishnan & N. Murali Kumaran were not considered for appointment as senior counsel even though their names were in the list dated 15.2.2000".

http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_AT_A_2010_000839_SS_M_65099.pdf

Let us hope we continue to have such positive, interesting and proactive decision, especially the last one from IC SS. Wish other ICs including the SICs would also deliver some interesting decisions like the ones above.

Manoj
(Neither applicant nor respondent nor working with the CIC)


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.