The SIC, Kerala who has been on a 'disinformation spree' of warning NGOs and
Activists against the so called 'mis-use of the RTI Act' to protect the
corrupt officials from the burden of providing such informtion has now
resort to misinterpretation of the Act to shield the PIOs from providing
information if provided is likely to expose illegal and corrupt procatices
of officials Here is an Order No.AP.375/2007/SIC dated 12-11-2007. -
TheAppellant has asked the SPIO (Revenue), Government Secretariate the
information " Action taken on a particular petetion addressed to Hon'ble
Minister for Revenue and forwarded to the Revenue department for their
action vide......"
When the SPIO and his AA have not given a response within the time lime a
complaint was made to SIC under Section 18(1)(c) of theAct.Thw SIChas called
theAppellant for hearing on 4-1-2007 at Trivandrum.. Since there is nothing
tobe adduced without knowing the defence,the appellant requested for copy of
the reply if any made by the Respondent with request for adjournment.
Nothing heard subsequently. But the SIC has suo motu converted the
complaint into a second appeal and dismissed. In his 6 full page judgment he
does not say that I am not entitled to reeive the information nor it is not
held; but make a somersault to protect eh PIO and AA from disclosing the
informtionif revealed is likely to expose corruption. Following extracts
from his above dismissal orders are an eye-opener: My comments are given
therein:
1." This is an unusual appeal entertained u/s 19(3) of the RTI Act. Though
the request of the appellant was to entertain this matter as a complaint u/s
18(1) of theRTI Act, on a close scrutiny, it was brought out that the
appellant himself had availed of an opportunity u/s 19(1) of theRTI Act,
preferring a first appal before theAA viz., thePrincipal Secretary, Revenue,
Govt of Kerala against SPIO, Govt.Secretariate. Having availed of a legal
remedy u/s 19(1) the scheme of theRTI Act does not permit one to prefer a
complaint u/s18(1) before the SIC against both the AA and PIO. Therefore
theCommission with its inherent power had entertained this complaint u/s
19(3) of the RTI Act as the second appeal "
Comments:
(a) All the above contentions of SIC shows his ignorancet of the Act. It is
worth remembering that it is the same SIC who ordered theRDO, Palght not to
accept RTI applications contrary to Section 5(2) of theAct
(b) TheSIC has absolutely no descretionary power to convert a complaint into
Second appeal without the consent of the appellant
(c) Communication of decision of the PIO /AA is a precondition for a second
appeal under Sectioon 19(3) as specifically given in Section 19(3). There
cannort be a second appeal unless receipt of decisions under 19(!).
(d) In case no decision or replies received forom PIO orAA there is
absolutely no choice other than complaint u/s 18(1)c)
(e) Availing all opportunities including a first appeal u/s 19(1) is the
normal course of action. The Act does not say that it is an emgargo.
(f) When both the PIO and AA does not give any response, the ppellant has
absolutely no means other than reporting this in his complaint.
(g) This case defenitely is the one likely to expose corruption. By
converting the complaint into a second appeal the SIC has sealed the
appellant's chance tomake a second appeal. In fact this sent a message to
corrupt officials, not to give any response when they donot wish to divulge
a particular information
2. Instead of directing the PIO to reply the application theSIC has made a
very long disection of even background and merrit of the case in his six
(six) full page judgement unnecesarily making an effort to confuce the issue
by introducing Section 24(1) also
3. The funniest part is that the information sought has been got from other
source, corruption proved and the Special Judge Vigilance &Anticorruption
has ordered anEnquiry.
4. Following extract of theSIC's orders is more interesting
The Appellant on 22-9-2007 has intimated the SIC that " I have not
received any response from theAA and as such it will be futile to
spend Rs.3,000/-
and waste two days to come to Trivandrum without knowing what to defend
--- This amply testify the Appellant's attitude. He was the appellant and
it was for him to state his case, prosecute the sme before the Commission.
Of course, the Act does not insist his personal appearance but then the
cases has to be dealt with whatevwer material that that are available
before theCommission. At some point of his communication, he had expressed
with willingness to allow the case tobe proceeded with under that provision
(SIC's version of my statement that since I did not receive any rsponse from
SPIO or AA I donot know as to what to defend. Hence my case may be decided
asper the aspects brought in my complaint)
What is he way out to sve theRTI Actfrom such cituation ?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
