*Find below an extract of orders CP No.740/2007/SIC (File
No.4250/SIC-Gen-2/2006) dated 29-3-2008 of Kerala State Chief
Information Commissioner. - issued 17 months after the complaint*
In reply to a request for informtion falling under Section 2(f) and 2(j)
and ambit of Section 4(1)(d),the PIO on realising that the information
sought for if divulged witll expose corruption of Village officer (This
corruption was later proved), replied the appellent to approach 'Judiciary'
despite RTI Act not stipulating such a cource of
action. Aggrieved appellent made the First Appeal to the AA and District
Collector. The AA , had already punished the Village Officer involved in
the fraud on orders of government.She therefore opted not to reply the
appeal to avoid exposure of contradictions. The appellent has therefore
made a complaint to the SIC on 28-10-2006. The orders of SIC issued after 17
months is a classic master piece showing HOW TO SAVE THE GUILTY BUREAUCRATES
FROM THE CLUTCHES OF RTI ACT This orders in nutshell direct the
complainant to approach judiciary giving following justification.
"The Commission has observed that the matter had indeed been a civil
matter and, an ultimate solution would be possible only if the issue was
resolved in a civil court. (*kindly note that the appellant never wanted a
redresal of grievence or ultimate solution. All he ssought for was
information readily available which if provided can expose the unlawful
activities strictly in accordance with the explicit provisions of the RTI
Act).**T*he RTI Act 2005 do provide a forum for the cityzens to receive
information , as held by the public authority , but at the same time, it
does not envisage entertaining requests for information made in the form of
information / interpretations / comments/interrogatoriues etc. The
commission was constrained to observe that many of the comments of the
complainant fell in the categories, as mentioned above which under no
circumstances, any public authority would have been able to entertain and
provide information (It is natural that the public authority will desist
from expossing heir own guilt). * Comments/observations/interpretations etc
do notfall in the category of information as defined under Section 2(f) of
the RTI Act** *
I would like to give the dictionery meaning of above words below:
*INTERPRETATION* Opinions regarding a set of facts, Comment,
Intended
meaning of a written document
*COMMENTS* A statement of facts or Opinion, ThePartof a
sentence that
provide new information about the topic,
Opinion or
explanation or interpretation,Statement
of Opinion
*INTERROGATORIES* A request for data.
*Information is defined in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act* Information means
any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails,
OPINIONS, advices, orderd etc etc.
Please see that the Opinion fall under
interpretation/comments etc whereas this is not Information as per SIC.
Coupled with Section 4(1)(d), the SIC has absolutely no authority either to
refuce the information sought or to direct the appellant *to approach* *
Judiciary* just because the information sough for if provided will expose
far too many skelettons in the cupboard.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
