My RTI friend Mr. C.H. Ram from Bangalore had filed RTI application to the Karnataka Information Commission questioning the discretion of the KIC while imposing penalty on erring PIO's, we had put forth arguments stating that the Act doesnot state anwhere that the Commission is having any discretion in imposing penalty, in the last hearing the KIC is quoting Oxford dictionary for explanation (meaning) and substantiating this, we had objected the version of KIC. In many cases once the KIC decides for imposing penalty they don't have any discretion they have to impose penalty @ the rate of Rs.250/- per day of delay till the information is supplied (but KIC had imposed only Rs.500/-, Rs.1,000/- Rs,3000/- as they like, quoting the discretionary clause in the last case the actually the penalty should have been Rs.22,500/- but imposed only Rs.3,000/-. The full bench hearing is posted for hearing to-morrow(13.11.2008) @ 3-30 PM.
With regards, Anil --- In [email protected], "sroy1947" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dear Members > > One of the biggest stumbling blocks to RTI implementation is the > non-levy of penalty on errant PIOs by the Information Commissions. > > These johnnies labour under the delusion that penalty is a > discretionary option open to them in case of non-supply of > information in the time prescribed u/s 7(1). > > Is there some problem in the wording of the clause? > > No, when a PIO fails to give in information in time he is to > be penalised at the rate of Rs.250 per day. No IFS no BUTs. > > The relevant part of the clause would read as follows > > "Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information > Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint > or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information > Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, > has, without any reasonable cause, ... has not furnished information > within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 ... it > shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till > application is received or information is furnished, so however, the > total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand > rupees:" > > The only defence a PIO has is PROVING there was "reasonable cause" > > So the next time any member want penalty imposed on a PIO > > 1) Insist on being present at the penalty hearing to "disprove" the > "reasonable ground/s" of the PIO. Ask for copies of the proof in advance. > > 2) Dispute with ICs like Habibullah and Tiwari who insist that > "allegation of malafides" is an essential ingredient to levy penalty. > Insist they record your attendance and subimissions in their orders. > Follow this up with a SPEEDPOST letter to them immediately after they > pass such biased orders demanding that they review their order > immediately in light of the above - which as we all know they wont. > > 3) Then if you want to fight it out, email me , and we shall sort them > out. > > This link is an example of how the biggest sinners in awarding > penalties (they were running a racket ripping off PIOs) later became > saints (briefly) on the side of the angels after we took it up > (discreetly). Of course since the GoI pays out-station ICs peanuts > they are back to their little monkey tricks again. > > http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/OK-18072008-01.pdf > > Sarbajit > > Full text of section 20(1) > > "20(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State > Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding > any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public > Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the > case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an > application for information or has not furnished information within > the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely > denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, > incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which > was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in > furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred > and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information > is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not > exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: > > Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State > Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a > reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on > him: > > Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably > and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or > the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be." >
