In order to make the implementation of law effective we need to cordinate and share the responsibilities to follow up the matters. Consumer , Human and Information rights are sought to be propogated and practised through chi international initiative by registering volunteers in every locality .A databse of Consumer , Human and Information rights volunteers and activists around the globe is being compiled. Those interested to keep their names in the database may submit details as : Name: adress (optional): STate: Country: Locality Pin /Postal Code: Email adress: Organisation if any: Field of activity: Any specialization: contact Tel no.(optional):
We believe that a grassroot coordination of volunteers can curb corruption and make remarkable change to improve the life of common man . The Public bodies are required to be made accountable by continuous follow up . This requires planned and collective approach . For this we are developing Admin Watch initiative where every volunteer will take up the task of monitoring any one or more department of government or local administration. For example I can take the responisbility to watch education department of Local Municipal administration and check the facility , use of funds , reaching of benefit to students, school building maintenance , pass out percentage of students , rate of drop in Municipal schools etc . All are invited to come together. --- 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." >
