Dear all,
Find herewith AA order on nodal agency to Monitor Sec 4 Compliance. Some
vague/ incomplete/ some positive.
preferring 2nd Appeal.
regards
vihar
http://cic.gov.in/CIC_Netizen/CIC_Decisions.asp?Year=0&Quarter=0&Category=FAA
Centrall IInformatiion Commiissiion
2nd Floor, ‘B’ Wing
August Kranti Bhavan Bhikaji Cama Place
110066 / New Delhi – 110066
[ Right to Information – Section 19(1) ]
No. CIC/AA/A/2008/195 Dated: 16.1.2009.
Name of the Appellant: Shri Vihar Durve
573/1 Pavan Vihar
Near Sai Pump, J.M. Road,
Deccan Pune – 411004.
Shri Vihar Durve’s RTI application dated 21.9.2008 seeking information from
the CPIO was received in the Commission on 30.9.2008.
2. CPIO, Shri Tarun Kumar, sent reply on 29th Oct., 2008.
3. Not being satisfied Shri Vihar Durve has submitted first appeal on 1.12.2008.
4. The date for hearing of the first appeal was fixed on 14.1.2008 at 3.40 pm.
5. On 14.1.2008 Shri Vihar Durve and Shri Rakesh Agarwal attended the hearing.
CPIO presented himself with the relevant records.
6. I have gone through the RTI application, CPIO’s reply and the contents of the
first appeal.
Point No.1 : At the time of hearing the appellant was asked specifically what
are his
grievances against the reply of CPIO. The appellant was emphatic that since
CPIO has
not given him any document in support of the reply, he should supply the
document
along with that. The matter was discussed with the CPIO and it emerged that in
view of
the fact that DOPT is the nodal Ministry, the CPIO’s reply cannot be considered
wanting
and accordingly this issue should be treated as adequately replied.
Subsequently the
appellant provided a copy of DOPT’s letter dated 23rd December, 2008 wherein
DOPT
has quoted section 25(5) and therefore, according to the appellant the burden of
Section 4 compliance by Public Authorities falls on the Central Information
Commission.
Since this letter is of a subsequent date, CPIO cannot be found wanting for not
replying
accordingly and not supplying this document along with his reply. Shri Tarun
Kumar,
however, emphasized that CPIO has not given wrong information to which the
appellant
did not agree. First Appellate Authority after hearing both the parties has
come to the
conclusion that CPIO has replied on the basis of records/information he had and
can not
be faulted.
Point No. 2 : The CPIO elaborated that he has given information that Commission
takes
a view of Section 4 disclosure on a case to case basis at the time of disposal
of complaints
and appeals under Section 18 and 19 of the RTI Act. The CPIO agreed to supply a
copy
of the Rules made by DOPT and the Regulations made by the Commission in this
regard.
Point No.3 to 9 : The appellant is satisfied with the reply.
Point No. 10 & 11 : The reply of the CPIO with regard to Point No.10 and 11 was
not
found adequate. The CPIO was accordingly directed to provide the details of
budget
provision and actual utilization in the years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 for
the
Annual Conventions. The Budget of the Commission may be put on website as part
of
the mandatory disclosure u/s 4(1)(b)(xi) if not done already.
Point No. 12 : The CPIO has given the reply, however, the appellant is not
satisfied with
the reply and desired that he should be informed of the exact date and other
necessary
details about when would CIC start discharging its duty & would conduct yearly
RTI
Conclave to monitor the progress of Sec. 4 compliance of all Govt. agencies. It
was
clarified by the CPIO that the Commission have complied with the Section 4 of
the RTI
Act. It was decided that the matter will be revisited and wherever required
updated. It
was decided that the date of updation will also be put up against each update.
Point No.13 : The appellant is satisfied with the reply.
7. Regarding other points, the reply submitted by the CPIO were discussed in the
light of the comments of the appellant and it was agreed that if photocopy of
the file of
his RTI application is provided to the appellant in full, it will suffice the
query. CPIO is
accordingly directed to provide a copy of the same to the appellant.
8. First Appellate authority appreciated the effort made by Shri Vihar Durve
and Shri
Rakesh Agarwal for participating and presenting their point of view personally
before the First
Appellate Authority and informed that in case the appellant is not satisfied
with the decisions, he
has legal right under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act to file second appeal before
the Central
Information Commission, Club Building, Old JNU Campus, New Delhi-110067.
9. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
( Mohd. Haleem Khan)
First Appellate Authority
Central Information Commission
Copy forwarded to:-
1. Shri Vihar Durve, 573/A, Pavan Vihar, Near Sai Pump, J.M. Road, Deccan Pune
– 411004.
2. CPIO, Shri Tarun Kumar, CIC, New Delhi.
3 Mr. Paul Arokianathan S., Scientist-C, NIC – with a request to place it on
the web site.
(Mohd. Haleem Khan)
First Appellate Authority
Central Information Commission
Get an email ID as [email protected] or [email protected]. Click
here http://in.promos.yahoo.com/address
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
