Please do not send me mails Kpmathur
--- On Thu, 22/1/09, Vihar Durve <[email protected]> wrote: From: Vihar Durve <[email protected]> Subject: [rti_india] Nodal Agency to Monitor Sec 4 Compliance... CPIO CIC says ... find out To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Date: Thursday, 22 January, 2009, 2:02 PM 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 Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Go to http://messenger. yahoo..com/ invite/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Go to http://messenger.yahoo.com/invite/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
