N vikramsimha , KRIA Katte , #12 Sumeru Sir M N Krishna Rao Road , Basvangudi < Bangalore 560004.
--- On Sat, 16/5/09, sroy1947 <[email protected]> wrote: From: sroy1947 <[email protected]> Subject: [rti_india] Re: Delhi High Court upholds MANDATORY Penalty To: [email protected] Date: Saturday, 16 May, 2009, 7:13 PM Here is the official link to the judgement http://lobis. nic.in/dhc/ SRB/judgement/ 11-05-2009/ SRB28042009CW384 52007..pdf Very well worth reading in its original form (not in the garbled versions being circulated on RTI groups). Highlights:- 1) "A close and textual reading of Section 20 itself reveals that there are three circumstances, whereby a penalty can be imposed i.e. (a) Refusal to receive an application for information; (b) Not furnishing information within the time specified; and (c) Denying mala fidely the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information for destroying information that was the subject matter of the request. Each of the conditions is prefaced by the infraction "without reasonable cause"." (para 10) 2) "CIC is UNDENIABLY a TRIBUNAL amenable to High Court supervision if it fails to exercise jurisdiction lawfully vested in it or acts beyond its jurisdiction, an expression that includes acting contrary to the provisions of law, or established principles of law or the Constitution. " (para 11) 3) "In these circumstances, even though the CIC recommended disciplinary action under Section 20 (2), its denial of any penalty order under Section 20, in the considered opinion of this Court, cannot be upheld." (para 13) 4) "The court cannot be unmindful of the circumstances under which the Act was framed, and brought into force. It seeks to foster an "openness culture" among state agencies, and a wider section of "public authorities" whose actions have a significant or lasting impact on the people and their lives. Information seekers are to be furnished what they ask for, unless the Act prohibits disclosure; they are not to be driven away through sheer inaction or filibustering tactics of the public authorities or their officers. It is to ensure these ends, that time limits have been prescribed, in absolute terms, as well as penalty provisions. These are meant to ensure a culture of information disclosure so necessary for a robust and functioning democracy. In the above circumstances, Court is of the opinion that the impugned order to the extent it discharges the sixth respondent of the notice under Section 19 (8) and does not impose the penalty sought for has to be declared illegal." (paras 14,15) Sarbajit --- In rti_in...@yahoogrou ps.com, "sroy1947" <sroy1...@.. .> wrote: > > The Delhi High Court (Justice Ravindra Bhat again) has recently slapped the > CIC - and Mr Wajahat Habibullah in particular - for refusing to levy penalty > against a Public Authority. The case is of Muzibur Rehman versus SECL - WP > (C) No.3845/2007 order dd 28-April-2009. I was assisting Mr Rehman at the CIC > in his battle there. > > Not only has the Hon'ble Court upheld Mr Rehman and ordered that Rs. 25,000 > will be deducted from salary of the PIO, but also awarded costs of Rs. 50,000 > to Mr Rehman. > > We do hope that Mr Habibullah now investigates the corrupt little "penalty > condonation" racket which IC(SG) is running in cahoots with his Under-Secy. > > Sarbajit Roy > Explore and discover exciting holidays and getaways with Yahoo! India Travel http://in.travel.yahoo.com/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
