Some Issues
Mr Venkatesh Nayak of humanrightsinitiativewrote on 27.05.10 that the saddest
part in this matter is that the majority of members of this group are only
watching silently without speaking up. The Commission will not belong to the
members if they treat it as the domain of the Commissioners and the babus only.
Although some comments on this judgement have appeared during the past days,
but the issues raised in this judgement have neither been identified nor
commented upon by members. To my mind, the following issues can be readily
identified and I would suggest members to give their views on these issues as
soon as possible:
1. The matter arose because ofnon compliance of statutory directions
given in sec 4 generally and in sec 4(1)(b) by DDA. As per sec 4(1)(b), DDA
should have published all information on the 17 points given within 120 days
from the enactment of the act (15 Jun 05) ie by 15 Oct 05. In view of DDA
inability to comply with these statutory directions, a number of
complaints/appeals were filed by various persons u/s 18 & 19 and CIC had
thereupon repeatedly directed DDA to comply with the requirements of sec 4 ever
since 2005 till his last orders dated 22.09.09, some parts of which were
challenged by DDA through this WP. The case thus clearly proves utter
incompetency of CIC to get compliance of sec 4 by DDA (and by most PAs) by not
imposing penalties u/s 20 and instead give vague orders giving a handle to DDA
to file such vague WP against its orders.
2. The bench noted thatthepetitioner DDAwasdutyboundbyvirtueof the
provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act to publish the information
u/s 4. However, Sec4merelysetoutthe obligationsofthePAs,
itdidnotprovidethemachineryto enforcethe implementationof theseobligations.
What does it mean?. Should strictures not have been passed against DDA for this
lapse and why did the bench call statutory directions given in sec 4 as
‘Obligations’ instead of statutory directions in their entire judgement.
3. In its submissions through WP, DDA claimed relief on three points
viz (i) striking down of adverseinferencewithregardtothe
absenceoftheVice-Chairman,DDAfrom its hearing on 03.09.09 (ii) quashing of
orders given for formation ofan ‗enquiry committee‘ and (ii)quashing CIC
Management Reguations beingultravirestheRighttoInformationAct, 2005. Did CIC
counsel represent CIC stand in this matter properly. His pleadings, as given in
the judgement, were most illogical and damaging.
4. Was the bench attitude in this matter hostile to CIC and the
implementation of RTIA05.
5. Does this judgement call for amendments to RTIA05 and the statutory
rules made thereunder.
I will be giving my comments on the above and other issues that come to my mind
myself in due course. The members views are solicited as soon as possible.
M K Singhal, Engineer-in-Chief (Retd), Consultant and Arbitrator
