Dear Mr. Singhal, Thank you very much for flagging these issues. Happy to respond to them after other members have put in their thoughts. These are very serious issues no which we need careful formation of positions. regards Venkat
_____ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of M K Singhal Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 9:36 AM To: Gr Anti Bribery Campaign; Gr NCPRI; Gr RTI India; Gr rti_india; Gr rti4empowerment; Gr rtihumjanenge Subject: [rti_india] 04.06.10 Delhi HC Judgement dated 21.05.10: DDA vs CIC - Some Issues Some Issues Mr Venkatesh Nayak of humanrightsinitiative wrote 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 of non 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 that the petitioner DDA was duty bound by virtue of the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act to publish the information u/s 4. However, Sec 4 merely set out the obligations of the PAs, it did not provide the machinery to enforce the implementation of these obligations. 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 adverse inference with regard to the absence of the Vice-Chairman, DDA from its hearing on 03.09.09 (ii) quashing of orders given for formation of an ‗enquiry committee‘ and (ii)quashing CIC Management Reguations being ultra vires the Right to Information Act, 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
