Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Siv (engineer)     19 December 2011

Complaint under cp act for denial of info under rti act

Dear All,

My concerns are below, please guide me in right direction:
 

 


1. I filed RTI application to Inspector of Police (also caled as C.I) i.e., Public Authority seeking the infomration about the reasons/grounds/circumstances that made him to take certain decisions which affected me and I invoked section 4(1)(d) of RTI Act. In the same application I asked some document's certified copies.
 

 


2. C.I (Inspector of Police i.e., Public Authority) denied information saying that he is only answerabale to his seniors and Courts, not to the public.
 

 


3. C.I denied certified copies of documents saying that certified copies of the crime shall be given only by the courts not by the police.
 

 


4. C.I failed to invoke section 8 and 9 of RTI Act while denying the information to me.
 

 


5. I made Appeal with the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) but failed to get reply till now (50 days)

 

 

My requirements:

 

 

1. Along with the second appeal, shall I make complaint against the C.I (Public Authority) and the DSP (Public Authority) for not doing their service as per law procedure.
 

 


2. Can I claim Rs.1,00,000/- penalty for not supplying the information which shall be suplied even as per Criminal Procedure Code, CrPC.
 

 


3. How many days I need to wait after notices to the C.I (Public Authority) and the DSP (Public Authority) issed under Consumer Protection Act.
 

 


4. I am from Karnataka and the C.I (Public Authority) and the DSP (Public Authority) are from another state (Andhra), RTI is made through post and reply receied through post. In these circumstances which district Consumer Court has jurisdiction to entertain my complaint under Consumer Protection Act.
 

 


5. Can I make complaint before the Human Rights Commission for denying the information by the C.I (Public Authority) and the DSP (Public Authority) and what reliefs may be asked from Human Rights Commission by me.


 

 

Brief story behind the RTI:
 

 


My mother made complaint against accused persons. C.I (Public Authority) and the DSP (Public Authority) investigated the case and prepared Final report and filed the report in court saying that the complaint is false and the false complaint is prepared by me and I tutored my mother to make such false complant. POlice failed to collect the documents that clearly provide information that the complaint is true and the accused did crime. The C.I (Public Authority) and the DSP (Public Authority) made the replatives of the Accused as law witnesses and those law witnesses are denying the alleged allegations .... police refused to record the statements of law witnesses from complainant side and C.I (Public Authority) and the DSP (Public Authority) refused to examine the law wintsses from complainant by saying that the compliannat side witnesses are managed by me.

 



Learning

 13 Replies

mohanlal (SO)     19 December 2011


As per my knowledge no suit can be filed in court for denial of information under RTI Act, 2005.

Yes there is a provision of penalty to the information officer if he denies the information without mentioning the sufficient reason for doing it.

Legal Fighter (Advocate)     19 December 2011

a complaint under consumer protection act can be made.

kiran (student)     23 December 2011

U should make complaint to District forum where the Public authority is situated

G.L.N. Prasad (Retired employee.)     18 January 2012

Please note that District Forums are not accepting complaints on deficiecy of services from RTI applicants due to National forum judgment as  appeal procedure is prescribed under Sec.19 of RTI Act, RTI applicant can notbe treated as Consumer and Thirumala Rao judgment has been overruled.

Ashish Chakravarty (Advocate)     18 January 2012

Complaint is not maintainable as there is an alternate prescribed remedy available ( 2nd appeal) which if you dont opt for shall make the refusal order final, secondly there is no relationship between you and the deptt. ( as a consumer whereof) as necessary for invoking jurisdiction of consumer courts, although there are some rulings in which public authorities like local development authority dda & Nagar Nigam have been held accountable under the abovementioned act as the general public pays them money in form of taxes, charge cess etc, however i am not sure whether these citations will apply on police services as well, have not read them yet.

Siv (engineer)     19 January 2012

Dear G.L.N Prasad,

 

 

Under RTI act appeal can be made and information may be get from officer. And there could be penalty to the officer for denial of information.

 

 

What about the deficiency of service after payment of RTI application fee... also there is no remedy/compensation for deficiency of service under RTI Act.

 

 

Also even it officer is penalised then that amount could be maximum of 25,000/- only and this amount go to government no to the public.

 

 

As per Supreme Court judgment: court can not direct the victim to claim from another statue while the present statue provides remedy.

harpreetdhanvi (Legal Officer)     20 January 2012

Can somebody post the links or the case no of the latest judgements which have been discussed.

kiran (student)     20 January 2012

Still lots of District forum is allowing the RTI complaints under deficiency of service..

 

Learned advocates, why are you not concentrating on Section 3 of consumer protection Act, where it describes remedy is additional.

IS there ant judgement that over ruled S P Thirumala Rao's Land mark judgement on RTI service deficency?

Siv (engineer)     30 January 2012

Hi, There is a NCDRC decision decided in 2011 that says that RTI applicant is not a consumer and also the RTI applicant has remedy in RTI Act. This argument is agains the decision sof Hon'ble Supreme Court. People may take the support of the attached file:

 


Attached File : 760126185 arguments submission in cc.no. dev.doc downloaded: 205 times

G.L.N. Prasad (Retired employee.)     30 January 2012

Friends,

I understand that on 31st SC is taking up PILon latest decision of National Forum and to decide whether RTI applicant is a consume or not.

Unfortunately, most of experts in the forum are not involving and taking up interest in the discussion otherwise lay persons llike me should have acquired some fundamental knowledge in this aspect.

Supreme Court Judgement on CIC is shocking as SC has ruled that CIC can not direct PA to furnish information under SEC. 19 and at the most they can offer remedy for rejection.   One can not understand as to how an RTI applicant can get information in case CIC is not having powers and I feel that furnishing information is the greatest remedy to RTI applicant then penality or punishment of PA.

Experts, please throw lilght on these aspects.

G.L.N. Prasad (Retired employee.)     30 January 2012

What an excellent, hardworking and sincere contribution from Siv, Engineer.  This shows the real commitment and dedication to a cause.  Congratulations and also thank on behalf of several friends who are in need of such useful information.

kiran (student)     08 February 2012

IM curoious to know the state of dispute in SC regarding RTI applicant is consumer or not. Learned members here please update the case no. and other details of it.

G.L.N. Prasad (Retired employee.)     08 February 2012

Recently one of our friend has applied information to CIC on amount of compensation claimed and sanctioned by them. CIC has replied that there do not have records.

As it is of now, CIC can not direct PA to furnish information.  They may at the maximum impose penality and I know in many cases, suppression of information involves corruption angle and there are several clients who is interested in suppressing facts, and they will reimburse such amounts to errant officials.   Now, one can see the role of CIC.

I was shocked to know of another case, in a final appeal where no information was furnished by PA or filed even their explanation CIC dismissed the case, simply by looking into the information furnished in another appeal and seeing the weight of documents, CIC dismissed the case.   From the last one year, the poor applicant is moving earth and heaven, her first appeal, second appeal  were not even cared by CIC.

CIC is sincere, it is not proper to throw blame on them, and they are overburdened.   Simple enactments without providing adequate men and machinery is sheer waste and  just appear as political stunts.

There are several things that may not come to light and several innocent people are still suffering whereas Act is helping influential and powerful persons.  Every body can not become Mr.Subrahmanya Swamy,

It is mere luck and no one is sincerely interested in truth and sincerity.


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register