cpc

ministry of commerce & industry - unwilling to rti

Working Chairperson Democratic Rights Forum (DRF) [Foundation for Social Justice and Constitutional Awareness for Trial of Public Service] - Founder President : Ram Samudre *Email: drf.india@gmail.com *Ph.9322246333

 

                13th September, 2012

From: Sonia Bhatnagar

          (Alias Tanuja Bhatnagar)

          Working Chairperson,

Democratic Rights Forum (DRF),

          12, Virat Darshan, Waldhuni,

          Post: Kalyan, Distt. Thane (Maharashtra) PIN-421 301.

Email: drf.india@gmail.com

Ph. 93 222 46 333 / 93 24 34 54 54

 

To :    Shri D. C. Singh

          Deputy Registrar,

          Central Information Commission,

          2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,

          Bhikaji Cama Palace,

          New Delhi – 100 068

 

 

Sub

:

Complaint dated 17.8.2012 under Section 18 (1) (c) of RTI Act 2005.

 

 

 

Ref

:

Letter No. R-22(34)/2012-RTI dated 31st August, 2012 sent by Mr. R. K. Ojha, Director (RTI), Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Department of Commerce, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi.

____________

 

Sir,

 

I am in receipt of a copy of letter No. R-22(34)/2012-RTI dated 31st August, 2012, received on 07.09.2012, sent by Mr. R. K. Ojha, Director (RTI), Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Department of Commerce, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi which is addressed to you and copied to the undersigned in clarification to the complaint dated 17.8.2012 submitted by me before CIC under Section 18 (1) (c) of RTI Act 2005 which was also copied to PIO and Secretary of Ministry of Commerce & Industry since no response is given by the PIO in regard to my said application which I had submitted under RTI Act 2005 for some information.

 

2. In his letter, Shri Ojha, Director (RTI) of Ministry of Commerce & Industry has tried to misguide the CIC by misleading into the matter to protect his subordinates for their intentional ignorance of duties & inefficiency in fulfilling the duties assigned to them by the People of India which falls under their job expectation being a public servant paid by the People of India.

 

3. By going through the letter sent by Shri Ojha it can be seen that Shri Ojha has laboured hard to draft the letter tactfully by repeating a same point which itself is unjustified to create things as “झूठ बार-बार बोला जाए ताकि वो सच लगने लगे”.  The following point is brought out by him as a shelter to escape from his responsibilities;

 

In para 2 it is stated by him that “Since complainant/applicant had neither enclosed requisite application fees of Rs. 10/- nor proof of her belonging to BPL category with her application dated 21.06.2012, the said application was not a valid application under RTI Act and was, therefore, filed after obtaining due approval.

 

4. It can be seen from my application that I have stated that “I am ready to pay all required charges as per provisions.  I will deposit / send fees and other charges by way of cash through money order for which please inform name and address of the concerned officer who have been assigned as PIO in this matter”.  Therefore, it can be presumed that neither the public servant who have been assigned as PIO nor Shri Ojha, Director (RTI), Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Department of Commerce have even read my application properly which shows their intentional ignorance and mishandling into the matter by filing my application without informing me the way to deposit the fees for which I had already shown my willingness.  Moreover, whereas I have stated that I am ready to pay all charges itself shows that I am not in BPL category which these inefficient public servants unable to understand.  It is regretted to say that the work of People of India is in the hands of such hopeless and inefficient public servants who are becoming the reason for huge burden on the economy of our nation due to unjustified salaries and other emoluments without proper work.  It is also to note that instead of informing me a way to deposit the fees Shri Ojha has written such a big letter and wasted his working hours and his steno/typists’s working hours and also misused computer etc. for unnecessary exercise.

 

5. Now, I am coming to the merit of the point raised by Shri Ojha.  It is clearly provided in Sub-Section (8) of Section 7 of RTI Act 2005 that;

 

Where a request has been rejected under sub-section (1), the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall communicate to the person making the request,—

(i)                the reasons for such rejection;

(ii)              the period within which an appeal against such rejection may be   

          preferred; and

(iii)              the particulars of the appellate authority.

 

Keeping in view the facts brought out above, it is clear that the PIO and Director (RTI), Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Department of Commerce are defaulters in fulfilling their duties and so the complaint submitted by me stands good.  It is also to add with the said complaint that Shri Ojha, Director (RTI), Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Department of Commerce is also defaulter and liable to be penalized under Sub-Section (1) of Section 20 of RTI Act 2005.

                                                                      

 

                                                                       (Sonia Bhatnagar)

                                                               Complainant Citizen of India

Copy to :

Shri R. K. Ojha, Director (RTI), Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Department of Commerce, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi.

 

The Central Information Commissioner, Club Building, Near Post Office, Old J.N.U. Campus, New Delhi – 110067.

 

Secretary, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Udyog Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi-110011.

 

Public Information Officer, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Udyog Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi-110011.

 
Reply   
 

LEAVE A REPLY


    

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  



 

  Search Forum








×

Menu

IPC Grand Course     |    x