Upgrad LLM

unsatisfactory order of cic


 

I am very shocked with my first experience in CIC hearing. Information commissioner did not allow me to express my grounds to appeal. He directly asked me what information you still not get. He ignored all the violations of RTI act committed by PIO and FAA and hearing ends in few minutes. The PIO and FAA must be fined under RTI act but CIC let them go easily.  Even in his order the date is missing before which PIO should send the information to appellant. The information is still uncomplete and misleading. I feel very helplessness. ....what should I do????  

 
Reply   
 
Advocate High Court Madras.

Imposing penalty on the PIO is the discretion of the CIC. Normally the CIC is imposing penalty only when the PIO is not honouring the CIC's order.

Normally the CIC will order to the PIO with a time period.

 
Reply   
 


orthopaedic surgeon

where is the discretion in the RTI not to punish even if found guilty .???? why 99.9% discretion is in favour of defaulters, why principle of law that "NO CULPRIT SHOULD BE LEFT UN-PUNISHED" What is the use of toothless law  OR MADE TOOTHLESS.OR UNJUSTIFIED ACTION BY ....IC/CIC.????? sepecially which FAVOURS CULPRITS.??? who is responsible for added expences,loss of time, physical and mental harassment  of Information seekers .???........ WHETHER IC/CIC SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO USE DISCREATIVE POWER TO FAVOUR THE CULPRITS THAT TOO IN SUCH A HIGH PERCENTAGE ,,.ARE WE RECEIVING JUSTIFIED JUDGEMENTS...ANY REMADY OR ...."JAI HO INDIA AND IT'S JUDICIAL SYSTEM." ????????????

 
Reply   
 
orthopaedic surgeon

where is the discretion in the RTI not to punish even if found guilty .???? why 99.9% discretion is in favour of defaulters, why principle of law that "NO CULPRIT SHOULD BE LEFT UN-PUNISHED" What is the use of toothless law  OR MADE TOOTHLESS.OR UNJUSTIFIED ACTION BY ....IC/CIC.????? sepecially which FAVOURS CULPRITS.??? who is responsible for added expences,loss of time, physical and mental harassment  of Information seekers .???........ WHETHER IC/CIC SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO USE DISCREATIVE POWER TO FAVOUR THE CULPRITS THAT TOO IN SUCH A HIGH PERCENTAGE ,,.ARE WE RECEIVING JUSTIFIED JUDGEMENTS...ANY REMADY OR ...."JAI HO INDIA AND IT'S JUDICIAL SYSTEM." ????????????

 
Reply   
 
Retired employee.

Many were takling on penality --Can any one quote one instance of awarding compensation for the wilful misdeeds, negligence and fraud by CIC?

On the other hank common man has to approach only HC for redressal.   Unfortunately ICS' are so busy they can not pass even casual glance to what is said in brief and office note placed by appellant during hearings.

 
Reply   
 
Worker

Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2010/001656/SG/14632Penalty

Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2010/001656/SG

 

Thus if without reasonable cause, information is not furnished within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7, the Commission is dutybound to levy a penalty at the rate of rupees two hundred and fifty each day till the information is furnished. Once the Commission decides that there was no reasonable cause for delay, it has to impose the penalty at the rate specified in Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act and the law gives no discretion in the matter. The burden of proving that denial of information by the PIO was justified and reasonable is clearly on the PIO as per Section 19(5) of the RTI Act.

Since no reasonable cause has been offered by Mr. A. K. Mohanthy, Chief Manager & Deemed PIO for the delay of 48 days in providing the information as per the order of the Commission, the Commission sees this as a fit case for levy of Penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. The Commission therefore imposes a penalty on Mr. A. K. Mohanthy at the rate of `250/- per day of delay for 48 days i.e. `250 X 48 days=`12000/-

 

Shailesh Gandhi

Information Commissioner

13 January 2012

 

===============================================================================

 

Mujibur Rehman vs Central Information Commission on 29 May, 2006

Delhi High Court

15. 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. In this case, the penalty amount (on

account of the delay between 28.12.2005 and the first week of May, 2006 when the

information was given) would work out to Rs.25,000/-. The third respondent is hereby directed

to deduct the same from the sixth respondent's salary in five equal installments and deposit the

amount, with the Commission.

 
Reply   
 
Other

Amit,

Can any1 drag CIC, PIO and FAA in court because of their non working attitude ??

 
Reply   
 
Worker

writ can be filed in HC
 
Reply   
 
Other

thanks dear

 
Reply   
 
orthopaedic surgeon

AMIT ji tyhanks a lot for your interest and valuable reply with citation...

 
Reply   
 

LEAVE A REPLY


    

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  



 

  Search Forum








×

Menu

CrPC MASTERCLASS!     |    x