-: [rti4empowerment] A correction

Friday, November 5, 2010

[rti4empowerment] A correction

There is correction in the bold underlined para (e) (extract of decision of FAA) of the message below posted by me. It should be read as:

(e) there are no provisions stipulating not to upload particular decision on the website of the commission.

Inadvertent error is deeply regreted and undersigned is indebted to MKG to seek clarfication.

With wishes of Happy Deepawali & Regards,

Vijay

--- On Fri, 22/10/10, VB Singh <vijay_bsingh@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

From: VB Singh <vijay_bsingh@yahoo.co.in>
Subject: Decision of First Appellate Authority, CIC
To: "Hum Janenge" <HumJanenge@yahoogroups.co.in>, "RTI4Empowerment" <rti4empowerment@yahoogroups.com>, "RTI4NGO" <rti4ngo@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Friday, 22 October, 2010, 8:47 AM

Being fully aware that some of members of this group are feeding / acting at the behest of a particular group which is engaged in vilification of RTI activists and an Information Commission from Mumbai. However, at the risk of facing their outrage, it would be beneficial to share this information with members of this group.

Undersigned filed RTI application dated 08 July 2010 with CIC seeking following information:

a)         Number of second appeals and complaints decided by Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners since its constitution;
b)         Number of decisions by Chief Information Commission and Information Commissioners uploaded on website of commission so far since its constitution;
c)         Number of decisions by Chief Information Commission and Information Commissioners not uploaded on website of commission so far.
d)         Name and designation of authority in Commission who decides to upload or not upload a particular decision on website of commission.
e)         Please provide information regarding the relevant provisions stipulating not to upload a particular decision on website of commission.
f)         Dates of receipt of signed copies of online complaints Nos. RC/UG/10/5615if6d dated 16.05.2010 and RC/UG/10/5850mhoq dated 21.05.2010 in the Commission.
g)         Status of aforementioned online complaints.

CPIO in his reply dated 12.08.2010 furnished information as follows:

(a).   Information as maintained runs into 24 pages are enclosed. You are requested to submit Rs. 48 @ of Rs. 2 per page by Cash, Banker Cheque, or DD in favor of PAO, CAT, New Delhi.

(b).      No such information is maintained. However, the decisions which have been pronounced are available in public domain, if you desire to know the status, you have to mention case file number.

(c).      No such information is maintained as indicated at (b).

(d).      Decisions of each Information Commissioners are being uploaded by their registry itself. All the decisions are uploaded if a case is registered and disposed.

(e).      In view of (d). It is not required to respond.

(f).       Signed copies of your complaint have been received by diary No. 34942 dt. 28.05.2010 and 37177 dt. 08.06.2010.

(g).      Both the diary nos. mentioned above at (f) has been registered in case file No. CIC/WB/C/2010/900164 & CIC/WB/C/2010/900165. As on date of reply no action has been contemplated except registration.

Not satisfied with above reply first appeal was preferred and decision dated 12.010.2010 of FAA is as follows:

(a): Shri Pankaj Shreyaskar is directed to verify and send the remaining 13 pages (24-11) to appellant within 5 working days of the receipt of this order.

(b): The CPIO is directed to intimate the available number of Chief Information commissioner and Information Commissioners uploaded on website of the commission.

(d) all the decisions of the commission are required to uploaded by all the registries on website of commission.

(e) there is provisions stipulating not to upload particular decision on the website of the commission.

Now members are requested to verify from website of the commission that how many decisions of Commission have not been uploaded so far and I am certain you would arrive at the conclusion that the most of decisions of present Chief Information Commissioner are not being available in the website. Is there any reason for not being transparent in making his decision public? This is for members to judge.