-: [rti4empowerment] [3 Attachments]

[Attachment(s) from RTIFED - Surendera M. Bhanot included below]

THE PDF OF THIS MAIL IS ALSO ATTACHED FOR DOWNLOAD AND FOR TAKING FURTHER APPROPRIATE ACTION PLEASE.

RTIFED/SICP/18 Stares at 19/2013/057/0612
06 DECEMBER 2013
THROUGH E-MAIL

Mr. R.I. Singh
Hon'ble State Chief Information Commissioner, Punjab
State Information Commission,
SCO 84-85, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh -160017
Email: scic@punjabmail.gov.in

Mr. Naresh Gulati
Hon'ble State Chief Information Commissioner
State InfoFOR DOWNLOAD AND rmation Commission, Haryana,
SCO No. 70-71, Sector 8-C,
Chandigarh - 160008
Email: ussichry@yahoo.co.in

This Mail in original is also sent through e-mail to:
Hon'ble Central Chief Information Commission;
All Hon'ble Chief Information Commissioners of All Hon'ble State Information Commissions;
Hon'ble Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training GOI New Delhi; &
All Chief Secretaries of All State of India;

Right to Information
Section 18 Stares at Wicked Orders Passed Under Section 19(3)

Hon'ble Sir,

The Mr. Ratnaker Gaikwad, Hon'ble Chief Information Commissioner, Maharashtra has created a history of sorts by reviewing his earlier order dated मुमाआ/वास्तु/ईमारत/नकाशे/2013 26 September 2013 (c0py attached), modified it with Fresh Order dated मुमाआ/वास्तु/ईमारत/नकाशे/2013 dated 21 November 2013 (copy attached) and finally withdrew it vide Order No. MuMaAa/Vastu/Emarat/Nakashe/2013 dated 28 November 2013[1], after the RTI Activist lobby, including Mr. Sailesh Gandhi, ex-Central Information Commissioner together with Mr. Bharskar Prabhu, a reknowned RTI Activist from Maharashtra, protested against the same. Thereafter, he has to issue an advisory on 04 December 2013 to caution the Public Authorities not to indulge in refusing information sought regarding "Building Plans", subject to the provision of Section 8(1)(a) of Right to Information Act 2005, to the information seekers. A copy of this advisory is attached herewith.

By this single masterstroke, Hon'ble Chief Information Commissioner has lawfully unwrapped the following legitimate avenues for (in favour of) Information Seekers:

Information Commissioners have to have pro-active[2] and pro-information seeker approach.
The scope of refusing information lies only within Section 8(1) of the Right to Information Act 2005.
The (wicked) order passed by the Information Commissioners can be reviewed.
The (wicked) order passed under Section 19(3) of Right to Information Act 2005 the can be challenged by way of a complaint under Section 18 of the Right to Information Act 2005.
Information Commissioners have to work pro-actively in favour of information seekers, as per scheme of the Right to Information Act 2005.

As per Para 106[3], sub-para 14 of apex court jusgement in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 210 of 2012 decided on 13 September 2012 (Namit Sharma … Petitioner Versus Union of India … Respondent), the court had held that:

*** *** ****
"14. Under the scheme of the Act of 2005, it is clear that the orders of the Commissions are subject to judicial review before the High Court and then before the Supreme Court of India. In terms of Article 141 of the Constitution, the judgments of the Supreme Court are law of the land and are binding on all courts and tribunals. Thus, it is abundantly clear that the Information Commission is bound by the law of precedence, i.e., judgments of the High Court and the Supreme Court of India. In order to maintain judicial discipline and consistency in the functioning of the Commission, we direct that the Commission shall give appropriate attention to the doctrine of precedence and shall not overlook the judgments of the courts dealing with the subject and principles applicable, in a given case. It is not only the higher court's judgments that are binding precedents for the Information Commission, but even those of the larger Benches of the Commission should be given due acceptance and enforcement by the smaller Benches of the Commission. The rule of precedence is equally applicable to intra appeals or references in the hierarchy of the Commission.

Thus, the Information Commissions across the country are bound by the law of precedence, in order to maintain judicial discipline and consistency in the functioning of the Commissions and RTIFED hopes that all the information commissions pan-India shall give appropriate attention to the doctrine of precedence, not only the higher court's judgments that are binding precedents for the Information Commission, but even those of the larger Benches of the Commission should be given due acceptance and enforcement by the smaller Benches of the Commission.

The rule of precedence is equally applicable to intra appeals or references in the hierarchy of the Commissions.

RTIFED emphasize that this historic action of the Marahashtra State Commission will be followed in all State Information Commissions as well as in the Central Information Commission, in letter and spirit, and all the five points enumerated on page-2 above shall be

This communication is sent through electronic media and as such does not require any signature.

RTIFED would like to sit with the commissions to bring a workaround to make this functional in the commissions, and very earnestly seek that the Commissions will bestow their node for this humane issue, would get a invite for this.

The receipt of this communication may please be acknowledged.

Thanking you,
Very cordially yours,

Surendera M. Bhanot
President RTIFED[4]
rtifed@gmail.com
enclosure: as stated please.

A copy is also sent to all RTI NGOs for making similar plea to concerned authorities in their state/area of operation.

[1] Copy of this order is still awaited. But Hon'ble Chief Information Commissioner mentions it in closing lines of last but one Paragraph of his advisory dated 04 December 2013.

[2] Controlling a situation of a policy, person or action, by causing something to happen rather than waiting to respond to it after it happens.

[3] This paragraph of the judgement was not struck down in the review petition Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012 in Writ Petition [C] NO.210 OF 2012 (Union of India … Petitioner Versus Namit Sharma … Respondent) decided on September 03, 2013

[4]RTIFED (formerly known as RTI Activists' Federation and conceived and founded by the legendary Advocate H.C. Arora) is a body looking after the rights of the RTI Applicants and keeping an eye over the happenings of the RTI related matters in various states.