Central Information Commission
No.CIC/WB/A/2007/01166 dated 6.3.2007
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated 01.04.2009
Appellant: Shri R.L. Kain
Respondent: Ministry of Defence
The Appellant along with Shri Manoj Kumar Kain, is present. On behalf of the Respondent, the following are present:- (i) Shri V.K. Lagan, Dir (Estt) (ii) Shri A.K. Gupta, US
The brief facts of the case are as under.
2. The Appellant had, in his application dated 6 March 2007, requested the CPIO for a large number of information on the action taken by the authorities on a number of representations made by him regarding the garlanding of the statue of Dr Ambedkar in the Parliament House lawns by the President of India on the Republic Day. The CPIO, in his reply dated 28 match 2007, requested the Appellant to provide him the copies of his applications as those were not found received in their office. Finally, in his reply dated 26 April 2007, the CPIO responded to various queries made by the Appellant by providing comments/clarification/information on each of them. Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, he preferred an appeal before the first Appellate Authority on 9 May 2007. On behalf of the first Appellate Authority, the CPIO informed the Appellant that the first Appellate Authority considered his appeal but endorsed the decision of the CPIO. The Appellant has come before the CIC in second appeal against the order of the Appellate Authority as conveyed by the CPIO. No.CIC/WB/A/2007/01166 dated 6.3.2007
3. During the hearing, both the parties made several submissions. The Appellant was specially concerned that the Public Authority did not maintain records filed by citizens as expected under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. He referred to his own representations made to various authorities in the government in this regard and also referred to a communication sent by the then Home Minister to the Defence Minister, action taken on which was sought by him. The Respondent submitted that the CPIO had searched the records in the Ministry but could not trace many of these documents, possibly because these were sent many years back. The Respondent also argued that many of these documents could have been weeded out following the retention schedule of records prevalent in the government.
4. In spite of the above, we would like to direct the CPIO to provide to the Appellant within 10 working days from the receipt of this order a copy of the government order on retention schedule of records and also a copy of the relevant register, if available, in which the representations sent by the Appellant to the Ministry or to any other authority which got transferred to the Ministry had been destroyed/weeded out following the retention schedule. We also direct the CPIO to provide copies of the file notings of the file in which the joint memorandum of January 2007 had been processed (item 4 of the application).
5. The Appellant drew our attention to the fact that the RTI applicants had been finding it difficult to give their applications and the application fees to the various CPIOs in the Defence Ministry causing harassment to the citizens. The Respondent said that the Ministry had since made adequate arrangements to receive such applications without any difficulty to the public. We would expect that the Ministry would be more sensitive to the needs of the citizens and improve its infrastructure so that the citizens would find it easy to give their applications and application fees for securing information from the Ministry. No.CIC/WB/A/2007/01166 dated 6.3.2007
6. In this case, we also noted that the first Appellate Authority did not pass the order himself on the appeal filed before him but asked the CPIO to convey the order on its behalf. This is not permissible. The first Appellate Authority has to hear the appeal himself and give an opportunity of hearing to the Appellant and pass the order. It is not correct to delegate this function to someone else.
7. With the above directions and observations, the appeal is disposed off.
8. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Satyananda Mishra)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla)
Assistant Registrar
No.CIC/WB/A/2007/01166 dated 6.3.2007
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated 01.04.2009
Appellant: Shri R.L. Kain
Respondent: Ministry of Defence
The Appellant along with Shri Manoj Kumar Kain, is present. On behalf of the Respondent, the following are present:- (i) Shri V.K. Lagan, Dir (Estt) (ii) Shri A.K. Gupta, US
The brief facts of the case are as under.
2. The Appellant had, in his application dated 6 March 2007, requested the CPIO for a large number of information on the action taken by the authorities on a number of representations made by him regarding the garlanding of the statue of Dr Ambedkar in the Parliament House lawns by the President of India on the Republic Day. The CPIO, in his reply dated 28 match 2007, requested the Appellant to provide him the copies of his applications as those were not found received in their office. Finally, in his reply dated 26 April 2007, the CPIO responded to various queries made by the Appellant by providing comments/clarification/information on each of them. Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, he preferred an appeal before the first Appellate Authority on 9 May 2007. On behalf of the first Appellate Authority, the CPIO informed the Appellant that the first Appellate Authority considered his appeal but endorsed the decision of the CPIO. The Appellant has come before the CIC in second appeal against the order of the Appellate Authority as conveyed by the CPIO. No.CIC/WB/A/2007/01166 dated 6.3.2007
3. During the hearing, both the parties made several submissions. The Appellant was specially concerned that the Public Authority did not maintain records filed by citizens as expected under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. He referred to his own representations made to various authorities in the government in this regard and also referred to a communication sent by the then Home Minister to the Defence Minister, action taken on which was sought by him. The Respondent submitted that the CPIO had searched the records in the Ministry but could not trace many of these documents, possibly because these were sent many years back. The Respondent also argued that many of these documents could have been weeded out following the retention schedule of records prevalent in the government.
4. In spite of the above, we would like to direct the CPIO to provide to the Appellant within 10 working days from the receipt of this order a copy of the government order on retention schedule of records and also a copy of the relevant register, if available, in which the representations sent by the Appellant to the Ministry or to any other authority which got transferred to the Ministry had been destroyed/weeded out following the retention schedule. We also direct the CPIO to provide copies of the file notings of the file in which the joint memorandum of January 2007 had been processed (item 4 of the application).
5. The Appellant drew our attention to the fact that the RTI applicants had been finding it difficult to give their applications and the application fees to the various CPIOs in the Defence Ministry causing harassment to the citizens. The Respondent said that the Ministry had since made adequate arrangements to receive such applications without any difficulty to the public. We would expect that the Ministry would be more sensitive to the needs of the citizens and improve its infrastructure so that the citizens would find it easy to give their applications and application fees for securing information from the Ministry. No.CIC/WB/A/2007/01166 dated 6.3.2007
6. In this case, we also noted that the first Appellate Authority did not pass the order himself on the appeal filed before him but asked the CPIO to convey the order on its behalf. This is not permissible. The first Appellate Authority has to hear the appeal himself and give an opportunity of hearing to the Appellant and pass the order. It is not correct to delegate this function to someone else.
7. With the above directions and observations, the appeal is disposed off.
8. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Satyananda Mishra)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla)
Assistant Registrar
No comments:
Post a Comment