Sub: Flouting and applying unfair practices by the authorities of the CIC at the time of hearing of appeal of the applicant against the mandatory provision of Section 19 (9) & (10)of the RTI Act The RTI Act, 2005 was enacted with an object for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to access of information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority and in persuasion of said object, the Central Information Commission came into existence. I am sorry to state that in my case, the CIC has restrained me from the access of information requested from public authority by treating my appeal No. CIC/OK/A/2008/00397 dated 12/02 2008 under Section 19 (3) as allegation and grievances even without perusing my appeal and not deciding the same as mandatory under Section 19 (10) of the RTI Act. The decision of Shri Shailesh Gandhi, bearing No. CIC/OK/A/2008/00467+00397/ SG/0921, is based on the appeal dated 19/02/2007 of some Dr. Man Mohan Gulati, as reflected from the Notice of Hearing 23/12/2008 and decision of I.C., taken under criminal conspiracy with the FAA. For testimony of my version, the following material facts of my case are illustrated below:- 1. My second appeal was registered by the CIC vide case No. CIC/OK/A/ 2008/00397 on 11/02/2008. 2. My first appeal dated 04/04/2007 was disposed of by the First AA on 14/04/2007, almost after 78 days beyond the prescribed period of 45 days as mandatory under Section 19 (6) without the compliance of information sought under Section 6 (3) of the RTI Act. 3. Despite the above time barred and incomplete disposal of my first appeal, the CIC has served me Notice of Hearing 23/12/2008 for the hearing of appeal of some Dr. Man Mohan Gulati, submitted by him on 10/02/2007 almost one year before the date of my second appeal. 4. On the date of hearing, the Information Commissioner Shri Shailesh Gandhi started the hearing without having my appeals and the related supporting statutory documents on his table. He was looking at his desk top, which was containing preloaded arbitrary and tainted decision as revealed after the decision is served. I was not expecting his unique gesture when he asked me about the information which I am looking for from the authorities of IIT Kanpur. Such gesture was not in conformation of Rule 5 of the CIC (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2005 which might be not complied with either purposely oron account of ignorance of said rules. 5. As no papers relating to my appeals were available with him, I apprised him that the Institute is not providing me any information, mandatory under Section 6 (3) of the RTI Act relating to protection of Article 16 of the Constitution of India and the status of my Legal Notice, served in the year 1979 for the protection of F.R. 31-A against phasing our my statutory post of Chief Store Keeper by violating clause (b) of Section 33 (2) of the I. T. Act, 1961. 6. Thereafter, he turned up to PIO of IIT Kanpur, who has provided him totally false verbal information, neither received on oath nor on affidavit as mandatory under Rule 5 (i) of the CIC (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2005. The Information Commissioner even did not corroborate the testimony of the information of PIO from the relevant statutory documents, provided by me along with my appeal. 7. Immediately after the false reply of PIO, the Information Commissioner abruptly concluded his decision even without extending me an opportunity to cross examine the PIO. He treated my request for information as allegations, grievances and seeking information without identifying any of these. Even no compliance is ensured of providing me the information under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act. He has stated that the PIO has given information, without recording the same in his decision, but the applicant expects that his grievances will be resolved under RTI. This is not the domain of RTI. The decision itself reflects that the Information Commissioner was not fully aware of the domain of RTI Act with specific reference to clause (b) of Section 19 (8) of the RTI Act. He further instructed both the parties to collect the decision from the office forthwith. 8. The decision was served within 5 minutes and the entire proceeding took not more than 15 minutes without the compliance of Section 19 (9) of the RTI act. The tainted decision is not even get authenticated from the Registrar as mandatory under Rule 8 of the CIC (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2005. 9. On perusal of the decision I am surprised to note that it was neither containing any details of my first and second appeal nor of the tainted decision of the First AA of IIT Kanpur. 10. The unfair practice of Criminal Conspiracy came to my notice when I found that the decision of Information Commissioner was not concluded on the basis of my appeal No. CIC/OK/A/2008/ 00397 dated 12/02/2008 but on the appeal dated 19/02/2007 of Dr. Man Mohan Gulati, which was also referred in the Notice of Hearing. 11. I immediately brought this serious anomaly in the notice of Designated Officer & Asst. Registrar of CIC who admitted the anomaly in the decision and advised me to file review petition under Section 23 of the RTI Act. 12. I preferred an appeal under Section 23 of the RTI Act dated 24/01/2009, addressed to the Designated Officer & Asstt. Registrar but he has not acknowledged the same. Thereafter, I have submitted a number of my appeals to Hon’ble Chief Information Commissioner since 19/02/2009 but my appeals are not heard by the competent authorities of CIC till date. 13. I have received reply of my one of the appeal dated 05/06/2009 from Shri S. L. Bhuttan, who returned my said appeal without any directives from the competent authority, by stating that the Rule 23 of the CIC (Management) Regulations, 2007 now stands as ‘ A decision or an order once pronounced by the Commission shall be final’. 14. I am surprised to note the legal competency of the learned authorities who have introduced the said regulation under misinterpretation of Section 12 (4) of the RTI Act and by violating Section 28 & 29 of the RTI Act. 15. I immediately refer the issue before the Lok Sabha Secretariat on 26/08/2009 for confirming any such amendment of Section 23 by an illicit CIC Regulation 23. The Deputy Secretary of Lok Sabha Shri Harish Chandra has very kindly informed me vide letter No. 1 (522)IC/09 dated 29/09/2009 that “No Government Bill seeking to amend the RTI Act has been introduced in Lok Sabha so far. 16. Thereafter I prefer a number of appeals to the Chief Information Commissioner from time to time for extending me the protection of Section 23 of the RTI act in view of the fact the decision dated 07/01/2009 of Information Commissioner is not concluded on the basis of my appeal. 17. I am surprised to note from the reply of Shri Pankaj K. P. Shreyaskar, Director & Jt. Registrar informing me vide his letter No. CIC/CPIO/2011/1190 dated 06/09/2011 stating that CPIO is not competent to interpret Section 23 of the RTI Act hence the Registry Office is not placing my appeal before the Chief Information Commissioner. In the same letter, he is supporting the conviction of Shri S. L. Bhuttan, Asstt. Registrar expressed by him in his letter dated 17/06/2009 regarding Finality of Decision under CIC Regulation 23, despite the fact Mr Shreyaskar was already informed by the Deputy Secretary of Lok Sabha Secretariat vide letter No. 1(522)/IC/09 dated 22 March 2010 about the invalidity of CIC Regulation 23. 18. In his e-mail dated 25/04/2012 Mr. Sheryaskar, being a responsible authority of CIC is misinterpreting Section 19 (7) of the RTI Act by stating that decision of the Commission shall be final. I feel pity on his legal competence by not identifying the scope and correlation of a sub-section with rest of the preceding sub sections of Section 19. The decision under Section 19 (7) is confined to admitting the appeal beyond 30 days of the decision of FAA but not exceeding till 45 days as explicitly laid down under Section 19 (6) of the RTI Act. On the contrary, the Commission has evaded to exercise Section 19(7) and thereby violated Section 19(6) by admitting the time barred disposal of my first appeal beyond 45 days by the FAA As a result of his misinterpretation of Section 19 (7), he is completely ignoring the existence of Section 23 of the RTI Act. and not placing my appeals before the Chief Information Commissioner tantamount to dereliction of his statutory duties and disobeying the law with indent to cause injury to applicant, is covered under Section 166 of IPC. 19. I was invited by Ms. Anita Gupta, Additional Secretary & FAA of CIC on 20/04/2011 for hearing first appeal dated 11/03.2011 against the response of CPIO of CIC dated 25/02/2011. The meeting was also to be attended by three CPIOs but only Mr. M.C. Sharma was available on the date of hearing. The FAA directed Shri Sharma, CPIO to hear me in his room. I apprised Shri Sharma that the decision of Information Commissioner is not based on some fictitious appeal and my appeals are not taken into account. He explicitly stated that he is not competent to offer any comments on the decision of Information Commissioner. Thereafter, I apprised him the date of submission on my appeal and the date of order of the FAA of IIT Kanpur after 78 days beyond the prescribed limit of 45 days. He admitted the lapse on the part of CIC and shall inform the FAA about this omission. For rest of the information, he directed me to contact the FAA of CIC in her room. I apprised her various issues which are either not responded or provide wrong information by the Commission. She also expressed incapability to offer any comments on the forged decision of the Information Commissioner and ended the meeting by stating that her decision shall be conveyed to me by post. On receipt of her decision through Speed Post, I have noted the FAA has not even provided the mandatory information relating to mandatory provisions of the RTI Act. I am surprised to note her decision while informing me that the Commission does not maintain any information in compliance of clause (c) of Section 25 (3) of the RTI Act and there is no provision for review of decision under Section (23) of the RTI Act. She has also declined to provide me a copy of forged second appeal dated 19/02/2007, referred in the decision of the Information Commissioner. She could not justify on the formulation of CIC (Management) Regulations, 2007 and the reply of the CPIOs of CIC regarding the validity of Rule 23 of the said Regulations is not in conformation of Section 23 of the RTI Act. She failed to identify the fact that the said decision was neither based on my appeal nor is in conformation of Section 19 (10) of the RTI Act. She also appears to be ignorant of the CIC (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2005 with specific reference to Rule 5(i) and 8 as the said decision was not even get authenticated by the Registrar and not complied with by the Information Commissioner at the time of hearing. 20. Lastly, I am annexing the copy of reply and e-mail of Shri Pankaj K.P. Sheryaskar, Director and Joint Registrar of CIC which will disclose his malafied intention by providing me misleading information on account of his close association with the late Appellate Authority of IIT Kanpur. 21. I am pained to state that the apex information providing agency of Central Government, established with a very noble vision of the Parliament of India, is indulged in applying unfair practices by restraining me from information in respect of allegations of violation of human rights, despite mandatory under Section 25 (1) of the RTI Act, for the last seven years to a senior citizen of the country. J S Rawat B/12A, ISHAAN 2, SATELLITE AHMEDABAD - 380015
Posted on: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 05:47:03 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015