news details |
|
|
| CIC sends back RTI application to first appellate authority to identify deficiencies in PIO's order | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, June 1: Chief information commissioner (CIC) G R Sufi has ordered to send an appeal under RTI back to the first appellate authority in law, justice and parliamentary affairs department, with the direction to identify deficiencies and inaccuracies in the order of public information officer (PIO).
The CIC directive came in a 2nd appeal filed by Khuram Parvez before the commission today.
He said the said first appellate authority was required to dispose off the appeal within 20 days from the receipt of this order after giving due opportunity to the appellant. The appellant was also directed to appear before the first appellate authority in law, justice and parliamentary affairs department as and when called by him. The appellant shall be at liberty to file second appeal before this commission within the stipulated period if he was not satisfied with the order to be passed by the first appellate authority on his appeal, the CIC ordered. With these observations, the appeal was accordingly disposed off by him. Irshad Ahmad Mir, special secretary in law department, is the first appellate authority, while Achal Sethi is PIO, law department.
The appellant filed an application on January 12 this year under RTI before PIO, home department, saying that all the information and documents be provided relating to the inquiries ordered and/or conducted by the government, including inquiries under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1962, and magisterial inquiries between 1990 and 2011, with number and details of inquiries, names of accused and their designation, results of the inquiries including the recommendations and findings, resultant consequences on those found guilty and details of the alleged incidents.
The PIO (home department) had either to dispose of the application as expeditiously as possible but not later than 30 days or forward it to the other concerned PIO working under the same public authority or any other public authority within five days after carefully ascertaining whether the information requisitioned was possessed by the other PIO.
It was unfortunate to find that the procedure laid down for forwarding the RTI application to other PIOs under section 5 of the RTI Act, 2009, had not been adhered to. Rather the letter had been written in a causal manner.
The home department which is original receiver of the application should identify all the holders of the information and then forward the RTI application to the concerned PIOs not in a technical fashion but in the manner as laid down in the Act.
As per the Act, the forwarding of the application should be done within five days but in this case the forwarding was done by the PIO very late. So, the PIO (home department) was required to give the reasons for not adhering to the time schedule laid down in the Act so that further action provided under the Act would be initiated. The PIO in the law department responded to this forwarding from the home department on January 16 last very promptly which was appreciable and had provided the information under his possession to the information seeker. The appellant vide his 2nd appeal confirmed of having received the information from the law department.
Again not being satisfied with the adjudication of first appellate authority, the appellant filed 2nd appeal before this commission. In it, he said no document, including reports where available, were provided.
He said while the cover letter indicated that information related to the commissions of inquiries were being provided, the content of the annexure, for example, numbers 3, 4 and 6 related to magisterial enquiries. If a few magisterial enquiries could have been provided, it could be argued that other magisterial enquiries could have also been provided.
The appellant said complete information of all inquiries ordered and/or conducted by the government, including inquiries under the commission of inquiry Act, 1962, and magisterial inquiries between 1990 and 2011, were not provided. As per the information available with the appellant, there were a total of 157 commissions of inquiries and magisterial inquiries from January 1, 2003, to March 1, 2012. Therefore, the information provided was inadequate and misleading.
Also, the names of accused and their designation/units had not been provided. There was also no mention of the resultant consequences on those found guilty.
In response to the appellant's second appeal, the first appellate authority invited the attention of the commission to the order wherein it was clearly mentioned that the appellant may inform the first appellate authority any deficiency or incompleteness in the information which had been provided to him.
The appellant instead of availing this opportunity, approached the commission under section 16 (4), he added.
The Commission pursued the ground of appeal and heard the first appellate authority and PIO of law department.
The first appellate authority submitted that the information which Law Department was having had been provided to the appellant. The other information would be with PIO of home department or various other authorities and before technically forwarding the application to PIO, law department, he should have ascertained whether the information to be provided was entirely in the possession of law department or any other department. It was further submitted that the information seeker, in his RTI application, was also not specific.
After hearing them, the CIC ordered to restore the appeal to the first appellate authority, with the direction that he might identify the deficiencies and inacuracies in the PIO's order. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
