CIC IS NOT TAKING FINAL DECISION – CPIO GETTING BENEFIT OUT OF ITS INACTION

M. K. Gupta 
RTI Volunteer and Jt. Secy. Dwarka Forum

The Parliament has passed the RTI Act to secure information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority by empowering Aam Aadmi to fighting corruption. Central and State Information Commissions have also been set up for to receive and inquire into a complaint from any person who has not been given information in accordance to the provisions of the RTI Act. For ensuring the compliance of the Act, the Commissions have the powers to penalize the defaulting Public Information Officers also. But, in practice, an appellant is required to follow his case so vigorously that he finally fails to follow up his case without ample time at his disposal and legal expertise. 
An example of the complaint (No. AD/A/2010/000144) filed by M K. Gupta against the CPIO, News Service Division, All India Radio which was first heard on 5th April this year by Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Central Information Commissioner has been given for your information and to know the ground realities in making continuous follow up at CIC.  M. K Gupta has now prayed to Shri A N Tiwari, Chief Information Commissioner to advice Mrs. Dixit, Information Commissioner for taking a final decision in the case at an early date as the CPIO is retiring in December.
The progress of the case in chronological order has been given below:
S. No.
Date
Proceeding/ Event
Order Passed/ Other Development
i.
5.4.2010
First Hearing.
Show Cause notice u.s.18 (2) of RTI Act issued. The CPIO was given time of 35 days to reply and Complainant was given 5 days to submit compliance report.
ii.
20.5.10.
Complainant intimates CIC about the non-compliance of its aforesaid order.
iii.
28.5.10
Adjunct to order dated 05.04.10 passed by CIC.
Last and final opportunity was granted to the Respondent in the Show Cause Notice issued again.42 days time was given to the CPIO to submit compliance report.
iv.
19.6.2010
Complainant filed RTI application to know the status of the case.
Nil
v.
26.6.2010
Order dated 28.5.10 was sent (after 28 days) by Speed Post to the complainant.
vi.
10.7.2010
Sent letter to CIC intimating about misleading information given by CPIO.
vii.
12.7.10
Received undated letter from Shri G. Subramanian, CPIO, CIC intimating that my letter of 19th June, 2010 for knowing the status of the case is pending.
viii.
23.7.10
Shri G. Subramanian, CPIO, CIC in his reply dated 6th July to my RTI application has informed that the order dated 28.5.10 was given to dispatch section on 23 June (i.e. after 25 days).  He has also informed, “there is no indication when the order was signed” and “no reasons are noted in the file for the delay”. (delay in giving the order to dispatch section).
RTI dated 6th July was filed as the Complainant doubted passing of order dated 28th May, 10 in back date.
ix.
27.8.2010
Case was re-heard even after giving last and final opportunity to CPIO in the order dated 28.5.2010.
CPIO was again issued show cause notice. CPIO was given 30 days for giving information, affidavit and copy of FIR. Appellant was given time of 7 days to submit compliance report.
x.
27.09.10/
4.10.10.
CPIO submits compliance report/
Complainant intimate shortcomings in the compliance report.
xi.
28.10.10.
Complainant files RTI application inter alia to know to know the current status of the case.
Though the CPIO sent his reply on 27the Sept. and the Complainant has also delivered Compliance Report on 4.10.2010 but the no decision has yet been taken.  The CPIO has been given more than reasonable opportunities but the final order is pending. Incidentally, the CPIO is retiring after two months and if any decision is taken to impose penalty or recommending disciplinary action, after his retirement will be meaningless. 

Leave a Reply