CIC is a quasi-judicial body, empowered to decide issues
entrusted to it by law. Closure of such proceedings in a transparent manner,
would, having regard to the objectives of the Right to Information Act, be
fundamental to the functioning of the CIC. In these circumstances, the CIC is
hereby directed to take up the proceedings from the stage which it dropped them
i.e. the service of the show cause notice under Section 20(1) read with 19(8)(b)
and after hearing the parties make a reasoned order in the circumstances of the
case.
1. Issue notice. Mr. Nigam, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of
respondent Central Information Commission (hereafter ?CIC?). In view of the
order proposed, I feel it is unnecessary to issue notice to the other
respondents.
2. The petitioner sought for information about the transfer policy of the
NPCC through an application under Right to Information Act, on 17.2.2006. He
did not receive any response and, therefore, filed an appeal on 19.5.2006 to the
authority designated by the NPCC. The third respondent, appellate authority,
directed to the
Contd...............2
: 2 :
CPIO, the respondent No.2 to provide information within three days of its order
dated 4.8.2006.
3. In the meanwhile, the petitioner apparently filed a second appeal to
the Central Information Commission (CIC). The CIC had directed the respondents
2 and 3, authorities under the NPCC to file comments and appear in person before
it on 1.11.2006. The CIC by its order dated 1.11.2006 noted that there was
serious delay by the CPIO as well as the appellate authority in providing
information within statutory time limit as stipulated under Section 7(1) and
other provisions of the Act. The CIC, therefore, issued notice to third
respondent asking it to show cause why compensation should not be awarded to the
petitioner under Section 19. Notice was also issued to the second respondent
CPIO as to why penalty should not be imposed under Section 20 of the Act.
4. The petitioner did not thereafter hear anything about the matter and
reminded the CIC on 8.12.2006 about the follow up action. Since no response was
forthcoming, it is alleged that the petitioner, after enquiry, discovered that
the matter was closed on 5.1.2007, through a noting/order proposed by the
Additional Secretary and Registrar to the CIC. The relevant part of the said
noting reads as follows:
?In my view, the Commission can issue a notice to the CPIO under Section 20 of
the RTI Act and issue a warning to Shri
Contd...............3
: 3 :
Arbind Kumar for his failure to perform a statutory duty under the RTI Act.
These can be sent to the Secretary of the Ministry for taking note of.
Submitted for consideration.
With respect to the approval given on pre-page a draft letter to be
issued to Shri Arbind Kumar, CMD(NPCC) is placed below for approval.
IC-T could have imposed the penalty on CPIO who was issued a notice on
10th November, 2006 to furnish his explanation for not providing information in
time. It is felt that we may direct CMD to serve a copy of this notice to Shri
A. Mishra, CPIO and return the Commission a duly signed copy from Shri A. Mishra
to confirm that the notice was actually served on him.
On pre-page IC-T had approved my proposal to issue a warning to CMD,
NPCC. Instead of issuing a warning, I propose to convey displeasure of the
Commission to CMD (NPCC) as this warning may not have any implication since the
Commission is not a disciplinary authority of CMD. It is for the Ministry to
decide his future continuation in the company. A displeasure conveyed by the
Commission may have far reaching implication on his continuation in the company.
Submitted for approval.
DFA.
(P.K. Gera)
Additional Secretary and Registrar
5.1.2007?
5. I am of the considered view that the procedure adopted by the CIC is
curious to say the least. Having issued the show cause notice, even if it were
to decide to drop further proceedings and not direct compensation or penalty, it
ought to have done so formally and not merely closed the file, as it appears to
have done, on the
Contd...............4
: 4 :
basis of some notings. It is a quasi-judicial body, empowered to decide issues
entrusted to it by law. Closure of such proceedings in a transparent manner,
would, having regard to the objectives of the Right to Information Act, be
fundamental to the functioning of the CIC. In these circumstances, the CIC is
hereby directed to take up the proceedings from the stage which it dropped them
i.e. the service of the show cause notice under Section 20(1) read with 19(8)(b)
and after hearing the parties make a reasoned order in the circumstances of the
case.
6. The petition is disposed off in the above terms.
Order Dasti.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT,J
OCTOBER 10, 2007
dkg
41
Print Page
entrusted to it by law. Closure of such proceedings in a transparent manner,
would, having regard to the objectives of the Right to Information Act, be
fundamental to the functioning of the CIC. In these circumstances, the CIC is
hereby directed to take up the proceedings from the stage which it dropped them
i.e. the service of the show cause notice under Section 20(1) read with 19(8)(b)
and after hearing the parties make a reasoned order in the circumstances of the
case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P.(C) 7474/2007
JAI KANT GUPTA ..... Petitioner
versus
THE CENTRAL INFORMATION
COMMISSIONER AND ORS. ...
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
O R D E R
10.10.2007
W.P.(C) 7474/2007
JAI KANT GUPTA ..... Petitioner
versus
THE CENTRAL INFORMATION
COMMISSIONER AND ORS. ...
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
O R D E R
10.10.2007
1. Issue notice. Mr. Nigam, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of
respondent Central Information Commission (hereafter ?CIC?). In view of the
order proposed, I feel it is unnecessary to issue notice to the other
respondents.
2. The petitioner sought for information about the transfer policy of the
NPCC through an application under Right to Information Act, on 17.2.2006. He
did not receive any response and, therefore, filed an appeal on 19.5.2006 to the
authority designated by the NPCC. The third respondent, appellate authority,
directed to the
Contd...............2
: 2 :
CPIO, the respondent No.2 to provide information within three days of its order
dated 4.8.2006.
3. In the meanwhile, the petitioner apparently filed a second appeal to
the Central Information Commission (CIC). The CIC had directed the respondents
2 and 3, authorities under the NPCC to file comments and appear in person before
it on 1.11.2006. The CIC by its order dated 1.11.2006 noted that there was
serious delay by the CPIO as well as the appellate authority in providing
information within statutory time limit as stipulated under Section 7(1) and
other provisions of the Act. The CIC, therefore, issued notice to third
respondent asking it to show cause why compensation should not be awarded to the
petitioner under Section 19. Notice was also issued to the second respondent
CPIO as to why penalty should not be imposed under Section 20 of the Act.
4. The petitioner did not thereafter hear anything about the matter and
reminded the CIC on 8.12.2006 about the follow up action. Since no response was
forthcoming, it is alleged that the petitioner, after enquiry, discovered that
the matter was closed on 5.1.2007, through a noting/order proposed by the
Additional Secretary and Registrar to the CIC. The relevant part of the said
noting reads as follows:
?In my view, the Commission can issue a notice to the CPIO under Section 20 of
the RTI Act and issue a warning to Shri
Contd...............3
: 3 :
Arbind Kumar for his failure to perform a statutory duty under the RTI Act.
These can be sent to the Secretary of the Ministry for taking note of.
Submitted for consideration.
With respect to the approval given on pre-page a draft letter to be
issued to Shri Arbind Kumar, CMD(NPCC) is placed below for approval.
IC-T could have imposed the penalty on CPIO who was issued a notice on
10th November, 2006 to furnish his explanation for not providing information in
time. It is felt that we may direct CMD to serve a copy of this notice to Shri
A. Mishra, CPIO and return the Commission a duly signed copy from Shri A. Mishra
to confirm that the notice was actually served on him.
On pre-page IC-T had approved my proposal to issue a warning to CMD,
NPCC. Instead of issuing a warning, I propose to convey displeasure of the
Commission to CMD (NPCC) as this warning may not have any implication since the
Commission is not a disciplinary authority of CMD. It is for the Ministry to
decide his future continuation in the company. A displeasure conveyed by the
Commission may have far reaching implication on his continuation in the company.
Submitted for approval.
DFA.
(P.K. Gera)
Additional Secretary and Registrar
5.1.2007?
5. I am of the considered view that the procedure adopted by the CIC is
curious to say the least. Having issued the show cause notice, even if it were
to decide to drop further proceedings and not direct compensation or penalty, it
ought to have done so formally and not merely closed the file, as it appears to
have done, on the
Contd...............4
: 4 :
basis of some notings. It is a quasi-judicial body, empowered to decide issues
entrusted to it by law. Closure of such proceedings in a transparent manner,
would, having regard to the objectives of the Right to Information Act, be
fundamental to the functioning of the CIC. In these circumstances, the CIC is
hereby directed to take up the proceedings from the stage which it dropped them
i.e. the service of the show cause notice under Section 20(1) read with 19(8)(b)
and after hearing the parties make a reasoned order in the circumstances of the
case.
6. The petition is disposed off in the above terms.
Order Dasti.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT,J
OCTOBER 10, 2007
dkg
41
No comments:
Post a Comment