Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Decision No.4193/IC(A)/2009
F. No.CIC/MA/A/2009/000209
Dated, the 21st July, 2009
Name of the Appellant:
Facts:
The parties were heard on 22nd April, 28th May and 17th July 2009.
1.
2.
In response to the appellants RTI application dated 26.6.2008, the PIO
replied on 24.7.2008. The PIOs response is re-produced here below:
Sub: Seeking information under RTI Act, 2005 by Shri R.L. Kain
S.No.
RTI Request
1.
The news item appeared in Times of India on
17.06.2008 at page 17 (col. 4-8) (copy enclosed)
reported that the National Commission has
shown its agreement with the Justice Usha
Mehra Commissions report which has
recommended that Scheduled Castes be divided
into groups with the communitys total job quota
apportioned among them in the State of Andhra
Pradesh. If this news items is correct then
please supply the copy of Justice Usha Mehra
Report together with the copy of the State
Governments
request
seeking
advice/recommendations of NCSC as mentioned
in this news clipping and produce the relevant file
for inspection and supply the copy of its decision.
2.
PIOs Reply
The Commission
has not given its
comments in the
issue.
3.
Yes, it can be
obtained
on
payment
of
Rs.444/total
pages
222/-as
per
prescribed
rate @Rs.2/- per
page.
4.
5.
Please refer to
the Report o the
NCSCs & STs on
categorization of
State of A.P.
7.
Please refer to
the Report o the
NCSCs & STs on
categorization of
State of A.P.
8.
Whether is it, correct that the virus of communitywise and sub-groups wise reservation was
invoked/initiated by the Government of Punjab
followed by the Government of Haryana against
the
constitutional
established
scheme
propounded by Baba Saheb Dr. B.R. Ambedkar
as quoted in the majority judgments in all the civil
appeals as mentioned in para 4 of this RTI
application against political exploitation as also
envisaged in the historical Poona Pact made
between Dr. B.R. Ambedkar as the leader of the
The proposal is
under
examination
in
the Commission
10.
11.
Visit
the
Commission No.
such figure has
been maintained
in
the
Commission.
The
Rule
procedure of
National
Commission
SCs
may
obtained
payment
Rs.100/-
of
the
for
be
on
of
3.
Being not satisfied with the above response, the appellant submitted his
1st appeal dated 5.8.2008 in which he pointed out the inadequacies of information
in respect of each point of PIOs response. He has alleged that in response to
the 1st appeal, the PIO, Shri. Kaushal Kumar, Dy. Director, himself replied after a
lapse of over two and a half months vide his letter dated 23.10.2008 as under:
Sub: Seeking information under RTI Act, 2005.
Sir,
I am directed to refer to your appeal addressed to the Joint Secretary and
Appellate Authority, National Commission for Scheduled Castes on the
above mentioned subject and to say that as per order of the Joint
Secretary and the Appellate Authority, NCSC we can provide you only 26
pages out of total 276 pages as asked by you under RTI Act and your
appeal has been transferred to the concerned department u/s 6(3) of the
RTI Act.
Further it is to inform you that it is not finalized by the National
Commission for Scheduled Castes that whether noting pages of the files
of the Commission can be provided to the appellant under RTI Act or not
as the matter is pending in the Court.
6.
During the hearing, the appellant stated that he has asked for information
regarding the proposed categorization of SCs in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
The PIO and the Appellate Authority have unduly harassed and furnished
incomplete information. Specifically, he stated as under:
The PIO provided incomplete information and, therefore, he submitted his 1st
appeal, which was not examined and replied within the stipulated period of 30
45 days. On behalf of the Appellate Authority, the PIO himself replied after
78 days or so, by which time he had submitted his 2nd appeal before the
Commission on 19.12.2008.
The appellant was allowed inspection of records and at least 276 pages were
identified by the appellant. But, the respondent has provided 25 pages only
while the remaining documents, 255 pages have not been furnished to him.
The PIO has also not indicated the reasons for refusal of the documents,
which were identified by the appellant. The Appellate Authority too has not
done the needful.
In response to the 1st appeal dated 5.8.2008, the Appellate Authority of the
respondent replied on 16.2.2009 after a lapse of over six months. And, at this
stage, he transferred the RTI application u/s 6(3) of the Act, to the CPIO of
the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, without indicating as to
which part of information was to be provided by the Ministry. The transfer of
his application at this stage was uncalled for as the respondent is the
custodian of information and the appellant had already inspected the
concerned files and identified the required documents.
The appellant pleaded for both initiating penalty proceedings under Section
20(1) of the Act, against the PIO for denial of information for malafied reasons
and awarding of compensation u/s 19(8)(b) of the Act, for harassment by the
officials of the respondent.
7.
The respondents stated that the appellant was allowed inspection of the
concerned files and 25 pages out of the total 276 pages were furnished. For the
remaining documents, this application was transferred u/s 6(3) of the Act, to the
Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. The Ministry has replied and
stated that the report on sub-categorization of SCs is very confidential and is,
therefore, not in public domain.
(i)
(ii)
The PIO, Shri. Kaushal Kumar is held responsible for denial of information
without any reasonable cause. This is evident from the following:
First, he assured the appellant to provide certain documents on
payment of Rs.444/- but he did not actually intend to do so. Hence,
refused without proper justification. An assessment of replies
under different items indicates lack of concern for sharing the
information held by NCSC.
Second, in response to the 1st appeal filed by the appellant, the
PIO himself replied on behalf of the Appellate Authority, after the
lapse of about 78 days and decided at this stage to transfer the RTI
application u/s 6(3) of the Act, to the respondent-2, the Ministry of
Social Justice and Empowerment, without indicating as to which
part of information was to be supplied by the CPIO of the Ministry.
This also provided ground at a later stage, for endorsing the
decision of the PIO dated 23.10.2008 by the Appellate Authority
vide letter dated 16.02.2009. A PIO is not expected to examine the
1st appeal filed against the decision of the PIO. He has thus erred.
Third, the documents identified during the inspection have not
been furnished without specifying the reasons, which is attributable
(iv)
(v)
In view of the foregoing, we hold that the officials of the respondents have
deliberately adopted such an evasive tactic as would help them in their
design to discourage and harass the appellant from accessing the
information. In the process, the appellant has surely suffered all kinds of
losses - time and money - and harassment in pursuing his RTI application.
14.
The NCSC or its nominee, preferably through Appellate Authority, Shri.
S.S. Sharma, who has allegedly mishandled the entire case, should explain, at
the earliest, as to why a compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five
Thousand only) should not be awarded to the appellant u/s 19(8)(b) of the Act,
for the detriment suffered by him in the process of seeking information. The
respondent-1, through its nominee, should also appear for a personal hearing on
the date and time indicated above, failing which the above amount of
compensation would be awarded to the appellant. The appellant may also be
present.
15.
(M.C. Sharma)
Assistant Registrar
Name & address of Parties:
1.
Shri. R.L. Kain, 66-B, Pocket-I, Dilshad Garden, Delhi 110 095.
2.
Shri. Kaushal Kumar, Dy. Director & PIO, National Commission for
Scheduled Castes, 5th floor, Loknayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi
110 003.
3.
4.
Sh. V.R. Malhotra, Director & PIO, Ministry of Social Justice and
Empowerment, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.
5.
ii
10