1
1
SECOND APPEAL UNDER SEC 19(3)
AND COMPLAINT UNDER
SEC 18(1)(b), (e) and (f)
Of the RTI Act 2005
NOTE: I request to the Hon’ble CIC to allow me to
attend the hearing of this Second Appeal cum Complaint
by Video Conferencing.
Date: 10 July 2010
2
2
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
S. No. Description Page No.
1. Index of Documents 2
3. List of Dates in Chronological order 3
4. Certificate 4
5. Name and Address of appellant 5
6. Name and Address of CPIO and FAA 5
7. Particulars of RTI Application & Decision/Order against which appeal preferred
6
8. Brief facts leading to this Second Appeal cum Complaint
6 - 8
9. Ground for Second Appeal cum Complaint
9 - 18
10. Prayer in this Second Appeal cum Complaint
19 - 21
11. Copy of RTI Application and proof of payment of application fee
22 - 24
12. Copy of CPIO’s reply
25 - 26
13. Copy of First Appeal
27 - 30
14. Copy of Addendum to First Appeal (with photographs)
31 – 36
15. Copy of FAA’s order
37
3
3
LIST OF DATES IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER
S. No. Details Date Remarks
1. RTI Application 03 May 2010 Submitted personally by hand,
Copy attached
2. Reply from CPIO 28 May 2010 Copy of CPIO’s reply attached
3. First Appeal 06 June 2010 Sent by email
4. Addendum to First
Appeal 13 June 2010 Sent by email
5. First Appellate Order 30 June 2010
6. Second Appeal 10 July 2010 Filed online
4
4
C E R T I F I C A T E
I hereby certify that the matters under this Second Appeal cum Complaint have not
been previously filed, or pending, with any court or tribunal or with any other
authority.
Sd/- C.J. Karira
(C.J. Karira)
5
5
Name and Address of Appellant:
C.J. Karira Plot No. 26, Road No. 1, Balamrai Society Mahendra Hills Secunderabad - 500026 Tel: 040-27733114, 27732227 Mobile: 9848203583 Email: [email protected]
Name and Address of CPIO:
Shri Srinivas Gotru, IFS Regional Passport Officer Passport Office Kummaraguda Hyderabad – 500003 Tel: 040-27708585/27715333
Name and Address of First Appellate Authority:
(Before whom the First Appeal was preferred)
Sh. A. Manickam, Joint Secretary (CPV) & Chief Passport Officer, Ministry of External Affairs, Room No. 20, Patiala House Annexe, Tilak Marg, New Delhi -110 001 Tel. No. : 0091 11 23387104 Fax no : 0091 11 23782821 E-mail : [email protected]
6
6
Particulars of RTI Application and the Decision or Order against which this Second Appeal cum Complaint is preferred:
• RTI Application No. RTI/RPO/001/2010 dated 3rd May 2010 (attached 3
pages)
• CPIO’s reply Ref. No. HYD/RTI/551/150/2009 dated 28th May 2010
(attached 2 pages)
• First Appeal dated 6th June 2010 (attached 4 pages)
• Addendum to First Appeal dated dated 13th June 2010 (attached 6 pages)
• FAA’s order Ref NIL dated 30 June 2010
Brief facts leading to this Second Appeal cum Complaint:
1. I had applied for certain information – as per the attached RTI application
regarding PIO Name Board, Telephone enquiry numbers, email id for enquiry,
Names of responsible officers, inspection of work, etc. to the CPIO, Regional
Passport office, Hyderabad.
2. The RTI Application was accompanied by the requisite fee of Rs. 10.00 by IPO
Nr. 77E 061032.
7
7
3. The RTI application was submitted personally by hand, with a lot of difficulty,
on 3rd May 2010.
4. The CPIO replied to me vide his letter Ref. No. HYD/RTI/551/150/2009 dated
28th May 2010 with incomplete, incorrect, misleading information and did not
give me the opportunity to inspect all the information that I had requested.
5. Being aggrieved by the order of the CPIO, I preferred to file a First Appeal
under Sec 19(1) of the RTI Act vide my letter dated 6th June 2010, addressed
to the First Appellate Authority, praying that the complete information should
be provided to me, the information should be provided “free of charge” as
mandated in Sec 7(6) of the RTI Act, inspection should be allowed as
requested by me and I should be given a “personal hearing” during the
first appeal.
6. Subsequently, on 10th June 2010, I visited the RPO Hyderabad to “inspect”
the Name Board of the PIO/FAA as allowed by the CPIO in his response. I had
to suffer humiliation, insults (including four letter words and gaalis)
and was stopped several times by Security Guards at the entrance to
the Public Authority. Apparently, no one has heard of something called the
RTI Act nor the “inspection” to be carried on by applicants.
I was also not allowed to meet the CPIO and was not allowed to enter the
8
8
staircase leading up to the main office. For over 2 hours, I tried my best to
get access for inspection but was made to shuttle from one person to the
other and finally to the enquiry counter.
At the enquiry counter, I could spot some type of board located inside the
enquiry room and not at all visible from the outside. The entry to that enquiry
room is prohibited for ordinary citizens.
Finally, with great difficulty, I could take pictures of the so called name board
located there.
7. Based on the above bad experience, I filed an addendum to my first appeal
to the FAA on 13th June 2010, narrating my experience and also pointing out
that the information available on the Name Board was outdated as well as
that the name board itself was not clearly visible.
8. The First Appellate Authority has now passed an order dated 30th June 2010
stating that the PIO has provided all the available information and that there
is no further disclosure obligation.
9. I am now preferring this Second Appeal cum Complaint under Sec 19(3)
and Sec 18(1)(b), (e) and (f) of the RTI Act, to the Hon’ble CIC.
9
9
GROUNDS FOR SECOND APPEAL CUM COMPLAINT
1. As evidenced by the following table, the CPIO has provided me incorrect,
incomplete, misleading information and also has denied me access
to information by not facilitating my access to information. (Sec
18(1)(d) and (e))
S. No.
Information sought Information provided Remarks
1. Location of Name Board
of PIO Located in the Enquiry counter in the cellar
Incorrect information – on visiting the enquiry counter no such name board was found. On checking with the staff on
duty, the name board was located hidden behind a
cupboard and moreover the name of the PIO was of a
Officer who had been transferred from Hyderabad a
long time ago. The name of the FAA is also
incorrect.
2. Enquiry Telephone
numbers Telephone Numbers Information provided
3. Name, etc. of
responsible Officer for telephone answering
No reply – Deemed denial
Not provided
4. Email id for enquiry email Information provided
5. Name, etc. for
responsible officer for answering emails
No reply – Deemed denial
Not provided
6. Suo Motu disclosure under Sec 4(1)(b)
On website www.ap.nic.in/passport
Incorrect and misleading information – on visiting the website no such information is
available
7.
Name, etc. of responsible Officer for
complying with provisions of the RTI
Act
No reply – Deemed denial
Not provided
10
10
8. Mode of publicizing Sec
4(1)(b) Available on
www.passport.gov.in
Incorrect and misleading information – although some information is given there, it is
incomplete
9. HTML link for Sec 4(1)(b) disclosure
www.passport.gov.in Information provided
10. Norms for discharge of functions as per Sec
4(1)(b)(iv)
No reply – Deemed denial
Not provided
11a. Inspection of name
board Inspect on any working
day
Incorrect and misleading information and refusal to
access information – no specific date provided. The
security staff do not allow to enter premises
11b. Inspection regarding answering of enquiry
telephones
No reply – Deemed denial
Not provided
11c. Inspection regarding answering of emails
No reply – Deemed denial
Not provided
11d. Inspection of all
“information” regarding operating of telephones
No reply – Deemed denial
Not provided
11e.
Inspection of all “information” regarding
emails received and replies given
No reply – Deemed denial
Not provided
2. I was physically prevented from conducting inspection, not allowed to
meet the CPIO for inspection and also the choicest of abuses were hurled
at me by the staff at the Passport office. This amounts to refusal to access
information. (Sec 18(1)(b))
3. The information regarding the name of the designated PIO/FAA itself is
very confusing, as shown in the following table:
CPIO FAA On the website Mr Srinivas Gotru Mr A Manickam
As informed by CPIO Mr Srinivas Gotru Mr A Manickam As on Name Board Mr Bala Bhaskar Mr R Swaminathan
The CPIO who signed on the reply
Mr A T Murthy N.A.
11
11
4. The reply to my RTI application has been signed by A.T. Murthy, Deputy
Passport officer and PIO. As per the RTI Act, all information should be
provided by the CPIO under his own signature. This is because as per Sec
19(5) of the RTI Act, the onus to prove that a denial of request was
justified shall be on the CPIO who denied the request. Moreover, under
Sec 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act, it is only the CPIO who is liable for
Penalty and Disciplinary action.
http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_02112006_3.pdf
In terms of RTI Act, it is the responsibility of the designated PIO/CPIO to deal with applications under the Act and any decision on the same has to be taken by the said CPIO. In terms of Section 20(1), he can also be penalized for knowingly furnishing incorrect, incomplete, misleading information etc,. and therefore, every decision has to be conveyed under the signature of the designated CPIO. Likewise, comments on the appeal also has to be sent under his signature as he has to justify the decision taken by him. Therefore, the CPMG may advise all the CPIOs under her control to ensure that all the RTI applications are disposed of under their own signatures and that normal office procedure to convey decisions, is not applicable in communicating decisions under the RTI Act.
http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_17072006_3.pdf
This is yet another case, wherein, in the Ministry of Health, the information has been furnished by the Under
12
12
Secretary and not by the designated CPIO. Comments have been furnished by a Director. It appears that a proper system of dealing with RTI applications in terms of the provisions of RTI Act is not in place in the Ministry. The Secretary of the Ministry will ensure, that a proper system is established and that RTI applications are handled by designated CPIO/s and all the replies go under his signature. Likewise, decisions by the Appellate Authority should also go under his signature. In the present case, since there has been a delay of over 75 days in furnishing the information, in the normal course, I would have to issue a show cause notice to the CPIO, for imposition of penalty in terms of Section 20 of the RTI Act. However, in the absence of details like the name of the CPIO and whether this application has been handled by any designated CPIO etc., I leave it to the Secretary of the Ministry to fix responsibility for the delay and take such action, as he may deem necessary. A compliance report on the system of handling RTI applications in the Ministry and instructions issued on handling of applications by CPIO(s) and appeals by the Appellate authority as indicated above may be sent to this Commission within 15 days of this Decision.
http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_05052006_3.pdf We agree with the appellant that in the
normal course an applicant for information has a right to receive the reply from the PIO and the PIO only. We, however, see no legal difficulty in the PIO using the services of an APIO to transmit the
13
13
former’s decision on the application for information through the APIO. In our understanding, this will not lead to any miscarriage of justice or place undue restriction on an information seeker’s rights under the RTI Act. We, however, like to caution that any order issued by a APIO on behalf of PIO must clearly state that the former was only transmitting the orders of latter and should also state the name and the designation of the PIO on whose behalf the AAPIO might be acting. This will enable the information seeker to bring against the PIO any charge of delay etc. if that happens to be the case.
5. The CPIO has not allowed me inspection of various work and information
as requested in items 11a, b, c, d and e of my RTI application. This is
“deemed denial” of information.
6. The FAA has passed a very casual order in response to my painstakingly
prepared First Appeal and “Addendum” to First Appeal, which raised
various issues and was clearly argued.
http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/WB-27042009-02.pdf
At the same time, we find that the disposal of the RTI application and first appeal in the PMO has been so summary as to make short shrift of an appeal painstakingly prepared by a conscientious citizen exercising what he perceives as his right. Particularly in his first appeal, appellant Shri Ratna has made a case as to why “opinion” is to be treated as information u/s 2(f), but response of
14
14
JS Ms. Vini Mahajan Appellate Authority does not even attempt to address the issue but is summarily dismissed, an action unbecoming of an appellate authority particularly in so august a public authority as the PMO.
7. The First Appellate Authority has done great prejudice to me by his failure
to pass a speaking order with respect to my “prayers” No. 1 to 6 of my
First Appeal and prayers no. 1 to 3 of my Addendum to First Appeal
The question merely is “ has the FAA been fair in dealing with my
first appeal?” If he has been casual, arbitrary, absent-minded,
unreasonable or un-speaking then it should lead to the obvious
conclusion that there has been no fair play.
“If no reasons are given in the appellate orders, then it is injustice to the natural justice because quasi judicial obligations are giving reasons for order, since justice is not expected to wear the inscrutable face of a sphinx” (Ibrahim Kunju v.State of Kerala AIR 1970 Ker 65).
8. The First Appellate Authority has passed an order without giving me an
opportunity of being heard.
Under the RTI Act, the role of the First Appellate Authority (FAA) is to
decide a dispute arising between the RTI Applicant and the PIO. It is
precisely because of the powers vested in such a authority that the Apex
Court, while discussing this issue in Province of Bombay Vs.
15
15
Kusaldas S.Advani and Ors (AIR 1950 SC 222) and held in
paragraph 173:
“……if a statute empowers an authority, not being a Court in the ordinary sense, to decide disputes arising out of a claim which is opposed by another party and to determine the respective rights of the contesting parties who are opposed to each other, there is a lis and prima facie in the absence of anything in the statute to the contrary, it is the duty of the authority to act judicially and the decision of the authority is a quasi-judicial act.”
Therefore, there can be no doubt that the First Appellate Authority is a
“quasi-judicial” authority under the RTI Act 2005. He must therefore not
only do justice but must also be seen to do justice. The FAA must follow
the principles of natural justice. The rules of natural justice are rooted in all
legal and quasi-judicial systems, are not any 'new theology', and are
manifested in the twin principles of nemo judes in sua cause and audi
alteram partem – right to be heard.
It is therefore essential that the FAA must provide an opportunity to the
appellant to be heard, after issuing due notice and setting a date, even
though the RTI Act does not specifically provide for it and especially so,
when the appellant has specifically “prayed” for such a personal hearing.
In the case of -- 'Bibi Nazma Khatoon v. R.P. Sinha', 1954 Pat 43 (AIR
16
16
V 41) (F), it was laid down as follows:
"It is a fundamental principle of justice
that the party against whom a judgment or order is to operate should have opportunity of being heard. The principle is embodied in the maxim 'audi alteram partem'. That is the general rule, and a breach of this rule affects the jurisdiction of the Court or Tribunal which passes final order."
Recently, in the case of M/s Nagarjuna Construction Company Limited
v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. While deciding Civil Appeal 1438
of 2004, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed on 20th October 2008:
“35.The adherence to principles of natural justice as recognized by all civilized States is of supreme importance when a quasi-judicial body embarks on determining disputes between the parties, or any administrative action involving civil consequences is in issue. These principles are well settled. The first and foremost principle is what is commonly known as audi alteram partem rule. It says that no one should be condemned unheard. Notice is the first limb of this principle. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should appraise the party determinatively the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him. This is one of the
17
17
most important principles of natural justice. It is after all an approved rule of fair play. The concept has gained significance and shades with time. When the historic document was made at Runnymede in 1215, the first statutory recognition of this principle found its way into the "Magna Carta". The classic exposition of Sir Edward Coke of natural justice requires to "vocate interrogate and adjudicate". In the celebrated case of Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works (1963 (143) ER 414),the principle was thus stated:
"Even God did not pass a sentence upon Adam, before he was called upon to make his defence. "Adam" says God, "where art thou has thou not eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that though should not eat".
Since then the principle has been chiselled, honed and refined, enriching its content. Judicial treatment has added light and luminosity to the concept, like polishing of a diamond. 36. Principles of natural justice are those rules which have been laid down by the Courts as being the minimum protection of the rights of the individual against the arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by a judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authority while making an order affecting those rights. These rules are intended to prevent such authority from doing injustice.
9. The First Appellate Authority has not offered me an opportunity for a hearing, even though I had specifically “prayed” for it and also agreed to participate in the hearing by telephone, at my own expense.
Appeal Nos. 952, 953 and 954/CIC/2009 Dt. 10.05.2010 of the APSIC: (C J Karira v/s SPIO and FAA of APSIC)
18
18
10. The First Appellate Authority has not given me any notice “hearing”, has not informed me the date of hearing and has not heard me before passing his order. He has therefore grossly violated the principles of Natural Justice and done me grave injustice by passing his order
mentioned above. [Sec 18(1)(f)]
19
19
MY PRAYERS IN THIS SECOND APPEAL CUM COMPLAINT Vide powers vested in the Hon’ble Commission under Sec 19(8) and 25(5) to:
1. Order the CPIO, to provide me the correct and complete information requested in item nos. 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 of my RTI application.
2. Order the CPIO to facilitate “inspection” for item
nos. 11a, b, c, d and e of my RTI application.
3. Instruct the CPIO to now provide me all the balance and pending information, as well as allow me inspection, “free of charge” since the information is now delayed well beyond the 30 days limit as mandated in Sec 7(6) of the RTI Act.
4. Issue a “Show Cause” notice to the CPIO, under Sec
20(1) of the RTI Act, to show cause as to why a maximum Penalty of Rs. 25,000.00 should not be imposed on him for:
• Knowingly providing me incorrect and
misleading information • Malafidely denying me the requested
information • Obstructing me from accessing information
I want to be a party to all the show cause notice proceedings as well as all the Penalty proceedings
20
20
since I am the applicant and know all the details of the case fully well.
5. Issue a written warning to the CPIO, that he should
respect and observe the RTI Act in letter and spirit as well as sign all replies to RTI applications himself and giving his normal designation as well as his designation as CPIO under the RTI Act.
6. Recommend to the Public Authority that it should
improve the process of acceptance of RTI Applications in its premises and sensitise its staff towards the RTI Act as well as issue written instructions to all its security staff to allow access during “inspection” under the RTI Act.
7. Instruct the First Appellate Authority, that he
should pass a just, proper and reasoned order on each and every First Appeal made to him and thereby fulfill his quasi-judicial obligations vested in him, under Sec 19(1) of the RTI Act.
8. Instruct the First Appellate Authority that he should
offer a personal hearing by issuing a due Notice of Hearing, to each first appellant, specially, if it has been specifically requested by the appellant.
9. COMPENSATION: I pray to the Hon’ble CIC to award
me a compensation of Rs. 50,000.00 for the humiliation and insults I have had to endure, just to ensure that the Public Authority (RPO, Hyderabad) duly respects and sincerely implements provisions of a Act passed by parliament, which is supreme in a democratic country like ours.
21
21
Besides the CPIO, the FAA has also failed to perform his quasi judicial functions and I have had to therefore, come all the way to the Commission for securing the information, which should have been suo-motu disclosed in the first place, thus wasting my time, energy and effort for getting something, which is my fundamental right. I should be made a party in all further proceedings of the Commission with regards to Compensation proceedings.
10. Any other appropriate orders, that the Hon’ble
CIC may deem fit
- 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 –
To: From: The CPIO under the RTI Act 2005 Mr C J Karira Sri Srinivas Gotru, IFS Plot No. 26, Road No. 1, Regional Passport Officer, Balamrai Society, Passport Office, Mahendra Hills, Kummaraguda Secunderabad – 500026 Secunderabad - 500003 Tel: 040-27733114, 27732227 Mob: 9848203583 email: [email protected] Date: 03 May 2010 No: RTI/RPO/001/2010 Total : 2 Pages Dear Sir, Sub : Application for information under Sec 6(1) the RTI Act 2005 I, Mr. C.J. Karira, would like to apply for the following information under Sec 6(1) of the RTI Act 2005:
1. Please inform me the location of the Name Board, indicating the designated CPIO under Sec 5(1) and the First Appellate Authority under Sec 19(1) of the RTI Act 2005.
2. The telephone numbers in the RPO, Hyderabad, which citizens can dial in for any “enquiry” they
have regarding any pending matter with the RPO.
3. Name, Designation, Office Telephone Number, Mobile Number and email id, of the Officer in your office who is responsible for ensuring that the telephone numbers mentioned in item no. 2 above are working at all times and are properly attended to by your staff
4. The email id of your office to which citizens can send any “enquiry” they have regarding any
pending matter with the RPO.
5. Name, Designation, Office Telephone Number, Mobile Number and email id, of the Officer in your office who is responsible for ensuring that the email id mentioned in item no. 4 above is working, is opened everyday and emails received are responded to promptly by your staff
6. Has your Public Authority made the suo-motu disclosure of information, as mandated under Sec
4(1)(b) of the RTI Act 2005 ?
7. Name, Designation, Office Telephone number, Mobile Number and email id’ of the Officer who is responsible for ensuring that your Public Authority complies with all obligations as mandated in the RTI Act 2005
8. Please inform me the Name and Mode of publicizing all information under Sec 4(1)(b) of the RTI
Act like Notice Board, Newspaper, Public announcement, Media broadcast, Internet, Website, etc.
………………….Contd. P. 2
To: Sh. A. Manickam, Joint Secretary (CPV) & Chief Passport Officer, Ministry of External Affairs, Room No. 20, Patiala House Annexe, Tilak Marg, New Delhi -110 001 Tel. No. : 0091 11 23387104 Fax no : 0091 11 23782821 E-mail : [email protected] TOTAL: 9 pages (including this one) From: Mr. C.J. Karira Plot No. 26, Road No. 1, Balamrai Society, SENT BY EMAIL Mahendra Hills Secunderabad – 500 026 Tel: 040-27733114, 27732227 Mobile: 9848203583 Email: [email protected] Dated: 6th June 2010 Dear Sir, SUB: First Appeal under Sec 19(1) of the RTI Act 2005 I, Mr. C. J. Karira, a citizen of India, would like to make a FIRST APPEAL under Sec 19(1) of the RTI Act 2005, as per the following details: 1. Name and Address of Appellant: Mr. C. J. Karira Plot No. 26, Road No. 1 Balamrai Society Mahendra Hills Secunderabad - 500026 Tel: 040-27733114, 27732227 Mob: 9848203583 Email: [email protected] 2. Name and Details of CPIO appealed against: Shri Srinivas Gotru, IFS Regional Passport Officer Passport Office Kummaraguda
Hyderabad – 500003 Tel: 040-27708585/27715333
3. Reference of the original RTI Application: RTI/RPO/001/2010 dated 3rd May 2010 4. Reference of reply of CPIO appealed against: Ref HYD/RTI/551/150/2009, Dt. 28.05.2010 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
……………….Contd. Page 2
- Page 2 – BACKGROUND: I had applied to the CPIO, RPO, Hyderabad for certain information, under the RTI Act 2005, as per my application ref: RTI/RPO/001/2010 dated 3rd May 2010. The application was accompanied by IPO of Rs. 10.00 (Nr 77E 061032), as payment for application fees. The RTI application was submitted personally to the counter located at the RPO, Hyderabad on 3rd May 2010, as evidenced by the stamp on the application. A copy of the said application and the proof of payment is attached herewith as ANNEXURE – I (Total 3 pages)
GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: 1. The CPIO has provided me incomplete , incorrect and misleading information, as detailed in the
following table:
S. No. Information sought Information provided Remarks
1. Location of Name Board of PIO Located in the Enquiry counter in the cellar
Incorrect information – on visiting the enquiry counter no such name board was found. On checking with the staff on duty, the name board was located hidden behind a cupboard and moreover the name of the PIo was of a Officer who had been transferred from Hyderabad a long time ago.
2. Enquiry Telephone numbers Telephone Numbers Information provided 3. Name, etc. of responsible Officer No reply – Deemed denial Not provided 4. Email id for enquiry email Information provided
5. Name, etc. for responsible officer No reply – Deemed denial Not provided
6. Suo Motu disclosure under Sec 4(1)(b)
On website www.ap.nic.in/passport
Incorrect and misleading information – on visiting the website no such information is available
7. Name, etc. of responsible Officer No reply – Deemed denial Not provided
8. Mode of publicizing Sec 4(1)(b) Available on www.passport.gov.in
Incorrect and misleading information – although some information is given there it is incomplete
9. HTML link for Sec 4(1)(b) discloure www.passport.gov.in Information provided
10. Norms for discharge of functions No reply – Deemed denial Not provided
11a. Inspection of name board Inspect on any working day
Incorrect and misleading information – no specific date provided. The security staff do not allow to enter premises
11b. Inspection regarding answering of enquiry telephones No reply – Deemed denial Not provided
11c. Inspection regarding answering of emails No reply – Deemed denial Not provided
11d. Inspection of all “information” regarding operating of telephones
No reply – Deemed denial Not provided
11e. Inspection of all “information” regarding emails received and replies given
No reply – Deemed denial Not provided
2. The reply to the RTI Application has been signed by Mr. A.T. Murthy, Deputy passport officer and PIO. However, nowhere on any website or notice board the name of this officer appears as PIO. All replies to RTI applications have to be signed by the PIO himself.
MY “PRAYER/PLEA” IN THIS FIRST APPEAL: 1. Instruct the CPIO, in writing, to give complete information as requested in my above
mentioned RTI Application and which he has either not provided or provided incomplete, incorrect and misleading information, as shown in the table above.
2. Instruct the CPIO, in writing, to provide a specific date and time for inspection as per my
request for items 11a, b, c, d and e of my application mentioned above.
3. Now that the rest of the information will be provided after the mandated 30 days time period and inspection will also be allowed after the 30 days are over, the information and inspection should be allowed “free of charge” as per sec 7(6) of the RTI Act.
4. Inform the concerned CPIO that the appellant will move a Second Appeal before the Central
Information Commission (CIC), under Section 19(3), and will demand imposition of Penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, at the rate of Rs. 250.00 for every day of delay (subject to a maximum of Rs. 25,000.00) from the date the information was due (03 June 2010) till the date the information is actually given to me.
5. As per Sec 19(5) of the RTI Act 2005, during the appeal proceedings, the CPIO, should be
asked to explain his “deemed” denial of request for information, since the onus to prove that the denial of request was justified, is on the CPIO.
……….Contd. Page 4
To: Sh. A. Manickam, Joint Secretary (CPV) & Chief Passport Officer, Ministry of External Affairs, Room No. 20, Patiala House Annexe, Tilak Marg, New Delhi -110 001 Tel. No. : 0091 11 23387104 Fax no : 0091 11 23782821 E-mail : [email protected] TOTAL: 6 pages (including this one) From: Mr. C.J. Karira Plot No. 26, Road No. 1, Balamrai Society, SENT BY EMAIL Mahendra Hills Secunderabad – 500 026 Tel: 040-27733114, 27732227 Mobile: 9848203583 Email: [email protected] Dated: 13th June 2010 Dear Sir, SUB: Addendum to First Appeal under Sec 19(1) of the RTI Act 2005 I, Mr. C. J. Karira, a citizen of India, would like to make this ADDENDUM to FIRST APPEAL under Sec 19(1) of the RTI Act 2005, as per the following details: 1. Name and Address of Appellant: Mr. C. J. Karira Plot No. 26, Road No. 1 Balamrai Society Mahendra Hills Secunderabad - 500026 Tel: 040-27733114, 27732227 Mob: 9848203583 Email: [email protected] 2. Name and Details of CPIO appealed against: Shri Srinivas Gotru, IFS Regional Passport Officer Passport Office Kummaraguda
Hyderabad – 500003 Tel: 040-27708585/27715333
3. Reference of the original RTI Application: RTI/RPO/001/2010 dated 3rd May 2010 4. Reference of reply of CPIO appealed against: Ref HYD/RTI/551/150/2009, Dt. 28.05.2010 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
……………….Contd. Page 2
- Page 2 – BACKGROUND: Further to my First Appeal under Sec 19(1) of the RTI Act dated 6th June 2010, which was sent to you via email, I am making the following addendum to my First Appeal. The CPIO in his letter Ref. Ref HYD/RTI/551/150/2009, Dt. 28.05.2010 had informed me in Item Nr. 9 that “Inspection of Notice Board at the Enquiry Counter in the cellar can be done on any working day” Based on the above mentioned letter, I visited the Passport office to conduct “inspection” of the Name Board.
GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL:
1. At the entrance of the Passport office, I was stopped by Security Guards and not allowed to enter the premises of the cellar to conbduct my “inspection”. On being told about the “inspection” on any working day, as informed by the CPIO, no one seemed to have ever heard about the RTI Act in the office.
2. The Security Guards used the choicest of expletives and hurled abuses at me concerning my
Mother, my Sister, my Parentage and including calling me “Mad”.
3. With great difficulty I was allowed to enter the cellar premises.
4. On “inspection” of the enquiry counters, I did not see any Name Board indicating the Name of the designated CPIO and the FAA. (Pictures enclosed)
5. On searching in details, I finally found a board hidden behind a computer table located
inside the room where the enquiry counters are. The Name Board was not visible from the outside and the citizens are not allowed into the enquiry counter room. Therefore there is no possibility to see the board from outside. This only shows the scant respect that your Public Authority has for the RTI Act and the various provisions under it. (Pictures enclosed)
6. Moreover, the Names of the CPIO and the FAA as indicated on the partially hidden Board
(located behind the computer table) were not correct. The name of the CPIO indicated is Mr Bala Bhaskar and the name of the FAA is indicated as Mr R Swaminathan. This only implies, as the following table shows that ewither the CPIO has provided me incorrect information, OR your website provides incorrect information OR the Name Board is incorrect. This once again shows the scant respect your Public Authority has for a Law enacted by our Parliament.
CPIO FAA On your website Mr Srinivas Gotru Mr A Manickam
As informed by CPIO Mr Srinivas Gotru Mr A Manickam As on Name Board Mr Bala Bhaskar Mr R Swaminathan
As signed on the reply Mr A T Murthy N.A.
…..Contd. Page 3
- Page 3 -
MY “PRAYER/PLEA” IN THIS FIRST APPEAL: 1. To inform the CPIO that the action of your Security staff and other employees in preventing
me from Inspection amounts to “obstruction in furnishing information” and therefore I will move the CIC and pray for a Penalty under Sec 20(1) for a maximum amount of Rs. 25,000.00
2. The provision of different Names of CPIO and FAA on your website, as informed by the
CPIO in his reply and as indicated on the Name Board amounts to provision of “Incorrect and misleading” information under Sec 18(1)(e).
3. These prayers are in addition to the “Prayers” in my First Appeal dated 06 June 2010.
SPECIAL NOTE:
Your attention is drawn to the contents of the Office Memorandum No. 1/3/2008-IR, dated 25 April 2008, issued by DoPT, titled “Guidelines for the Officers designated as First Appellate Authorities under the RTI Act 2005”, the relevant excerpts are quoted for your ready reference below:
38. Deciding appeals under the RTI Act is a quasi-judicial function. It is,
therefore, necessary that the appellate authority should see to it that the justice is not only done but it should also appear to have been done. In order to do so, the order passed by the appellate authority should be a speaking order giving justification for the decision arrived at. ………………….
40. If an appellate authority comes to a conclusion that the appellant should be supplied information in addition to what has been supplied to him by the CPIO, he may either (i) pass an order directing the CPIO to give such information to the appellant; or (ii) he himself may give information to the appellant while disposing off the appeal. In the first case the appellate authority should ensure that the information ordered by him to be supplied is supplied to the appellant immediately. It would, however, be better if the appellate authority chooses the second course of action and he himself furnishes the information along with the order passed by him in the matter.
(C.J. Karira) Encl: Copies of Pictures taken of the Name Board located in the room behind the enquiry counter.
