Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 11

APPEAL UNDER SECTION 19(1)

BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY

-CUM-DIRECTOR in PRIME MINISTER OFFICE, NEW DELHI

UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005

REGISTERED / SPEED POST 13 March 2013

Miss Suruchi d/o Mr. Pankaj Chaudhary, H. No. E-3/64, Gali No. 34, Chanakya Place-I, Opposite: C1, Janakpuri, New Delhi 110059 Mobile: 8587005423

Sir,

VERSUS
VERSUS

Mr. Krishan Kumar Director-cum- Central Public Information Officer, Office of Prime Minister of India. South Block, Raisina Hill, New Delhi. India-110011

Miss Suruchi d/o Mr. Pankaj Chaudhary, resident of H. No. E-3/64, Gali No. 34, Chanakya Place-I, C1, Janakpuri, New Delhi 110059 Mobile: 8587005423, as an Indian citizen sought information under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act 2005, in Larger Public Interest, has sought information on 04 points for the period from 01.06.2009 To: 31.01.2014 vide my RTI Application dated 18 February 2014, regarding Law and/or Rules under which wasteful expenditure on the Lying of Foundation Stone Ceremonies, Inauguration of Buildings, Projects, R0ads and Bridges is done. An Indian Postal Order No: 16F-038054 dated 18 Feb 2014 for Rs. 10.00 was attached with RTI Application as fee. The application was delivered by the Speed Post NO. ED274693295IN 18 FEB 2014 and the same was received by PIO on 19 FEB 2014.

The particulars are as under:

INDEX

SR

DESCRIPTION

 

DATE

ANNEXURE

PAGES

01

My RTI Application dated 18 FEB 2014

18.02.2014

I

1 - 2

 

IPO No.16F-038054 dated 18 Feb 2014

     

02

for

Rs.

10.00

attached

with the

18.02.2014

I

2

application

 
 

Proof of Dispatch in the shape of Speed

     

03

Post Receipt NO. ED274693295IN dated 18 FEB 2014

18.02.2014

I

2

04

Proof of Delivery as per online ―Article Tracking‖ Report of the Speed Post

19.02.2014

II

3

 

Reply

of

the

CPIO

received

on

12

     

March 2014

vides

his

letter

No.

05

RTI/1079/2014-PMR

dated

06

March

06.03.2014

III

4-5

2014 dispatched on 08 March 2014

 

New Delhi 05 December 2013

Miss Suruchi

d/o Mr. Pankaj Chaudhary, H. No. E-3/64, Gali No. 34, Chanakya Place-I, Opposite: C1, Janakpuri, New Delhi 110059

Hon’ble Sir,

Huge expenditure of this nation is wasted on the Foundation Stone lying ceremonies and Inauguration ceremonies by the leaders of this country. Not only the money is wasted, but valuable time and other resources are also wasted, which can be deployed for doing other public utility ventures. The question is as to under which law these expenditure are permitted to be incurred and how these expenditure are met and how much expenditure has been incurred on such ventures of Foundation Stone lying ceremonies and Inauguration ceremonies by the Hon’ble Prime Minister alone during the last five years.

The preamble of the Right to Information Act 2005 has set up a regime to expose corruption and the corrupts and says as under:

“An Act to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, the constitution of a Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

Whereas the Constitution of India has established democratic Republic; And whereas democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed;

And whereas revelation of information in actual practice is likely to conflict with other public interests including efficient operations of the Governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and the preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information;

And whereas it is necessary to harmonise these conflicting interests while preserving the paramountcy of the democratic ideal;

The present Appeal is against Mr. S.V. Rizvi, Deputy Director-cum-Central Public Information Officer, who has failed to provide information and hence this appeal.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL:

  • 1. I sent my RTI Application dated 18 Feb 2014 to the Central Public Information Officer, Office of Prime Minister of India, South Block, Raisina Hill, New Delhi. India-110011 (Annexure-I Page 1 2).

  • 2. A IPO No.16F-038054 dated 18 Feb 2014 for Rs. 10.00 attached with the application dated 18.02.2014 (Annexure-I Page 2)

  • 3. Proof of Dispatch is in the shape of Speed Post Receipt NO. ED274693295IN dated 18 FEB 2014 18.02.2014 (Annexure-I Page 2)

  • 4. Proof of Delivery as per online ―Article Tracking‖ Report of the Speed Post 19.02.2014 Annexure-II Page 3

5.

Reply

of

the

CPIO

received

on

12

March

2014

vides

his

letter

No.

RTI/1079/2014-PMR dated 06 March 2014 dispatched on 08 March 2014 06.03.2014 Annexure-III Page 4-5

7.

The PIO has violated the provisions of Right to Information Act 2005 as contained in Section 7(1) of the RTI Act 2002. He has not supplied the information with mala-fide intention.

  • 8. Central Public Information Officer has not given any information and malafidely / arbitrarily tried to hide the information by given a response which is vague, evasive and is in derogation to the provision of the Right to Information Act 2005.

  • 9. No clause of Section 8 of the Right to Information Act 2005 has been quoted to deny the information.

10. Central Public Information Officer has not denied that information does not exists.

11. Central Public Information Officer has not done his statutory duty of supplying information and has thus insulated the Prime Minister Office from public gaze and social audit of wasteful expenditure on laying of foundation stones, inauguration and dedication to nation ceremonies.

PRAYER:

It is humbly requested that:

  • 1. The Public Information Officer may please be directed to supply the information immediately himself by collecting the same from wherever it is held, as he has failed to transfer the RTI Application under Section 6(3) of the Right to Information Act 2005, within the prescribed time, on a lame excuse In his response in Para 2 of his letter dated 06 March 2014 to the effect that “the undersigned is not aware as to which public authority in the Government is concerned with the subject”.

  • 2. This above statement of the Central Public Information Officer is against the provision of the Law.

  • 3. The information sought is very much specific and pointed. Central Public Information Officer stance in this case is totally absurd, ridiculous, silly, strange, illogical, irrational, bizarre, incongruous and ludicrous and the order of the Central Public Information Officer be set aside.

  • 4. Central Public Information Officer and intentionally with a mala-fide intent has not provided the information, as it will expose the unsavory rituals of colonial times prevalent in the Public Authority without any force of law, about which the information has been sought.

  • 5. That the Central Public Information Officer has already failed to perform his lawful duty entrusted upon him and has violated the provisions of the Right to Information Act 2005.

  • 6. Central Public Information Officer has unnecessarily taken shelter under the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its Judgement dated 09.8.2011 in civil Appeal No. 6465 of 2011 (Central Board of Secondary Education &

Anr.

..

Vs.

Aditya

Bhandopadhyaya & Ors.). This judgement has nowhere stated that

information is not to be supplied to an applicant.

  • 7. Had the Public Authority maintained all its records duly catalogued as per the provision of Section 4(1)(a) 1 and indexed in a manner and the form which facilitates the right to information under this Act and ensure that all records that are appropriate to be computerised are, within a reasonable time and subject to availability of resources, computerised and connected through a network all over the country on different systems so that access to such records is facilitated; the situation, as pictured by Central Public Information Officer would not have arisen.

  • 8. Even after the 8½ years of Right to Information Act 2005 being in force, the High Profile Public Authority in the Office of Prime Minister of India has failed to maintained all its records duly catalogued and indexed, which it was required to do within 120 days from the date of coming into force of the Right to Information Act 2005. Public Authority may please be ordered to comply with this statutory provision immediately, so that the citizens are put to discomposure.

  • 9. Central Public Information Officer is unnecessarily and arbitrarily ducking under the grab of by misquoting the Supreme Court as well as CIC order just to refuse the information, just because it relates to Hon’ble Prime Minister.

10. The information may now please be directed to be supplied to me FREE OF COST, as per section 7(6) of the Right to Information Act 2005.

11. Due to supply of information, Free of Cost, due to deliberate refusal of the Central Public Information Officer, the public authority will suffer an avoidable financial burden on the public exchequer. The cost, as it would had worked out under Section 7(2) of the Right to Information Act 2005, may please be recovered from the salary of the Public Information Officer.

12. That the First Appellate Authority, being an officer Senior to the Central Public Information Officer, should take this legal lapse seriously and recommend the departmental action against the Public Information Officer under the reverent Conduct Rules of the Government under which his services are governed.

13. First Appellate Authority may take such further steps for by making necessary changes to its (Public Authority’s) practices with relation to the maintenance, management and destruction of records enhancing the efforts to strengthening the RTI regime in the Public Authority.

14. First Appellate Authority may please pass any other order/relief in respect of any other matter relating to requesting or obtaining access to records under this Act.

Submitted please.

New Delhi 13 March 2014

Miss Suruchi

d/o Mr. Pankaj Chaudhary, H. No. E-3/64, Gali No. 34, Chanakya Place-I, Opposite: C1, Janakpuri, New Delhi 110059

1 Section 4(1) Every public authority shall (a) maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and the form which facilitates the right to information under this Act and ensure that all records that are appropriate to be computerised are, within a reasonable time and subject to availability of resources, computerised and connected through a network all over the country on different systems so that access to such records is facilitated;

APPLICATION FOR SEEKING INFORMATION

(see Section 6 of the Right to Information Act 2005)

SPED POST NO. ED274693295IN 18 FEB 2014

To

CONFIDENTIAL TIME BOND RTI APPLICATION

Public Information Officer. Office of Prime Minister of India South Block, Raisina Hill, New Delhi. India-110011

ID No __________

(for official use only)

Sir,

  • A. THE CONTACT DETAIL OF THE APPLICANT ARE AS UNDER (As per Calcutta High Court judgement W.P. 33290(W) of 2013 dated 20 Nov 2013 and subsequent DoPT Circular No. 1-31-2013-IR of 08 January 2013. RTI Applicant need not provide his details except that may be necessary to contact him, even the Post Box Number is enough)

    • 01 NAME: Suruchi Chaudhary

ADDRESS: E-3/64, Gali No. 34, Chanakya Place-I, New Delhi - 110059

TELEPHONE:

MOBILE: 8587005423

E-MAIL: rtifed@gmail.com Citizen of India Yes  No  B. DETAIL OF INFORMATION SOUGHT 01 Nature
E-MAIL: rtifed@gmail.com
Citizen of India
Yes
No
B. DETAIL OF INFORMATION SOUGHT
01
Nature of Information sought
a. Life and Liberty
b. Other than (a)
02
Type of Information Sought a .Copy of Documents Yes
 No
b.
Inspection of Record
Yes
No
c.
Sample Material
Yes
No
d.
Other information
Yes
No
03
IF RELATES TO THIRD
PARTY
a.
Relating to third Party
Yes
No

If yes, Name and address of the Third Party

Not Applicable

  • 04 SPECIFY THE PARTICULARS OF INFORMATION REQUIRED - Please arrange to supply me the certified copies of the following information.

  • i The Law and / or Rules under which laying of foundation Stone and Dedication to the Nations and Inauguration of any event or project or building or bridge or anything, by any dignitary is necessary or mandatory. Please inform me the Law and / or Rules under which the expenditure on the laying of foundation Stone and Dedication to the Nations or Inauguration of any event or project or building or bridge or anything, by any dignitary is necessary or mandatory. Please inform / furnish me the list of the laying of foundation Stone and Inauguration of any event or project or building or bridge or anything else performed by The Hon'ble Prime Minister in the last five years (01 June 2009 to 31 Jan 2014). Please furnish me the details the expenditure incurred on each of these projects of which laying of foundation Stone and Inauguration of any event or project or building or bridge or anything else performed by The Hon'ble Prime Minister in the last five years (01 June 2009 to 31 Jan 2014) from the public exchequer.

Ii

Iii

Iv

  • 05 Time Period of the information required: From: 01.06.2009 To: 31.01.2014

06

Whether the applicant belong to BPL category

Yes

 

No

If yes, attach proof of the BPL

Yes

No

 

The payee’s name in the Postal Order has been left blank. PIO may fill in the payee’s name himself as a part of

reasonable assistance under Section 5(3) of the Right to Information Act 2005.

Place: Delhi

Date: 18 FEB 2014

Signature of Applicant

The payee’s name in the Postal Order has been left blank. PIO may fill in the

i

The Law and / or Rules under

  • 2. The matter has also been considered.

which laying of foundation Stone

As regard points $9i) and (ii), it is stated

and Dedication to the Nations and Inauguration of any event or project

that as per Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, the

or building or bridge or anything, by

function of the Prime Minister’s office is to

any dignitary is necessary or mandatory.

provide secretarial assistance to the Prime Minister. You have sought

information regarding the ―law and/or Rules‖ on Laying of foundation Stone…‖,

which is not a subject matter concerned with this office. Further, the undersigned is not aware as to which public authority in

the Government is concerned with the subject.

Ii

Please inform me the Law and / or

  • 3. Regarding point 4(ii) and (iii), it is

Rules under which the expenditure on the laying of foundation Stone and Dedication to the Nations or Inauguration of any event or project or building or bridge or anything, by any dignitary is necessary or mandatory.

stated that the information sought is unspecified and generic in nature. The period of information spans a period of 5 years. It is stated that any proposal moved by the respective Ministries /Departments /organizations/individuals concerned are stored in separate files specific to the subject. No such details are maintained centrally in a separate database. In order to collate such voluminous information [if they are available], a thorough search of numerous files will need to be carried out. The process would certainly disproportionately divert the resources of this office from the efficient discharge of its normal functions, thereby attracting the provision of Section 7(9) of the Act.

Iii

Please inform / furnish me the list of the laying of foundation Stone and Inauguration of any event or project or building or bridge or anything else performed by The Hon'ble Prime Minister in the last five years (01

 

Iv

June 2009 to 31 Jan 2014). Please furnish me the details the expenditure incurred on each of these projects of which laying of foundation Stone and Inauguration of any event or project or building or bridge or anything else performed by The Hon'ble Prime Minister in the last five years (01 June 2009 to 31 Jan 2014) from the public exchequer.

 
   
  • 4. In this context, it may be noted that

Hon’ble Supreme Court in its Judgement

dated 09.8.2011 in civil Appeal No. 6465

of 2011 (Central Board of Secondary

Education &

..

Vs.

Aditya

   

Bhandopadhyaya ^ Ors.) has observed

that ―indiscriminate and impracticable … demands… under RTI Act for disclosure

of all and sundry … would be counter- productive and result in the executive

getting bogged down with non-productive work of collecting and furnishing

information. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the time of the staff of public authorities spend 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of

discharging their regular duties’. Further

the Central Information Commission in Appeal No. CIC/RM/A/2012/00310/LS dated 24.6.2013 in the case of Anil Kumar Mittal Vs. Miranda House has also

observed that information seekers are expected to seek pointed and specific

information and not to make roving and

open ended enquiries‖

Inaugurations 08 March 2014 - The auto top facility through AFC gates was launched at the Barakhamba Road Metro station recently by DMRC Managing Director Mangu Singh and other senior officials by topping up their smart cards at the AFC Entry Gates.