cics basis for scheduling hearings

8/3/2019 CICs Basis for Scheduling Hearings

1/3

dsUnzh; lwpuk vk;ksxCentral Inform ation Commission

2 ry] foxa c / 2nd Floor, B WingvxLr kfUr Hkou/ August Kranti Bhavan

Hkhdkth dkek Iysl/ Bhikaji Cama PlaceubZ fnYyh - 110066 / New Delhi 110066[ Right to Information Section 19(1) ]

CIC/AA/A/2011/564 Dated : 16th December, 2011CIC/CPIO/2011/1812

Name of the Appellant: Shri D.K. BhaumikC9, Vidyasagar SaraniKolkata 700 063

Date of Hearing: 15.12.2011

The appellant has filed first appeal dated 14th November 2011, diarized in the

Commission on 21st November 2011, against response of CPIO dated 27th October

2011, on RTI application dated 29th September 2011, diarized in the Commission on

10th October 2011.

2. Appeal was fixed for hearing on 15th December 2007 at 1.00 a.m. As there was

no response from the appellant, the appeal is being decided on the basis of material

available on record. Shri Pankaj KP Shreyaskar, Director and CPIO was heard.

3. In paragraph 4(a), the appellant had sought work distribution details

(complete) of the CIC for the Chief Information Commissioner and the Central

Information Commissioners with mention of validity period since inception till the

date of supply of information. Shri Pankaj KP Shreyaskar, CPIO informed that the

work distribution is available at the website of the Commission under the work

distribution at CIC and the appellant may like to copy from there. Aggrieved, the

appellant has pointed out that without any reasonable cause, the CPIO did notfurnished the desired information and knowingly gave misleading information.

According to him availability of any information on the website of the public

authority, if any, does not prohibit supply of that information under the RTI Act.

4. In paragraph 4(b), the appellant had sought clear and legible certified

photocopies of all special and general orders issued by the CIC for the purpose

mentioned above from time to time since inception till the date of supply of

information. The CPIO informed that the Circular runs into 33 pages and the same

will be provided after receiving payment of Rs 66/ at the rate of Rs 2/ per page. The

appellant has pointed out that without any reasonable cause the CPIO did not furnish


2/3

information. The appellant has indicated that he had only asked for certified copies

of all special and general orders, not any circular. Regarding Paras 4(a) & (b)

appellant is informed that the circulars related to work allocation of the

commissioners is available on its website. In case, hard copy is required appellant

may pay Rs. 66/as intimated by the CPIO.

5. In paragraph 4(c), the appellant requested for complete details of the

procedure of fixing dates of hearing of the second appeal, complaints and other

proceeding before the CIC with mention of time required to fix the dates of hearing

from the date of filing each of the said cases. CPIO responded that

appeals/complaints are disposed of in accordance with the Appeal Procedure Rules,

2005. Aggrieved, the appellant has pointed out that the desired information is not

given in the Appeal Procedure Rules. Appellant is informed that there is no written

circular or guideline in this regard. Commission makes an attempt to fix appeals and

complaints on the basis of first cum first serve basis. Commission also gives priorityto cases filed by senior citizens or those physically challenged, if identified and

agreed.

6. In paragraph 4(d), the appellant requested for details of basis of fixing the

dates of hearing of RTI second appeal, complaints and other proceeding before the

CIC to which CPIO informed that no such information is available. According to the

appellant this sounds absurd and incorrect. In this regard appellant may refer to para

above.

7. In paragraph 4(e), clear and legible certified photocopies of all special and

general rule issued by CIC in connection with the matter is mentioned in Paras (c)

and (d) above, under section 12 (4) of the RTI act. The CPIO informed that no such

information is available. According to the appellant the reply appears to be absurd,

incorrect and misleading. In this regard also the appellant may refer to reply given to

para 4(c) above.

8. Finally in para 4(f), the appellant desired to know whether the legal validity of

"the Central Information Commission (Management) Regulations 2007" has been

challenged in any competent court of law, or not and if yes, complete details and thelatest position thereof. The CPIO referred to the orders of the High Court in Writ

Petition number W.P. (c) 12714/2009 dated 21. 05. 2010 and conclude. According to

the appellant the CPIO did not furnish the desired information and has given

misleading information. I do not consider need to intervene with the decision of

CPIO as he cannot interpret the decision of the High Court. However, the appellant

is informed that the Management Regulations do not exist now.

9. With the above remarks, the appeal is disposed of.


3/3

10. The appellant may prefer an appeal u/s 19(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 before the

Central Information Commission, R. No. 413, IV Floor, Block-IV, Old JNU Campus,

New Delhi 110 067 against this order within 90 days, if he so desires.

Date, the 16th of December, 2011

(Anita Gupta)

Additional Secretary and

First Appellate Authority

Central Information Commission

Copy forwarded to:-

1. Mr. Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Director & CPIO2. Mr. Paul Arokianathan S., Scientist-D, NIC with a request to place it onthe web site.

(Anita Gupta)

Additional Secretary and

First Appellate Authority

Central Information Commission

cics basis for scheduling hearings

Documents