Second Appeal against Registrar CIC dated 24.03.2017

Second Appeal against Registrar, CIC New Delhi for Non-implementation of Section 7(1) of RTI Act 2005 in second appeal Diary no. 183722 dated 03.11.2016 (Registrar Admin, Patna High Court, FAA)

1. FILING INDEX

IN THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI

SECOND APPEAL AGAINST NON -IMPLEMENTATION OF
SECTION 7(1) OF RTI ACT 2005

{Online Second Appeal V ide Diary no.600891 of 2017
Submitted on 16.02.2017 }


IN THE MATTER OF:

OM PRAKASH & ANR ……APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE REGISTRAR & ANR …… RESPONDENT(S)
CENTRAL REGISTRY, CIC NEW DELHI

S.N Particulars Pages
1. Second Appeal dated 16.02.2017 1-7
2. First Appeal Reply by FAA dated
30.01.2017 through Online
8
3. Online First Appeal dated
27.01.2017
9-17
4. RTI Reply by CPIO dated 24.01.2017 18-19
5. Online RTI request dated
05.01.2017
20-22
6. Electronic Communication with CIC
& PMO w.e.f. 30.11.2016 to
04.01.2017
23-46
7. Reply by JS(Admin), CIC against
u/s 18(1) of RTI dated 07.03.2017
47


Appellant in Person
Filed on: 24.03.2017 Om Prakash
Diary No. 119689


(Widow Asha Rani Devi)
On behalf of Appellant No.02

2. Date: 16/02/2017

Ref: RTI reply No. CICOM/R/2017/50006 dated
24.01.2017 by CPIO (RTI Cell) CIC New Delhi with
attachment of re sponse by Shri S.P. Beck, JS
(Admin) dated 24.01.2017 under F.No.3/8/2015-
CIC/Admin.


From:
Om Prakash Poddar
R/O RZF-893, Netaji Subhas Marg
Raj Nagar Part-2, Palam Colony,
New Delhi-10077
Mob: [phone]
E-mail: [email protected]


To,
The Second Appellate Authority CIC
Central Information Commission
2
nd
Floor, B Wing
August Kranti Bhawan
Bhikaji Cama Place
New Delhi-110066


Sub: Second Appeal under Right to Information Act
2005.



Sir,

I regret that CPIO (RTI Cell) & FAA CIC, New
Delhi ha ve supplied the information
unsatisfactorily, so that either you can give it
or else you can order h im to supply the same
satisfactorily, or supply the same as per the
rules under RTI Act-2005. My point wise averments
and arguments are as under:


Requested Information: 1.)Can CIC afford to say
that there is no statutory provisions of Life and
Liberty under RTI Act 2005 as evident from the
reply of DS(CR) CIC dated 28.12.2016 ?

3. Requested Information: 2.) Is reply of DS (CR)
CIC dated 02.12.2016 and dated 28.12.2016 not
contradictory to each other?

Supplied Information: 1 & 2.) Central Information
Commission functions as per the pro visions of RTI
Act 2005 and the RTI Rules 2012.

Argument and reasons for full information:

Section 7 in The Right To Information Act, 2005
7. Disposal of request. —

(1) Subject to the proviso to sub -section (2) of
section 5 or the proviso to sub -section (3) of
section 6, the Central Public Information Officer
or State Public Information Officer, as the case
may be on receipt of a request under section 6
shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any
case within thirty days of the receipt of the
request, either provide the information on
payment of such fee as may be prescribed or
reject the request for any of the reasons
specified in sections 8 and 9: Provided that
where the information sought for co ncerns the
life or liberty of a person, the same shall be
provided within forty -eight hours of the receipt
of the request.
(2) If the Central Public Information Officer or
State Public Information Officer , as the case may
be fails to give decision on the request for
information within the period specified under
sub-section (1), the Central Public Information
Officer or State Public Information Officer, as
the case may be shall be deemed to have refused
the request.
(3) Where a decision is taken to provide the
information on payment of any further fee
representing the cost of providing the
information, the Central Public Information
Officer or State Public Information Officer, as
the case may be shall send an intimation to the
person making the request, giving —
(a) the details of further fees representing the
cost of providing the information as determin ed
by him, together with the calculations made to

4. arrive at the amount in accordance with fee
prescribed under sub -section (1), requesting him
to deposit that fees, and the period intervening
between the despatch of the said intimation and
payment of fees shall be excluded for the purpose
of calculating the period of thirty days referred
to in that sub-section;
(b) information concerning his or her right with
respect to review the decision as to the amou nt
of fees charged or the form of access provided,
including the particulars of the appellate
authority, time limit, process and any other
forms.
(4) Where access to the record or a part thereof
is required to be provided under this Act and the
person to whom access is to be provided is
sensorily disabled, the Central Public
Information Officer or State Public Information
Officer, as the case may be shall provide
assistance to enable access to the informa tion,
including providing such assistance as may be
appropriate for the inspection.
(5) Where access to information is to be provided
in the printed or in any electronic format, the
applicant shall, subj ect to the provisions of
sub-section (6), pay such fee as may be
prescribed: Provided that the fee prescribed
under sub-section (1) of section 6 and sub -
sections (1) and (5) of section 7 shall be
reasonable and no such fee shall be charged from
the persons who are of below poverty line as may
be determined by the appropriate Government.
(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in
sub-section (5), the person making request for
the information shall be provi ded the information
free of charge where a public authority fails to
comply with the time limits specified in
sub-section (1).
(7) Before taking any decision under sub -section
(1), the Central Public In formation Officer or
State Public Information Officer, as the case may
be shall take into consideration the
representation made by a third party under
section 11.
(8) Where a request has been rejected und er
sub-section (1), the Central Public Information
Officer or State Public Information Officer, as

5. the case may be shall communicate to the person
making the request,—
(i) the reasons for such rejection ;
(ii) the period within which an appeal against
such rejection may be preferred; and
(iii) the particulars of the appellate authority.
(9) An information shall ordinarily be provided
in the form in which it is sought unless it would
disproportionately divert the resources of the
public authority or would be detrimental to the
safety or preservation of the record in question.

Reply by DS(CR)CIC dated 02.12.2016, “With
reference to your above said mail, the Appeal
diarised vide diary No.183722 dated 3.11.2016 was
examined and it found that you have not claimed
the ground of life and liberty at any sta ge i.e
RTI application, Ist appeal or even in IInd
appeal. It is out of preview of Central Registry
to acceede to you request ”.


Reply by DS(CR)CIC dated 28.12.2016, With
reference to your query the Hon'ble CIC has held
that " There is no statutory provi sion under the
RTI Act,2005 to prioritize the hearing of second
appeal and decide the same within 48 hours as
matter concerning life and Liberty" For
information please.


The above citation of Act and subsequent reply by
DS(CR) depicts ABSOLUTE MIS MATCH and the same
depicts violation of RULE OF LAW .

Further, the applicant has adduced with 24 pages
evidences of DEMONSTRABLY proving the imminent
danger to life and liberty of a Senior Citizen
Oxygen dependent woman through communication
between CIC and the applicant w.e.f 30.11.2016 to
28.12.2016.

Moreover, the applicant has substantiated with
the observation of CIC in the matter of N.N.
Kalia vs University of Delhi, dated 03.09.2009.

6. The CIC passed following observation about
section 7(1), which might help you to understand
the provision better.

The life and liberty provision can be applied
only in cases where there is an imminent danger
to the life and liberty of a person and the non-
supply of the information may either lead to
death or grievous injury to the concerned
person. Liberty of a person is threatened if she
or he is going to be incarcerated or has already
been incarcerated and the disclosure of the
information may cha nge that situation. If the
disclosure of the information would obviate the
danger then it may be considered under the
proviso of Section 7(1). The imminent danger has
to be demonstrably proven . The Commission is well
aware of the fact that when a citizen e xercises
his or her fundamental right to information, the
information disclosed may assist him or her to
lead a better life. But in all such cases, the
proviso of Section 7(1) cannot be invoked unless
imminent danger to life and liberty can be
proven.

Nonetheless, the content of the second appeal is
self-explanatory at page no.02 and para no. 6,
which reads as “another N.B.W dated 08.09.2011
process u/s 83 Cr.Pc. has been issued by the same
CJM division against applicant and his Senior
Citizen ailing mothe r in another frivolous
criminal case no. 5591 of 2013 u/s 498A after the
closure of case no. 9P of 2010 and kept it secret
since then without the knowledge of applicant to
usurp his property in Bihar” .

The above citation of PERUSAL OF RECO RDS
absolutely violates section 11(ii) “procedure for
deciding appeals” of RTI Rules 2012.

The information supplied is absolutely false .
Hence, true information to be supplied in
accordance with RTI Act 2005 and RTI Rules 2012
with citation.

Requested Information: 3.) What action has been
taken against DS (CR) CIC for non -implementation

7. of provision of section 7(1) of RTI Act
applicable against second appeal diary no. 183722
dated 03.11.2016 so far?

Supplied Information: 3.) The reply given by the
DS/CR of Central In formation Commission was
examined and is in order. Therefore, no action
has been recommended against him.

Argument and reasons for full information:

Arguments with citation under reply no. 1 & 2 to
be read as the argument under reply no.03 which
clearly indicates that the reply by the DS/CR of
Central Information Commission is NOT IN ORDER AT
ALL.

Hence, the Apex institution is shielding,
protecting the BAD ELEMENTS of State Apparatus
and offending, harassing, victimizing the common
man and senior citizen oxygen dependent woman.

The information supplied is absolutely false and
protecting the bad elements of state apparatus .
Hence, true information to be supplied in
accordance with RTI Act 2005 and RTI Rules 2012
with appropriate punitive action .



DRAWN & FILED BY:
APPELLANT NO.01
OM PRAKASH



(Widow Asha Rani Devi)
On behalf of Appellant No.02

NEW DELHI:
FILED ON : 16.02.2017

Online Appeal has been submitted successfully & Email has been sent on Applicatnt
Email Id. & Your diary number is:600891