 |
| CLASSIC EXAMPLE OF FATE OF RTI FOR COMMON CITIZEN |
CHANDIGARH- RAPRIA: Today, against an RTI case is adjourned. A happy moment for the Advocate of Respondent Public Authority. A Classic example of deemed denial of Right to Information. My below mentioned e-mail to the Respondents is
self-explanatory of shoddy affairs of lax administration; while dealing with a poor and common person.
|
 25
Aug |
||||||
To,
1.
The Secretary,
Central Information Commission
2.
Transparency Officer/Nodal Officer/First Appellate Authority/CPIO, Union Bank
of India.
Subject: Harassment of poor old widow lady due
to the laxity on the part of the Respondents.
Respected Sir/Madam,
Please
refer to the pending Civil Writ Petition No. 13026 of 2014, in the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana, at Chandigarh, titled as Angoori Devi V/s Central
Information Commission and others, wherein the CPIO & FAA of the
Central Bank of India are the main contesting Respondents.
Despite
service of notice; none appeared on behalf of the CIC, especially, when the
specific relief has been sought against the CIC also. And, despite in receipt
of the notice of the Hon’ble High Court, the CIC has failed to ensure
compliance of it Decision No.CIC/VS/A/2012/000262/03115, dated 10.05.2013
in Appeal No.CIC/VS/A/2012/000262. What a mockery of the RTI Law that
the CIC neither takes care of its own decisions, nor cares for the notice of
the Hon’ble High Court. What to talk about acting pro-actively for achieving
objectives of the RTI Act. Being a former Law Officer of the CIC, I was
expecting that after receiving the notice of the High Court, the CIC and
other concerned parties will provide the requisite information, which is very
basic, to the Petitioner and the concerned officers will be penalised. But to
my utter disappointment; I find that the system has deteriorated, to the
irreparable extent.
In this regard, this is to inform you that the aforesaid matter was fixed
today, i.e., 25.08.2015, before the court of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mahesh
Grover, for arguments. However, as usual, neither Counsel for the CIC nor
Counsel for the Bank did turn up for arguments. In this regard, please also
consider the following past list of dates and events:
1.
On 09.07.2014 Hon’ble High Court directed the concerned Respondent officials
of the Bank to file reply on or before: 15.09.2014.
2.
On 15.09.2014, the counsel for the Bank failed to file reply and on the
request of the Counsel for Bank, the High Court, in the interest of
justice, adjourned the matter for filing reply on or before: 22.12.2014.
3.
On 22.12.2014 also the Counsel for the Bank failed to file reply and on the
request of the Counsel for Bank, the High Court, in the interest of justice,
adjourned the matter for filing reply on or before: 24.03.2015.
4.
On 24.03.2015, ironically, the Counsel for the Bank again failed to file any
reply and sought more time. Therefore, the High Court passed the order which
reads:
“Counsel for the
respondents seeks more time to file reply. The petitioner has been running
from pillar to post to find out why this deduction has been made and the
respondent-bank has been stonewalling the same despite there being orders of
the Appellate Authority as well as the Central Information Commissioner. In
the circumstances, even while granting one more opportunity to respondents
No.2 to 5 to file reply, it is made clear that prima facie there seems to be
no reason why the information sought should be denied. Consequently, in case
respondents No.2 to 5 want to contest the petition, they are put to notice
that if the petitioner is found to be justified they would be burdened with
exemplary costs.”
Adjourned to 28.5.2015.
Copy of this order be given dasti to counsel for the respondents under the
signatures of the Bench Secretary.”
5.
Ironically, even on 28.05.2015, nobody turn up, though reply is shown to be
filed on 27.05.2015 by the Union Bank of India, which I received through
post. And, as usual, today, i.e., 25.08.2015, again I am again faced with
great disappoint, go fully prepared with arguments, but nobody turns up to
attend hearing.
The case, pregnant one, appears
to be a case of complete miscarriage of justice. The Petitioner was supposed
to get the sought for information, i.e., very basic information, relating to
the deduction of certain amount from the family pension account of an old
widow lady, even without taking the route of the RTI Act.
However, ironically, from the
date 22.11.2011 (the date of RTI Application) a senior citizen and a widow
lady, is running from pillar to post to obtain simple piece of information
about the deduction of amount from her pension account, which she was
supposed to get up to 22.12.2011. But she fails to get the same even after
approaching all the authorities, from bottom to top, under the RTI Act, i.e.
Central Public Information Officer, Appellate Authority and Central
Information Commission.
And, finally, before the High
Court, where the justice delivery system is made impotent, which is clearly
reflected in the aforesaid self explanatory events. And, this is the
situation, when I am rendering pro-bono legal aid to the poor widow lady, who
could even think of approaching the CIC and HC, if I had not agreed to bear
all the original litigation expenses. What could be the fate of other
information seekers; where some surrenders after knocking the door of PIO,
some surrender after approaching 1st Appellate Authority and most
of them would surrender after knocking the door of CIC, in the battle for
their basic right, which is celebrated as a Fundamental Right of the
citizens.
Be that as it may, the next
date of hearing of the case is: 01.10.2015. If your sweet will or a
little bit remaining conscience, allows you some spare time out of your busy
schedule.
Attachments area
Preview attachment E.MAIL 25.08.2015 CWP 13026
FAILURE TO ACT IN RTI MATTER.docx
| |||||||
No comments:
Post a Comment