Second Appeal under Right to Information Act, 2005
Date: 29-09-2010
Hyderabad.
From,
XXXXXXX
Hyderabad.
To,
TamilNadu State Information Commission,
Kamadhenu Co-operative Supermarket Building,
1st Floor, Teynampet,(Near Vanavil),
New No. 378, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 018.
(Post Box No. 6405, Teynampet, Chennai - 600 018)
Sub: - Appeal to the second appellate authority u/s 19(3) of the RTI act – 2005.
Respected Sir,
As I am aggrieved by decisions of PIO (The Registrar) and First Appellate Authority (The Director) of Madurai Kamraj University, Madurai, Tamilnadu, I hereby file this second appeal for your kind decision.
(1) Name of the Department/Public Authority from which information is sought:
MADURAI KAMRAJ UNIVERSITY, MADURAI – 625021
(1.1) Name and Designation of PIO:
The Registrar,
Madurai Kamraj University,
Palkalai Nagar, Madurai – 625021
(1.2) Name and Designation of First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The Director,
Directorate of Distance Education,
Madurai Kamraj University,
Madurai - 625021
(2) Dates of RTI application/first appeal:
(2.1) RTI application to PIO mailed on 15-03-2010
(2.2) First appeal to FAA mailed on 31-03-2010
(2.3) Addendum letter to first appeal to FAA mailed on 31-05-2010
(3) Particulars of Decisions:
(3.1) Reference No & Date of PIO’s Decision:
PIO/RTI/Info/10/178 23-03-2010
(3.2) Reference No & Date of FAA’s Decision:
M.K.U/D.D.E/OS/2010 06-05-2010
(3.3) Reference No & Date of FAA’s Decision:
M.K.U/D.D.E/OS/2010 17-09-2010
(3.4) Date/s of personal hearing by FAA:
No personal appearance requested by FAA
(4) Dates of receipt of replies by appellant from:
(4.1) Reply from PIO received on 26-03-2010
(4.2) Reply from FAA received on 11-05-2010
(4.3) Reply from FAA received on 22-09-2010 for the addendum letter as in (2.3)
(5) Details of information sought:
Please refer to my RTI application enclosed along with this second appeal, for the details of information sought.
(6) Brief facts of the case:
The information sought by me relates to my wife Mrs. XXXX D/o XXXXXXXX, who completed her M.B.A (HR), post-graduation program from Madurai Kamraj university under distance education scheme offered by the university. I am contesting a divorce case with her in Ranga Reddy family court with No. xxxx/xxxx. I need to prove to the court that she is a post graduate in a maintenance case filed by her bearing no. xxx/xxxx under section 18 Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, the copies of which are enclosed herewith.
(7) Reasons/grounds for this appeal:
I would like to bring to your kind notice that the sole aim of the PIO and FAA is to avoid/delay/reject giving the information sought by the appellants without properly citing, under what sections of RTI act – 2005, they have taken such decisions, thereby frustrating and testing the patience of the appellants so that they avoid seeking information from them. This is clearly the kind of behaviour of public servants, which is discouraging the citizens of our country from seeking the information, this perhaps could be one way of killing the RTI act – 2005, which was brought in with good intentions to aid the citizens and to increase the transparency of the public servants, thereby bringing back the confidence of the public in to the system. This behaviour is clearly seen from the replies I got from the PIO and FAA as explained below.
(7.1) Rejection grounds of PIO:
(7.1.1) The reasons cited by the PIO (The Registrar), while rejecting my RTI application is that the information requested belongs to third party / other party and it involves no public interest.
I object to his decision, since, if the PIO had really felt that the information sought comes under the third party/other party, then there is a procedure to be followed with such requests as prescribed by the RTI act – 2005, namely the section 11 of the RTI act – 2005. Without following section 11 of the RTI act – 2005, the PIO simply rejected my RTI application. This action by PIO is complete contravention to the RTI act – 2005.
(7.1.2) Another reason, cited by the PIO, while rejecting my RTI application is regarding the payment of fee. He said that the prescribed fee for obtaining information under RTI act, 2005 is Rs.10.
I object to his reply, since I had already sent Rs.50 fee, which he acknowledged later towards application, copying and speed post charges if any, same thing I clearly mentioned in my RTI application also, which the PIO failed to notice and simply rejected. In my first appeal letter, I had sent Rs.10 IPO as requested in the rejection letter of the PIO, to this PIO had returned my original Rs.50 IPO, saying that the prescribed fee is Rs.10, but you have already sent Rs.50. Hence, it was requested to send Rs.10. Now, the postal order for Rs.10 has been received. Hence the original IPO for Rs.50 (No. 33G xxxxxxx) already sent by you, is returned herewith. I received this letter on 08-04-2010, the copy of which, I am enclosing along with this appeal.
(7.2) Rejection grounds of FAA:
(7.2.1) The reason cited by the FAA (The Director) is that the name of the candidate Mrs. xxxxxxxx doesn’t match with the Enrol.No.A1AXXXXXX. Kindly, furnish the correct Enrol.No. of the candidate or the Xerox copy of the Admission Card for further action at this end.
I object to his decision, since I had already clearly mentioned in my RTI application that tentatively I provide this hall ticket No, but not sure of the actual No, but providing this so that if matches, the information can be quickly retrieved. Even if the hall ticket No, doesn’t match also, the information can be provided with the other information provided by me to support my claim in my RTI application, which he failed to notice, but simply rejected to frustrate me.
(7.2.2) I had sent addendum letter on 31-05-2010 to FAA, telling him that I don’t have her admission card, but a proof that she completed her MBA from the university, also reminding him that the information can be retrieved by matching other fields I provided, which I had mentioned in this addendum letter.
Again, the FAA rejected my appeal and refusing to acknowledge and oblige to my query to provide information. In this rejection letter dated 17-09-2010, he says that her DoB, address for communication and year of her admission is not matching. But he conveniently avoided about matching/non-matching status of her father’s name XXXXXXXXX , provided by me. This is clearly indicative of the fact that he is refusing to provide the information, which is in his possession, obtained through public activity, even after I provide the proof of her completion of MBA degree from this university, which I am enclosing below along with this appeal.
(8) Any other information in support of appeal:
I am giving below, the references of CIC’s decisions in similar matters, which favoured to disclose the requested information between the spouses as it relates to a public activity as there is a financial interest involved of the appellant. From, the decisions, it is also clear that matters related to spouses can’t become third party and hence can be directly provided, even without following the provisions of the section 11 of the RTI act – 2005.
CIC decisions referred to above:
1. CIC decision No. ICPB/A-1/CIC/2006 Dated 31.01.2006 (says that information includes notes written on file).
2. CIC decision No. CIC/AD/A/09/00366 Dated 04.05.2009 (In this case Wife/Appellant asked certified copies of all documents of passport file including marriage certificate and application form as submitted in passport office. CPIO denied as per sec 8 (1)(j) CIC directed CPIO to provide information with remark Information being sought is not a third party information since the appellant is seeking information about her legally wedded husband).
3. CIC decision No. 1816/IC/(A)/2008 F.No. CIC/MA/A/2007/00583 Dated 10.01.2008 (In this matter husband asked PF detail of wife. CPIO denied citing section 8(1) (j). CIC directed CPIO to provide information to husband with remark “The appellants financial interest is affected in the matter, as he is seeking legal relief from the court”).
4. CIC decision No. 3774/IC(A)2009 F.No CIC/MA/A/2009/000102 Dated 18.03.2009 (In this matter wife asked information about her husband’s medical expenses, service record etc CPIO denied citing section 8 (1)(j). Honorable IC M.M.Ansari directed the CPIO to provide all information citing “Since appellant is legally married wife with a child and has asked for details about her husband, there is no justification in withholding any part of information to the appellant as it would assist in resolving the issue by the competent authority. As long as couple is not legally separated refusal to share information is untenable”).
(9) Prayer/relief sought for and the grounds there of:
• Please direct the PIO to give the relevant information as early as possible as requested in my RTI application, which is attached along with this appeal.
• Please direct the PIO/FAA to explain the reason for rejection of the RTI application, simply quoting that it is third/other party or some prescribed fee is not paid, even after sending the requisite amount by IPO is not acceptable. Are there any circulars/directions/by laws to reject the information based on these grounds, if so, please direct him to provide the same?
• Please direct the PIO/FAA to educate themselves regarding the RTI act – 2005, specifically, RTI act – 2005 doesn’t permit application rejection simply by quoting third party, it can only be rejected u/s 8(1) and 9 of the RTI act – 2005. And, in cases, where it is third party, there is a proper procedure to be followed as prescribed u/s 11 of the RTI act – 2005. If they can’t educate themselves, then direct the university to appoint the ones who are willing to learn and follow the act.
• Please direct the PIO/FAA as per the RTI act – 2005 u/s 20(1) to pay the penalty to the appellant at the rate of Rs.250 per day till the information is provided. This denial of information causing the appellant monetary lose in the form of interim maintenance order served on him by family court, L.B Nager, RR dist, due to non-production of his wife’s educational qualifications in the court to support his claim made in the affidavit submitted to the court.
• Please also recommend the appropriate authority to initiate the disciplinary actions against the PIO/FAA for acting against the spirit of the RTI act – 2005.
• Prior to this sequence of RTI application (12-03-2010), first appeal (31-03-2010) and replies/rejections from the university, my other RTI application (10-10-2009) for the same matter was also rejected by the PIO citing that no signature is affixed. Is there any law/by-laws/circulars stating that such applications need to be returned? Please direct the PIO to explain the reason for such action? I am enclosing a copy of this also for your kind perusal.
(10) Personal presence at hearing (Yes/No):
No
(11) Declaration:
I hereby state that the information and particulars given above are true to the best of knowledge and belief. I also declare that this matter is not previously filed with this commission nor is pending with any court or tribunal or authority.
Place:
Date: signature of appellant:
