Rti querry-rti based on authority letter,reasons of decision by adm authorities & wp on noncomplianc
Rajesh Tandon
(Querist) 01 October 2012
This query is : Resolved
(a) RTI Querries-These are as under:-
(i) RTI Querry No-1-It is generally the an RTI applicant signs the application by himself. However, it has been learnt that in certain cases the advocates have filed RTI for their clients with a vakalatnama signed by client(should the client be illiterate/not knowing about rules or procedures and querries to be asked )authorising his advocate to file RTI on his behalf. Similarly, can any a Person A file RTI for Person B(if Person B is not able to express his thoughts properly ,communicate properly or enquire properly about certain querries) with a proper authority letter from Person B authorising Person A file RTI for Person B. Is it legally acceptable. Are there any Judgements of the Court/CIC on that account(since I could not find such judgements on the Internet. However, I came to know that such a provision does exist.)
(ii) RTI Querry No-2- As per section 4(d) of RTI Act, the reasons for administrative/quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons to be given by public authority. It is felt that the spirit of the contents of RTI section 4(d) is based on third cardinal principle of natural Justice i.e reasoned and speaking order which must be be followed always by administrative authorities. The Supreme Court has said that The distinction between passing of an order by an administrative or quasi-judicial authority has practically extinguished and both are required to pass reasoned orders. In the case of Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr. [AIR 1976 SC 1785], the Supreme Court held as under:-
“……If courts of law are to be replaced by administrative authorities and tribunals, as indeed, in some kinds of cases, with the proliferation of Administrative Law, they may have to be so replaced, it is essential that administrative authorities and tribunals should accord fair and proper hearing to the persons sought to be affected by their orders and give sufficiently clear and explicit reasons in support of the orders made by them. Then alone administrative authorities and tribunals exercising quasi-judicial function will be able to justify their existence and carry credibility with the people by inspiring confidence in the adjudicatory process. The rule requiring reasons to be given in support of an order is, like the principle of audi alteram partem, a basic principle of natural justice which must inform every quasi-judicial process and this rule must be observed in its proper spirit and mere pretence of compliance with it would not satisfy the requirement of law. …” Therefore in this regard kindly clarify as to if one can only ask the reasons of decision which had been recorded in writing by administrative authorities while discharging a quasi-judicial function/duty or one can ask for any decision of administrative authority, which may not be a decision arrived at by virtue of discharge of quasi-judicial function or duty. One may be affected by an oral decision, not recorded but given by word of mouth during a conference/instructions to the subordinate officers and sometimes such decisions do appear to be little biased. Example1 , an administrative authority transfering a file (which received a lot of financial observations) pertaining to a Department A to other Department B to justify the observation rather than referring back to the concerned Department A which is thoroughly involved with the job and who are actually supposed to justify the observation. Example2 -certain decisions of administrative authorities given orally, which may amount to infringement of orders/chances of dishonesty/where provisions do not exist for such decisions under any existing rule and follow-up of such decision is not warranted for. Example3-Administrative authority, giving the decision for compliance of an order from a person not having a mandate to pass an order .Can reasons for such administrative decisions given orally, be asked under RTI section 4(d).
(iii) RTI Querry No-3- Under section 4 (b) of RTI, there's is supposed to be suo moto disclosure of whole lot of information by public authorities. Supposingly a public authority when approached, and requested to disclose it on the website does not declare the required information, can the provisions of article 226 of the Constitution be invoked under the jurisdiction of high court for failure of public officials in discharge of the statutory duty, whereby a notice under section 80 of civil procedure code can be served upon the government Department through concerned secretary in the concerned Ministry
Kishor Mehta
(Expert) 02 October 2012
Sir,
With due respect;
[1] The RTI rule is meant for an individual only, and the Information Officer gives INFORMATION only and is not authorized under the RTI to give decisions.
[2] For an illiterate applicant there is a provision in the RTI rules to take help from the Information officers, and they are legally bound to help him.
[3] There is no provision for any Power of Attorney or an Advocate to represent an applicant in RTI rules. One has to apply for self.
[4] The RTI is for information only and does no call for the PIO's decision or his explanation about how the same has been arrived at.
[5] The applicant can ask for information, has to pay for the same in some instances, however he can not demand for its publication.
Regards,
Kishor Mehta
Rajesh Tandon
(Querist) 02 October 2012
Dear Mr Kishore Mehta,
1.Thx for sparing your precious time & offering your view point but I some how hold different view & that is why i have put across my point of view for open debate & views from experts in this forum.
2. Please try to understand that firstly the RTI ACT IS AN STATUTORY ACT PASSED BY PARLIAMENT.in the said act there are enabling provisions under sec4(d). naturally the framers of the act have given a due thought before incorporating such provisions. Here my querry is not about decision of PIO but about reasons for administrative or quasi judicial decisions. You may like to reconsider your view point in the light of enabling provisions.Therefore in this regard clarification is being saught on whether this is applicable to reasons of decision which had been recorded in writing by administrative authorities while discharging a quasi-judicial function/duty or one can ask for any decision of administrative authority, which may not be a decision arrived at by virtue of discharge of quasi-judicial function or duty. such a decision could be oral decision affecting an individual.
2. As far as publication is concerned of information under sec 4(b), a lot of government departments have already done it on their website. this is again a statutory requirement under the act. the provisions of the act are as under:-
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;
b) publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act.
3. Please read the word computerised & connected through a network all over the country in sec 4(1)(a)otherwise how come the highest Judicial body in this country i.e Supreme court of India has declared whole lot of information on its website under sec 4(1)(a)& (b) depite their own busy schedule. thus it is a statutory duty under the law for compliance. Also a department having a wbsite can not be said to have lack of resources.
4. Failure to carry out duties by pulic officials can be challanged under article 226 of constitution by filing writ petition. That is why the need to throw open this subject for debate/ open discussion/views of experts.
Kishor Mehta
(Expert) 02 October 2012
Shri Rajesh Tandon,
I referred sec 4 of RTI rules, I think I see your point now. Yes, sure it is debatable.
I hope legal luminaries will shade a light on the point raised.
Thank you Mr.Tandon.
Kishor Mehta
Rajesh Tandon
(Querist) 02 October 2012
Thx for honouring my comments. I further add to this debate by quoting two decisions of CIC where they have accepted use of authority letter. the same are as under:-
CIC/AT/A/2007/00618
CIC/AT/A/2007/00619
CIC/AT/A/2007/00620
Total : 3 Appeals dated 22nd August, 2007 in case ofShri S.P. Goyal, 103A, Krishna Chambers, 59 New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400 020. VsShri V.K. Mishra, Commissioner of Income Tax-12 & CPIO, Office of Commissioner of Income Tax, 265 Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai-400 020. Refer Para 6 of CIC Judgement
and second case is Appeal No.CIC/PB/A/2008/00288-SM dated 03.11.2007
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated 18.03.2009 in case of Shri Kuldip Raj Kaila Vs Punjab National Bank. kindly refer Para 3 of the Judgement of CIC
Regards
