Digital hoardings - How the government maintains an illegal stand, unofficially

Here is a classic case of how a government does what it wants, irrespective of, what the high court tells them and what they tell the high court. This is about the digital hoardings that have become the latest(though it cannot actually be called latest, since it has been ther for a few years now) fad. Everybody wants a digital hoarding for everything. If somebody (actually a nobody) is coming to Chennai or some area of Chennai, and his chamchas want to gain favour with him, they line up the medians and the pavements with hoardings of this guy walking in a suit or talking over cell phone, with a stupid grin on his face. These highly irritating hoardings actually do the trick. They do give them good publicity.

Political parties are the major offenders. They come up with hoardings for everything. I have been so infuriated with this, that I have gone to 3 police stations so far and filed complaints against this. And everywhere I was told that these politicial hoardings are allowed for 3 days before and 2 days after the political event for which these were raised. The misuse is rampant. Nobody really bothers. They just put up hoardings even if there are no events. And even in cases where there are genuinely some events, these hoardings come up much before 3 days and will stay there till long after the 2 days after the event. So whenever I complain to the Police, I had to do it, only if there was no political event, or if the hoardings were there even after the stipulated 2 days.

But I also wondered how such orders can be given by the government, where in the hoardings can be allowed for 3 days before and 2 days after. Illegal hoardings are after all illegal hoardings. The most serious problem with these hoardings are that they pose a safety threat to road users. That being the case, how can the government say that safety can be ignored for 3 days before and 2 days after an event. That could be easily challenged in the court. So I filed an RTI with the Chennai Corporation, asking them to give me copies of the relevant orders wherein it has been specified that hoardings can be allowed before and after an event. The RTI application was sent from one place to another and finally, I received a reply from the office of the Commissioner of sub-urban police citing the GO(MS) No.62, MAWS 16-May-2007. But they told me that they did not have a copy of the GO since their office was newly formed.

When I looked up the GO on the internet (it can be seen here). This GO did not talk about the time stipulations of 3 and 2 days, but only talked about formation of committees to oversee the removal of unauthorised hoardings. Then I had the first inkling, that there probably was no formal order from the government. So I immediately filed an RTI with the MAWS (Municipal Administration and Water Supply department). But not wanting to wait for 30 days I used Section 4(1)(c) of the Right to Information act, which says that the government should voluntarily "publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies or announcing the decisions which affect public;". For this I went for inspection on 10th June 2009. Surprisingly, they did show me the file related to this. When I asked the person there as to the present status, he said that I had asked to go through the files and so I should find the details on my own in the file.

When I went through the file, I understood the whole story. There have been no official orders that Digital Hoardings can be allowed for 3 days before and 2 days afte the event. There were only 2 press releases, which can be seen here (1 & 2). That these were made after discussions with the Chief minister Mr.M.Karunanidhi clearly shows that it was under the CM's oders that such press releases were issued. The first press release says that Political Parties and other Public institutions that erect hoardings for events should do so only 3 days before and 2 days after the event. Other that there has only been a DO letter (whose copy I dont have right now, but will get soon) which said the same thing. A report in the Hindu in this regard, can be seen here.The government was playing it safe as we will soon see.

In this regard Traffic Ramasamy filed a PIL hoardings with the high court (case no 14965/2007). In this case, the high court had asked from the Chief Secretary, the rationale behing the press releases and the DO letter. There the Cheif Secretary made a complete u-turn and said, that the press release only means that licenses for hoardings can only be given for 3-days before and 2 days after the event. He also added that the press release and DO letter does not mean that licenses are not necessary, but only that licenses should be given only for 5 days. This was clearly not what he meant when he issued those two press releases. But now, realising that, the court is asking him for the rationale behind the press releases, he did a u-turn. But, in his affidavit, he did not stop at that . He went on to say that the implementing authorities should not be bogged down with such pres releases and DO letters. What crap! The Chief Secretary and the CM hold a meeting and issue a press release. A year later when the high court hauls them up asking for explanations, they say that their press release ought to be ignored. Does he really mean that what the CM and the Chief Secretary says ought to be ignored. This is so absurd.

But what has now happened is that, the press releases were initially widely publicised. And every police station now says that the government has allowed for hoardings to be set up for 5 days. But nobody knows about the Chief Secretary's volte face. So, though today there is no official order, or even an official stand, that illegal digital hoardings can stay for 5 days, for all practical purposes that is the ground reality.

Am waiting to lay my hands on that affidavit by the Chief Secretary and the DO letter. Once that is in my hands, I will go the press about this, and then use the press articles when I go to police stations.

A small update on Perungattur awareness session

On 21st April 2007, I had organised an awareness session in a village called Perungattur in Cheyyar Taluka of Thiruvannamalai district. At that time after the session I helped 5 people there to file their RTI applications with the Tahsildar offices. One of which was for a ration card follow up, three for old age pension follow up and one house application follow-up. Yesterday I went there again to find out what had happened. Not a single person received any reply to the RTI application. But there was a goof-up from my side too. I forgot to tell them to take copies of their applications before sending. I just dont understand how I missed that. Anyway, so I filed First appeals for 4 of them yesterday. I have also told two of them (I did not meet the other two yesterday), that if after 30 days of the first appeal, they dont get any reply, we need to go to the Tahsildar office and talk to him. They said ok. Let me wait and see.

Inspection at Public (Establishment) and Public (Motor Vehicles)

The next day after the inspection at the Protocol section, I met the PIO of the Establishment department, who promptly sent me to the Joint secretary. This time, the Joint Secretary was irritated at why I was asking lots of information, but he sent me to the PIO, who again refused to show me the records and that he will send me a reply to my letter of inspection.

But the best was reserved for the ext day. On the third day (Wednesday), I went to the PIO of the Motor Vehicles department. He initially told me that the public did not have the right to inspection. To which I showed him the part of the act which said that

"Explanation.—For the purposes of sub-sections (3) and (4), "disseminated" means making known or communicated the information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet or any other means, including inspection of offices of any public authority"

Then, he claimed, that the department was not a public authority,. Here again I showed the relevant part of the act. Then he said that the department has already put up all the infromation that is needed for the public on the web. I told him that he cannot decide what is needed for the public, but he must go by what the act says. He also asked whether I would show him my bank passbook if he asked for it. I told him that I need not because he doesnt fund me, but he has to since the public fund him. When he asked how, I told him that we are all paying taxes. When he asked what tax, I listed out that I pay Income tax, sales tax, road tax etc. He said that Income tax is paid only for the income I earn and hence it is a personal thing. His logic was astounding. When I questioned him that if it was my income, why do I need to pay tax. Is it not that I pay taxes so that a government can be run to ensure us basic services. But he went back to his point of income tax being a personal thing. After arguing this point for sometime, he came up with his greatest reply. He said that since his department did not maintain any records at all, he could not show me any records. I was shocked at this reckless reply. Here is an officer of the secretariat, who claims that his department does not have any records. I was stunned. Not knowing what to do, I asked him to give it to me in writing. Immediately he changed tack and told me that he needs to consult the law department and his seniors before giving me the information. When I pressed him again, he refused to show me anything and asked me to wait for the letter from him.

Inspection at Public(Protocol) Department

I sent an intimation of inspection of records at the Public(Protocol) Department. Last week too I went for inspection at Chennai Corporation, but I guess that will have to wait for another blog, since that story has not yet reached the climax.

I went at about 11.00 AM to the secretariat. But there was a looong queue at the entrance. Normally before entering the gate, one has to give his name, age and address. But you dont need to show any id card. So I really dont understand why there is this procedure at all, since you can always give imaginary addresses and get away with it. But since this procedure is followed, allowing each person in takes about 30 seconds to 1 minute. And this queue had more than 100 people. Not wanting to wait for such a long time, I returned to office and went back at 1.30 in the afternoon.

There I went to the Public(protocol) Department and met the Under secretary. Usually, at the secretariat, Under secretaries are the PIOs of their respective sections, in this case, the protocol section of the Public department. I had asked to inspect records related to Emergency quota release for air and train tickets. I had this vague idea from hearsay, that this quota was for public who had last minute emergencies like health issues. But I really had no idea what the emergency quota was actually for. And like all other powers given to bureaucrats, I was expecting the politicians to use them to their full advantage. Whether that really happened, I am yet to find out. But when I went to his room and showed the PIO a copy of my letter. He went through it, and was not convinced that I had a right to inspect the records. He felt offended at the word "Inspection". He told me that he can inspect the work of people working under him, but did not understand how the public can inspect the records. I told him that I was not trying to be dominating but that I was only using the word that was given in the act.

He also went on to tell me how he worked extremely hard from morning 10 to evening 8 without having time even to go to the toilet or have lunch. And how even all the staff under him worked till 8 PM. Then he showed me two mobile phones, one a personal one and another an official one. He told me that everbody in this country, including the Prime Minister, President, Ministers, have his mobile number and keep calling him up at all the hours of the day.

And then he asked me what the motive of my inspection was. I told him I want to check whether the procedure for release of these emergency train and air tickets was being followed properly. Then he told me that he cannot allow me to sit in his room and insect the records, since that will greatly affect his work. I replied that normally the PIO asks one of the section officers to give me the records for inspection and as I go through the files, the section officer carries on with his work. This he said he cannot allow, since if the records are damaged even a little bit, he will be responsible and action would have to be taken against him. I told him, that I have done inspections at many other departments like Finance, P&AR etc but nobody claimed such things.

Then he went on to explain to me something about the quota. He said that the mere fact that his department has issued an emergency letter does not mean that the person gets the ticket. This was news to me. He also went on to say that it is usually MLAs, MPs and other IAS officers who request for tickets. There are also recommendations from

Anyway, finally he called up one of his section officers. And that is when the fun started.

The way he talked over phone was very comical. He was, as a matter of fact, talking to me, with the pretext of talking over phone to some other officer. This is how the conversation went. I have tried to imagine what the person at the other end would have said, but as you can see, anybody would have guessed that.

PIO: There is this person Madhav, who wants to inspect the records related to emergency quota.
Jun.Officer: ok...
PIO: But we cannot allow him for inspection right?
Jun.Officer: Yeah
PIO: He needs to get the permission of the establishment section to inspect the records, right?
Jun.Officer: Yeah
PIO: I think he has to meet the undersecretary of the establishment section.
Jun.Officer: ok
PIO: Ok, I will tell him that.
Jun.Officer: ok.

So this PIO was looking for an excuse to avoid me from inspecting. So, he asked me to meet the Establishment, under secretary. I wondered, why in the world would an officer of one section give permission for inspection of records in a different section. But I anyway went. That guy, who looked like new to his post, was totally lost. He was not sure why the other officer sent me here. When he tried to call up the PIO, the phone was not answered. So I went back to the PIO's room and he had left for lunch. So I waited for another 20 minutes, and then when the PIO returned to his room, I went back to the Establishment, under secretary and told him that the PIO has returned. He then called the PIO up and they discussed it over phone and decided that the Joint Secretary of the Establishment department, was the person I had to meet. So I went to the Joint Secretary's room. He was clearly laughing at this issued. He got a bit irritated that the PIO was making me run around, and told me as much. He immediately called up the PIO, and told him, in clear terms, that it was upto him to take a decision as to whether to let me inspect the records or not. So I went back to the PIO's room.

Now the PIO's pretence of cordiality began to wither away. He kept telling me that I am disturbing his work greatly, and that I was acting in a childish manner not realising the seriousness of the department. He repeated this 2-3 times. He also told me that he has heard from officers of the other departments that one gentleman was going aroung the secretariat seeking to inspect documents. Then he said that he was not convinced that he had to allow me to inspect the records. Then I showed him the act where it was clearly mentioned that "disseminated includes inspection of offices of the Public Authority". He then called up another person and checked with him whether such inspection has to be allowed. I couldnt, of course, know what the other person told him. But after the phone call, he told me that he has to get permission from his Joint Secretary for the inspection and that he would immediately put up a file to him and once the Joint Secretary gives him the permission, he would allow me access. I tried explaining to him that it is the PIO's authority to take a decision on this, and that there was no point in passing the buck to the higher authority. I also told him that, if that is the case, then the Joint secretary could pass the file to the Secretary of the Public department, who in turn could pass it on to the Chief Secretary and that the whole process would be meaningless. Then he got wild and told me that I cannot talk like that, and that since he wants to be safe, and so he wants the permission of the Joint Secretary. And then came out the truth.

What I did not recollect was, that I had previously filed an RTI application with the Public Department, which came to the same PIO. He refused information on some grounds, and so I had filed an appeal with the appellate authority pointing out how the PIO has erred. All through our conversation, I had no idea that this was that PIO, though I should have known. But all along it hurt him that I had complained to his senior that the PIO's contention was wrong. He then told me that when I had the right to go to the appeallate authority, then he has a right to go too. Only after this I realised the reason for his antagonism towards me. Or at least that was part of the reason.

Then I asked him, by what date would I be allowed to inspect. He did not give me a direct reply and again repeated that he would pass a file to the Joint Secretary and after he takes a decision, he would let me know. So I decided to leave. Tomorrow again, I have an inspection with the Public department (Establishment section). This was the same section to which this PIO sent me to. Let me see what happens tomorrow. But I also intend to meet the Joint Secretary of the Public (Protocol) Department, and complain to him about the PIO. There will be more on this.

"I am seized of the matter"

Thanks to the elections, the hearings at the State Information Commission have been put on hold for a month. They will begin again on May 20th. I went and met the Chief Commissioner the day before. And tried to followup my demands of guidelines for judgments and follow-up mechanism. For the follow-up, he said that he knew that he had to do something about it and that he was seized of the matter . It was frustrating. But It also reminded me of this conversation from Yes Minister.

James Hacker: What's an official reply?
Bernard Woolley: It just says "The Minister has asked me to thank you for your letter"; then we say something like "The matter is under consideration", or even, if we feel so inclined, "under active consideration."
James Hacker: What's the difference?
Bernard Woolley: Well, 'under consideration' means we've lost the file; 'under active consideration' means we're trying to find it.

Regarding the format for judgments, he initially said that guidelines are illegal and that guidelines should not be given. I then pointed out how the CIC has issued guidelines. But he said that CIC has done several things that are legally questionable. On pressing further, he said that he already tried sending one such note to other commissioners which contained the details that a judgment should have, but that the others felt that he was trying to treat them like schoolchildren. When I asked him for a copy of that, he asked a staff to bring it. That person could not locate it and asked me to come the next day. When I went the next day, he still could not locate it and said that he could not remember seeing any such note.

Then I raised the issue that web upload of decisions stopped at Sep 2008 and there was no improvement after that. He said that his contact point in NIC was moved and hence he is finding it difficult to upload decisions.

I doubted what he said, since, the last time I talked to the staff who actually do the upload, they told me that NIC has given them a web interface through which they can upload decisions directly. NIC has automated the whole thing, without their having to interfere with each upload. So I went and tried to enquire as to who actually does the upload. That led me to a lady who was doing it till sometime back. I was very polite to her, and asked her as to what the exact reasons for the delay is. I enquired whether this is because of some problem at NIC or due to some problems in the commission itself or due to some technical issues. She told me that there were no technical issues and that she had all the soft copies with her, but just that the registrar, who has to allocate work to her, has not given her the task of uploading. She also clearly told me that NIC need not do anything for the upload. This clearly contradicted what the Chief says, exposing the fact that the Chief had no idea of how the upload was happening. Of course the other option is that the Chief was lying, but I really cant think of any reason why he has to lie for such a petty issue. He probably had no idea about it but still wanted to give some reply.

The next day, I went and met the Registrar. He was a new person. I pointed out to him that there is an eight month backlog in uploading the judgments to the website. Even he did not know about it. He immediately called another lady who was also doing the upload and asked her why decisions were not uploaded to the website. She said that he allocated her a different work and so she could not do it. He immediately asked her to upload these decisions right away. Let me see if that happens.

The two most important issues that need to be addressed next is the imposition of penalties and follow-up mechanism for SCNs and penalties. The latter one is a slightly easier one to achieve with the State Information Commission. I am going to push hard for that hard, rightaway.

Blatant misuse of Government funds

The Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu led an all party delegation on Dec 4th to Delhi to meet the PM on the issue of the troubles faced by Sri Lankan Tamils due to the war waged by Sri Lanka against the LTTE. It is now the norm that all parties shed crocodile tears for them. This is obvious from how the CM initially threatened that all his MPs will resign and then later backtracked. Such posturing and tokenism is not uncommon with politicians. But then, if such posturing is made by using public money, that is just not acceptable. And that is what precisely happened in this case. On 31st Dec 2008, I had filed an RTI application asking whether the government had borne the expenses for this all party trip and if so the expenses incurred and the members who travelled as a part of the delegation.

As expected, the expenses were indeed borne by the government.

Totally 17 people had been part of the delegation. They were,

1. Mr.M.Karunanidhi, Chief Minister - DMK
2. Mr.K.Anbazhagan, Finance Minister - DMK
3. K.Abdul Basid, MLA - DMK
4. Mr.Sudarsanam, Legislative Party Leader - INC
5. Mr.Thirumavalavan, General Secretary - VCK
6. Dr.K.Krishnaswamy - Puthiya Thamizhagam Party
7. Mr.Tiruppur Altaf, General Secretary - Tamil Nadu National League.
8. Mr. S.Hyder Ali, President - TN Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam
9. Mr.Poovai Jaganmoorthy, President - Puratchi Bharatham
10. Bishop Esra Sarkunam, President - Indian Social Justice Iyakkam
11. Mr.P.V.Kathiravan - Forward Block
12. Mr.K.Sellamuthu, President - Uzhavar Uzhaippaliar Party
13. Mr.K.Veeramani, President - Dravidar Kazhagam
14. Mrs.Rathika Sarathkumar- All India Samathuva Makkal Party
15. Mr.Vijaya T.Rajendar, President - Latchiya Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
16. Mr.R.M.Veerappan, President - M.G.R.Kazhagam.
17. Mr.Jagathratchagan, Founder - Democratic Progressive Party (Jananayaka Munnetra Kazhagam)

The total expenses incurred for the delegation vist were Rs.13,83,228. That comes to an average of Rs.81,366 per head

The split up is

Air Travel = 11,55,835
Transport = 1,36,351
Boarding = 66,259
Misccellaneous expenditure = 24,783.

My questions are,
1. Why should the government fund these expenses? It is not a governmental visit, but a political visit. It is plain misuse of public money.

2. Of those who were part of the delegation, parties like AISMK and Latchiya DMK have not faced any elections so far. I have not even heard of parties like Uzhavar Uzhaippaliar Party and Indian Social Justice Iyakkam. Moreover, if I am right, TN Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam, was not even a political party in Dec 2008 and registered as one only in 2009. Then on what basis are they eligible to be funded by public money?

3. The worst part is the quantum of expenses. The visit to Delhi and back costs Rs.81,366 per head. Air travel alone comes to 68,000 per head. This is outrageous. Looks like everybody, including people who are not MLAs, representatives of parties which have never faced elections and representatives of groups that are not even political parties, has flown business class at the expense of the tax payer. An economy class ticket from Chennai to Delhi will cost in the range of Rs. 3000 one way. That means instead of spending just Rs.6,000, they have spent close to 70,000 for the tickets. Also the transport expenses come to 1,36,351. Where all did they move around in Delhi, that the transport expenses came to this much.

I think it is plain and blatant misuse of public money. The government has no right to waste hard earned money of the citizens paid to the government as taxes. The government should ensure the money is recovered from each one of them and also ensure that such incidents are not repeated in future.

This was covered in the Indian Express today. It can be seen here. Though the point they raised is not the one I intended. The article says that 14 lakhs went down the drain because the visit did not achieve anything. But my point is something else. Even if the visit were successflul my argument is that most of the people who were part of the delagation did not representethe citizens in anyway. and hence public money cannot fund their travel. That too business class travel. I am sure that, if not for the fact that government money is funding the trip, most of them would have chosen economy class. Public money is considered as something that nobody needs to be bothered about. That is where the problem starts.

TN Information Commissioners' violations of the Right to Information act.

In my discussions with the State Information Commissioners, I could see that there was a lack of understanding of the penal provisions of the Right to Information act. Though these can be seen from the orders, I will point out two discussions that are illuminating.

In a discussions with the Chief Commissioner, I raised the issue of the Commission's orders not adhering to the penal provisions of the Act. I told him that even in a written order Show Cause Notice should be issued if there has been a delay. This was not being usually done. But he picked up one order and read it out to me. This was on an appeal to the commission. Usually written orders on appeals to the commission are passed after 6 months from the date of appeal. This order said "The Public Authority is directed to supply the information within 30 days of this order, and if not done, the Public Information Officer, has to appear before the commission to explain why penalties should not be imposed on him/her". He read it out proudly saying that he had issued Show Cause Notice in a written order. I then pointed out that this is still a violation because, even if the PIO supplies information now, there has still been more than 6 months delay in supplying information. But as per the order, this need not be explained, since the order says that ONLY IF information is not given within 30 days, the PIO has to show cause. When I pointed this out to him, he couldnt answer it, and said he will think about it.

Another discussion was with Mr.T.R.Ramasamy. Here again I raised the issue of the commission not adhering to the Penal Provisions of the act. He said that he was indeed imposing penalties wherever needed. I tried to show an example where the commissioner Mr.T.Srinivasan had recommended disciplinary proceedings under section 20(2) of the act, but has not imposed penalty under Section 20(1). I questioned such an order, saying that section 20(2) cannot be imposed without 20(1). He argued that it was not yet clear whether both can be imposed in the same case. But he was missing the point. Section 20(2) differs from 20(1) only by a word "persistently". That is, if a PIO persistently violates the act, 20(2) should be used. If the PIO violates the act in that case, 20(1) should be invoked. So a PIO might not have violated the act persistently but only in a specific case, so 20(1) has to be invoked, but 20(2) should not be. But when section 20(2) is invoked, saying that the PIO is persistently violating the act, then it is obvious that in this case violation has happened and so section 20(1) has to be imposed. When I pointed out this difference, he claimed that there was no such difference in the act. Then I pulled out the act and he referred his own book and only then did he realise that there was a difference between section 20(1) and Section 20(2). That is, for the past 8-9 months orders have been passed, without understanding this distinction.

Coming to the orders that have been passed, I have collected a few of them here.

Section 20(1) of the Act is clear on the penalties and there is no scope for different interpretations here. Penalty has to be imposed in all the cases where the Public Information officer has,

1. without any reasonable cause refused to receive an application for information
2. without any reasonable cause not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7
3. malafidely denied the request for information
4. knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information
5. destroyed information which was the subject of the request
6. obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information.

In all of the above cases penalty SHALL be imposed. It is very important to note that there is no scope for discretion here once one of the six above scenarios have been established. Discretion lies in only deciding whether reasonable cause is present or not. Once that is done, then penalty has to be imposed. The Act says that the Public Information Officer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him. So the commissioners are supposed to issue Show Cause Notices in all of the above cases.

Here are the examples to show up these violations by the commissioners.

1. 8615/08 - 5-Dec-2008 - RR, SNA - In this case a hearing was first held on 4th July 2008 where Show Cause Notice was issued. But when it came up for hearing again on 5th Dec 2008 there was no talk about the SCN. The commission just notes that information has been given, and hence nothing else needs to be done. (Both the orders are enclosed)

2. 8865/08 - 3-Dec-2008 - SR,GR,RR - The dates given in this order are confusing. But the commission notes that there has been a delay despite an order of the Commission. But since information was given, the case is closed. This is a clear violation of the act. The commission HAS to impose the penalty in this case as per the act. But they havent done that.

3. 9341/08 - 15-Dec-2008 - TR,RP - The commission notes in the last para that for an RTI application filed in 21-Feb-2007, the petitioner was given a reply only on 12-Dec-2008 which amounts to a delay of about 22 months. And that too incomplete. But the commission does not issue a SCN. What were the commissioners thinking here?

4. 10091/08 - 29-Dec-2008 - TS,SNA - Information has been received only after a previous order of the commission. Exact delay is not known since the order does not give the date of RTI application. But when it is heard a second time, and known that information has been given, the commission does not even bother to check whether there has been any "Reasonable cause" for the delay.

5. 12160/08 - 15-Dec-2008 - Here the commission had previously passed orders(7656/08) to give information within 10 days. Even at that time there was no show cause notice despite the delay. Today when it came up for hearing again, after 4 months of previous orders, information is still not fully given. But still there is no show cause notice. The PIO is just given another 5 days.

6. 13026/08 - 23-Dec-08 - This is again a terrible order, though the violation of the PIO is not delay here. The RTI application sought some information which was partly with this department. The rest was with some other department. ANd so at the hearing, the PIO says that information related to his department has been furnished, but the rest relates to a different department and so cant be given. THis is a clear violation by the PIO since he should have transferred the application to the department concerned. Even teh commissioner does not seem to realise this and directs the petitioner to approach that department for the rest of the information. Hopeless.

7. 13953/08 - 29-Dec-2008 - For an RTI application filed on 15th Jun 2007 seeking four sets of information, three of those replies were given only on the date of the hearing (29th dec, after 18 months). But still no show cause notice. No examination of reasonable cause. Nothing.

8. 14182/08 - 22-Dec-08 - Here, on the first two lines of the second page of the order, the commission notes that the Public Authority has not given a direct honest answer. In spite of this, the commission gives 30 days time. And if information is not given within this time, penalty will be imposed. But what about the delays that happened so far. The commission does not bother. This is just an empty threat.

In other months there have been even more funny cases.

9127/08 - 4-July-2008 - Date of RTI application is 15-12-2006. A show cause notice was already issued at a previous hearing on 16-May-2007. Even there were some problems in giving information (the actual problems are not very clear from the order), but the commission again issues a Show Cause Notice. Double Show Cause Notice. The penalty should have been imposed now since an apporutnity was already given.

7664/08 - 28-Aug-2008. Sec 20(1) of the RTI act talks about penalties in case of violations by PAs. Sec 20(2) talks about recommending Disciplinary Proceedings in cases of PERSISTENT violations by PAs. The difference between both is that sec 20(2) has to be invoked when a PA is seen to be violating again and again. So it is common sense that whenever Sec20(2) is invoked, Section 20(1) should also be invoked. Whereas, Sec 20(1) can be invoked without section 20(2). But in this case. Section 20(2) is invoked without calling in Section 20(1). This is plain lack of knowledge about the act by the commissioners.

The solution to these kind of violations is coming up with a set of guidelines for issuing Show Cause Notices and imposition of penalties. This has been done CIC as can be seen in these minutes http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Minutes/Minutes12082008.pdf.

All the decisions referred to here can be downloaded from here.

http://www.box.net/shared/axkm8lmmyj