195-206-ICWF-Riyadh-Jdh-DXB-ADB-KWT-DHA-MUS-BAH-DAM-UK-US-BER

[siju]

ReplyDocument.pdf

(150.8 KiB) Downloaded 262 times

[siju]

Dear Mr. Simon,



Reference your RTI query No. MEALD/R/E/20/00007 dated 6 May 2020. The information sought vide your RTI application, ad seriatim is as under:-



Balance of ICWF as on 31 May 2020: Rs. 41,46,54,687/-
Balance of ICWF as on 31 March 2020: Rs. 41,46,54,687/-
Total collected under ICWF from 1/1/2019 to 31/12/2019: Rs. 3,40,92,342/-
Total collected under ICWF from 1/1/2020 to 31/3/2020: Rs. 79,78,119/-

Total spent from 1/1/2019 to 31/3/2019: Rs. 1,04,68,112.



Information sought on all other matters cannot be provided as it would conflict with efficient operation of the Mission, optimum use of its limited resources.



If you are not satisfied with this reply, you may prefer an appeal against the same to the Appellate Authority, i.e. Mr. Vishwesh Negi, Minister (Political & Extradition), High Commission of India, India House, London within 30 days of receipt of this reply. Mr. Vishwesh Negi can be reached by e-mail at minpol.london@mea.gov.in.



With regards,



(Mahesh Chawla)

SS(Pol, PD & RTI)

[siju]

ReplyDocument-First APPeal.pdf

(46.98 KiB) Downloaded 213 times

ReplyDocument.pdf

Sir,
For my request for Information regarding Regarding information about collection and expenditure of Indian Community welfare Fund(ICWF), the reply by, CPIO, is not acceptable. I have the following grievances and prays.
1. The reply is indication of the rampant corruption in the embassy, especially, in collecting mandatory contribution to the Indian Community Welfare Fund and its utilization. The RTI act is enacted to curtail such corruption, but section 4 is still not implemented by this embassy, and this reply is a classic example of how government officials sabotage the constitution.
2. PIO is deliberately trying to sweep the evidence of corruption under the mat, by not providing any relevant information, by rejecting the application, by citing section 11 of RTI Act, while not following the mandatory procedure that needs to be followed under that section.
As per section 11,
11. Third party information.—
(1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: Provided that except in the case of trade or commercial secrets protected by law, disclosure may be allowed if the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interests of such third party.
Indian community welfare fund , setup by
1. by the Indian Missions by levying a service charge on Consular Services,
2. Voluntary contributions by Indian community.
3. Budgetary support from the Government of India, Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs (MOIA).

The PIO is claiming that all the information is provided by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party. But the PIO has not provided any reference to this claim.
Even if the PIO, has some reason to believe that each of the contribution, and all particulars of the fund is some thirdparty information, he is supposed to send letter to each of the contributors and obtain their feed back. But this mandatory procedure was not followed.

The central information commission, in Rajesh Madhukant, v. PIO, Hemwati Nandan Bhauguna Garhwal University, CIC/CC/A/2014/000666 decided on 14-12-2016 held as below
5. The Commission finds neither merit nor legality in the contention of the University that the information about Chief Minister of Uttarakhand was third party information. The PIO of public authority should have applied his mind, understood the aims and objects of RTI Act before flatly denying the request. Even if it is assumed that PIO was correct in contending that the information sought was third party information belonging to Mr. Ramesh Pokhriyal "Nishank”; the PIO was under an obligation under Section 11 (1) of RTI Act to seek the opinion of the Mr. Ramesh Pokhriyal "Nishank”. The PIO failed to fulfil such obligation. Even if the Chief Minister raises objection against disclosure, it is the duty of PIO to examine independently the public interest factor and decide whether information was to be disclosed. There is no record to show that the PIO of HNBG University has taken any independent decision on these lines prescribed by RTI Act, nor he gave any reason for the rejection.

3. The PIO has issued a non speaking order.
Merely citing a section, that has no relevance to the information sought, is not enough. The PIO must cite how the section is attracted to the information sought.
The Punjab-Haryana High Court
In Fruit & Merchant Union vs Unknown on 2 November, 2012
C.W.P. No. 4787 of 2011 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 4787 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision: 2.11.2012
Held that
12. A perusal of the aforesaid order shows that the same is totally non-speaking. It is lacking not even in reasons for which it was opined that the information sought by the applicant herein does not amount to personal information or trade secrets of a third party, even the facts of the case have not been referred to in detail. In the absence of brief facts and the reasons contained in the order, it is not possible for the next higher court to appreciate as to what weighed with the authority in reaching the conclusion and as to whether there was application of mind by the authority or the order is arbitrary. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Kranti Associates Private C.W.P. No. 4787 of 2011 [5] Limited and another v. Masood Ahmed Khan and others, (2010) 9 SCC 496, while referring to its earlier judgments in Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Shyam Sunder Jhunjhunwala, AIR 1961 SC 1669; Som Datt Datta v. Union of India, AIR 1969 SC 414; Bhagat Raja v. Union of India, AIR 1967 SC 1606; Travancore Rayon Ltd. v. Union of India, (1969) 3 SCC 868; Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar v. State of U. P., (1970) 1 SCC 764; Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, (1973) 1 SCC 380; Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor, (1973) 2 SCC 836;Woolcombers of India Ltd. v. Workers Union, (1974) 3 SCC 318; Siemens Engg. And Mfg. Co. of India Ltd. v. Union of India, (1976) 2 SCC 981; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248; Rama Varma Bharathan Thampuram v. State of Kerala, (1979) 4 SCC 782; Gurdial Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab, (1979) 2 SCC 368; H.H. Shri Swamiji of Shri Amar Mutt v. Commr., Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Deptt., (1979) 4 SCC 642; Bombay Oil Industries (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (1984) 1 SCC 141; Ram Chander v. Union of India, (1986) 3 SCC 103; Star Enterprises v. City and Industrial Development Corpn. Of Maharashtra Ltd., (1990) 3 SCC 280;S. N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 594; Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. K. S. Gandhi, (1991) 2 SCC 716; M.L. Jaggi v. MTNL, (1996) 3 SCC 119 and Charan Singh v. Healing Touch Hospital, (2000) 7 SCC 668 opined that every order passed by quasi-judicial authority or even an administrative authority affecting the rights of parties, must be a speaking order. It must not be like the "inscrutable face of a sphinx". The superior court cannot effectively exercise its power of judicial review unless in the order impugned, facts and reasons have been stated in detail. Merely giving an opportunity of hearing is not enough. Wherever an order can be subject to appeal or judicial review, the necessity to record reasons is even greater. It ensures that the decision is not a result of caprice, whim or fancy but was arrived at after considering the relevant facts and the law. It enables an aggrieved party to demonstrate before the higher court that the reasons on which his claim has been rejected, are erroneous. It operates as a deterrent against possible arbitrary action by any authority invested with judicial power. The aim is to C.W.P. No. 4787 of 2011 [6] prevent unfairness or arbitrariness in reaching conclusions. Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. The faith of the people in administrative authorities can be sustained only if they act fairly and dispose of the matters before them by well-considered orders. The aforesaid judgment was followed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in ORYX Fisheries Private Ltd. v. Union of India and others, (2010) 13 SCC 427.
Also,
In the case of Dhananjay Tripathi vs. Banaras Hindu University (Decision No. CIC / OK / A/ 00163, dated 7.7.2006), the applicant had applied for information relating to the treatment and subsequent death of a student in the University hospital due to alleged negligence of the doctors attending him. The appellant was, however, denied the information by the PIO of the University saying that the information sought could not be provided under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. No further reasons as to how the information sought could not be provided under the RTI Act was given. Judgement: The Commission held that quoting the provisions of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act to deny the information without giving any justification or grounds as to how these provisions are applicable is simply not acceptable, and clearly amount to malafide denial of legitimate information. The public authority must provide reasons for rejecting the particular application. The Commission further held that not providing the reasons of how the application for information was rejected according to a particular provision of the Act would attract penalties under Section 20(1) of the Act.
Hence, I request you to direct the PIO, to shed his malafide denial and to provide full information, as pointed out above.
I request you to provide me copy of counter statement/defense filed by cpio against this appeal and file notes etc. regarding this appeal.
Please allow me to participate in the hearing of this appeal over my phone number 00966599647718