Central Information Commission
Mrmaniramsharma vs Lok Sabha Secretariat on 17 August, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
CLUB BUILDING (NEAR POST OFFICE)
OLD JNU CAMPUS, NEW DELHI110067
Decision No.CIC/RM/C/2014/900152/SB/
Appeal No.CIC/RM/C/2014/900152/SB
Dated: 17.08.2015
Complainant: Shri Maniram Sharma,
Behind Roadways Deport, Sardarshahar,
Distt. Churu, Rajasthan - 331403.
Respondent: Central Public Information Officer,
Lok Sabha, Lok Sabha Secretariat,
Parliament House,
New Delhi 110001.
Date of Hearing: 17.08.2015
ORDER
1. Shri Maniram Sharma, filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) on 25.02.2014 with the CPIO, Lok Sabha Secretariat seeking information on compliance by Public Authority (through a focused and specific reply on points 122) with DoPT's guidelines dated 15.04.2013 on Section 4 of RTI Act on following points:
1. All Public Authorities shall proactively disclose RTI applications and appeals received and their responses, on the websites maintained by Public Authorities with search facility based on key words.
2. Ensure that websites' disclosures are complete, easily accessible, technology and platform neutral and in a form which conveys the desired information in an effective and userfriendly manner.
3. Orders of the public authority should be uploaded on the website immediately after they have been issued.
4. Websites should have detailed directory of key contacts, details of officials of the public authority.
5. Information must be presented from a user's perspective, which may require re arranging it, simplifying it etc.
6. Every public authority must endeavour to integrate the information mentioned in these subclauses while preparing voluntary disclosure materials.
7. All Government officers have to follow laid down office procedure manual or the other rules which gives details of how representation, petitions and applications from citizens must be dealt with.
8. The challenge is to present a simplified version of the decision making procedure that is of interest to a common citizen.
9. In the event of a public authority altering an existing decision making process or adopting an entirely new process, such changes must be explained in simple language in order to enable people to easily understand the changes made.
10. Laying down individual responsibility for providing the goods and services (who is responsible for delivery/implementation and who is responsible for supervision).
11. Data about records that have been digitized may be proactively disclosed on the respective websites, excluding those records/files/ information that are exempted under Section 8.
12. The action taken report on the compliance of these guidelines should be sent, along with the URL link, to the DoPT and Central Information Commission soon after the expiry of the initial period of 6 months.
13. Proactive disclosure should be done in local language so that it remains accessible to public.
14. All discretionary/nondiscretionary grants/allocations to state governments/NGOs/other institutions by Ministry/Department should be placed on the record website of the Ministry/Department concerned.
15. Website should contain all the relevant Acts, Rules, forms and other documents which are normally accessed by citizens.
16. Information must be presented from a user's perspective, which may require re arranging it, simplifying it etc.
17. The exceptional circumstances when such standard decision making processes may be overridden and by whom, should also be explained clearly.
18. Citizen charters, which are mandatory, for each central Ministry/Department/Authority, are good examples of vehicles created for laying down norms of performance for major functions and for monitoring achievements against those standards.
19. Funds released to various autonomous organizations/ statutory organizations/attached officers/Public Sector Enterprises /Societies/NGOs/Corporations etc. should be put on the website on a quarterly basis and budgets of such authorities may be made accessible through links from the website of the Ministry/Department.
20. Every public authority must endeavour to integrate the information mentioned in these subclauses while preparing voluntary disclosure materials. The challenge is to present a simplified version of the decision making procedure that is of interest to a common citizen.
21. Decision making chain should be identified in the form of a flow chart explaining the rank/grade of the public functionaries involved in the decision making process and the specific stages in the decision making hierarchy.
22. Funds released to various autonomous organisations/statutory / organizations/ attached offices/ Public Sector Enterprises/ Societies/NGOs /Corporations etc. should be put on the website on a quarterly basis and budgets of such authorities may be made accessible through links from the website of the Ministry/Department.
23. Provide copies of all the URLs regarding compliance with the above guidelines.
24. Name of the official responsible for compliance with above guidelines
25. Copy of tentative programme for compliance with above guidelines
26. Copy of my RTI application dated 07.09.2013 with all attachments/ accompanying papers 25.02.2014.
2. Since, no response received from the CPIO, the complainant filed complaint dated 30.03.2014 before the Commission on the ground that no information was provided to him.
Hearing:
3. The complainant Shri Maniram Sharma attended the hearing through video conferencing.
The respondent Shri Kushal Sarkar, CAPIO and Addl. Director, Shri K.Sona, Deputy Secretary, Shri R.Srivastava, Addl. Director, Shri M.A.Alam, Dy. Secretary and Shri Alok M. Tripathi, Committee Officer, Lok Sabha Secretariat were present in person.
4. The complainant submitted that he has not received any information from the CPIO.
5. The respondent submitted that the complainant was informed vide letter dated 28.03.2014 that information is being collected and would be provided to him shortly. The respondent further submitted that vide letter dated 03.04.2014 complete information was provided to the complainant.
Decision:
6. The Commission observes that though the response of the CPIO was delayed, no malafide intention on the part of the CPIO in this regard could be established. Hence, no further action is required in the matter.
6. The complaint is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer