Central Information Commission
Mrmaniramsharma vs Parliment Of India on 17 August, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
CLUB BUILDING (NEAR POST OFFICE)
OLD JNU CAMPUS, NEW DELHI110 067
Decision No.CIC/RM/C/2014/900178/SB/
Appeal No. CIC/RM/C/2014/900178/SB
Dated: 17.08.2015
Complainant: Shri Maniram Sharma,
Behind Roadways Depot,
Sardarshahar,
Distt. Churu, Rajasthan.
Respondent: Central Public Information Officer,
Rajya Sabha Secretariat,
Parliament House Annexe,
New Delhi.
Date of Hearing: 17.08.2015
ORDER
1. Shri Maniram Sharma filed an online complaint on 25.02.2014 with the CPIO, Rajya Sabha Secretariat seeking the following 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 the RTI Act:
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 USER FRIENDLY 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 rearranging it, simplifying it etc.
6. Every public authority must endeavour to integrate the information mentioned in these sub clauses while preparing voluntary disclosure materials.
7. All government officers have to follow laid down office procedure manual or the other rules which give details of how representations, petitions and applications from citizens must be dealt with.
8. The challenge is to present a simplified version of the decisionmaking procedure that is of interest to a common citizen.
9. In the event of a public authority altering an existing decisionmaking 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/IMPLEMNTATION 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. 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 website of the Ministry/Department concerned.
15. Website should contain all the relevant Acs, Rules, forms and other documents which are normally accessed by citizens.
16. Information must be presented from a user's perspective, which may require rearranging it, simplifying it, etc.
17. The exceptional circumstances when such standard decisionmaking 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 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.
20. Every public authority must endeavour to integrate the information mentioned in these sub clauses while preparing voluntary disclosure materials. The challenge is to present a simplified version of the decisionmaking procedure that is of interest to a common citizen.
21. Decisionmaking chain should be identified in the form of a flow chart explaining the rank/grade of the public functionaries involved in the decisionmaking process and the specific stages in the decisionmaking hierarchy.
22. Funds released to various autonomous organizations/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. Please provide copies of all URLs regarding compliance with above guidelines.
24. Name of the official responsible for compliance with above guidelines.
25. Copy of tentative programme for compliance with above guidelines.
2. The CPIO vide letter dated 27.03.2014 informed the appellant that the information sought by him is not available in material form as the said guidelines of DOPT are under consideration. Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed the present complaint dated 07.04.2014 before the Commission.
Hearing:
3. The complainant Shri Maniram Sharma attended the hearing through video conferencing. The respondent Shri K.P.Singh, CPIO and Director, Shri Sanjeev Chandra, Join Director and Shri Satis Mesra, Assistant Director, Rajya Sabha Secretariat were present in person.
4. The respondent submitted that the complainant was intimated vide letter dated 27.03.2014 that information sought was not available in material form as the said guidelines of DoPT were under consideration. The respondent further submitted that the FAA vide order dated 08.05.2014 had informed the complainant that the Rajya Sabha Secretariat has, since the RTI Act,2005 came into existence, earnestly made its best possible efforts towards proactive suomotu disclosure of information on its websites namely, http://rajyasabha.nic.in and http://rsintranet.nic.in in accordance with the spirit of the RTI Act.
5. During the hearing the complainant submitted that he wants to withdraw his complaint as the information has since been received by him.
Decision:
6. The complaint is dismissed as withdrawn. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer