Moneylife: New Delhi: Friday,
4 October 2024.
It may be recalled that in
order to combat air pollution in Delhi, one of the flagship initiatives
tom-tommed by the Delhi government was to install anti-smog guns, anti-smog
towers, and other such machines. In fact, the lieutenant governor of Delhi, along
with the municipal commissioner, had a review meeting last month regarding
these installations.
Right to information (RTI) applicant Saurav Das sought information from the Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC), regarding money spent on purchasing, installing, and servicing such equipment. However, his query travelled from one department to another and was replied to without the required information, thus revealing that the initiative has come a cropper.
Central information commissioner Vinod Kumar Tiwari, who heard the complaint last week, has questioned the public information officers (PIOs) of the DPCC, as to why the maximum penalty under section 20 (1) should not be imposed upon each of them for not providing the information/proper reply to the complainant.
While the RTI application was filed before the PIO, the DPCC, which admitted that it has not installed any anti-smog guns, towers and other such machines, transferred the RTI application to various PIOs/ SPIOs under section 6 (3) of the RTI application and some of the concerned PIOs have replied to the RTI applicant that the information sought did not pertain to them.
CIC Tiwari was piqued by the irresponsibility shown by the various PIOs who were forwarded the RTI application and observed in his order that, as per the records of various PIOs/ SPIOs, all of them have claimed that the information sought did not pertain to them.
“The PIO neither explained as to why the reply is not available with them nor could pin-pointedly tell as to which department the matter pertained. It is noted with concern that none of the responding departments know about the actual installation of anti-smog guns, anti-smog towers, and other such machines,” he said.
CIC Tiwari has directed that a copy of his decision should be sent to the chief secretary, Delhi, for his information and should be put in the public domain to bring clarity in work allocation.
He has also issued an advisory to the principal secretary, administrative reforms department, and government of NCT Delhi (under section 25 (5) of the RTI Act), to take note “of the aberration of the RTI Act being manifested in the public authority’s office and issue a direction to their PIOs and first appellate authority (FAAs) to write their names, designations, official telephone numbers along with email id, while replying to the RTI applications and first appeal in future, in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005.”
CIC Tiwari has also directed the principal secretary, administrative reforms department, government of NCT Delhi, “to sensitise their officials regarding the provisions of the RTI Act by way of training workshops, etc. and putting in place a coherent system of checks and balances.”
CIC Tiwari hauls up coward PIOs
CIC Tiwari has hauled up the PIOs for deliberately signing with illegible signatures and not providing complete information about themselves which is mandatory under the RTI Act.
He observed that “A pertinent issue emanating from the instant case and similar cases dealt by this bench in the recent past is that while replying to the RTI applications and disposing first appeals, the designated PIOs and FAAs of almost all public authorities under the respondent department, are only scribbling their signatures and are not giving their names, official designations and their official telephone numbers and email IDs which is violation of instructions on the subject.”
Right to information (RTI) applicant Saurav Das sought information from the Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC), regarding money spent on purchasing, installing, and servicing such equipment. However, his query travelled from one department to another and was replied to without the required information, thus revealing that the initiative has come a cropper.
Central information commissioner Vinod Kumar Tiwari, who heard the complaint last week, has questioned the public information officers (PIOs) of the DPCC, as to why the maximum penalty under section 20 (1) should not be imposed upon each of them for not providing the information/proper reply to the complainant.
While the RTI application was filed before the PIO, the DPCC, which admitted that it has not installed any anti-smog guns, towers and other such machines, transferred the RTI application to various PIOs/ SPIOs under section 6 (3) of the RTI application and some of the concerned PIOs have replied to the RTI applicant that the information sought did not pertain to them.
CIC Tiwari was piqued by the irresponsibility shown by the various PIOs who were forwarded the RTI application and observed in his order that, as per the records of various PIOs/ SPIOs, all of them have claimed that the information sought did not pertain to them.
“The PIO neither explained as to why the reply is not available with them nor could pin-pointedly tell as to which department the matter pertained. It is noted with concern that none of the responding departments know about the actual installation of anti-smog guns, anti-smog towers, and other such machines,” he said.
CIC Tiwari has directed that a copy of his decision should be sent to the chief secretary, Delhi, for his information and should be put in the public domain to bring clarity in work allocation.
He has also issued an advisory to the principal secretary, administrative reforms department, and government of NCT Delhi (under section 25 (5) of the RTI Act), to take note “of the aberration of the RTI Act being manifested in the public authority’s office and issue a direction to their PIOs and first appellate authority (FAAs) to write their names, designations, official telephone numbers along with email id, while replying to the RTI applications and first appeal in future, in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005.”
CIC Tiwari has also directed the principal secretary, administrative reforms department, government of NCT Delhi, “to sensitise their officials regarding the provisions of the RTI Act by way of training workshops, etc. and putting in place a coherent system of checks and balances.”
CIC Tiwari hauls up coward PIOs
CIC Tiwari has hauled up the PIOs for deliberately signing with illegible signatures and not providing complete information about themselves which is mandatory under the RTI Act.
He observed that “A pertinent issue emanating from the instant case and similar cases dealt by this bench in the recent past is that while replying to the RTI applications and disposing first appeals, the designated PIOs and FAAs of almost all public authorities under the respondent department, are only scribbling their signatures and are not giving their names, official designations and their official telephone numbers and email IDs which is violation of instructions on the subject.”
- CIC judgment of 2 July 2012: “9. CPIO is directed to provide full and complete information regarding expenditure incurred on all types of gifts including coats at the above-mentioned conference to the appellant within 2 weeks of receipt of the order. Furthermore, the commission notes that while replying to the applicant vide letter dated 31 March 2011 the former CPIO has not given his name and has only scribbled his signature which is eligible and does not give out the identity of the CPIO. He is directed to ensure that his name is clearly written below the signature in future.”
- Office memo on 6 October 2015 by DoPT: Regarding the format of giving information to the applicants under the RTI Act, wherein following observations have been made which are as under: “It has been observed that different public authorities provide information to RTI applicants in different formats.
- Though there cannot be a standard format for providing information, the reply should however essentially contain the following information: (i) RTI application number, date and date of its receipt in the public authority; (ii) The name, designation, official telephone number and email ID of the CPIO; (iii) In case the information requested for is denied, detailed reasons for denial quoting the relevant sections of the RTI Act should be clearly mentioned; (iv) In case the information pertains to other public authority and the application is transferred under section 6(3) of the RTI Act, details of the public authority to whom the application is transferred should be given; in the concluding para of the reply, it should be clearly mentioned that the first appeal, if any, against the reply of the CPIO may be made to the first appellate authority within 30 days of receipt of reply of CPIO; the name, designation, address, official telephone number and e-mail ID of the first appellate authority should also be clearly mentioned.
- Kindly furnish the total number of anti-smog guns, anti-smog towers, and other such machines that have been installed for tackling pollution/ smog in Delhi till date. Kindly furnish under various heads and products, for each year since 2015.
- Kindly furnish the total amount of money spent on purchasing, installing, and servicing such equipment. Furnish this for each product and under relevant heads.
- Whether there are proposals to install more such equipment in view of the rising pollution in Delhi. If so, the details thereof including how many and at what cost.
- Whether any study or audit has been conducted to know the efficacy or effectiveness of such equipment either before or after its installation. If so, a copy of the same be provided via email.
.JPG)
.JPG)
