Srinagar, Dec 24: The Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) GR Sufi on Monday served notice to the then Public Information Officer (PIO) of the office of Inspector General of CID wing of police to show cause as to why penalty proceedings shouldn’t be initiated against him for failing to pass order over an RTI application seeking information about detentions and under-trial prisoners.
While invoking different judgments passed by the Apex Court from time to time, CIC said the Right to Information is a fundamental right and added “that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or the State legislature shall not be denied to any person”.
While disposing off a complaint, CIC directed the former PIO of the CID (Criminal Investigation Department) to explain why penalty under section 17 of the State RTI Act, 2009 may not be imposed upon him.
“Period of penalty will be reckoned from the date when the order was to be passed till the date when the order is actually passed. His reply if any, must reach to this Commission within 30 days from the receipt of this order,” the CIC said while directing the current PIO of IGP CID to serve a copy of this order on his predecessor.
Pertinently, chairman of International Forum for Justice Muhammad Ahsan Untoo had filed an RTI application, seeking information about under-trials, detainees and persons booked under the Public Safety Act (PSA) in the State. After Deputy Inspector General of Police Prisons and CID wing of JK police denied the information, the applicant knocked the door of CIC.
While directing the PIO to pass the fresh order, the Commission quashed the order passed on behalf of the IGP CID “because the said order is passed by an authority who has no jurisdiction to do the same”
“It is obvious that the order has been passed in a very casual and routine fashion. Under the State RTI Act, 2009 only PIO can pass an order who is designated as PIO by the Public Authority under Section (5) of State RTI Act, 2009. Hence, on above grounds the order passed on 06-03-2012 is hereby quashed, as the order under consideration is no order in the eyes of law  because the said order is passed by an authority who has no jurisdiction to do the same,” the Commission ruled.

Lastupdate on : Mon, 24 Dec 2012 21:30:00 Makkah time
Lastupdate on : Mon, 24 Dec 2012 18:30:00 GMT
Lastupdate on : Tue, 25 Dec 2012 00:00:00 IST