UNION MINISTRY OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE MAKES EXCUSE TO SAVE ITSELF FROM FURNISHING OF INFORMATION UNDER RTI ACT,2005

VISION FOR ALL

• 270 Posts
• 28 Comments

My questions of RTI Application of dt 22/9/2014 sent to the Secretary,Ministry Of Health & Family Welfare regarding construction work and recruitment of assistant professors
in the Jai Prakash Narayan All India Institute of Medical Sciences,Patna are cited below:-

“(i) Please list the name of all departments of the hospital building which are still under construction.
(ii) What was the deadline fixed for the construction of these hospital buildings?
(iii) What was the order of the Hon’ble High Court Of Patna
regarding construction of hospital building?
(iv) Has order been followed?
(v) What is the reason of delay in the completion of the construction?
(vi) What measures have been taken/are going to be taken to speed up the construction work?
(vii) When will all sorts of construction be completed?
(viii) Who is the guilty of such delay?
(ix) What action is proposed to be taken against guilty and when the proposed action will be taken?
(x) If action will not be taken against guilty, then what is the reason?
(xi) Please list the total number of seat available for assistant professors for each faculty of the AIIMS ,Patna who should be appointed in each faculty as per the requirement.
(xii) Please list the number of assistant professors presently
available in each faculty.
(xiii) What is the reason of not appointing assistant professors as per the seat available in each faculty?
(xiv) When all seats of assistant professors will be filled up as the requirement of each faculty?”

Reply of dt 29/09/2014 received from Sindhu Patil,Section Officer of the Ministry is cited below:-

“1.I am directed to refer to your RTI Application dated 22/09/2014 received in this Ministry on the subject mentioned above and to return herewith your IPO No.15F 616741 of Rs 10/-respectively with the remarks that IPO is in favour of Secretary,MOHFW,Nirman Bhawan,New Delhi whereas it should be in favour of Accounts Officer,Ministry Of Health & Family Welfare.

2.You are ,therefore,requested to send the fresh RTI Application along with requisite fee of Rs 10/- in the form of DD/IPO/BC in favour of Accounts Officer,Ministry Of Health & Family Welfare,Nirman Bhavan,payable at New Delhi.”

Question Of Law

Rule 6(b) of the Right to Information Rules, 2012 provides below-.

6. Mode of Payment of fee.—

Fees under these rules may be paid in any of the following manner, namely:—

(b) by demand draft or bankers cheque or Indian Postal Order payable to the Accounts Officer of the public authority.

It is written that fees by the IPO (Indian Postal Order ) should be payable to the Accounts Officer of the public authority but nowhere in the Right to Information Act,2005 and Right to Information Rules ,2012,it is written that if fee is not payable to the Accounts Officer,then the Indian Postal Order along with the RTI Application should be returned to the applicant.

Further,the full bench of the Central Information Commission has recommended under section 25(5) of the RTI Act,2005 in Subhash Chandra Agrawal VS Ministry of Home Affairs (File No.CIC/BS/C/2013/000149/LS,File No.CIC/BS/C/2013/000072/LS and File No.CIC/LS/C/2010/000108/LS) on dt 27/8/2013 and
the recommendation 1 (as mentioned in para 11 of the judgement) is cited below:-

“(i). All public authorities shall direct the officers under their command
to accept demand drafts or banker cheques or IPOs payable to their
Accounts Officers of the public authority. This is in line with
clause (b) of Rule 6 of the RTI Rules, 2012. In other words, no
instrument shall be returned by any officer of the public authority
on the ground that it has not been drawn in the name of a particular
officer. So long as the instrument has been drawn in favour of the
Accounts Officer, it shall be accepted in all circumstances.”

The commission has also observed that ”In other words, no
instrument shall be returned by any officer of the public authority
on the ground that it has not been drawn in the name of a particular
officer.”Meant,if the IPO is not payable to the Accounts Officer,then also IPO should not be returned.Therefore,returning my RTI application along with the IPO is against the recommendation of the commission.

Now it is evident that the Ministry has made an excuse to save itself from furnishing the information by returning the IPO along with the RTI Application.There is delay in Construction Works of AIIMS,Patna due to corruption and it is not easy to give answer of my questions,so this excuse has been made.It is also difficult to give answer of Q No.(xiii) and (xiv).One of the student of AIIMS,Patna and my senior Vivek Ranjan bhaiji informed me about this matter and thereafter,RTI application was sent by me.He has also sent an RTI Application in this matter to the Secretary of the said Ministry but his postal order is also payable to the Secretary,not to the Accounts Officer.

Since this recommendation is mainly concentrated on the matter if the IPO is returned,when the IPO is payable to the Accounts Officer,so i am going to file a complaint under section 18(1) of the RTI Act read with section 25(5) of the RTI Act before the Central Information Commission requesting to make a fresh recommendation that ”no instrument shall be returned by any officer of the public authority on the ground that it has not been drawn in the name of a particular officer.”However,i am sending an RTI application again to the Ministry Of Health & Family Welfare along with sending IPO of Rs 10 in favour of the Accounts officer.

In my complaint,i am going to suggest the commission to make also a recommendation u/s 25(5) of the RTI Act,2005 that ”no RTI Application shall be returned solely on the ground that the fees have not been paid or there are some defections in DD/IPO/BC etc because nowhere in the RTI Act,2005 and RTI Rules,2012 it is written that the RTI Application shall be returned.Instead of Returning the RTI Application,the CPIO shall send a letter to the applicant to submit the requisite fee or submit a fresh DD/IPO/BC etc,as the case may be.
Provided that sending DD/IPO/BC etc not to a particular officer of the concerned public authority is not defection.
Provided further that sending expired DD/IPO/BC etc or at the wrong address or having pasted at address of Payee etc shall be termed as defections.”

………………………..