For the past one week, several RTI activists have been camping outside the office of the Central Information Commission (CIC) in the capital which is slated to continue for a month.

Kejriwal and his associates are recording the experiences of the people who have filed for RTI with CIC, but have failed to get the requisite information from barious government ministries and departments. Although CIC must provide the information sought within 30 days of filing the RTI, many petitioners are complaining that they have failed to get a reply even after one year or more.

70 people have recorded their experiences at the counter outside CIC office in the last five days. We are narrating just a few stories below to give you an idea of how RTI is working.

Pramod Kumar Gupta (# 09412723751)

Mr. Pramod Kumar Gupta filed an RTI application on 13/07/2006 with the CPIO.

He did not receive any reply within 30 days and filed first appeal on 06/09/2006 to which again there was no reply. He then filed his  second appeal to the Central Information Commission (CIC) on 09/10/2006. The CIC returned the appeal on 17/11/2006 asking him to file appeal in prescribed format. Mr. Gupta sent the appeal in prescribed format again to the commission on 20/11/2006 which
was again returned by CIC saying that four copies should be sent. He again sent the appeal with four copies to the CIC on 12/01/2007. It was again returned by CIC but this time without any reasons. Mr. Gupta tried to contact Ms. Nisha Singh in CIC, who had returned
the case, over phone for almost two weeks but she never came on the phone.

Finally, Pramod could speak to one Sunil Srivastava in CIC who accepted that Pramod's appeal had been wrongly returned. Strangely, rather than accepting the appeal, Shriastav advised Gupta to file a fresh RTI to the CPIO again.

On 15/02/2007 Gupta filed his RTI application again to the PIO.

Mr. M.R. Gupta ( 0135- 2787084)

M.R. Gupta sent his papers to CIC to file second appeal. CIC returned the papers  saying that it was not in prescribed format whereas it was already in the prescribed format. Gupta claims that the CIC returned his papers without even bothering to open the envelop and checking the documents.

H.K. Pal (#9999453862)

Mr. H.K. Pal filed an RTI application on _______ asking for copies of office orders and notifications relating to the appointment of Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and Review Authority by the National Saving Institute. He did not receive any reply within 30 days. He filed first appeal on __________. He did not receive any reply from the first Appellate Authority (AA) also. He therefore, filed his second appeal in the Central Information Commission (CIC) on 19/09/2006. CIC issued notices to CPIO and AA but did not receive any reply to its notices. A hearing was scheduled by CIC on 31/10/2006. The CPIO, AA and Mr. Pal attended the hearing. During
the hearing, he insisted on penalty CIC refused to even talk about it. CIC ordered that information be provided within 15 days. However, no information has been received by Pal so far. Mr. Pal has sent four letters through fax and through speed post to CIC requesting them to direct the CPIO to comply with CIC's order and also to impose penalty on CPIO for non compliance of its orders. But he has not received any reply from the CIC to these letters till date.

R.K. Mirg (#9818271881)

R.K. Mirg filed an RTI application on 12/01/2006 to the CPIO of Ministry of Home Affairs asking for inspection of a file relating to repeal of displaced persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and allied Acts. At the end of one month, he received a reply from the CPIO on 10/02/2006 that the file was with Ministry of Law, therefore he could not inspect the files.

Mirg wrote back to CPIO that there were 12 volumes of files and only one volume was with the Ministry of Law. Therefore, he should be allowed to inspect the rest of the files. On 5/04/2006, he was allowed inspection of files but not file notings. Therefore, he filed first appeal to the Appellate Authority (AA) requesting them to allow him the inspection of the file notings as well. But did not receive any reply from the AA. He now filed his second appeal in the Central Information Commission (CIC) on 19//6/2006. Without fixing any hearing, CIC directed the Department to allow inspection of file notings as well. CIC did not impose any penalty nor did it mention any time frame for compliance of its orders. Predictably, the order of the CIC was not complied with. Mirg wrote a letter on 14/07/2006 to the CPIO to show him the file notings. He did not receive any reply from the CPIO. He then filed his contempt petition in the CIC on 4/08/20006 requesting CIC to direct compliance of its orders within a defined time frame and also to impose penalty. CIC on 20/09/2006 wrote a letter to AA to provide a compliance report to CIC within 10 days. But the AA did not respond to CIC's letter. On 23/10/2006, Mirg wrote another letter to CIC but did not receive any reply. He again sent a reminder to CIC on 2/02/2007 but again did not receive any reply. Therefore, even though the order was passed in favor of Mirg, he is yet to receive the information.

Neelam Rajput (#9811218050)

Neelam Rajput filed an RTI application on 28/07/2006 to the CPIO of Sahitya Academy, Ministry of Culture asking for inspection of appointment and promotion files of some employees of the Department. She did not receive any reply within 30 days. She filed first appeal on 25/10/2006 but did not receive any reply. She then filed second appeal in Central Information Commission (CIC) on ________.
Without having any hearing, CIC directed the Department to provide her all the information. CPIO provided incomplete information. Neelam complained to the CIC that she had not been shown complete files, that some pages were missing and the files were not properly indexed. She also insisted that a penalty be imposed on the CPIO. The CIC issued letters on 7/02/2007 to the CPIO and AA to show Neelam complete files within 15 days. Neelam was advised by the CIC that if she were not satisfied with the response of the CPIO this time, she should approach the first appellate authority.

Raj Kumar (#9810778166)

Raj Kumar filed an RTI application in November 2005 to the CPIO of South Zone of Municipal Corporation of Delhi seeking information about a plot on which, as per his knowledge, illegal construction was going on. The CPIO provided completely irrelevant and wrong information. The information was not related to the plot but to some other flat. Raj Kumar filed first appeal __________. In the meantime, he received a letter from the CPIO admitting that there was an illegal construction on the plot but MCD did not know whether that plot came under MCD or DDA and that MCD had written a letter to DDA in this regard. When Raj Kumar asked for a copy of the letter written to DDA and the names of the officers who did the inspection of the plot, the CPIO told him that he will have to apply afresh to get the copy of the letter and refused to give him the names of the officers who inspected the plot. AA upheld the rejection of the CPIO. Not satisfied with the reply of the AA, Raj Kumar filed second appeal in the Central Information Commission on 21/12/2005. CIC sent him a letter to come for a hearing on 6/03/2006 but the letter was received after the hearing date on 10/03/2006 and so Mr. Raj Kumar could not be present in the hearing. But the order passed by the CIC was in his favour. The CIC directed the CPIO to give him the information he had asked for. The CIC however, did not impose any penalty on the CPIO. The CPIO did not comply with the order of the CIC. After waiting for four months, Raj Kumar filed a contempt petition in CIC on 1/07/2006. But he did not receive any reply from CIC. He therefore personally went to CIC on 21/02/2006 and met Mr. Pankaj (Under Secretary). Mr. Pankaj asked his junior to bring Mr. Raj Kumar's file but after an hour or so they said they were unable to trace his file. Mr. Pankaj asked Mr. Raj Kumar to leave the documents he was carrying through which they would try to locate his file. Before leaving, Raj  Kumar filed an RTI application in the CIC seeking information about his file.
So, one and a half years after filing RTI application, he is yet to receive information.

Bhagat Singh (#9873087849)

Bhagat Singh had made a complaint (Tax Evasion Petition or TEP) to Income Tax Department about the tax evasion being done by someone. He wanted to find the status of action taken on his TEP. He filed an RTI application on 10/11/2005. Full two months later, the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) informed him on 10/01/2006 that the information could not be provided as it was exempt
u/s 8 (1)(j), being personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. Aggrieved with
the reply of CPIO, Bhagat Singh filed first appeal to the senior officer of CPIO in Income Tax Department on 21/01/2006. The first Appellate Authority upheld the decision of CPIO in his order dated 3/02/2006. Bhagat Singh therefore, filed second appeal on 1/03/2006 in Central Information Commission (CIC). Without hearing Bhagat Singh, CIC gave a decision on 8/05/2006 in his favour but did not
impose penalty on the CPIO for malafide denial of information. The CIC in its order did not mention the time frame in which information was to be provided. Therefore, even after the order was passed in favour of Bhagat Singh, he did not receive information. After waiting for four months Bhagat Singh filed contempt petition in CIC. CIC in response to the contempt petition forwarded Bhagat Singh's complaint to the CPIO and Appellate Authority of the Income Tax Department and directed them to do the needful. However, in this letter also CIC
did not mention any time frame for the compliance of the order. Again, Bhagat Singh did not receive any information. He wrote another letter to CIC on 22/09/2006 requesting CIC to direct the Department to implement CIC's order dated 8/05/2006 within specific time frame, say 15/30 days. Despite several attempts thereafter, Bhagat Singh is yet to receive any information from the Income Tax Department. And CIC refuses to impose penalty on the CPIO.