84% Appeals out of 28,174 Returned by CIC between January 2018 and March 2019: Report
While close to 0.3 million (280,288) appeals and complaints were registered, and a little over two lakh (2,16,354) were disposed, the Central Information Commission (CIC) during the same period returned a whopping 23,791 second appeals out of the 28,174 it received, amounting to over 84%, as per the report by Satark Nagrik Sangathan (SNS) and Centre for Equity Studies (CES) in October 2019, released last week.
 
 
The assessment by the study group, titled `Report Card of Information Commissions 2019’ reveals that apart from the CIC, the SICs of Gujarat and Chhattisgarh returned a large number of appeals/complaints, without passing any orders, during the same period. The SIC of Gujarat returned 2,117 cases while it registered 13,534 cases during the period under review. 
 
 
The report states that the trend of a large number of appeals or complaints being returned by the CIC began in 2015, leading to several RTI activists writing to the then Chief Information Commissioner of the CIC urging that “the commission proactively and publicly disclose information on the number of appeals/complaints being returned and also the reasons for returning them.” 
 
All deficiency memos, which record the reason for returning an appeal/complaint, were then publicly disclosed on-line. Subsequently, however, these memos, have again been made inaccessible to the public and can be accessed only if the appeal/complaint number is known.
 
States the Report,  “Since June 2018, the CIC has started disclosing additional details about appeals/complaints returned by providing a break up of how many were returned due to deficiencies and how many were returned because they were ineligible for registration- either because they related to the jurisdiction of a state IC or were premature, time barred or duplicates. In addition, the CIC is now also disclosing how many appeals/complaints were re-submitted to the CIC after addressing the deficiency.
 
The data on the CIC website for June 2018 to December 2018 showed that only about 22% of cases which were returned due to deficiencies were re-submitted to the CIC.’’
 
 
Although the Information Commissions are approached by RTI applicants for second appeals only in 5% of the total RTI applications, the study states that, “this does not mean that in 95% of the cases people get access to the information they sought. The RaaG & CES 2014 assessment estimated that only about 45% of RTI applications were successful in terms of obtaining the information requested. Therefore, of the remaining 55%, less than 10% actually end up filing a second appeal or complaint - perhaps because many of those who file RTI applications do not have the resources or skills needed to approach ICs.’’
 
 
Therefore, “the practice being followed by the CIC and several SICs, of returning a very large number of appeals and complaints without passing any orders, creates an apprehension that this is perhaps a way of frustrating information seekers in a bid to reduce backlogs in ICs since many people, especially the poor and marginalised, would feel discouraged and often give up if their appeal/complaint is returned.’’
 
The Report suggests the following plan of action for the government:
 
· Appropriate governments must examine the rules made by them under the RTI Act for filing appeals and complaints with ICs and ensure that the procedures prescribed therein are in conformity with the law and are people-friendly.
 
· RTI rules should not allow for returning of appeals/complaints due to minor or procedural defects. They must place an obligation on ICs to assist people in filing appeals and complaints, rather than summarily returning them due to a deficiency.
 
· The websites of ICs and public authorities must prominently display information about the procedure for filing an appeal/complaint.
 
· Commissions must adopt mechanisms to assist and facilitate people in the process of registering their appeals/complaints. All ICs must provide a helpline and facilitation desk where people can seek advice and assistance.
 
· In cases where a substantive deficiency is noticed, for instance if a second appeal has been filed without exhausting the first appeal process or where an appeal/complaint which should lie with the CIC has been filed to the SIC or vice versa, the commission should, to the extent possible, facilitate remedial action by forwarding the appeal/complaint to the appropriate authority, with a copy to the appellant. Returning an appeal/complaint should be a last resort adopted by ICs.
 
· Further, wherever appeals and complaints are returned, the deficiency memo which enunciates the reason for the return must be made public, in addition to being communicated to the appellant/complainant. This is, in any case, a requirement under Section 4 of the RTI Act and would enable public scrutiny of the process.
 
 “Report Card of Information Commissions in India” (2018) assessed the performance of information commissions across the country during the period January 2016 to October 2017 and its  findings of the report became the basis of a public interest litigation (PIL) filed in the Supreme Court (SC) to ensure timely and transparent appointment of information commissioners in the country.  The 2019 Report also contains the performance report cards of all 29 information commissions in the country for 2018-19.
 
Anjali Bharadwaj, a member of the group which compiled this report, states,  “this report has found that despite the directions of the Supreme Court in February 2019 to appoint information commissioners to the Central and State Information Commissions, many appointments have not yet been made. In fact currently four posts of information commissioners in the CIC are vacant even as the backlog of appeals/complaints is more than 33,000.’’
 
RTI used for compiling this report:
 
The report is primarily based on an analysis of information accessed under the RTI Act from Information Commissions (ICs) across India. For the purpose of the assessment, all 29 ICs set up under the RTI Act, 2005, were covered. A total of 129 applications under the RTI Act were filed with state information commissions (SICs) and the Central Information Commission (CIC). The information sought included:
 
• Number of appeals and complaints registered, disposed and returned by each IC for the period January 2018 till March 2019;
 
• Number of appeals and complaints pending before each IC on 31 March  2018 and 31 March 2019;
 
• Number of appeals or complaints in which ICs imposed penalties, quantum of penalties imposed and the amount recovered, for the period January 2018 till March 2019;
 
• Number of appeals or complaints in which ICs awarded compensation and the quantum of compensation awarded by each IC, for the period January 2018 till March 2019;
 
 • Number of cases in which disciplinary action was recommended by ICs, for the period January 2018 till March 2019;
 
• Latest year for which the annual report of each IC was published;
 
• Details of backgrounds of past and present information commissioners;
 
• Number of appeals and complaints filed before ICs stating that the information sought relates to the life or liberty of a person, during the period January 2018 till March 2019.
 
(Vinita Deshmukh is consulting editor of Moneylife, an RTI activist and convener of the Pune Metro Jagruti Abhiyaan. She is the recipient of prestigious awards like the Statesman Award for Rural Reporting which she won twice in 1998 and 2005 and the Chameli Devi Jain award for outstanding media person for her investigation series on Dow Chemicals. She co-authored the book “To The Last Bullet - The Inspiring Story of A Braveheart - Ashok Kamte” with Vinita Kamte and is the author of “The Mighty Fall”.)
  • Like this story? Get our top stories by email.

    User

    COMMENTS

    Rakesh Modi

    1 month ago

    Just yesterday only Mr.K.R.Margaj of State Information Commissioner office at New admin bldg, 13th floor, opp Mantralaya, Mumbai has returned after more than 4 months delay, my 2nd appeal original application submitted on 3/06/2019 by speed post reasoning incomplete documents provided as I had not provided RTI & 1st appeal applications hard copy with it inspite of sending by email to them on 13/08/2019.
    1st of all delay in hearing (more than 4 months & after that returning with original application for irrelevant reason. I request if someone can fire these officials/staffs or tell me how I can remve them from their jobs who harass common people who are already harassed from Govt.officials.--Rakesh Modi - 9819993972

    P M Ravindran

    1 month ago

    An informative report. But what has disturbed me is this sentence: “Report Card of Information Commissions in India” (2018) assessed the performance of information commissions across the country during the period January 2016 to October 2017 and its findings of the report became the basis of a public interest litigation (PIL) filed in the Supreme Court (SC) to ensure timely and transparent appointment of information commissioners in the country.

    Is that a joke? After assessing the performance of the ICs a PIL for ensuring timely and transparent posting of ICs?

    I have been a persistent activist in this field and the only motivation for me to continue is the truism that 'you do not fail till you give up'. So I continue to file applications, on a campaign mode, with the following mission statement:

    SAVE RIGHT TO INFORMATION. USE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.
    GET INFORMATION OR......
    EXPOSE AT LEAST THREE IDIOTS/TRAITORS* AMONG PUBLIC SERVANTS!
    1. THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER
    2. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY (AND THE HEAD OF PUBLIC AUTHORITY WHERE THE HEAD OF THE PUBLIC AUTHORITY IS NOT THE FAA!) AND
    3. THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

    * An idiot is one who does not know the job s/he is getting paid to do and a traitor is one who knows it but does not do it. Provided that even an idiot can be branded a traitor based on the consequences of his/her action

    I dare say that the failure of the ICs to follow the law in letter, forget its spirit, has not only subverted the law but, if investigated by appropriate authorities, could turn out to be a scam that could be bigger than 2G, Coalgate and Vadragate put together.

    REPLY

    BR

    In Reply to P M Ravindran 1 month ago

    Many PIOs reply only if they like. They choose whom not to reply. If Petitioner is known to them as meek or decent, no reply goes. If it is a rowdy or politician of standing a reply goes. Lies are told but hidden in smooth words. It is in fact DENIAL of infmn. AirIndia does it often. If the issue is serious or will help to expose its officials, it dodges & lies. Officials discuss with Head Office & get consent on what & how to reply.1st Appellate Authority also connives in reply to save ones own job, promotion, transfer, etc. What solution can we get from it ? We spend much time, money & effort to send petition & Appeals but get no good result. The next stage of our effort to get our aim is based on Infmn but is set back. How to PREVENT it under the act? Action against PIO/CPIO, etc., by the superior is not taken even if CIC orders it, because, all in the orgn are hand in glove. PIOs do as FAA & colleagues told them. Crooked nature & culture cause it. At the most, we can get an order passed to give us infmn. If it is late, our purpose is spoilt. IT IS DONE BLATANTLY even to those in service in the same orgn.

    Rajesha Giriyappa

    In Reply to BR 4 weeks ago

    You are 100% right. CIC and SIC mush make this law very strong by following the imposing of penalty on crossing the time limit while giving reply.

    GLN Prasad

    In Reply to BR 1 month ago

    The simple fact is that PIOs think providing information to the citizen is obliging a common man, and they do not like to be questioned. They can not still distinguish between providing information on record and questioning on accountability. If there is any law that is hated by officials, it is RTI.

    Harish

    1 month ago

    Good Article.

    GLN Prasad

    1 month ago

    A very excellent article stating the pathetic implementation of the RTI Act though every official proclaims that they are sincere in implementation. The public blames the Central Govt., including PM as though he has advised the PIOs not to implement the RTI Act. There should be a complaint redressal mechanism at Information Commission also. They have brought Transparency Officers just for eyewash, and there is no data on their duties and functioning. Almost many officials/staff were long-standing and ICs have to depend on them for discharging the duties. Except for delivering the decision part, the other work is entrusted to Dy. Registrars of IC and they are more powerful and they prefer PIOs over unknown citizens. Those who are experts, exceptionally good fighters they can get any information they require. The entire CIC work must be streamlined by repatriating the long stating officials who dominate CIC. There should be a controlling mechanism over CIC, and the cost incurred per appeal/complaint should be published. Once the penalty clause is strictly implemented in deserving cases, the number of appeals can drastically be reduced and a time may come that CIC can become self-sufficient with penalties. The experts I have come across expressed the opinion that the law lost it's power long back and just remaining as a paper tiger and one Mahaguru in RTI stated that it is on ventilation. Except for the deterioration of standards, I have not seen any improvement in the functioning of CIC. There is a time, where IC personally studied appeal, granted an interview, ordered for prior hearing in deserving cases. Now approaching even a Dy. Registrar and getting information on a file made it difficult. Let us not blame the government, when it is the officials that has to implement the Act. Even DOPT's role is not prominent.

    3.2 Crore RTI applications filed since the law was born; Maharashtra leads with highest RTI applications, after CIC
    As many as 3.2 crore Indians have filed applications since the Right to Information (RTI) Act came into being on 12 October 2005. The Central Information Commission tops in terms of second appeals with 78.94 lakh. However, Maharashtra tops in the number of RTI applications with 61.80 applications filed by citizens. It is by Tamil Nadu at 26.91 lakh, Karnataka at 22.78 lakh and Kerala at 21.92 RTI applications filed by citizens, reveals a report. 
     
    State Governments with below one crore population and receiving the least amount of RTI applications are West Bengal (98,323), Assam (1.83 lakh) and Madhya Pradesh (1. 84 lakh) – one of the factors could be due to non-maintenance of data by State Information Commission (SIC). Smaller states receiving the highest number of RTI applications in this category are Himachal Pradesh (4.84 lakh) and Tripura (42,111).  States receiving lowest number of RTI applications in this category are Tripura (42,111). Manipur (4,374) and Sikkim (5,120).
     
     
    The State Transparency Report 2019 has been compiled by Transparency International India, a part of the Transparency International and was released on the eve of the RTI Act anniversary on 12th October. 
     
    It is based on detailed information provided, on request, by most of the State Commissions and the CIC. This means that, since the inception of RTI in 2005, only 2.25% of the population has used RTI across the country since its inception. 
     
     
    SR Wadhwa, Chairman of Transparency International India observes that, “RTI legislation has been utilised to reorient public policy and it has facilitated the healthy working of democracy. It is a tool to make the governance system transparent and accountable and definitely not a weapon against the government.”
     
    Tamil Nadu leads in the states receiving maximum number of second appeals at 4.61 lakh; the union government at 2.79 lakh, Maharashtra at 77,228, Karnataka at 1.65 lakh and Bihar at 1.58 lakh. State governments receiving fewer second appeals among states having more than one crore population are Telangana (10,619), West Bengal (20,058), Jharkhand (32,481), Kerala (33, 218) and Uttarakhand (41, 861)
     
     
    While 24 out of 155 posts Information Commissioner (at central and state level) are vacant, the numbers of filled up vacancies are better than 48 posts, which were not filled up in 2018. Out of these, only seven women Information Commissioners have been appointed, which is approximately 4.5% of total sanctioned posts.
     
    The press release of TII states, “now in the 15th year of RTI Act’s implementation when draconian amendments are being incorporated and challenges are being faced, it is an opportune time to look into the State of RTI implementation in Indian States and check whether the act’s implementation has met the intention of the legislation.’’
     
    The report provides not only structural analysis but also policy review of the Right to Information legislation. It says, “Our report concretely focuses on most important sections of the Act – Section 25(2), Section 18 (1) and Section 19(3), Section 20 (1) and Section 25 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005. Along with that, information and analysis related to post and vacancy, budget, cases of threat and harassment and website of Information Commissions is also analyzed in this report.”
     
    Mr Wadhwa says, “It is high time to stand united to fight & reinvent the network of pro-transparency civil society groups of country to intensify struggle for the Right to Information 2.0.”
     
     
    As for the penalty imposed on PIOs:
     
    • 15,578 cases in penalty imposed on public authorities by State Information Commissions (excluding Union Government) during 2005-06 to 2018-19. 

     

    • In the last three year, Rs81.82 imposed by Uttarakhand State Information Commission.  

     

    • 15,578 cases of penalty was imposed by State Information Commissions (excluding Central Information Commission) during 2005-06 to 2018-19.

     

    • Highest Penalty Imposed in last 3 years

     

    • Rs81.82 lakh by Uttarakhand State Information Commission

     

    • Rs49.20 lakh by Rajasthan State Information Commission

     

    • Top States where Maximum No. of Cases of  Penalty Imposed 

     

    • Haryana (2,692) from 2006-07 to 2018-19

     

    • Rajasthan (2,803), from 2008-09 to 2016-17

     

    • Uttar Pradesh (1,438) only two year data (2017/18 & 2018/19) as disclosed by SIC.

     

    • Uttarakhand (1,223) data from 2006-07 to 2018-19

     

    • Andhra Pradesh (1,150) data available from CY 2007 to 2014 as disclosed by SIC.
     
    (Vinita Deshmukh is consulting editor of Moneylife, an RTI activist and convener of the Pune Metro Jagruti Abhiyaan. She is the recipient of prestigious awards like the Statesman Award for Rural Reporting which she won twice in 1998 and 2005 and the Chameli Devi Jain award for outstanding media person for her investigation series on Dow Chemicals. She co-authored the book “To The Last Bullet - The Inspiring Story of A Braveheart - Ashok Kamte” with Vinita Kamte and is the author of “The Mighty Fall”.)
  • Like this story? Get our top stories by email.

    User

    COMMENTS

    P M Ravindran

    1 month ago

    The following facts, about the ICs (both commissions and commissioners) are placed on record:
    -The ICs haven't themselves complied with the mandate of Sec 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act.
    - The ICs do not take up cases (complaints/2nd appeals) on FIFO basis. The Act provides for only information related to life and liberty to be provided on priority. Thus only complaints/appeals related to these can be allowed to be taken up on priority.
    -They do not follow the mandate of the Sec 20 correctly. To elucidate, this section mandates that the PIO be given an opportunity to being heard before imposing the mandatory penalty. It implies that the need to impose the penalty should have been established (it is possible based on the records submitted with the appeal) before calling for hearing. It also implies that it is not merely calling for 'reports' or for a hearing but a actually a show cause notice for not imposing penalty with the option of submitting the reasons in a written form with or without personal hearing.
    - The response to this show cause notice is the information that has to be communicated to the appellant for his information and counter arguments.
    -The 2nd appeal is complete in itself, if the application, reply by the PIO, 1st appeal and the reply by the FAA are annexed to it. Hence it is easy for the IC to sift what all information sought had been provided and denied.
    -It is only in the case of information denied or provided with delay, that the IC has to seek the explanation from the PIO seeking the valid reasons for denying/delaying them. It implies that the notice from the IC is specific about this information that had been denied/delayed.
    -The mandate of Sec 20 is to penalise even for delay beyond 30 days and there is no choice with the IC. There are many cases when even after ordering the PIOs to provide information the ICs fail to impose the penalty which would by them be the maximum of Rs 25000/-.
    -The ICs have been treacherously not following this procedure and even accepting illegal reasons like the information is not available (without giving any legally valid reason) or simply that the applicant has been provided an opportunity to check files and collect it from their office.
    - The violations by the ICs are so blatant that they can be easily prosecuted under Sec 219 of the IPC.

    But then our courts are not the ideal role models for dispensation of justice, are they? And so the charade goes on and on...

    REPLY

    BR

    In Reply to P M Ravindran 1 month ago

    I did not know that ICs are so notorious. Why do they not support the purpise of the act & punish the PIO who delays & DODGES by giving no reason to deny or delay infmn. I know 2 instances of not imposing penalty. One was when a CPIO forwarded a petition to another CPIO but ignorantly did not send a copy of that advice to the Petitioner who did not know that the petition was forwarded. He complained that it was not replied. CIC threatened CPIO with Penalty for not replying. He did not finally award it.

    Ranbir Lamba

    1 month ago

    In a way 3.2crore are not satisfied with transparency/governance that is why took RTI act

    How Puneites Can Save the City from “Catastrophic” Deluge Disaster
    Encroachments on hills, hill slopes and flood lines of river banks; cementing of nullahs, small streams and aquifers during construction; absence or wrong design of storm water drains and; plastic litter choking water bodies, has led to a grave situation in Pune, which surfaces as life threatening water logging (as was seen on 5th and 25th September); during torrential rains that have been lashing Pune due to climate change.
     
    These grave concerns were raised at the 300th RTI Katta organised by the RTI Katta group and Moneylife Foundation on Sunday. The expert panel comprising civic experts Sarang Yadvakar, Vinod Bodhankar, Abhijit Ghorpade and Vijay Kumbhar, stated in unison and in a note of emergency that, it is time for Puneites to raise their voices and put pressure on the Pune Municipal Corp (PMC), in large numbers, as their lives are being threatened due to illegal encroachments and criminal mismanagement of the civic authority. 
     
    Mr Yadvadkar gave a detailed presentation of the havoc created due to unholy nexus of civic authorities, local political leaders and builder and developer body that has led to illegal building permissions and encroachments since the last two decades. This has led to a “catastrophic” situation, he said. 
     
     
    He further warned that the two days of heavy rains on 5th and 25th September this year, which resulted in deaths of several citizens is but a trailer. “As per the climate change report provided by The Energy and Resource Institute (TERI), on behalf of the PMC, which assigned it the task, the city will face the maximum amount of rains in short spells that will lead to dangerous flash flooding, with every passing year.  Hence, it is essential now for citizens to come out in large numbers to protest against PMC’s disastrous acts and put pressure on it to stop development on hills, hill slopes, put in place an effective storm water drain system, clear water bodies of debris and halt construction in flood line demarcations of the Mula and Mutha rivers.’’
     
    Abhijit Ghorpade, senior journalist and academician who has written extensively on this issue stated that, “first and foremost, we need to establish a communication and warning system by which citizens are immediately forewarned, about the areas, chowks and roads where flooding has taken place and warned that they should not go there. Presently, a commuter comes to know of rising waters only after he or she has almost reached the spot amidst great traffic chaos. The sudden rise in water levels catches them unawares, which has resulted in people being washed away, while driving in their two-wheelers and four-wheelers.”
     
    Right to Information (RTI) activist Vijay Kumbhar says, “It is written in the Pune Smart City Vision document that sophisticated intelligent systems would be put in place for quick communication where citizens of one corner of the city will instantly come to know of any disaster or information required to be disseminated within minutes, but little has happened so far. So now the onus has come on citizens to do ground work and help themselves in being forewarned about areas of deluge during rains.”
     
     
    In the 5th September torrential rains, Victor Sangela and Salim Shaikh, were washed away – in all 26 people died. While Salim’s body was located after a few days later, Victor’s body has yet not been recovered. The WhatsApp messages put up by their families, when they went missing, will give you gooseflesh and will make you realise that you could well be the next victim. 
     
    Victor’s family member stated in the WhatsApp message: “Victor Sangale, our cousin has been missing for over 8 hours. He was driving to Wanowrie, when his car was swept away due to floodwaters at the bridge near Ganga Satellite and Raheja Gardens. He was driving a white Tata Tiago with license plate MH 12 RK 8732. If anyone has more information please inform the family members and or the emergency numbers.”
     
     
    Salim Shaikh’s brother sent this WhatsApp message: “Saalim Shaikh, my brother has been missing for over 12 hours now. He was driving to Wanowrie when his car was swept away due to floodwaters at the bridge near Ganga Satellite and Raheja Gardens. He was driving Honda Civic car. If anyone has more information or has seen anybody there at the spot then please contact emergency services and also the family members on their mobile numbers.”
     
    Vinod Bodhankar, who has done extensive work and campaigning in schools and housing societies of the hazards of plastic waste and how to control it at individual and community levels, stated that “plastic litter blocking pipes, nullahs, river beds, bund gates and roadsides of Pune has further accentuated flooding during rains.” 
     
    He said that controlling plastic litter can play a big role in controlling flooding and hence, every citizen should get involved in collecting plastic trash in a bag and giving it to organisations like his which pay to give collected plastic trash for proper reuse and recycle.
     
    The immediate way forward to taking this issue forward is to share the presentations made by Mr Yadvadkar and Mr Bodhankar with friends, housing society members, community groups, educational institutions and social organisations, so that citizens know the intensity of the alarming situation. Also, to collect data of which roads and chowks to avoid during heavy rains so that citizens are forewarned. This information would be shared through social media. Each one in the audience was requested to make individual efforts to put pressure on the PMC by writing an email to the municipal commissioner demanding action.
     
    (Vinita Deshmukh is consulting editor of Moneylife, an RTI activist and convener of the Pune Metro Jagruti Abhiyaan. She is the recipient of prestigious awards like the Statesman Award for Rural Reporting which she won twice in 1998 and 2005 and the Chameli Devi Jain award for outstanding media person for her investigation series on Dow Chemicals. She co-authored the book “To The Last Bullet - The Inspiring Story of A Braveheart - Ashok Kamte” with Vinita Kamte and is the author of “The Mighty Fall”.)
  • Like this story? Get our top stories by email.

    User

    COMMENTS

    Ranbir Lamba

    1 month ago

    Carry on drive to check who gave sanctions to such dangerous projects. Punish them heavily+ Recover loss + pack them
    Lesson to all for further too.

    We are listening!

    Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.
      Loading...
    Close

    To continue


    Please
    Sign Up or Sign In
    with

    Email
    Close

    To continue


    Please
    Sign Up or Sign In
    with

    Email

    BUY NOW

    online financial advisory
    Pathbreakers
    Pathbreakers 1 & Pathbreakers 2 contain deep insights, unknown facts and captivating events in the life of 51 top achievers, in their own words.
    online financia advisory
    The Scam
    24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
    Moneylife Online Magazine
    Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
    financial magazines online
    Stockletters in 3 Flavours
    Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
    financial magazines in india
    MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
    (Includes Moneylife Online Magazine)
    FREE: Your Complete Family Record Book
    Keep all the Personal and Financial Details of You & Your Family. In One Place So That`s Its Easy for Anyone to Find Anytime
    We promise not to share your email id with anyone