[HumJanenge] Re: Application under Right to Information Act, 2005

To:
The National Advisory Council, by
Ms. Rita Sharma, Secy/NAC

cc: Ministry of Personnel

BY EMAIL

Date: 28-12-2010

Dear Madam,

In continuation of my previous email, I am given to understand that
the CPIO/NAC is loath to disclose the information I requested
concerning monies paid to experts for the reason that he was present
at a meeting of NAC's sub-Committee held on or about 13-Dec-2010 where
certain experts like a) Mr Shekhar Singh, b) Mr Wajahat Habibullah c)
Ms. Anjali Bhardwaj etc were present to discuss inter-alia the
amendment to RTI Rules. I am given to understand that payments of upto
Rs.3,300 per expert plus taxi fare etc is authorised per expert per
sitting/consultation by the Cabinet Secretariat / PMO Rs. 6,600 in
case the expert is a senior advocate). I have confirmed from other
experts present at the said meeting that they did not receive the said
amount and neither were they asked to sign the requisite voucher. I am
therefore concerned that the funds lawfully due to them have been
misappropriated by the low level staff or by arrangement with higher
ups..

As an RTI expert myself, I must also request to be informed the
reasons it was decided that I not be invited to share my expertise
with the NAC on the amendments to RTI Rules proposed. As you know, my
detailed comments on the draft RTI Rules have been in the public
domain for quite some time now, and I am concerned that my
intellectual property has been incorporated without acknowledgment
(ie. plagiarised) in NAC's own filings on this issue.

I look forward to receiving your prompt reply addressing my concerns in detail.

Best Wishes

Sarbajit Roy

On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 11:14 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> To:
> The National Advisory Council, by
> Ms. Rita Sharma, Secy/NAC
>
> cc: Ministry of Personnel
>
> BY EMAIL
>
> Date: 27-12-2010
>
> Dear Madam,
>
> SUB: NAC and amendment of draft RTI Rules by DoPT referred in the NAC MoM
> dt. 26.11.2010
>
> I refer to the appended email correspondence between NAC and myself.
>
> I am concerned that a member of the NAC, viz Ms. Aruna Roy who is
> in-charge of a NAC sub-council thereunder pertaining to Transparency &
> Accountability etc, is forwarding suggestions from certain NGOs she is
> closely associated with (incl. in various financial capacities) to the
> DoPT concerning the above subject.
>
> I am concerned that her actions as an NAC member may be in breach of law.
>
> I would therefore request you to kindly immediately send me the
> information published by the NAC concerning sub-section 4(1)(b) of RTI
> Act 2005
>
> ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees;
> (iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including
> channels of supervision and accountability;
> :
> (vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for
> consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in
> relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof;
> (viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other
> bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or
> for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those
> boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public,
> or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public;
> (ix) a directory of its officers and employees;
> (x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and
> employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its
> regulations;
> (xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the
> particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on
> disbursements made;
> (xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the
> amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes;
> (xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or
> authorisations granted by it;
> (xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by
> it, reduced in an electronic form;
>
> I am caused to approach you for this information as the PS to CP/NAC
> does not appear to have the information with him or alternatively have
> access to such information.
>
> Would appreciate your revert, since this information is very urgently
> required by me to file my comments to DoPT on draft RTI Rules and role
> of NAC, if any, therein, the last date for which is today.
>
> Best Wishes
> Sarbajit Roy
>
> On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Date: 27-12-2010
>> In the matter of comments to DoPT draft Rules amendments mentioned in
>> NAC minutes of meeting dt 26.11.2010.
>>
>> Dear Mr Shrivastava
>>
>> In continuation of my previous email (appended below), I wish to draw
>> you attention to that relevant clause of RTI Act concerning
>> designation of CPIOs, reproduced below for ready reference
>>
>> "5 (1) Every public authority shall, within one hundred days of the
>> enactment of this Act, designate as many officers as the Central
>> Public Information Officers or State Public Information Officers, as
>> the case may be, in all administrative units or offices under it as
>> may be necessary to provide information to persons requesting for the
>> information under this Act."
>>
>> I therefore say that you would certainly be aware which public
>> authority has designated you to be the Central Pubic Information
>> Officer as you represent yourself to be, and the same is required to
>> be communicated to me instantly as required by s/s 4(1)(b)(xvi) of RTI
>> Act 2005 which reads as follows
>>
>> "(xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public
>> Information Officers;"
>>
>> Best wishes
>> Sarbajit Roy
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 10:43 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> To:
>>> (Dhiraj Srivastava)
>>> Central Public Information Officer,
>>> National Advisory Council,
>>> 2, Motilal Nehru Place,
>>> New Delhi.
>>>
>>> CC: Ms. Rita Sharma / Secy/NAC
>>> CC: US(RTI)/DoPT to file alongwith my objections to draft RTI Rules
>>>
>>> 27-Dec-2010
>>>
>>> Dear Mr Shrivastava
>>>
>>> Many thanks for your response.
>>>
>>> You will appreciate that each and every piece of information I have
>>> asked for is to be published proactively by the public authority u/s 4
>>> of RTI Act 2005 with effect from 12-Oct-2005. If you wish I can set
>>> out the relevant sub-sections of section 4 for your ready reference,
>>> but I am sure that the NAC (and its PIO) possesses a copy of the RTI
>>> Act and can easily explain why this body in existence since 2004 has
>>> failed to publish even the bare minimum mandatory information on its
>>> website, and why the NAC cannot take the moral high ground to lecture
>>> / advise other public authorities (like DoPT) on implementation of
>>> RTI Act and amendment of its RTI Rules etc.
>>>
>>> You will appreciate that there is no fee to be paid either for
>>> requesting the information or for being provided the information.
>>> Furthermore a division bench of the Central Information Commission, in
>>> one of my cases, has held that the information proactively published
>>> under section 4 of RTI Act is to be be provided immediately, without
>>> application and free of cost by the CPIO failing which the CPIO is
>>> directly liable for penalty.
>>>
>>> You will further appreciate that the NAC is apparently a body
>>> constituted by an order of the Cabinet Secretariat/Govt of India and
>>> is fully funded by the Govt funds. The NAC ex-facie appears to be a
>>> public authority in its own right. It is therefore not clear to me why
>>> I should pay a fee of Rs.10 made out to the section officer of the
>>> PMO, unless you confirm to me that the NAC is neither a public
>>> authority nor the concerned public authority, since I can then apply
>>> to the PMO or Cabinet Secretariat etc. directly.
>>>
>>> As the information is urgently required by me to file my objections to
>>> DoPT on the draft RTI Rules (last date 27-Dec-2010), I am constrained
>>> to send a copy of this communication to everyone concerned. I do hope
>>> that you will reply to me within 24 hours. You will recall that I
>>> spoke with you telephonically about 6 days back specifically asking
>>> who the PIO at NAC was, but you never informed me that it was you.
>>>
>>> Best Regards
>>>
>>> Sarbajit Roy
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Dhiraj Srivastava <dhiraj.s@nac.nic.in> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear Sir,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am to refer to your E-Mail on the subject mentioned above and to request you to kindly remit Rs. 10.00 as application fee by way of Postal Order/Demand Draft in favour of Section Officer, Prime Minister's Office, New Delhi to enable us to process your RTI Application. In addition to above, the information has been sought under the clause of life or liberty, for which you are requested to submit proof in support of your claim. Otherwise the application shall be processed as per normal provisions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanking you,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yours faithfully,
>>>>
>>>> sd/-
>>>>
>>>> (Dhiraj Srivastava)
>>>>
>>>> PS to CP and Central Public Information Officer,
>>>>
>>>> National Advisory Council,
>>>>
>>>> 2, Motilal Nehru Place,
>>>>
>>>> New Delhi.
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
>>>> Date: Friday, December 24, 2010 1:06 pm
>>>> Subject: Concerning: RTI Act 2005
>>>> To: Rita Sharma <ritasharma.secy@nac.nic.in>, K Raju <k.raju@nac.nic.in>, Dhiraj Srivastava <dhiraj.s@nac.nic.in>
>>>>
>>>> To:
>>>> The National Advisory Council (Government of India), by
>>>> 1 Smt. Rita Sharma (Secretary)
>>>> 2) Sh. K Raju, (Joint Secretary)
>>>> 3) Sh. Dhiraj Shrivastava (Secy to Chairperson NAC)
>>>>
>>>> 24-December-2010
>>>>
>>>> Dear Madam,
>>>>
>>>> Sub: RTI Act 2005
>>>>
>>>> I would be obliged if you could inform me immediately by return as follows.
>>>>
>>>> 1) Whether or not the NAC is a public authority in its own right under the Right to Information Act 2005. If so, who the CPIO and First Appellate officer(s) are. It is pertinent that I require information under the life or liberty clause therein for information pertaining to the NAC, which I am listing out below..
>>>>
>>>> 2) Irrespective of whether RTI Act is applicable to NAC or not, kindly inform me if Mrs Aruna Roy is a member of the NAC, the details of all monies paid to her as salary and emoluments in terms of the Cabinet Secretariat's order of 29.March.2010. I am also interested in knowing if Ms. Aruna Roy is a public servant.
>>>>
>>>> 3) Irrespective of whether RTI Act is applicable to NAC or not, kindly provide me the complete details of all experts and academics who have been engaged by the NAC after March 2010, and the details of their contracts / agreements and all monies paid and facilities provided to them till now.
>>>>
>>>> I require this information within 48 hours as I need to make a formal submission to the DoPT in this behalf concerning the minutes of meeting of the NAC held in 26.Nov.2010.
>>>>
>>>> Thanking you
>>>>
>>>> Sarbajit Roy
>>>> My contact details are: "sroy.mb@gmail.com".
>>>> My Tel is : 09311448.069
>>>
>>
>