11-Jan-2010
Dear Mr Shrivastava/CPIO/NAC
1) Many thanks for your forwarded email which was received by me
today. I am glad to see that at least some effort has been made after
my communications to attempt to comply with mandate of RTI Act 2005 by
the NAC insofar as section 4(1)(b) of that law is concerned. I clarify
that none of the material at the new "Right to Information" link on
NAC website existed prior to my emails/requests.
2) I am surprised that you are apparently taking the stand that Ms
Aruna Roy and other members / experts at NAC are not employees. I wish
to bring to your notice that the Govt orders of the Cabinet
Secretariat (published on your website) clearly provide for payment of
salary to such persons. I have requested you to formally to inform me
the precise salaries and other monies/benefits paid to them. I believe
that I am entitled to be provided this information proactively. On the
other hand if NAC / Govt is not paying them any salary but instead
only paying for Ms. Aruna Roy's substantial foreign travels instead, I
equally believe that I am entitled (and the public at large including
all members of the various RTI groups I represent with membership
running into lakhs of citizens ) to a precise reply to this query.
3) Thirdly, I note that many aspects of my various emails of of
27-Dec-2010 remain unanswered by you. The information requested
concerning proactive disclosure is not limited to section 4(1)(b) but
extends to (a), (c) and (d) of that section too. For example, I have
not been informed why I was not a part of the NAC meetings held on 13,
and 21st December concerning RTI Rules amendments. I have every right
to know u/s 4(1)(c) the reasons for the decision not to inlcude me as
a participant and the reasons why the others present (who are
apparently all part of Ms Aruna Roy's NCPRI) were called. Once again
there are many eminent RTI experts on our RTI panels not affiliated to
NCPRI who want to know these reasons too and why they were shut out.
It is pertinent that as PS to Chairperson UPA/NAC you would certainly
be expected to know this and be in a position to convey it to me
formally.
4) Fourthly, from today's Economic Times, I am given to understand
that the NAC has conveyed certain positions to the Govt on the draft
RTI Rules. I am unable to find these on your website. I am concerned
that my own materials/views/opinions/analysis/IP etc have been
plagiarised by Ms Aruna Roy and palmed off therein as her own work.
Kindly therefore immediately convey the same to me proactively.
5) Finally, I reiterate that as stated I had called your landline
number, and spoke to somebody who claimed to be you, and flatly denied
that he/you was the PIO of the NAC. I therefore must again formally
request you to inform me the exact status of the NAC, if it is a
public authority in its own right or not, who has appointed/designated
you as a PIO, and why citizens should make RTI related payments to the
section officer PMO.
I would therefore also request an appointment urgently with you to get
these matters resolved.
Yours faithfully
Sarbajit Roy
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:17 PM, Dhiraj Srivastava <
dhiraj.s@nac.nic.in> wrote:
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Dhiraj Srivastava <
dhiraj.s@nac.nic.in>
> To:
sroy.mb@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2011 17:18:16 +0500
> Subject:
>
> January 4, 2011
>
>
>
> Dear Shri Sarbajit Roy,
>
>
>
> Please refer to your e-mail dated 27th December, 2010. I am to
> say that the information sought by you under Section 4(1)(b) of RTI Act,
> 2005 is already posted on NAC website at www.nac.nic.in. This information
> is pro-actively published under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act
> and no Application Fee is chargeable for providing information already
> available under this Section.
>
>
>
> However, the information sought by you in regard to the details
> of Members of NAC and details of all Experts and Academicians engaged by the
> NAC including their contracts/agreements is not part of the information
> available under Section 4(1)(b) and hence cannot be provided free of cost.
>
>
>
> I would like to clarify at this juncture that as a CPIO I have
> no vested interest in either hiding, withholding or not providing an
> information which is available with the NAC and falls under the RTI Act. It
> is also clarified that I have not spoken to you on telephone ever. Hence,
> there is no question of not informing that I am the PIO of NAC.
>
>
>
> I hope you will appreciate the facts.
>
>
>
> With good wishes,
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
>
>
> (Dhiraj Srivastava)
>
> PS to CP and Central Public Information Officer,
>
> National Advisory Council,
>
> 2, Motilal Nehru Place,
>
> New Delhi.
>
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.