Re: [HumJanenge] For Information: First Appeal u/s 19 of RTI Act 2005

Dear activists

 

The Central IC is also perpetuating another fraud- they are directing the complainants/appellants to forward copies of their complaints/appeals to the concerned PIOs/FAAs before the hearing on the complaint/2nd appeal! It is the responsibility of the commission to send these copies, if deemed necessary, to the PIO/FAA. In fact the RTI Act just provides for giving an opportunity to being heard to the PIO before imposing mandated penalty under Sec 20.

regards n bw

 

ravi

On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Sarbajit Roy <rti.sarbajitroy@gmail.com> wrote:

To:
Ms Anita Gupta
First Appellate Officer/RTI
Central Information Commission
August Kranti Bhawan
New Delhi

BY EMAIL

Date: 15-Nov-2010

Dear Ms Gupta

NOTICE IN LAW CONCERNING CONTEMPT OF COURT and ASSOCIATED VIGILANCE MATTERS.

Please take notice of the following very carefully

1 That I preferred a "First Appeal" to you by email on 30.Sep.2010 u/s
19(1) of the RTI Act 2010.

2) That on 20.Oct.2010 you conveyed to me by email that the Central
Information Commission had decided at its meeting not to accept
appeals by email/online means.

3) That on the very same day I countered your email (a copy of which
is appended inline below for your ready reference). I specifically
objected as follows:-

a) That the Commission's decision was taken during the regime of the
erstwhile "CIC Management Regulations 2007", specifically regulations
contained therein which required the appeals / complaints to be
"verified" (ie. including a signature).

b) That the Commission's decision was limited to the 2nd appeals only,
because "verification" is only provided for by the DoPT's duly
notified "CIC Appeal Procedure Rules 2005" for the 2nd appeals .

c) That my First Appeal was not preferred to the Commission u/s 19(3)
but to you u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005.

4) That till date you have not taken a decision in my matter nor have
you afforded me a hearing. I am therefore caused to believe as
follows:

a) That you have corruptly decided not to process my first appeal so
as to shield your junior officers and to enable them to destroy the
information I had requested.

b) That the Commission, by you, is seeking to implement through the
back door the CIC Management Regulations 2007 which were struck down
as bad in law by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court on
21.May.2010 in which case I was also a party. I clearly inform you
that the Supreme Court has not stayed the Delhi High Court's order nor
revived the Management Regulations.

5) I therefore call upon you to IMMEDIATELY, ie, within 7 days of
today, give me a hearing and suitable decision, failing which all
remedies in law are open to me.

6) As I am given to understand that many other citizens are likewise
affected, I am putting this email into the public domain.

Yours faithfully

Sarbajit Roy

On 10/20/10, Sarbajit Roy <rti.sarbajitroy@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Ms Gupta
>
> 1) The Commission's decision was in terms of the erstwhile CIC
> Management Regulations 2007 regime, which have been subsequently
> withdrawn.
>
> 2) The Commission's decision was in the context of "2nd Appeals" which
> are required to be "verified" by the duly notified /prescribed CIC
> Appeal Procedure Rules which are applicable to 2nd Appeals (and not to
> first appeals)..
>
> 3) I have been filing First Appeals by email to many public
> authorities and nobody has refused to accept / process them till date.
>
> 4) There is no prohibition in the RTI Act or Rules thereunder to file
> First Appeals by emails / electronic means.
>
> 5) The IT Act 2000 specifically mandates that where a law requires a
> document to be filed in writing the same can also be filed by
> electronic means and is legally valid.
>
> As such I must respectfully decline to file a hard copy, till  I am am
> convinced that the same is required by law (which has not been cited
> to me by you as yet).
>
> Yours faithfully
>
> Sarbajit Roy
>
> On 10/20/10, Ms. Anita Gupta <anita.gupta@nic.in> wrote:
>> Mr. Sarabjit Roy,
>>
>>
>> This is to inform you that the Commision has decided that the appeals
>> received through e.mail cannot be registered unless a signed hard copy is
>> received. Therefore, you are requested to send the signed hard copy of
>> the
>> appeal so that it is registered as first appeal.
>>
>> O/o Anita Gupta
>> First Appellate Authority
>> Central Information Commission
>> Ph. 26162290
>>  that the Commision has decide that the appeals received through e.mail
>> cannot be registered unless a signed hard copy is received. Therefore,
>> you
>> are requested to send the hard copy of the appeal.
>>
>> O/o Anita Gupta
>> First Appellate Authority
>> Central Information Commission
>> Ph. 26162290
>>
>>
>>  u/s 19 of RTI Act 2005
>> To: anita.gupta@nic.in, Pankaj <pkp.shreyaskar@nic.in>, gs.manian@nic.in,
>> vijay.bhalla@nic.in
>>
>>> To:
>>> Ms. Anita Gupta
>>> Addl Secy and F.A.A of CIC
>>>
>>> CC:
>>> 1) Pankaj Shreyaskar/CPIO
>>> 2) G.S.Manian/CPIO
>>> 3) Vijay Bhalla/CPIO
>>>
>>> 1.Oct.2010
>>>
>>> BY EMAIL:
>>>
>>> Sub: First Appeal.
>>>
>>> Dear Madam
>>>
>>> I am caused to appeal to you against the reply dated 08.Sep.2010 from
>>> Shri M.C.Sharma, Dy Registrar and nodal  CPIO with
>>> reference File No.
>>> CIC/CPIO/2010/1048 concerning my email request dated 12-Aug-2010 (a
>>> copy of which is appended inline below).
>>>
>>> The information sought by me from 3 CPIOs of CIC concerning their
>>> assigned jurisdictions was as follows
>>>
>>> "1) Copy of each and every email ever sent from official email
>>> IDs of
>>> the Hon'ble Central Information Commissioner(s) for whom you are the
>>> assigned CPIO.
>>>
>>> 2) Copy of each and every email ever received into official
>>> email IDs
>>> of the Hon'ble Central Information Commissioner(s) for whom you are
>>> the assigned CPIO..
>>>
>>> 3) Complete particulars of each and every "2nd Appeal" decided
>>> by the
>>> Hon'ble Central Information Commissioner(s) for whom you are the
>>> assigned CPIO and on which the proper fee required under the Court
>>> Fees Act 1870 has not been paid or affixed.
>>>
>>> 4) Complete particulars of each and very "2nd Appeal" or "Complaint"
>>> decided by the Hon'ble Central Information Commissioner(s) for whom
>>> you are the assigned CPIO and where the appellant, or
>>> complainant as
>>> the case may be, was situated outside the territory where the
>>> RTI Act
>>> 2005 extends [see sub-section 1(2) of RTI Act].
>>>
>>> 5) Email IDs of all persons, pertaining to the Hon'ble Central
>>> Information Commissioner(s) for whom you are the assigned CPIO, who
>>> have submitted "2nd Appeals" or "Complaints" using the online filing
>>> facility of the Hon'ble Commission since the inception of the said
>>> facility."
>>>
>>> The brief grounds for appeal are as follows:-
>>>
>>> 1) Because Mr. Vijay Bhalla /CPIO has not provided any
>>> information at
>>> all to Shri M.C.Sharma to provide to me.
>>>
>>> 2) Because Mr Pankaj Shreyaskar /CPIO has evasively stated for the
>>> information sought by me for 4 out of 5 points that "No such
>>> information is available". It is pertinent that at point 1 he has
>>> further specified that "No such detailed information is
>>> available". At
>>> the remaining point no.2 his reply is deliberately false and evasive
>>> and bears no relation to the information sought by me. It is submitted
>>> that the entire reply of Mr Shreyaskar, as conveyed by Shri
>>> M.C.Sharma, is a pack of lies, especially as the information
>>> sought by
>>> me cannot but exist in the CIC records. The fact that the information
>>> is not available to Mr Shreyaskar is not legislated grounds to
>>> deny me
>>> the information requested. I am also concerned that the information
>>> requested by me shall be destroyed or rendered inaccessible
>>> after Mr
>>> Wajahat Habibullah remits office.
>>>
>>> 3) Because Mr. G.S.Subramanian/CPIO has frankly expressed the
>>> infrastructure limitations which prevent him from properly discharging
>>> his obligations as CPIO. While appreciating his candour, I say
>>> this is
>>> indicative of a serious systemic problem which is coming in the
>>> way of
>>> applicants receiving information under RTI from the CIC. I
>>> recall that
>>> the previous FAA Mr Haleem Khan has passed a detailed order in
>>> case of
>>> Mr. Ravinder Balwani in CIC/AA/A/2008/188 dated 19.1.2009 on similar
>>> issue and where I was assisting the appellant there. It appears that
>>> either the order has not been complied with or the dak/ tracking
>>> software at CIC is inadequate/non-existent and ultra-vires section
>>> 4(1)(a) of the RTI Act. I submit that Mr Paul and other officers of
>>> the NIC would have access to all the said records requested.
>>>
>>> Accordingly, I pray that you may kindly hear me and direct the 3 CPIOs
>>> concerned to locate the records requested (in cooperation with the
>>> NIC) and provide the information to me free of cost as provided
>>> for in
>>> the RTI Act due to the considerable delay..
>>>
>>> Yours faithfully
>>>
>>> Sarbajit Roy
>>> B-59 Defece Colony
>>> New Delhi 110024
>>>
>>> appended: typed copy of RTI request
>>> to pkp.shreyaskar, gs.manian, vijay.bhalla
>>>
>>> To:
>>> Central Public Information Officer
>>> Central Information Commission
>>> New Delhi
>>>
>>> Kind Attn:
>>> a) Shri Pankaj Shreyaskar (CPIO),
>>> b) Shri G Subramanian (CPIO),
>>> c) Shri Vijay Bhalla (CPIO),
>>>
>>> BY EMAIL
>>>
>>> 12-August-2010
>>>
>>> Dear Sir
>>>
>>> I am given to understand that you are a CPIO of Central
>>> Information Commission.
>>>
>>> Accordingly, please find below the specifics of information requested
>>> by me under provisions of RTI Act 2005 pertaining to the Central
>>> Information.Commission.
>>>
>>> NB: If an application fee is prescribed to accompany this email
>>> (electronic mean) request, I am ready, able and willing to
>>> deposit the
>>> same (in cash or otherwise) electronically against proper
>>> receipt, via
>>> e-payment gateway of the Hon'ble Commission, or otherwise.
>>>
>>> Information sought:
>>>
>>> 1) Copy of each and every email ever sent from official email
>>> IDs of
>>> the Hon'ble Central Information Commissioner(s) for whom you are the
>>> assigned CPIO.
>>>
>>> 2) Copy of each and every email ever received into official
>>> email IDs
>>> of the Hon'ble Central Information Commissioner(s) for whom you are
>>> the assigned CPIO..
>>>
>>> 3) Complete particulars of each and every "2nd Appeal" decided
>>> by the
>>> Hon'ble Central Information Commissioner(s) for whom you are the
>>> assigned CPIO and on which the proper fee required under the Court
>>> Fees Act 1870 has not been paid or affixed.
>>>
>>> 4) Complete particulars of each and very "2nd Appeal" or "Complaint"
>>> decided by the Hon'ble Central Information Commissioner(s) for whom
>>> you are the assigned CPIO and where the appellant, or
>>> complainant as
>>> the case may be, was situated outside the territory where the
>>> RTI Act
>>> 2005 extends [see sub-section 1(2) of RTI Act].
>>>
>>> 5) Email IDs of all persons, pertaining to the Hon'ble Central
>>> Information Commissioner(s) for whom you are the assigned CPIO, who
>>> have submitted "2nd Appeals" or "Complaints" using the online filing
>>> facility of the Hon'ble Commission since the inception of the said
>>> facility.
>>>
>>> Notes:
>>>
>>> a) I am not interested in being provided those emails which are marked
>>> as "private" or "personal" or "confidential" by the sender.
>>>
>>> b) I am not interested in being provided those emails which are in
>>> reply to the aforesaid marked private / personal / confidential
>>> emails.
>>>
>>> c) I require this information in larger public interest, so that these
>>> vital historical records of nascent RTI process in India can be
>>> preserved for posterity.
>>>
>>> d) I may kindly be provided all the information requested in
>>> electronic form at prescribed fee, such as on a CD / DVD duly
>>> certified as being provided to me under RTI process.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanking you
>>>
>>> yours faithfully
>>>
>>> Sarbajit Roy
>>> ( Citizen of India )
>>>
>>> My contact particulars are EMAIL ID "rti.sarbajitroy@gmail.com
>>
>