-: [rti4empowerment] rti award 2010: feedback-Kerala SIC [7 Attachments]

[Attachment(s) from Ravindran Major included below]

Dear Mr Arvind Kejriwal

1. Further to my feedback in the matter of the 4 orders of the Kerala State Information Commission, feedback on Appeal Petition No 632(4)/2008 in the matter of District Collector, Palakkad, Kerala is attached as scanned image.

2. For clarity the responses to para 6 of the feedback forms are reproduced below:

Not participated in hearing. But the frauds in the order are obvious. Please see note below.

Note:
1. That the PIO had NOT given complete info sought is obvious from the order of the FAA. (scanned image attached.)

2. That the info about the authority on which the Collector permitted the employees to mark attendance has still NOT been given. See my letter dated 10/4/08 to the FAA and the 2nd appeal, copies attached.

Yours truly

P M Ravindran

PS: If only I had an iota of faith in the judiciary I would have sued both the DC and the ICs under Sec 217 and 218 of the IPC! It is pertinent to recollect the fact that it it the kerala high court that had held bandhs illegal and this was upheld by the apex court also. The kerala govt while appealing to the apex court had filed an affidavit stating that the people actually enjoy the bandhs. Obviously, so long as 'the people' are govt employees only and they get a paid holiday at the tax payers' expense!

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ravindran Major <majorravi@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 7:41 AM
Subject: rti award 2010: feedback-Kerala SIC
To: rtiaward@gmail.com
Cc: pcrf@pcrf.in

Dear Mr Arvind Kejriwal

1. Further to my feedback on AD, feedback in the matter of the following orders of the Kerala State Information Commission are attached as scanned images:

1.1. Appeal Petition No 638(4)/2008/SIC in the matter of CI of Police, Palakkad Town South, Kerala

1.2. Appeal Petition No 1357(4)/2008/SIC in the matter of Local Self Govt Dept, Kerala

1.3. Appeal Petition No 371(2)/2009/SIC in the matter of Raj Bhavan, Kerala and

1.4. Complaint Petition No 1152(5)/SIC/2009 in the matter of Justice Md Committtee/Higher Education Dept, Kerala.

2. For clarity the responses to para 6 of the feedback forms are reproduced below:

2.1. AP No 638(4)/2008/SIC.

Not participated in hearing. However the total order is a FRAUD. The documents could NOT be inspected for reason mentioned at para 2.1 of my 1st appeal. The decision of the IC regarding dept procedures and statutory provisions is also WRONG.

Para 2.1 of my 1st appeal:

Replying to requirement at para 1.1.1 of the application the PIO has implicitly conveyed that the requirement as per Sec 4 of the RTI Act has been complied with and I could peruse the documents at the police station. In pursuance of this information I had reported to the PIO (SI/APIO then) today (26 Mar 2008) at about 11.30 am and was directed to the station writer. The station writer could not produce any of the documents and the PIO has asked me to give specific requirement in writing and a specific time for perusing. Considering that I was requesting to peruse the documents that were required to be published by the public authority within 120 days of the RTI coming into force, that is 18 Oct 2005, this requirement was certainly infructuous.

The last para of the order of the ICs is reproduced below:

With regard to question No 3, the requester was making query with regard to procedural aspects of receiving complaints through telephone. The procedure for receipt of complaint is laid down in Code of Criminal Procedure and in the Police Manual. These are mandatory requirements available as statutes and also timely amendments and directions were also issued by the departmental heads, especially with regards to Police force. Some of the questions, therefore, appear to be hypothetical also, which a Station House Officer was unable to answer in the ordinary course of events. Information, as such, was not departmental procdure or reproduction of statutory provisions of the any Act, statute or directions. xxxxxxx

Q3 of the application is reproduced below:

1.3. What is the procedure followed in the police station on receipt of a complaint by telephone?

1.3.1. Who is the one receiving the complaint made through telephone?
1.3.2. Is it recorded?
1.3.3. Is any complaint number allotted immediately or later?
1.3.4. After recording what is the follow up action taken?
1.3.5. What is the nature of further investigation in the case of a complaint by a citizen against dharna/hartal/bandh (please give details in each case)? How long does it take? Please specify the minimum and maximum periods taken for such investigation of complaints received during the last one year. Also please give the particulars of those two cases, that is date, event, complainant, investigated by whom, result and present status of the case, if any, in a court of law, that is being pursued.

The pertinent queries in the context of the order are:

(a) Where does the Cr PC and Police Manual come in?

(b) Even if the procedures are listed in the CrPC and Police Manual where is the bar on providing the relevant extracts?

2.2. AP No 1357(4)/2008/SIC.

Could not participate in the hearing as opportunity was denied. The commission has been harassing appellants/complainants by requiring them to attend hearings at Thiruvananthapuram instead of using video conferencing facility that is available.

Response to para 7:

Request for inspecting documents denied by malafide directions insisting on appellant himself to inspect them and NOT authoried representative. In a question-answer session wherein the CIC fielded questions from PIOs/FAAs, the CIC had said that inspection by authorised representative is permitted. This Q-A session is reported in Upabhokthru Sabdam of Oct 2010. Reply to Q21 on page 34 is relevant.

Copy of application is attached.

2.3. AP No 371(2)/2009/SIC.

Not participated in hearing. However, atleast one gross error in the order is highlighted. See last sentenc of para 4 of the order. It is stated that the respondents submitted that they have not informed the appellant that sec 4(1)(b) of teh RTI Act has not been complied with. Attached is the scanned image of the reply by the FAA. Please see the 2nd page.

copy of the application is attached.

2.4. Complaint Petition No 1152(5)/SIC/2009.

Not participated in hearing. However there are 02 FRAUDS perpetuated by the ICs. One, NOT taking cognisance of the UNDUE delay in forwarding application to Md Committee and two, the direction to file 1st appeal!

Copy of application is attached.

Further, in response to para 2 of the application the Principal Secretary to Govt (FAA?) has informed that the details have NOT been published. The ICs have also NOT taken cognisance of this brazen flouting of the law.

3. To conclude, the ICs of the KSIC have been brazenly violating the RTI Act. Given the fact that ONLY the ICs can misuse this Act by failing to impose the mandatory penalites for delays in providing the information sought in return for bribes ( a part of the penalty that is liable to be imposed or even more where the PIOs are sensitive to negative remarks in the dossiers!) and the number of cases in which penalties have been imposed it needs to be inquired how much corrupt the ICs have been/are. In fact they may even have to be tried for subverting the very law that they were tasked to enforce.

Yours truly

P M Ravindran

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ravindran Major <majorravi@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 5:11 PM
Subject: rti award 2010: feedback-Annapoorna Dixit
To: rtiaward@gmail.com
Cc: pcrf@pcrf.in

Dear Mr Arvind Kejriwal

1. This is with reference to the order of Ms Annapoorna Dixit in CIC/Ok/A/2008/00766-AD.

2. This is the best order I have received till date but it doesn't mean that it is even satisfactory. Logically and legally there are gross deficiencies.

3. Logicaly, you may like to compare the three dates in paras 9, 10 and 11 of the order.

3.1. In para 9, the PIO has been directed to furnish an affidavit by 30 Jun 2009.

3.2. In para 10, the PIO has been asked to provide a written explanation by 16 Jun 2009 when a 2nd hearing would be held at 3 pm.

3.3. In para 11, the public authority has been directed to provide a compenstion of Rs 1000/- to the appellant by 20 Jun 2009.

If you compare the dates it would be obvious that the 2nd video conference should have been scheduled for 30 Jun 2009 when compliance on all directions could have ben taken stock of.

4. Even the order is dated 19 May 2009 when the 1st video conference itself was held only on 26 May 2009!

5. As per the adjunct, dated 16 Jun 2009, to the order a penalty of Rs 7000/- was imposed on the PIO. But this is for a period of delay of only 28 days. It appears that the IC has taken cognisance of only the period from 19 May 2009 to 16 Jun 2009 and both these dates have NO significance whatsover! The first is the initial schedule of the 1st hearing which was actually conducted only on 26 May 2009. The 2nd is of course the date by which the PIO was supposed to submit his explanation. The law actually provides for penalising for the delay after 30 days till the information is provided which in this case would work out to more than a year!

6. The blatant violation of the simple law, that is the Right to Information Act is, by the information commissioners themselves and the failure of the constitutional authorites like the President and Governor to act on complaints againt these commissioners bodes ill for the country. There is no doubt that in any country where rule of law prevails these authorities would have been tried for treason and punished exemplarily. Unfortunately in our country all these offices of authority are occuppied by people who are looking towards even their funeral expenses being met by the tax payer!

7. I am attaching herewith the feedback on the orders of the IC for the rti awards. This document is the scanned image rti awards2010-fb on ad-311010. The application is rti-rlys-pkd div-salem-bridges-011007. The feedback/follow up is rti-rlys-pkd div-salem-bridges-fb on order-adjunct-090709. The other documents are the complaints to the CM, Kerala, Governor, Kerala and President of India against various information commissioners. These complaints have been futile. I have pursued their progress also under the RTI Act but only in the case of Governor, Kerala it had got routed to the Dept of Gen Admn who worte to me saying that there was no merit in the complants warranting removal of the IC(s). In the case of the complaint to the Prez also it had been forwarded to the DoPT and I had not pursued it thereafter.

Regards n bw

ravi

__._,_.___

Attachment(s) from Ravindran Major

3 of 3 Photo(s)