This mail shows how much intolerant you are about dissenting opinion so
as to suggest that some one who is expressing his anguish should be
punished for doing so. No wonder your thought process seems to be akin
to Aruna Roy who is now putting spanner in the Jan Lokpal Bill (She has
already done it with regards to RTI and your past posts suggest that
you almost concur with her). In your opinion, if the elected
representatives rapes me, I must enjoy it instead of resisting it or
lodging complaint about it. You may be moderator of this group and you
may expel me as I had never invited myself to this group. You guys are
politically motivated an in every single act of yours you stinks of
political corruption. You and your political bosses don't have any
regards for democracy or dissenting voices. Stop threatening people
with such frivolous suggestions to stop someone's pension. Stop
thinking that you are the only ones fit to rule this nation and rest of
us were born to be ruled by people like you who has all the rights to
foist their views on rest of us. Stop thinking that you are more
civilised than us where as the fact is that you are NOT. Stop acting as
the agents of the world's oldest profession to tell others why and how
they are wrong. If you still feel that I should continue as a member of
this group it is your choice. But if any such funny posts are mailed I
shall react more stringently and expose you guys.
Ketan Modi
On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 08:25:02 +0530 wrote
>To:
Mr P M Ravindran
I do not know why I am repeatedly receiving such rude, scandalous and
ill conceived emails from you. Kindly stop sending me such emails. I
particularly object to phrases in your emails which betray disrespect
for the Constitution of India and its offices. I am given to
understand that you are an ex-serviceman, and I opine that stoppage of
your pension and other post-retirement benefits would be a fitting
penalty for your disrespect, and I sincerely hope that Madam
President, to whom you have addressed your offensive email, takes
swift and appropriate action.
Sarbajit Roy
On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Ravindran P M
wrote:
> Ms Pratibha Devi Singh Patil, President of India,
>
> Firstly, please note that I am not endorsing copy of this e mail to
the PM
> because I am amoung those who believe that the earlier the present
incumbent
> is kicked out of that office the better it will be for the country.
>
> Next, I am writing this to you to bring to your attention the blatant
> subversion of the RTI Act by the public servants of whom you are the
> executive head and is responsible to set the wrongs right.
>
> Please see the DoPT OM No F/10/02/2008-IR dated 24 Sep 2010 in the
document
> attached.
>
> Now, your attention is invited to Sec 6 of the RTI Act which is
reproduced
> for your study:
>
> 6 (1) A person, who desires to obtain any information under this
Act,
> shall make a request in writing or through electronic means in
English or
> Hindi or in the official language of the area in which the
application is
> being made, accompanying such fee as may be prescribed, to�
> (a) the Central Public Information Officer or State Public
> Information Officer, as the case may be, of the concerned public
authority;
> (b) the Central Assistant Public Information Officer or
> State Assistant Public Information Officer, as the case may be,
>
> specifying the particulars of the information sought by him or her:
>
> Provided that where such request cannot be made in writing, the
Central
> Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as
the case
> may be, shall render all reasonable assistance to the person making
the
> request orally to reduce the same in writing.
> (2)
>
> An applicant making request for information shall not be required to
give
> any reason for requesting the information or any other personal
details
> except those that may be necessary for contacting him.
> (3) Where an application is made to a public authority
> requesting for an information,�
> (i) which is held by another public authority; or
> (ii) the subject matter of which is more closely connected
> with the functions of another public authority,
>
> the public authority, to which such application is made, shall
transfer the
> application or such part of it as may be appropriate to that other
public
> authority and inform the applicant immediately about such transfer:
>
> Provided that the transfer of an application pursuant to this sub-
section
> shall be made as soon as practicable but in no case later than five
days
> from the date of receipt of the application.
>
> Now look at the highlighted portion and you will realise that the
DoPT is
> just trying to exploit the use of singular in Sec 6(3). Isn't this
against
> the very spirit of the act? I am sure you will realise why this
provision is
> per se important. How many of us really know the intricacies of the
> functioning of govt departments to know which public authority
exactly holds
> which kind of information? (The pity is that till date none,
including the
> information commissions, have published the info required to be
published
> under Sec 4 of the RTI Act!) And even in one public authority we all
know
> how the employees make you run from pillar to post to get just a
simple job
> done. So it was really a very deliberate provision in the RTI Act to
prevent
> the public servants from knowingly or unknowingly harassing the
information
> seeker.
>
> One cannot overlook the fact that the applicant is seeking
information with
> some definite purpose (though he doesn't have to disclose the purpose
> officially!) and he will not be interested in a five year plan to
compile
> info from dozens of public authorities with just one application to
one
> public authority. So let us accept it that in general any PIO will
have to
> use this provision to send the application to 2 or in rare cases to 3
and in
> rarest of the rarest cases upto 5 other PIOs, which by no means can
be
> considered unreasonable.
>
> In this context, one has to also recollect two other issues- one the
motives
> of the DoPT and two the attitude of the information commissioners.
>
> You may recollect that the DoPT had also tried to SUBVERT the RTI Act
by
> trying to argue that every complaint or appeal to the information
commission
> has to be heard by all the information commissioners together! The
> ridiculousness of the argument does strike one immediately. The DoPT
> ventured to make such a demand again because of the language used in
Sec 18
> (1) which states that ' Subject to the provisions of this Act, it
shall be
> the duty of the Central Information Commission or State Information
> Commission, as the case may be, to receive and inquire into a
complaint from
> any person,�...' They want the Commission to be interpreted as the
whole lot
> of commissioners sitting in one bench! Ridiculous on the face of it,
isn't
> it? Fortunately this has not been agreed to but the last I heard on
this
> issue was that the matter was being contested in Delhi High Court!
>
> The next issue I wanted to bring to your attention now is how the
other
> provisions, which favour the citizens, are not so intricately
analysed and
> implemented, even though there are absolutely no ambiguities in them.
>
> The first case is of Sec 5(2), dealing with appointment of APIOs. It
reads
> as
> ' Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1) (dealing
with
> appointment of PIOs), every public authority shall designate an
officer,
> within one hundred days of the enactment of this Act, at each sub-
divisional
> level or other sub-district level as a Central Assistant Public
Information
> Officer or a State Assistant Public Information Officer, as the case
may be,
> to receive the applications for information or appeals under this Act
for
> forwarding the same forthwith to the Central Public Information
Officer or
> the State Public Information Officer or senior officer specified
under
> sub-section (1) of section 19 or the Central Information Commission
or the
> State Information Commission, as the case may be:..'
>
> Now again this a very important provision in favour of the citizen.
The task
> of the APIOs is very clear- that is to accept applications
(including, of
> course, the fees prescribed) and appeals meant for other public
authorities
> and forward them to the concerned PIOs/FAAs or ICs. The purpose is
also
> obvious, that is to help the citizens access info without running
from
> pillar to post, with the added advantage of saving on postal charges
with
> the assured accountability for delivering the document correctly! But
it is
> the interpretation of the sub divisional level that is being misused
to deny
> the citizens their right under this Act. Now what does 'every public
> authority shall designate... at each sub divisional level' mean? It
needs to
> be analysed as follows.
>
> A village office is also a public authority. Can it designate an APIO
at any
> sub divisional level? Definitely NO! So the clause actually becomes
'every
> public authority at sub divisional level shall designate an APIO...'
>
> Now does the clause restrict the task of the APIO to accepting
> applications/appeals only for the PIOs of the same department/
autonomous
> body? Again NO! In fact the liberal (if it should be considered so)
and
> correct interpretation would mean that an APIO at any sub divisional
level
> public authority can accept an application or 1st appeal to any other
public
> authority (irrespective of the distinction between state and centre!)
or any
> 2nd appeal to any IC!
>
> But what do you find in practice? While the SICs themselves have not
> designated any APIOs at any subdivisional level (for obvious reasons)
they
> have wrongly interpreted the task of the APIOs in restricting them to
> accepting applications and1st appeals pertaining to their own
> departments/autonomous bodies only. ( The Kerala SIC had gone one
step
> further and even written an illegal letter to the PIO of the office
of the
> RDO, Palakkad not to accept any applications or appeals, contravening
even
> the RTI Rules promulgated by the Govt of Kerala and in force then.
That the
> Govt of Kerala has itself has been subverting the letter and spirit
of the
> law by amending the rules is another cause for concern. But those
details
> later.) As far as the central public authorities are concerned, for
some of
> them, the APIOs at designated Head Post Offices have been tasked to
accept
> applications and appeals meant for them. But this is a far cry from
the
> actual provision in Sec 5 (2)!
>
> The next important subversion is of Sec 20(1) regarding imposition of
> penalty. It reads as ' Where the Central Information Commission or
the State
> Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding
any
> complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public
Information
> Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be,
has,
> without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for
> information or has not furnished information within the time
specified under
> sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for
> information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading
> information or destroyed information which was the subject of the
request or
> obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall
impose a
> penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is
> received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of
such
> penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees:...'
>
> Here the important thing to note is that the imposition of penalty is
> mandatory even if there has been only delay in providing the
information.
> The delay is an obvious fact and there cannot be an opinion whether
there
> has been any delay or not. The opinion can be only about the validity
of the
> reasons for the delay. You may try and recollect now in how many
cases the
> mandatory penalty have been imposed in your own appeals and what were
the
> valid reasons for the delay in other cases.
>
> I hope I have elaborated enough to drive home the point that this
letter
> from the DoPT is yet another act of subversion of the law and the CIC
is an
> accomplice!
>
> Yours truly
>
> P M Ravindran
> 2/18, 'Aathira'
> Kalpathy-678003
> Tel: 0491-2576042
>
> http://raviforjustice.blogspot.com
> �Judiciary Watch� at www.vigilonline.com
> http://www.judicialreforms.org/
> http://www.roguepolice.com
> http://milapchoraria.tripod.com
>
>
 |
Treat yourself at a restaurant, spa, resort and much more with Rediff Deal ho jaye!
No comments:
Post a Comment