Ravi's Laws of Criminality

Law 1. Behind every successful criminal is a successful criminal lawyer

Law 2. Behind every successful criminal lawyer is at least one 'uncle' judge.

Uncle judge and bench hunting may or may not be features peculiar to the Indian judicial system.  The Bar Council of India however bars any advocate from appearing before a judge who is his/her relation. But there is nothing preventing the relation of a judge from appearing before a 'brother' judge  whose relation can appear before him/her. To illustrate, if AS is the advocate son of judge A and BS is the advocate son of judge B, AS can appear before B and BS can appear before A and no one can be wiser or question as to how AS and BS continue to get favourable orders whenever they appear before B and A respectively! This in essence is the phenomenon of 'uncle' judges and there cannot be father/mother/brother/sister judges. To understand how 'uncle' judges contribute to corruption and crime look at former Chief Justice of India, K G Balakrishnan's history and how his family members raked in the moolah when he was a judge of the high courts/ apex court. Bench hunting involves not only advocates manipulating to get their cases listed before uncle judges, it can also extend to advocates managing to get their case listed  before particular judges whose whims and fancies are well known in those circles.

"It is true that the solution suggested is unusual, but unusual situations which pervert the judicial system require unusual and unorthodox remedies."-Eminent jurist H.M.Seervai in his book, Constitutional Law of India

This was the very quote that Binod Kumar Roy, Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, used to justify his five-page administrative directive restricting relatives of certain  judges from appearing before them. The Bar Council rule is clear that lawyers can't appear before their own kin. Roy's directive identified a dozen judges whose relatives are advocates (see All in the Family) and forbade them from appearing before any of these 12. This ensured that a judge cannot help even a fellow judge's kin.

Within a month of this directive, the SC collegium recommended his transfer to the Patna High Court.

- http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20041108&fname=Judges+%28F%29&sid=1&pn=1

CIVIL-MILITARY CONFRONTATION

This is a letter I got, forwarded by another veteran.

Ravi

 

Views of an IAS Offr........ Pay scales for the Armed Forces

 We need a permanent solution to this tussle over emoluments so that the armed forces need only confront the enemies of the nation, says T.R.Ramaswami ,IAS.

In the continuing debate on pay scales for the armed forces, there has to be a serious and transparent effort to ensure that the country is not faced with an unnecessary civil-military confrontation. That effort will have to come from the netas, who are the real and true bosses of the armed forces and not the civil bureaucracy.

A solution may lie in what follows. This country requires the best armed forces, the best police and the best civil service. In fact that is what the British ensured.. By best one means that a person chooses which service he wants as per his desires/capabilities and not based on the vast differential in prospects in the various services.

How much differential is there?

Take Maharashtra, one of the most parsimonious with police ranks thus still retaining some merit - The 1981 IPS batch have become 3-star generals, the 1987 are 2-star and the 1994 1-star.

In the army the corresponding years are 1972, 1975, 1979.  i.e. a differential of 10-15 years. While the differential is more with the IAS, the variance with the IPS is all the more glaring because both are uniformed services and the grades are "visible" on the shoulders.

First some general aspects. Only the armed forces are a real profession where you rise to the top only by joining at the bottom. < few people have realised this, and its long-term implications when compared to other professional streams....

We have had professors of economics become Finance Secretaries or even Governors of RBI. We have any number of MBBSs, engineers, MBAs, in the police force though what their qualifications lend to their jobs is a moot point. You can join at any level in the civil service, except Cabinet Secretary. A civil servant can move from Animal Husbandry to Civil Aviation to Fertilisers to Steel to yes, unfortunately, even to Defence..

.....But the army never asks for Brigade Commanders or a Commandant of the Army War College or even Director General Military Intelligence, even from RAW or IB. Army officers can and have moved into organizations like IB and RAW but it is never the other way round. MBBS and Law graduates are only in the Medical or JAG Corps and do nothing beyond their narrow areas.

Every Army Chief - in any army - has risen from being a commander of a platoon to company to battalion to brigade to division to corps to army. In fact the professionalism is so intense that no non-armoured corps officer ever commands an armoured formation, the “first and possibly only exception in world military history" is General K. Sundarji.

Perhaps it is this outstanding professionalism that irks the civil services.


Next, one must note the rigidity and steep pyramid of the army's rank structure. In the civil services any post is fungible with any grade based on political expediency and the desires of the service. For example I know of one case where one department downgraded one post in another state and up-graded one in Mumbai just to enable someone continue in Mumbai after promotion!


You can't fool around like this in the armed forces. A very good Brigadier cannot be made a Major-General and continue as brigade commander. There has to be a clear vacancy for a Major General and even then there may be others better than him. Further the top five ranks in the army comprise only 10% of the officer strength. Contrast this with the civil services where entire batches become Joint Secretaries!


Even the meaning of the word "merit" is vastly different in the army and the civil services. Some years back an officer of the Maharashtra cadre claimed that he should be the Chief Secretary as he was first in the merit list. Which merit list? At the time of entry more than 35 years before! The fact is that this is how merit is decided in the IAS and IPS. Every time a batch gets promoted the inter-se merit is still retained as at the time of entry. In other words if you are first in a batch at the time of entry, then as long as you get promoted, you continue to remain first! This is like someone in the army claiming that he should become chief because he got the Sword of Honour at the IMA.

Even a Param Vir Chakra does not count for promotion, assuming that you are still alive.

In the armed forces, merit is a continuous process - each time a batch is promoted the merit list is redrawn according to your performance in all the previous assignments with additional weightage given not only to the last one but also to your suitability for the next one. Thus if you are a Brigade Commander and found fit to become a Major General, you may not get a division because others have been found better to head a division. That effectively puts an end to your promotion to Lt. General.

The compensation package must therefore address all the above issues. In each service, anyone must get the same total compensation by the time he reaches the 'mode rank' of his service. "Mode" is a statistical term – the value where the maximum number of variables fall.


In the IAS normally everyone reaches Director and in the IPS it is DIG. In the army, given the aforementioned rank and grade rigidities and pyramidical structure, the mode rank cannot exceed Colonel. Thus a Colonel's gross career earnings (not salary scales alone) must be at par with that of a Director. But remember that a Colonel retires at 54, but every babu from peon to Secretary at 60 regardless of performance.

Further, it takes 18-20 years to become a Colonel whereas in that time an IAS officer reaches the next higher grade of Joint Secretary, which is considered equal to a Major General.

These aspects and others - like postings in non-family stations - must be addressed while fixing the overall pay scales of Colonel and below. Thereafter, a Brigadier will be made equal to a Joint Secretary, a Major-General to an Additional Secretary and a Lt General to a Secretary. The Army Commanders deserve a new rank - Colonel General - and should be above a Secretary but below Cabinet Secretary.

The equalization takes place at the level of Cabinet Secretary and Army Chief.

If this is financially a problem I have another solution. Without increasing the armed forces' scales, reduce the scales of the IAS and IPS till they too have 20% shortage.

Done?

Even India 's corruption index will go down.


If the above is accepted in principle, there is a good case to review the number of posts above Colonel. Senior ranks in the armed forces have become devalued with more and more posts being created.

But the same pruning exercise is necessary in the IAS and more so in the IPS, where Directors General in some states are re-writing police manuals – one is doing Volume I and another Volume II!

Further the civil services have such facilities as "compulsory wait" basically a picnic at taxpayers cost. And if you are not promoted or posted where you don't want to go they seem able to take off on leave with much ease. In the army you will be court-martialled. Also find out how many are on study leave. The country cannot afford this.

Let not someone say that the IAS and IPS exams are tougher and hence the quality of the officers better. An exam at the age of 24 has to be tougher than one at the age of 16. The taxpaying citizen is not interested in your essay/note writing capabilities or whether you know Cleopatra's grandfather.

As a citizen I always see the army being called to hold the pants of the civil services and the police and never the other way round. That's enough proof as to who is really more capable.

Also recall the insensitive statements made by the IG Meerut in the Aarushi case and the Home Secretary after the blasts.Further, when the IAS and IPS hopefuls are sleeping, eating and studying, their school mates, who have joined the army, stand vigil on the borders to make it possible for them to do so. Remember that the armed forces can only fight for above-the table-pay. They can never compete with the civil services and definitely not with the police for the under the table variety.

Finally, there is one supreme national necessity : The political class - not the bureaucracy - which represents the real civil supremacy, better become more savvy on matters relating to the armed forces. Till then they are at the mercy of the civil service, who frequently play their own little war games. At ministerial level there are some very specialized departments - Finance, Railways,Security (Home), Foreign and Defence - where split second decisions are necessary. It is always possible to find netas savvy in finance, foreign relations and railways. Security has been addressed in getting a former IPS officer as NSA at the level of a MoS.
 

It is time that a professional is also brought into the Defence Ministry as MoS! The sooner the better. In fact this will be better than a CoDS because the armed forces will have someone not constrained by the Army Act or Article 33, of the Constitution. Of course the loudest howls will come from the babus. The netas must realize that a divide and rule policy cannot work where the country's security is concerned. Recall 1962?

Our army, already engaged in activities not core to their functions, including rescuing babies from borewells (!), should not have to engage in civil wars over their pay scales.

I only hope our defence minister or anyone who would take a reasonable stand for defence forces ever gets to see this article.

It would definitely affect any person with an iota of integrity.

RTI Act-Shailesh Gandhi and Schopenhauer's Law of Entropy

SCHOPENHAUER'S LAW OF ENTROPY: If you put a spoonful of wine in a barrel full of sewage you get sewage. If you put a spoonful of sewage in abarel full of wine you get sewage!

Shailesh Gandhi is probably the only RTI activist who has had the privilege of being appointed an information commissioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005. He is an alumni of IIT Mumbai and hence hopes ran high amoung other activists who had been witnessing the blatant subversion of the law by the very information commissioners appointed in the most non-transparent and very much questionable manner. Strictly speaking the conditions laid down by the apex court for the appointment of the CVC should hold good for any similar appointments. Appointment of information commissioners certainly begs better defined procedures and wider options. As on date, of the 9 information commissioners at the Central Information Commission, 3 are from the IAS, one is the wife of an IAS officer, 2 are from the IPS, one is related to a former IFS officer, and then we have Shailesh Gandhi and a Chartered Accountant!

Shailesh Gandhi has been responsible for raising the bar with respect to disposal rates. Given the fact that the job of an information commissioner is simpler than that of a munsif, the rate of disposal expected of appeals is not less than 25 to 30 per day (the rate of disposal of complaints can definitely be even more!). While Shailesh Gandhi himself is on record claiming that he has disposed of 500 cases in a month, it appears that the CIC has accepted a nominal 300 cases per IC per month. And yes, Shailesh Gandhi has to his credit some good orders too. The notable one is his Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000278/SG/12906 in Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000278/SG where the interpretation of Sec 6(3) of the RTI has been analyzed critically and very aptly decided. (The decision is available at http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SM_A_2011_000278_SG_12906_M_58648.pdf) (It is a different matter that the illegal Office Memorandum issued by the Dept of Personnel and Training  quoted in that order continues to be quoted with impunity by the PIOs leading to avoidable appeals, delay and denial of information!)

But the purpose of this blog is to prove how curtly, idiotically and treacherously this alumni of one of the most prestigious institutions in the country has managed the numbers he claims as his disposal rate.

I had submitted 4 second appeals, two each under two covering letters, on 28/5/2010 and 7/7/2010. The first two of 28/5/2010 pertained to railways and Dept of Posts (precisely SSPO, Palakkad) and the next two of 7/7/2010 both pertained to SBI, Palakkad. As it happened, one appeal each from both lots were disposed of in the usual manner (I am just stating the fact that they were disposed of. The usual,as a qualifier means not only routinely as per time frames but also waywardly and most unsatisfactorily!) But when one of the two second appeals pertaining to SBI came up for hearing itself I had made queries about the other one also but had got no response.

The failure to process the 2nd second appeal in each lot proves the following:

1. the absurd procedure for documentation followed by the CIC- supposedly the ultimate watchdog for transparency!
2. the staff at the CIC are incompetent to the core, because they cannot identify an appeal from a covering letter under which two appeals are received!
2. even the ICs are equally incompetent for the same reason plus they do not even seem to be perusing the documents that the citizens submit with so much effort and draining so much of their resources, because if they had been doing it even casually they would have seen the other appeal and should have taken appropriate action.

Anyhow, suffice to say, I had to submit an application under the RTI Act to get to know the status of the other two appeals. And the gist of the exercise is that the PIO provided the info sought at paras 2.1, 2.2 and 2.6 only and part of the info sought at paras 2.4 and 2.5 of only one appeal (Dy No 37981 on 28.5.20 10, Order No CIC/AD/A/20 10/001046 available at rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/ CIC_AD_A_20 1 0_001046 M_43703.pdf delivered on 29/9/10 and order dispatched on 15/10/2010) Even in this negligible info provided there is error because an appeal dated 28/5/1010, sent from Palakkad on that date, could not have been docketed on the same date at New Delhi! And even in this case, other information like other participants in the video conference, serial number in the the dispatch register for the order sent on 15/10/2010 etc have not been provided.

Now coming to the worst part- that is the hearing by Shailesh Gandhi and his order. It is to be noted that even the FAA had noted that the complete info had not been provided and ordered the CPIO to provide the info within 20 days. The 2nd appeal had explicitly stated that this had not been complied with. In spite of this, during the hearing conducted through video conference, Mr Gandhi curtly finished the hearing in less than one minute stating that all the info available had been provided and hence the appeal is disposed of! Does he expect us to believe that the info sought like docket numbers, receipt/dispatch register entries etc are available only some documents received/sent by the CIC?

And that is what raises the question: can an alumni of IIT Mumbai be an idiot or a traitor?

The contents of all the documents of this case are reproduced at the end of this blog for those interested in detailed study.

CONTENTS OF APPLICATION:

File: RTI/cic nd-statofappeals-appln    -230711                                                23 Jul 2011

The Public Information Officer under the RTI Act       
Central Information Commission
2nd Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhavan
Bikhaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
(Through CAPIO, HPO, Palakkad-678001)

APPLICATION UNDER THE RTI ACT-STATUS OF 2ND APPEALS

1.    Refer the following 2nd appeals:

1.1.    rti/rlys-passrelinfo-2nd appeal-280510 dated 28/5/10       
1.2.    rti/sspo pkd-2nd appeal-280510 dated 28/5/10               
(Both Forwarded thro’ CAPIO, O/o The SSPO Palakkad)
1.3.    rti/sbi pkd-2nd appeal-070710-penfix dated 7/7/2010 and        
1.4.    rti/sbi pkd-2nd appeal-070710-curchest dated 7/7/2010          
(Both Forwarded by SpeedPost No EL664026435IN on 7/7/10)

2.    In the context of the above appeals you are requested to provide the following information:

2.1.    The date of receipt and serial number of the entry in the register maintained for the purpose
2.2.    With resepct to the acknowledgement, the letter number and date, the date on which sent and the serial number of the entry in the register maintained for the purpose and the mode of sending- whether by ordinary post, speed post, registered post with or without acknowledgement due or courier etc
2.3.    With respect to the notice for hearing, the letter number and date, the date on which sent and the serial number of the entry in the register maintained for the purpose and the mode of sending- whether by ordinary post, speed post, registered post with or without acknowledgement due or courier etc
2.4.    The dates and mode- in person, audio conference, video conference etc-of hearing and the names, designations and location of the participants
2.5.    With respect to the orders, the order number and date, the date on which sent and the serial number of the entry in the register maintained for the purpose and the mode of sending- whether by ordinary post, speed post, registered post with or without acknowledgement due or courier etc
2.6.    Also,  with respect to the orders, the url of the order if available on the commission’s website.
2.7.    In the case of appeals where hearings have not been conducted so far, provide the copies of file notings and the statements of the PIO/FAA, if any, received.

3.    Your attention is also invited to the following e mails sent by me: 

3.1.    from Ravindran P M pmravindran@gmail.com            to d.sandhu@nic.in
         cc tk.mohapatra@nic.in,s.mishra@nic.in                    date Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 7:56 AM
         subject Non-compliance of orders in CIC/AT/A/2010/000683

3.2.    fromRavindran P M pmravindran@gmail.com                to an.tiwari@nic.in
         cc dc.singh@nic.in,rmrbo.palakkad@sbi.co.in,gmsectt.lhotri@sbi.co.in   
        date Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 8:50 AM
        subject Fwd: Case No. CIC/AT/A/2010/000683: Hearing on 22.11.2010 at 12.00 Noon through Video   
        Conferencing

4.    In the context of the above e mails, please provide the copies of the file notings on action taken and the
information about the present status.

5.    A blank IPO (No ) issued by HPO, Palakkad-678001, for Rs 10/- (Rs Ten only) is enclosed herewith towards the prescribed fees.

6.    Please use the file reference and date in all communication on this matter.

CONTENTS OF CPIO'S REPLY:

This has reference to your RTI application dared 23.7.2011 diarized in the Commission on 27.7.2011. The reply of the Designated Officer obtained under sec 5(4) of the RTI Act , is as under:

1. Received vide dy. No. 37981 on 28.5.2010 and

1.1. registered as case CIC/AD/A/20 10/001046.

1.2. The appeal dated 28.5.2009 was attached to the appeal bearing Dy. No. 37981, so only after this RTI, one could notice that there is an appeal bearing dated 28th May, 2001 instead of 28th May, 2010. The same is being forwarded to the registry of IC (LS) for necessary action. This letter does not bear any dy. No.

1.3 & 1.4. As per Receipt Management System no such letters have been received in the C.R. Section.

2.1. Dy. no. 37981 on 28.5.20 10 and registered as case CIC/AD/A/2010/001046.

2.2. No acknowledgement is sent.

2.3. Hearing Notice dated 30 August and hearing having postponed for 29.9.2010 issued, copy enclosed.

2.4. Through Video Conference from Chennai, Respondents Shri Nageswar Rao, APJO, Mrs. Bose, CPIO and Mr.Jani Ram (Reservation Deptt.) represented the Public Authorty.

2.5. The Order No. CIC/AD/A/2010/001046 dated September, 29 2010 was dispatched from the Commission on 15th October, 2010.

2.6. The order is available on the CIC website: rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/ CIC_AD_A_20 1 0_001046 M_43703.pdf

2.7. Not applicable:

3.1 & 3.2. There is no specific notings in the case file in respect of the e-mails sent by you as mentioned in the RTI application.

The first appeal, if any, u/s 19(1) will lie with Ms Anita Gupta, First Appellate Authority, Central Information Commission at the above address within 30 days of receipt of this letter.

CONTENTS OF MY 1ST APPEAL:

File: rti/cic nd-stateofappeals-1st appeal-300811                        30 Aug 2011

To:

The First Appellate Authority under the RTI Act,        
Central Information Commission
 2nd Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhavan
Bikaji Cama Place,  New Delhi-110066
(Through the APIO, HPO, Palakkad-678001)

1ST APPEAL UNDER THE RTI ACT: -STATUS OF 2ND APPEALS

1.    Refer your office letter No CIC/CPIO/2011/1187 dated 26/8/2011 received by me on 29/8/11.
2.    The 1st appeal is forwarded herewith.

Yours truly


(P M Ravindran)


1st Appeal No:                                    Dated 30 Aug 2011

1. Name of the Appellant    :    P M Ravindran
2. Address                        :    2/18, ‘Aathira’, Sivapuri, Kalpathy-678003
3. Telephone No                :    0491-2576042
4. E-mail Id (if any)             :       pmravindran@gmail.com
5. RTI Request/Information sought:     Please see application under Col 6B below.

6.
A                                                  B                                  C                                    D

CPIO Address with Tel No    Date of request        Date of reply/decision    Whether B& C annexed

The CPIO & Under Secy
CIC, 2nd Floor, B Wing,
August Kranti Bhavan,
Bikaji Cama Place, 
New Delhi-110066;
Tel No: 011-26183995              23 Jul 2011                         26/8/11                            Yes

7.
A                                                 B                                   C                                    D

A/A Address with Tel No        Date of Appeal        Date of order/decision    Whether B& C annexed

FAA,
CIC, 2nd Floor, B Wing,
August Kranti Bhavan,
Bikaji Cama Place, 
New Delhi-110066;
Tel No: Not known                     30/08/11                          Awaited                          This is B

8. Relief Sought:

8.1. The information sought should be provided completely.
8.2. Penalty as mandated by the RTI Act should be imposed.
8.3. Compensation of Rs 5000.00 (Rs Five thousand only) as provided by Sec 19(8)(b) may be paid by the public authority for detriment suffered in pursuing this appeal.
Continued overleaf…

9. Grounds for the relief:

9.1. Firstly, there is NO clarity in the reply, since the reply is not given parawise/2nd appeal-wise. For example, the reply to info sought at para 2.1 should have been provided as:

rti/rlys-passrelinfo-2nd appeal-280510 dated 28/5/10    - date of receipt:         ; Ser No in the register:
rti/sspo pkd-2nd appeal-280510 dated 28/5/10            - date of receipt:         ; Ser No in the register:
rti/sbi pkd-2nd appeal-070710-penfix dated 7/7/2010   - date of receipt:         ; Ser No in the register:         and
rti/sbi pkd-2nd appeal-070710-curchest dated 7/7/2010    - date of receipt:    ; Ser No in the register:

Though there is no info sought at para 1 of my application, the reply at para 1.2 by the CPIO is absurd as both the 2nd appeals were sent under a covering letter. Copy of this letter is attached as Annx C.

9.2. Similarly, the replies at para 1.3 and 1.4 are also blatant lies since both the 2nd appeals were sent under a covering letter. Copy of this letter is attached as Annx D.  The 2nd appeal referred to at para 1.3 of the current application has been disposed off on 8th Dec 2010, vide F No CIC/AT/A/2010/000683 and the emails quoted are also proof that the issue had been brought to the notice of the concerned IC/his/her staff.

9.3 The replies at paras 2.2 and 3 indicate gross dereliction of duty

9.4. The replies at paras  2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7 are vague, lacking in details and incomplete.

Signature of the Appellant

VERIFICATION

Verified that the details given above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.


Signature of the Appellant

INDEX OF DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THE APPEAL

1.    Application for information dated 23/7/2011            - Annx A
2    Reply from CPIO/ US dated 26/8/2011                 - Annx B
3    RTI/rlys n sspo-2nd appeals-280510-cl dated 28 May 2010        - Annx C
4    RTI/sbi pkd-2nd appeal-070710-cl dated 07 Jul 2010         - Annx D


CONTENTS OF THE ORDER OF FAA:
 (The order of the FAA- CIC/AA/A/2011/458 Dated : 3rd October, 2011in
CIC/CPIO/2011/1187 is also available at http://cic.gov.in/)

Central Information Commission
2nd Floor, ‘B’ Wing
August Kranti Bhavan
Bhikaji Cama Place
New Delhi – 110066

[ Right to Information – Section 19(1) ]

CIC/AA/A/2011/458 Dated : 3rd October, 2011
CIC/CPIO/2011/1187

Name of the Appellant:
Shri P.M. Ravindran
2/18, ‘Aathira’
Sivapuri
Kalpathy – 678 003

Date of Hearing: 29.09.2011

Appellant has filed first appeal dated 30th August 2011, diarized in the Commission on 6th September 2011, against response of CPIO dated 26th August 2011, on RTI application dated 23rdJuly 2011, diarized in the Commission on 27th July 2011.

2. Appeal was fixed for hearing on 29th September 2011 at 12:45 p.m. The appellant was heard on telephone while Shri Pankaj KP Shreyaskar, Shri G Subramanian and Shri TK Mohapatra, Deputy Registrar and CPIO were present in my chamber.

3. In the RTI application, the appellant had sought information in paras 2.1 to 2.7 and 3.1 and 3.2. The ground of appeal raised by the appellant is that there is no clarity in the reply, since the reply is not given para-wise/second appeal wise. He has also pointed out that no information was sought in para one of his application and reply in para 1.2 is absolute as the second appeal was then under a covering letter.

4. I find that in para 1, the appellant had referred to 4 second appeals filed by him in the Commission, for which information was sought in paras 2.1 to 2.7. Since, the reply has not gone para-wise and hence not clear, Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, nodal CPIO is directed to send fresh information with respect to 4 second appeal filed by the appellant against Department of Railways, Posts and State Bank of India within 20 working days of the receipt of this order. The Deputy Registrars dealing with these departments are also directed to make available information to the nodal CPIO.

5. So far as information sought in para 4 of the petition is concerned, with
reference to e-mail referred in para 3, it is seen that the information sought has
already been provided, hence, needs no interference.

6. With these remarks, the appeal is disposed of.

8. The appellant may prefer an appeal u/s 19(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 before the
Central Information Commission, R. No. 412, IV Floor, Block-IV, Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi – 110 067 against this order within 90 days, if he so desires.

Date, the 3rd of October, 2011

(Anita Gupta)
Additional Secretary and
First Appellate Authority
Central Information Commission

Copy forwarded to:-
1. Mr. Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Deputy Secretary & CPIO, with a direction
to comply with the decision (Para 4).
2. Mr. T.K. Mohapatra, Under Secretary & CPIO, with a direction to
comply with the decision (Para 4).
3. Mr. G. Subramanian, Under Secretary & CPIO, with a direction to
comply with the decision (Para 4).
4. Mr. K.L. Das, Deputy Registrar & CPIO, with a direction to comply
with the decision (Para 4).
5. Mr. Paul, Arokianathan S., Scientist-D, NIC – with a request to place it on
the web site.
(Anita Gupta)
Additional Secretary and
First Appellate Authority
Central Information Commission

CONTENTS OF 2ND APPEAL:

File: rti/cic nd-stateofappeals-2nd appeal-091111                        09 Nov 2011

To:

The Chief Information Commissioner,        
Central Information Commission
Room No 412, IV Floor, Blockl IV
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi-110067
(Through the APIO, HPO, Palakkad-678001)

2ND  APPEAL UNDER THE RTI ACT: -STATUS OF 2ND APPEALS

1.    The 2nd appeal is forwarded herewith.
2.    Please acknowledge receipt and quote the file number given here is all correspondence.
3.    Your attention is invited to sec 6, 7, 19 and 20 of the RTI Act and Sec 217, 218 and 219 of the IPC.
4.    The written responses, if any received from the PIO/FAA , should accompany the notice for hearing.
5.    The hearing should be conducted through video conference. There is a facility for the same provided by NIC adjoining the office of the District Collector, Palakkad, Kerala

Yours truly


(P M Ravindran)


2nd Appeal No:    rti/cic nd-stateofappeals-2nd appeal-091111                        Dated 09Nov 2011

1. Name of the Appellant    :    P M Ravindran
2. Address                        :    2/18, ‘Aathira’, Sivapuri, Kalpathy-678003
3. Telephone No                :    0491-2576042
4. E-mail Id (if any)             :              pmravindran@gmail.com
5. RTI Request/Information sought:     Please see application under Col 6B below.

6.
A                                                B                                    C                                     D

CPIO Address with Tel No    Date of request        Date of reply/decision    Whether B& C annexed

The CPIO & Under Secy
CIC, 2nd Floor, B Wing,
August Kranti Bhavan,
Bikaji Cama Place, 
New Delhi-110066;
Tel No: 011-26183995        23 Jul 2011                             26/8/11                                Yes

7.
A                                               B                                       C                                      D

A/A Address with Tel No        Date of Appeal        Date of order/decision    Whether B& C annexed

FAA,
CIC, 2nd Floor, B Wing,
August Kranti Bhavan,
Bikaji Cama Place, 
New Delhi-110066;
Tel No: Not known                           30/08/11                    03/10/11                              Yes

Continued overleaf…

8. Relief Sought:

8.1. The information sought should be provided completely.
8.2. Penalty as mandated by the RTI Act should be imposed.
8.3. Compensation of Rs 5000.00 (Rs Five thousand only) as provided by Sec 19(8)(b) may be paid by the public authority for detriment suffered in pursuing this appeal.

9. Grounds for the relief:

9.1. Firstly, the grounds for relief mentioned in para 9 of the 1st appeal remains valid even now.

9.2. Next, the FAA has also proved beyond doubt that she is as incompetent as the PIO when it comes to performing the assigned tasks are concerned. For example, in para 3 she has mentioned that information has been sought in paras 2 and 3 of the application.  Para 3 of the application is only references of communication about which information has been sought in para 4 of the same application! Then again, in the same para she has stated  ‘….and reply in para 1.2 is absolute as the second appeal was then under a covering letter.’ I have gone over my 1st appeal with a fine comb and never came across such a statement!  Also, in para 5 she has stated  that the information sought in par 4 of the application has been provided. But the reply of the PIO against  para 4 of the application is that ‘there is no specific notings in the case file in respect of the e mails sent by you as mentioned in the RTI application.’ This has to be presumed to be a blatant lie because either no file has been opened (consequently no action taken on the e mails) or if any file has been opened there has to be at least one noting on it!

9.2. Lastly, though the FAA has directed the nodal CPIO to provide the information within 20 working days of the receipt of the order, no such information has been received till date though it is more than 36 days since the order has been issued!

9.3. The compensation sought  is nominal to cover the cost of effort and expenditure involved in pursuing the 1st appeal an 2nd appeal.


                               

Signature of the Appellant

VERIFICATION

Verified that the details given above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.


Signature of the Appellant

INDEX OF DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THE APPEAL

1.    Application for information dated 23/7/2011                - Annx A
2    Reply from CPIO/ US dated 26/8/2011                        - Annx B
3    1st appeal dated 30 Aug 2011                                   - Annx C
4    Reply from FAA dated 03 Oct 2011                            - Annx D










ORDER OF THE IC, SHAILESH GANDHI:

It is a curt :  The Appeal is disposed.
The information available on the records has been provided.


The copy of this order is available at http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SM_A_2011_002676_SG_18751_M_82100.pdf