[HumJanenge] First Appeal u/s 19 of RTI Act 2005

To:
Ms Anita Gupta
First Appellate Authority/CIC

22-Nov-2010

Dear Madam

Further to my email of 20-Nov-2010 as appended I wish to submit the
following additional points

1) That on 02.03.2009 the then Secretary/CIC Md Haleem Khan decided a
first appeal filed by email. The decision URL is
http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/FAAD_02032009_01.pdf

2) That on 06.03.2009 the then Secretary/CIC Md Haleem Khan decided a
first appeal filed by email. The decision URL is
http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/FAAD_06032009_01.pdf

It is pertinent that in both cases the appellants were not present.

3 That somehow based on the decisions arrived at by the Secretary in a
First Appeal proceeding with appellants absent, the Commission as a
body took a decision in its meeting of 03.03.2009, and without
providing any reason whatsoever, not to accept appeals/complaints
submitted by emails. I wish to point out that the present CIC Mr
A.N.Tiwari declined to attend that meeting or concur with the
unreasoned circulated "advice" of Mr K.K.Nigam to the citizens not to
file email appeals/complaints and adviuce which is patently bad in
law. All these facts are very well known to you.

4) That by sub-section 4(1)(b)(v) the Commission is required to
publish "the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records,
held by it or under its control or used by its employees for
discharging its functions;". In compliance thereto, the Commission has
published that the following 4 documents are used by it for
discharging its functions
i) The RTI Act 2005,
ii) The CIC (Appeal Procedure) Rules 2005
iii) The Regulation of RTI Fee & Cost Rules 2005 and
iv) The CIC Management Regulations 2007.
This may be verified at the URL
http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Section4/Section-4-1-b-v-vi.pdf

It is noteworthy that the Central Secretariat Manual of Procedure is
not one of the declared manuals used by CIC employees to discharge its
functions. Hence I say that by still publishing that you are using the
struck down CIC Management Regulations 2007 to evade deciding my long
pending First Appeal you are in willful disobedience of the Delhi
High Court Judgment of 21.May.2010 which continues to be in force
since the Supreme Court has declined to stay it. I also say that the
RTI Act has clearly specified that the Commission can only give
decision during proceedings in a complaint u/s 18 or an appeal u/s
19(3). The Commission has no power to take ex-parte decisions as a
body to refuse to accept First Appeals preferred to its officers
through email when the RTI Act does not preclude it. None of the other
3 documents above has even a whisper to say on email first appeals /
verification of first appeals/ hard copy etc.

5) That you have claimed that the First Appeal is a
"judicial/quasi-judicial work". This is patently untenable and
ludicrous. We all know what happened when Mr Wajahat Habibullah
arrogated powers to himself he did not have. I clearly inform you that
you are not a judge and nor do you possess any quasi-judicial powers
whatsoever. The "First Appeal" to you is purely an administrative
departmental process to ensure that your junior officers are doing
their jobs properly. The fact that you are going to great lengths to
evade taking up my First Appeal on specious grounds arouses great
suspicion that you wish to shield them for corrupt reasons.

6) That you claim that my First Appeal has to be "registered". This
once again is untenable, and especially considering that the Delhi
High Court has struck down the CIC Management Regulations 2007 which
set up the "Registry", required Registration etc. I again caution you
that you are mired deep in willful disobedience to the aforesaid
Judgment of the Delhi High Court where I was the CIC's co-Respondent.

7) I therefore call upon you to immediately fix a date for hearing my
First Appeal and not to contemn the Hon'ble Court any further.

Yours faithfully
Sarbajit Roy

On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 1:48 PM, Sarbajit Roy <rti.sarbajitroy@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Ms Gupta
>
> I am glad to observe that under Mr. A.N.Tiwari's stewardship of the Central
> Information Commission the registry staff work so late into the night to
> process RTI documents.
>
> 1) I have noted that once again you have evaded entirely the specifics of my
> legal notice, and instead vaguely replied that "Identification and
> verification of person filing appeal is a legal
> requirement in a judicial/quasi-judicial work.
> "
>
> 2) I dispute your point entirely. I clearly inform you as follows
>
> a) That there is no prohibition in the RTI Act 2005 to a first appeal being
> preferred by electronic means such as email.
>
> b) That there is no prohibition in any Rule prescribed under the RTI Act
> 2005 to a first appeal being preferred by electronic means such as email.
>
> c) That on 21 June 2007 the Central Information Commission notified
> so-called CIC Management Regulations which inter-alia provided as follows
>
> "1(iii) Appeals and Complaints which have already been filed before the
> date of commencement of these Regulations and have been found in order and
> are already registered before this date will be proceeded with as before and
> shall not abate for any infirmity therein but these regulations will be
> applicable for any prospective action even in regard to such pending
> appeals and complaints."
> :
> "2(i) "Prescribed" means prescribed by or under the Act or under the Rules
> or Regulations."
> :
> "2(k) "Registry" means the Registry of the Commission comprising the
> Registrar(s), Additional Registrar(s), Joint Registrar(s), Deputy
> Registrar(s) or Assistant Registrar(s). "
> :
> "4(vii) The office of the Registrar shall receive all applications,
> appeals, counter statements, replies and other documents. "
> :
> "7. Appeal or complaint etc. to be in writing:- Every appeal, complaint,
> application, statement, rejoinder, reply or any other document filed before
> the Commission shall be typed, printed or written neatly and legibly and
> in double line spacing and the language used therein shall be formal and
> civilised and should not be in any way indecent or abusive. The appeal,
> complaint or an application shall be presented in at least two sets in a
> paper-book form"
> :
> "8. Contents of appeal or complaint:- (1) An appeal or a complaint to the
> Commission shall contain the following information, namely:-
> (viii) verification by the appellant or the complainant, as the case may
> be; and "
>
> It is very well known to everyone in teh Central Information Commission that
> all these Regulations have been struck down by Division Bench of Delhi High
> Court as being bad in law and issued without any authority conferred by the
> RTI Act.
>
> It is trite to say that with the striking sown of these Regulations, all
> decisions of the CIC flowing from these Regulations are also unlawful.
>
> If you persist with trying to implement the illegal Regulations through the
> back door you are in willful disobedience to the the Hon'ble High Court's
> findings and directions.
>
> It is also pertinent that I have entrusted my First Appeal (intellectual
> property) to you in your capacity as public servant to be processed in terms
> of specific provisions of RTI Act 2005, namely section 19 of the RTI Act. If
> you fail to handle my entrusted Appeal as provided for in law, and instead
> mischievously proceed to render my entrusted appeal worthless to shield
> officers of your Commission, I reserve the right to also proceed against you
> under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code which reads as follows
>
> "409. Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or
> agent.-- Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any
> dominion over property in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of
> his business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent,
> commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be
> punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either
> description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be
> liable to fine."
>
> I therefore call upon you to immediately fix a date/time for my First Appeal
> hearing and not shirk your public duty.
>
> Yours faithfully
>
> Sarbajit Roy
>
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Ms. Anita Gupta <anita.gupta@nic.in> wrote:
>> Mr. Sarabjit Roy,
>>
>> Reference your e.mail dated 15th November, 2010.
>> Identification and verification of person filing appeal is a legal
>> requirement in a judicial/quasi-judicial work.Therefore,unless a signed
>> copy
>> of appeal alongwith R T I petition and response of CPIO is received ,it
>> can
>> not be processed for registration as first appeal.
>>
>> anita
>> gupta
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Sarbajit Roy <rti.sarbajitroy@gmail.com>
>> Date: Monday, November 15, 2010 10:02 am
>> Subject: Re: First Appeal u/s 19 of RTI Act 2005
>> To: "Ms. Anita Gupta" <anita.gupta@nic.in>
>>
>>> 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
>>> >>
>>> >
>
>