Dear RTI_India List, This is an update to my First Appeal against RBI which is in the Files section of the group.
19(5) is an interesting and over-looked sub-section, others should also use it. Sarbajit Date: Feb 4, 2008 11:30 AM Subject: Re: Order in my First Appeal no.224/2007-08 in RTI Act To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Chief Public Information Officer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Shri Rakesh Mohan, Dy.Governor Reserve Bank of India Mumbai Date: 04-Feb-2008 Sir, I refer to my appended email of 01-Feb-2008 concerning your alleged First Appeal decision on my RTI matter. It is a matter of regret that you have not acknowledged receipt of my last email concerning matters whence my life or liberty are endangered. I wish to particularly highlight 2 points for your kind consideration. 1) That I have reason to suspect the so-called First Appeal order from you and sent to me by SpeedPost to be a forgery. 2) That sub-section 19(5) of RTI Act 2005 reads as follows:- "19(5) In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request." Accordingly, I had listed out in my First Appeal to you the detailed information deficiencies whereby information specifically requested for by myself was denied by CPIO. A purported decision on my First Appeal has been sent to me by RBI, however, I was never granted an opportunity to contradict / oppose / challenge the proofs submitted by the CPIO. For deciding this appeal I was never granted an opportunity of hearing by you. At no stage was I informed what proof the CPIO had submitted to you to obtain this biased order in his favour from his departmental superior whereby information sought continues to be denied to me whilst my life or liberty are endangered. The CPIO is close to you and meets you frequently, however, you have never cared to meet me in this connection to decide my appeal and have shut me out. HENCE, I require you to correct the injustice done to me and provide me all documents / pleadings of the CPIO in this First Appeal, and allow me to rebut the same and also be heard in person. Since my funds are tied up (and which is the subject of my Appeal) , I desire that I be heard at Delhi only, and that you and the CPIO may visit Delhi at cost of the public exchequer or arrange for a videoconferencing. Yours faithfully Er. Sarbajit Roy New Delhi On Feb 1, 2008 10:51 AM, sarbajit roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > To: > Shri Rakesh Mohan, > Dy.Governor Reserve Bank of India > Mumbai > > Date: 01-Feb-2008 > > Sir, > > I refer to the decision/order dated 17-01-2008 in First Appeal no. > 224/2007-08 under RTI Act 2005, which was conveyed to me by Speedpost > on 21-Jan-2008 by Mr.Thomas Mathew, Dy.General Manager. > > I am unable to accept that the said decision (although bearing a > scrawled illegible signature over your name) can be delivered by such > an eminent personage as yourself. It is evident to any reasonable > person that the alleged decision is evasive, non-speaking, and skirts > the acknowledged detailed challenges / information deficiencies I > have posed to CPIO's reply. The least that can be expected from an > Appellate decision of this nature is a point wise reply to the > specific information deficiencies I have listed out in the CPIO's > reply and for which the CPIO had not claimed any exemption available > to him under the RTI Act. Instead I find the impugned appellate order > designed to shield the CPIO and other officers of RBI. > > It is also pertinent that although my First Appeal to you was filed on > 6-12-2007, it was only replied on 17-Jan-2008 well after the statutory > time limit of 30 days - reasons for which have not been conveyed to me > on my specific request to be provided the reasons recorded in writing > thereof. > > Since the information issues raised by me in my request to PIO (and > reiterated in my First Appeal) are in the larger public interest and > directly concerning the regulatory role of RBI over the private Banks > in connection with no-frills accounts, KYC, Credit Information, I > would request you to kindly personally re-read the papers in my matter > and grant me a personal hearing at Delhi in connection with the > impugned First Appeal. I would prefer that this matter is resolved > internally within RBI without constraining me to approach the Central > Information Commission as the matter would then enter the public > domain relating to my name thus compelling me to pursue this matter to > its logical conclusion under the Constitution of India and special > laws. > > I also respectfully submit that deciding my First Appeal without > affording me opportunity of personal hearing is violative of my rights > to natural justice, and offends the Wednesbury Principles and the > Doctrine of Proportionality etc. It is also very well settled now that > appellate authorities are required to afford personal hearing to > appellants. If for any reason, hearing cannot be granted to me at > Delhi, I am amenable to video-conferencing using NIC resources against > due notice. > > Thanking you, and looking forward to your acknowledgement of this > communication > > Yours faithfully > > Er. Sarbajit Roy > New Delhi >
