With the kind courtsy of our RTI fraternity, now we know the best SICs, best
Information Commissioner etc. I think it is high time for the Nation to know
their standard of performance. and how they treat the less mortal .
By now we know that Section 5(2) of the RTI Act allow the cityzens to
submit their appeal/complaint etc on right to information to the Sub
Divisional level officer. The SIC, kerala does not like the cityzen saving
the registered fee charges or acquiring any evidences of his submitting a
second appeal to the SIC as the SIC is in the habit of intimating the
cityzen of non-receipt of second appeal/complaint when querried. . My own
3 year old 6 cases delivered through courrier to SIC have been reported by
SIC, Kerala as not received Given below is one of the evidences of the
high-handedness of the SIC, Kerala (the second best in India) viz., the
Letter No.6009/SIC-Gen/2007 dated 5-10-2007 issued by the SIC, Kerala to
the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palghat, Kerala."
" It has come to notice of the Commission that several petetions under the
RTI Act filed by certain individual / organisations are routed through YOU
to the public authority and the Commission. One example in point is that of
Sri.PM Ravindran (Maj PM Ravindran, an RTI Activist). The RTI Act provides
for filing petetions directly before the public authority and the
Commission. The Commission has directed to inform you NOT TO ACCEPT such
petitions in future and to request the petitioner to send the
application/appeals/ complaint directly to the public authority and
Commission"
Despite my f4 eed back report to the Award Committee on SIC, Kerala with
negetive marks, hope the Award Commitee has graded him for his gutts to tell
the RDO not to abide by the RTI Act.
I wish the Award Committe show some decency and cancel the above grading of
SIC, Kerla. If they want to have more such evidence, it shall be provided.
But who cares ?
