ANNEXURE C2

(Refer Complaint filed before the Lok Ayukta, Kerala by P M Ravindran)

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED TO THE COMPLAINT

1. Annexure C1- Statement of the Complaint

2. Annx C1-A- Suggestions to the CIC, Kerala: 26 Jan 2007
3. Annx C1-B- Letter sent by KSIC on 5/10/2007 to the RDO, Palakkad
4. Annx C1-B1- Collectorate, Palakkad letter No 2014/37925/9 dated 23/6/14
5. Annx C1-C- Complaint submitted to the CM, Kerala for Jana Samparka Paripadi, 2011
6. Annx C1-D- Complaint submitted to the CM, Kerala for Jana Samparka Paripadi, 2015
7. Annx C1-E- Reply, dated 1/6/2012, from GoK, GAD in response to Annx C1-C
8. Annx C1-F1- Application, dated 23 Feb 2011, under the RTI Act seeking info on the
procedure for appointment of ICs
9. Annx C1-F2- Copy of the envelope under which the 1st appeal was submitted but
returned unaccepted.
10. Annx C1-F3- 2nd appeal, RTI/cmk-sic appt-2nd appeal-300611 dated 30 Jun 2011
11. Annx C1-F4- Copy of letter No 32/RIA/2012/CM, signed on 27/7/12, from the PIO to the
notice from KSIC stating that documents received during the previous
incumbant’s time were not available in that office!
12. Annx C1-F5- Copy of my e mail dated 5/8/2012 to KSIC
13. Annx C1-G1- Covering letter, dated 20/02/12, under which five 2nd appeals were
submitted to the KSIC
14. Annx C1-G2- Copies of the two acknowledgements received without identifying which
file reference corresponds to which 2nd appeal!
15. Annx C1-H- Copies of four acknowledgements, all dated 11/7/13, received separately for
four 2nd appeals but without identifying the respective 2nd appeals.
16. Annx C1-I1- Covering letter, dated 22/4/14, under which four 2nd appeals were
submitted to the KSIC
17. Annx C1-I2- Copies of the three acknowledgements received without identifying which
file reference corresponds to which 2nd appeal!
18. Annx C1-J- Copy of notice for hearing, dated 15/7/2015, sent by the KSIC in Appeal No
1954(1)/2012/SIC
19. Annx C1-K1- Application, dated 15 Dec 2011, under the RTI Act, seeking info on status
of appeals from KSIC
20. Annx C1-K2- Reply, dated 10/1/2012, from the PIO, KSIC
21. Annx C1-K3- Reply, dated 19/5/2014, from the PIO, KSIC to an application dated
22/4/2014
22. Annx C1-L- Order, dated 12/8/2015, of the CIC, KSIC in Appeal No 1950(1)/SIC/2012
23. Annx C1-L1- Application, dated 05/4/2012 which led to Annx C1-L
24. Annx C1-L2- 2nd appeal, dated 3/9/2012 on which order at Annx C1-L was given
25. Annx C1-M- Copy of one order of CIC, KSIC dated 30/7/12, received on 14/9/2015, in
part compliance with the order at Annx C1-L
 ANNEXURE C1
(Refer Complaint filed before the Lok Ayukta, Kerala by P M Ravindran)

STATEMENT OF THE COMPLAINT

Introduction.

1. The Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act, for short) is a landmark legislation with the
explicitly stated objective of ‘containing corruption and to hold Governments and their
instrumentalities accountable to the governed’. The Information Commissioners (IC for
short) have been appointed under Sec 12 and 15 of the RTI Act and empowered under
Sections 18 to 20 of the Act to enforce the Act. However while completing 10 years of its
existence it is more than evident that the failures of the ICs have singularly led to this
unique citizen friendly law being killed in its infancy itself.

2. The best features of this law are its simplicity, clarity and lack of ambiguity. It can be
easily read and understood by even a student who has passed 5 th standard. So when
there are lapses in its implementation these lapses stand out like Eiffel Tower in its
landscape!

3. The task of an IC is simpler than that of a munsif in our courts because the RTI Act is
practically a stand-alone law. The ICs are bound only by the provisions of the RTI Act and
the relevant rules promulgated by the competent authorities, defined therein. Thus
their task, on receipt of a complaint or an appeal under Sec 20 can be listed in the
following simple steps:

3.1. Was the information sought disclosable or not?

3.2. Was the disclosable part(s) held with the Public Information Officer (PIO) receiving
the application or not?
3.3. Did the PIO provide the disclosable and available info or not?
3.4. To provide the disclosable but non-available info did the PIO comply with the
provisions of Sec 6(3) of the RTI Act which mandates that the application be
transferred to such other public authorities that may be holding the information?
3.5. If for the first two questions the answer is yes (repeat, YES) and the next two it is
no, (repeat NO) then the IC is only required to
3.5.1. direct the PIO to provide, free of cost, the complete information sought
that was available and disclosable and
3.5.2. provide an opportunity to being heard to the PIO before imposing the
mandated penalty, of Rs 250/- per day for every day of delay beyond the
prescribed 30 days for providing the information.
3.6. If the PIO fails to justify the failure to provide disclosable info that should have
been available but not provided without producing valid proof like destruction
certificate of records as per relevant orders, then the IC is required to impose the

Continued…2
 -2-

penalty mandated by Sec 20 of the RTI Act. It should be noted that the operative
part of this clause reads ‘…it shall impose a penalty…’ (emphasis added).

Thus it can be seen that an appeal can be disposed of in less than 10 minutes and a
complaint in much lesser time. So it is reasonable to expect an IC to dispose of at least
30 appeals per day! As per data available at their website, http://www.keralasic.gov.in,
on 08/4/2015 the total number of appeals disposed off by the ICs during 2014 is as
follows:
Siby Mathew-52 cases, Gunavardhan-59 cases, Soni Thengamom-12, Sasi Kumar-16, Kurias
Kumbalakuzhy-17! And, Natarajan-0 (yes, zero!) cases!
(These figures were extracted from the website of the KSIC prior to submitting the
complaint to the Chief Minister of Kerala for his much touted Jana Samparka
Paripadi (JSP) in Jun 2015)

4. The reasons for the shoddy performance by the ICs is not far to seek. The ICs have been
given the status of Chief Election Commissioner/ Election Commissioner/ Chief Secretary
thereby reducing these important offices to that of rehabilitation centers for the worst
bureaucrats after their retirement. This has resulted in extraneous factors like familiarity
with the delinquent PIOs and FAAs and other personal interests etc to interfere with the
process of deciding complaints and appeals objectively. It has also caused unwarranted
drain on the exchequer as there is a vast difference in the cost to exchequer between a
munsif and the CEC/EC/Chief Secretary. Suffice to say that all these factors together
have led to the infanticide of the newly legislated tool for introducing transparency in
the functions and accountability of the nation’s public servants. It is this horrendous
situation that has necessitated this complaint.
Background.

5. The 1st appointment of the 1st Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) of Kerala itself was
mired in illegality. In spite of the clear provisions of Sec 15(6) of the RTI Act the then
Chief Secretary to the Government of Kerala, Palat Mohandas was appointed as the 1st
Chief Information Commissioner of Kerala. Once the illegality got exposed the
appointment was cancelled but the office was left vacant till Palat Mohandas retired as
Chief Secretary. He took over as CIC on 21/12/2005. The Act had come into force on 15
Jun 2015 as far as appointing information commissioners and framing rules are
concerned and 120 days were provided to the public authorities to prepare themselves
before the citizens were empowered to use the Act. The first list of suggestions were
handed over by me personally to the 1st CIC during a function of the Rotary Club at
Ottappalam on 26 Jan 2007 where he was the chief guest and the topic of discussion
was RTI Act. This list is attached as Annx C1-A. It is a fact on record that none of these
suggestions have been acted upon. The current position is indicated in italics therein.

Continued…3
 -3-

6. Worse, given at Annx C1-B is a letter sent by Kerala State Information Commission on
5/10/2007 to the RDO, Palakkad which is illegal as per Sec 5 of the RTI Act and the rules
framed under it by the competent authority. Para 5 of Govt of Kerala, General
Administration Department (Co-ord) Dept Circular 1, No 77000/cdn5/06/GAD dated 30
Oct 2006 is reproduced below for ease of reference. This kind of subversion is
continuing even now as is evident from Collectorate, Palakkad letter No 2014/37925/9
dated 23/6/14 attached as Annx C1-B1

7. This and other delinquencies and treason by the KSIC have been brought to the Chief
Minister of Kerala through many complaints, starting from 7/5/2007, including two
complaints submitted at his much touted Jana Samparka Paripadi in 2011 and 2015
(copies attached as annexures C1-C and C1-D). But there has been no action taken to
improve the performance of the KSIC with respect to transparency, accountability and
effectiveness. The GAD had once written stating that ‘being a Constitutional body State
Government could not interfere in the functioning of the State Information Commission’
(Copy attached as Annx C1-E). This is a blatant dereliction of duty as Sec 27(2)(e) of the
RTI Act explicitly states as follows:

27 (1) The appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make
rules to carry out the provisions of this Act.
(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such
rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:—
xxx
(e) the procedure to be adopted by the Central Information Commission
or State Information Commission, as the case may be, in deciding the appeals
under sub-section (10) of section 19; and
(f) any other matter which is required to be, or may be, prescribed.

Details of the Complaint.

8. It is now evident that right from the appointment of ICs everything is wrong in the
matter of implementation of the RTI Act. Copies of the following documents are
attached, as annexures C1-F1 to C1-F5 respectively) for your perusal:

Continued…4
 -4-

8.1 Copy of my application under the RTI Act seeking info on the procedure for
appointment of ICs, RTI/cmk-sic appt-appln-230211 dated 23 Feb 2011
8.2. Copy of the envelope under which the 1st appeal was submitted but returned
unaccepted. This was subsequently sent through an NGO.
8.2. Copy of my 2nd appeal, RTI/cmk-sic appt-2nd appeal-300611 dated 30 Jun 2011
8.3. Copy of the letter, No 32/RIA/2012/CM signed on 27/7/12, from the PIO to the
notice from KSIC stating that documents received during the previous incumbant’s
time were not available in that office! The reason given is also pertinent and
important.
8.4. Copy of my e mail dated 5/8/2012 to KSIC
Copy of the decision in the 2nd appeal, if finalised, has not been provided to me till
date. Neither the receipt of the appeal was acknowledged by the KSIC nor copies of the
notices to the PIO/FAA and their responses were provided to me.

9. The provision of receipts/acknowledgements is also erratic and not in conformity with

the format specified in Kerala Govt Circular No 168/AR 13(2)/09/UBPV dated 12 Jan
2009. Relevant extract is provided below for ready reference.

Even if the receipt is provided as per the above format there would have been adequate
clarity in identifying the acknowledgement with the document submitted. For example,
it needs to be noted that the format specifies the date of the document whereas the
acknowledgement card used by the KSIC states the date of receipt by them which could
vary depending on the postal delay and coupled with the delay at the KSIC it is
practically impossible to track the documents.
Continued…5

-5-
 Three sets of documents are attached as annexures C1-G1 and C1-G2; C1-H and C1-I1
and C1-I2 respectively.

9.1. Annx C1-G1 and C1-G2: Annx C1-G1 is the covering letter, dated 20/02/12,
under which five 2nd appeals were submitted to the KSIC and Annx C1-G2 copies of
the two acknowledgements received without identifying which file reference
corresponds to which 2nd appeal! The fate of acknowledgements for the remaining
three 2nd appeals is not known! In fact I had even sent a draft acknowledgment
which could have been torn off, appeal numbers filled in and posted in a plain
envelope costing only Rs 5/- against Rs 12/- spent for sending these two printed post
cards which did not make any sense!
9.2. Annx C1-H: These are the copies of four acknowledgements, all dated
11/7/13, received separately for four 2nd appeals but again without identifying the
respective 2nd appeals. But in this case since the dates of the appeals are shown as
2/7/13 and I had not submitted any 2nd appeal with that date I have not been able
to identify any of the appeals!
9.3. Annx C1-I1 and C1-I2: Annx C1-I1 is the covering letter, dated 22/4/14, under
which four 2nd appeals were submitted to the KSIC and Annx C1-I2 copies of the
three acknowledgements received without identifying which file reference
corresponds to which 2nd appeal!

10. If the provision of acknowledgements is bad, subsequent communications are worse.

Please see the notice for hearing sent by the KSIC attached as Annx C1-J. The 2nd appeal
was submitted on 3/9/12 to the APIO, Collectorate, Palakkad and was forwarded by
them to the KSIC on 6/9/12. There was no acknowledgement received from the KSIC.
The notice for hearing is dated 15/7/15. The notice mentions the date of my application
but not the reference of my 2nd appeal itself! But it mentions the complete reference
and date of the PIO’s reply to the application! It also gives the complete reference of
the FAA’s reply to the KSIC! So the question that arises is: is the failure to give the
correct and complete reference of the 2nd appeal deliberate and malicious or not?

11. The following facts need to be highlighted at this stage:

11.1. The acknowledgements should be sent as per format specified in Kerala Govt
Circular No 168/AR 13(2)/09/UBPV dated 12 Jan 2009.
11.2. The format can be modified to accommodate more than one complaint/2nd
appeal received from a citizen at a time. The format shown in Annx C1-G1 can be
used.
11.3. Acknowledgements should be sent in printed inlands so that the postal charges
can be reduced to 41 percent of the current cost for sending even one
acknowledgement through a printed post card. The cost of sending an inland
Continued…6

-6-
 letter is only Rs 2.50 compared to sending a printed post card @ Rs 6/-. And
there is no additional cost for acknowledging multiple complaints/appeals!
11.4. The acknowledgements should have the complaint/appeal number assigned.
There is no need to intimate a file number and subsequently assign a complaint
or appeal number which is used as reference leading to creation of confusion
only. In fact a time tested system of identifying cases is already available in our
judiciary which can be easily replicated.
11.5. The acknowledgements could also be provided through electronic means like e
mail id, SMS etc where the appeal discloses availability of such facilities. This
would not only avoid the losses in transit but also save on postal charges.

12. The ultimate disposal of complaints/appeals can easily be seen to be the best
examples of the ultimate white collar crimes, verging on treason! The following facts
are placed on record:

12.1. There is no need to break the queue in disposing complaints/appeals since the
procedure is simple and standard as outlined in para 3 above. First in-First out
principle should be followed without exception.
12.2. The ICs should dispose atleast 30 appeals or 60 complaints per day. The rate of
disposal by the Central Information Commission is in this range. There is no
doubt that the rate of disposal by the KSIC, given in para 3.6 above, is
preposterous and indicates that the ICs are having paid holidays at the
taxpayers’ cost! There is one IC, Natarajan, who has not even disposed of a single
case in a whole year! If he has been provided salary and other perks it needs to
be recovered with penal interest.
12.3. There is no need to call the PIO, FAA and complainant/appellant for hearing. The
complete evidence is there on record and there can be nothing more or less that
can be averred by any of these parties to the complaint/appeal. It is just that the
law mandates punishment for the delinquent PIO and he needs to be given an
opportunity of being heard before the mandated penalty is imposed. The law
nowhere states that the hearing should be in person. If there is anything in the
statement of the PIO that could be construed as a justification for not imposing
the penalty then, and then only, should that fact be brought to the notice of the
appellant to convince him that the justification would indeed merit acceptance.
If not, his version should also be taken on record and brought out in the order.
12.4. The law mandates that penalty should be imposed on the defaulting PIO. Hence
summoning a different person after two or three years, then holding the
designation of PIO/FAA, for hearing should be construed as a willful fraud being
perpetrated by the KSIC. In fact the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has
Continued…7

-7-
 reportedly gone further and declared that ‘if the public Information Officer (PlO)
of a department has been penalised by a State Information Commission on
account of withholding information the officer cannot appeal against the order
through the state. The court has held that the PIO will have to approach the
court in personal capacity.
12.5. The same court has also held (in C.W.P. NO. 1924 of 2008) that ‘the Commission
could impose the penalty for the simple reasons of delay in furnishing the
information within the period specified by sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the
Act’. Strictly, the law mandates imposing penalty, as the operative part of Sec 20
reads ‘…it shall impose a penalty…’ (emphasis added). The failure to use this only
teeth provided in the law can easily be seen to be the single most important
factor that has led to the subversion of this law. However the beauty of the law
is that it will unambiguously expose the public servants who have failed for what
they are- idiots or traitors!

13. The KSIC is not only guilty of treason as evident from their orders but also of gross
mismanagement. The response of the PIO, KSIC, to an application seeking information
on the status of 2nd appeals pending with the Commission is revealing. Copy of the
application and the reply by the PIO are attached as annexures C1-K1 and C1-K2,
respectively. The 2nd appeal is pending with the KSIC since 3/5/12! The response to
para 1 of the application itself is evidence of the incompetence and indifference of the
PIO. And there was no response to the 1st appeal! The document at Annx C1-K3 is yet
another response of the PIO to another application dated 22/4/2014. It may be noted
that many of the appeals are shown not traceable and that there is no acceptable
sequence in which the appeals are taken for disposal.
14. Ultimately the treacherous nature of the orders should be evident from a perusal of this
order, attached as Annx C1-L. The CIC, KSIC has only reproduced two of the
requirements mentioned in the application leaving the others vague Copy of the
application is attached as Annx C1-L1. The information sought is at paras 2, 3 and 4.
Copy of the 2nd appeal is also attached as Annx C1-L2. Suffice to say that while the CIC
has been adequately convinced regarding the dates he has not (repeat NOT) given a
correct decision. There is no reason why he has directed the PIO to provide copies of
only the documents sought at para 2 of the application and not the other information
sought at para 3 and 4 of the application! Now that I am in receipt some documents
from the current PIO it is clear that even the complete documents directed to be
provided by the CIC has not been provided. I have been provided copy of one
application, two decisions of the FAA of which one is against a different 1st appeal (in
other words the copy of the application leading to this decision has not been provided!)
Continued…8
-8-
 and two orders of the CIC in one 2nd appeal- the 1st order directing the current PIO to
provide the information sought and the 2nd order imposing the penalty. Copy of this 2nd
order is attached as Annx C1-M. It is important to note the following facts:

14.1. During the hearing held on 14/9/2011 it was not the PIO who had denied the
info who had attended the hearing.

14.2. During that hearing the CIC had sought info on this PIO and it was provided only
through a letter dated 12/4/2012!

14.3. Notice to this PIO was sent only through a communication dated 27/6/2012!

14.4. The CIC has explicitly stated that the penalty to be imposed is Rs 25,000/-

14.5. Extraneous reasons have been quoted to impose a lesser penalty of just Rs
3000/- only. The law nowhere lays the limit of income of the PIO for being
imposed the penalty @ Rs 250/- per day of delay. Also the CIC has not been
given any discretion to act like this in an arbitrary manner. If this is not
sufficient reason to prosecute the CIC under Sec 219 of IPC then that section
should not be there in IPC!

15. The CIC has also not complied (in Annx C1-L) with the requirements at paras 3 and 5 of
the 2nd appeal. While both the lapses are deplorable, the failure to impose the
mandatory penalty has not only resulted in loss to the public exchequer but also in
defanging the law. This crime also demands the CIC to be prosecuted under Sec 219 of
the IPC especially since his attention had been drawn to this provision of law in para 4 of
the 2nd appeal.

16. The High Court of Delhi, in W.P. (C) 3845/2007, has also held that ‘the impugned order to
the extent it discharges the sixth respondent of the notice under Section 19 (8) and does
not impose the penalty sought for has to be declared illegal.’ Paras 14 to 16 of the
order are reproduced below for ready reference.

14. xxx… Information seekers are to be furnished what they ask for, unless the Act
prohibits disclosure; they are not to be driven away through sheer inaction or
filibustering tactics of the public authorities or their officers. It is to ensure these ends
that time limits have been prescribed, in absolute terms, as well as penalty provisions.
These are meant to ensure a culture of information disclosure so necessary for a robust
and functioning democracy.

15. In the above circumstances, Court is of the opinion that the impugned order to the
extent it discharges the sixth respondent of the notice under Section 19 (8) and does
not impose the penalty sought for has to be declared illegal. In this case, the penalty
amount (on account of the delay between 28.12.2005 and the first week of May, 2006
Continued…9
-9-
 when the information was given) would work out to Rs.25,000/-. The third respondent is
hereby directed to deduct the same from the sixth respondent's salary in five equal
installments and deposit the amount, with the Commission.

16. In the circumstances of the case, the third respondent shall bear the cost of the
proceedings quantified at Rs.50,000/- be paid to the petitioner within six weeks from
today.

17. Thus it can be easily seen that all the functions of the KSIC, from acknowledgement of
complaints/appeals to the final decisions suffer from serious deficiencies. Worse, apart
from familiarity with the PIOs and FAAs and some vested interests (like protecting info
where the IC in his earlier avatar as a bureaucrat had erred!) the only other logical
reason for failing to impose the mandatory penalty could be corruption. The PIOs who
need to be penalised with a stiff Rs 25,000/- fine can easily be persuaded to part with
that amount (or more, depending on the vulnerability of the PIO (like being in the
promotion zone etc) as bribe for being let off without the penalty. And even when the
appeal/complaint is dismissed with a mere direction to provide the information sought
the public exchequer is made to lose on account of the information being provided at
the cost of the exchequer. Para 17 of Govt of Kerala, General Administration
Department (Co-ord) Dept Circular 1, No 77000/cdn5/06/GAD dated 30 Oct 2006 is
reproduced below for ease of reference.

Relief sought.

18. The functions of the KSIC should be streamlined to make it transparent, effective and
efficient. Hence directions are required to be given to the Competent Authority,
represented by the 2nd respondent to do this under Sec 27 of the RTI Act. The following
functions should be streamlined:
18.1. Complaints/appeals should be acknowledged on the same day indicating the
appeal number and the tentative date by which it will be disposed of.
18.2. The cases should be disposed of on first come, first served basis. There is no
need to have any exceptions. But still, in the rarest of cases, if exceptions are
found necessary, prior permission of the Competent Authority should be taken
Continued…10
-10-
 to consider a case out of turn. Also, all complaints/appeals should be disposed of
within 90 days of receipt.
18.3. The summoning of PIOs, FAAs and complainants/appellants for hearing should
be stopped. However they may be informed if any hearing is scheduled and
allowed to appear at their own cost. (As it is appellants have to appear at their
cost but the PIOs and FAAs attend at the cost of the tax payer. This is clearly
against the spirit of the law and the decision of the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana in the matter of appealing against the decisions of the information
commissioner.)
18.4. The opportunity to being heard to be given to the PIO may be reduced to filing
an affidavit and if the PIO desires to personally appear for a hearing it should be
permitted at his cost only.
18.5. The mandated penalty should be imposed in all cases of failure to provide
disclosable information within the specified period.
18.6. Since appeals are also a consequence of failure of the public authorities to abide
by the law, cost of pursuing appeals, when claimed, should be allowed under Sec
19(8)(b) of the RTI Act.
18.7. All the PIOs whose appeals against the order the information commissioners are
pending in various courts should be told to pursue the appeals at their cost and
the cost incurred since the order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana should
be sought to be refunded with interest.
18.8. Also, all PIOs and FAAs should be directed, through appropriate amendment to
the RTI rules, to disclose their names, besides their designations, while replying
to applications and appeals. And, if they get transferred during the pendency of
the complaint/appeal they should communicate their new address to the
complainant/appellant besides the KSIC.
18.9. The CIC should be prosecuted under Sec 219 of the IPC for his failure to enforce
the law which he had been tasked, empowered, equipped and paid to enforce.

Conclusion.

19. The failure of the information commissioners can be identified as the singular reason for
this first and only law conforming to the requirements of a democratic society being
killed in its infancy. Not appointing the right persons as information commissioners and
failing to monitor their performance is the failure of the Competent Authority,
represented by the Chief Minister. Today, activists working in the area of right to
information peg our hopes on another by product of the failure of this law: every
application will help expose at least three public servants as either idiots or traitors: the
PIO, the FAA and the IC!