COMMENTS / OBJECTIONS / SUGGESTIONS : ref:PN/DoPT/OM/2010/RTI/AAA-0000-009

To:
The Government of India, by
Shri R.K.Girdhar
Under-Secretary/RTI
Department of Personnel and Training, North Block
New Delhi 110011

1) CONFIDENTIAL,
2) SECRET,
3) My Intellectual property,
4) Not to be disclosed to any unauthorised person,
5) Not to be disclosed to any private person whatsoever,
6) Not to be disclosed to Prime Minister or his office,
7) Not to be disclosed to National Advisory Council,
8) Not to be disclosed under Right to Information except to myself,

BY EMAIL:

Date:  21-December-2010
Your Ref: OM dated 10.12.2010 in File No.1/35/2008-IR (draft RTI Rules)
Our Ref:  PN/DoPT/OM/2010/RTI/AAA-0000-009
Subject Objections and/or Suggestions to the amendments proposed

Sir,

I refer to the above citations and your subject OM. I am caused to submit the following objection(s) and/or suggestion(s) to the same.
This is separate, distinct and without prejudice to other objections I may submit from time to time within the period allowed..

http://persmin.gov.in/WriteReadData/RTI/RTI_rules_01122010-1.pdf

I OBJECT that the Office Memorandum publishes on website of MoP is false and incomplete. I say this because the list of recipients of the OM has been deliberately suppressed from me and the public at large. It is pertinent that other OMs on the Persmin website clearly list the recipients thereof.

I have come to learn from websites of other public authorities that  MoP/DoPT had sent them advance copies of these draft Rules to which they have submitted their comments prior to the OM dated 10.12.2010. In particular copies were with CIC, NAC, Mr. Shekhar Singh, Mr.Harsh Mander, Ms Aruna Roy and many other private persons directly or indirectly. I am also concerned that there was breach of Official Secrets Act.

You may take careful notice of the fact that I was the other Co-Respondent with the Central Information Commission ("CIC") in Division Bench Judgment of the the Delhi High Court d/d 22-May-2010 described by me as "Delhi Development Authority versus Central Information Commission and Anr.", where the Hon'ble Court struck down the RTI Central Information Commission Management Regulations 2007 as being bad in law. The Hon'ble Court has comprehensively dealt with the issue of RTI Rules and requirement to clearly specify the source of power to prescribe  rules in its reasoned judgement, which inter-alia struck down the power of CIC to constitute benches on my submissions. It was my case that the CIC is a "body" constituted u/s 12(1) and must decide matters as collegium. These issues are now sub-judice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the DoPT is not a party therein.

I therefore SUGGEST that a copy of the OM be served on me separately, and I be provided as equal opportunity to file distinct meaningful objections in my other capacity / locus as Co-Respondent in that matter as the CIC was.

Submitted in my individual capacity by

Er. Sarbajit Roy
B-59 Defence Colony
New Delhi 110024
Tel : 09311448069
email ID: "sroy.mb@gmail.com"

Chief Patron: "HumJanenge RTI group" mailing list of over 2,500 RTI stakeholders
Website: http://humjanenge.org.in
Mailing List : http://groups.google.com/group/humjanenge/
News Network : http://humjanenge.org.in/news/

CC: to: (for suitable action and direction)
presidentofindia@rb.nic.in
mos-pp@nic.in
secy_mop@nic.in
sarkardk@nic.in
jsata@nic.in
dirrti-dopt@nic.in
diradmn@nic.in
osdrti-dopt@nic.in
usrti-dopt@nic.in
sroy1947@gmail.com