The document submitted by the Sports, UT Of Lakshadweep, was contrary to facts
August 26, 2013
Documentwas submitted by the respondents is incomplete and does not contain the information sought by the appellant. Section 2 (j) of The RTI Act 2005 provides that ‘right to information’ means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority.
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
(Block No.4 Old JNU Campus, New Delhi, 110 067)
Complaint No. of 2013
D.B Binu, Advocate :
Human Rights Defence Forum), Appellant
Kochi – 682018, Kerala.
1) The Central Public Information Officer,
O/o.the Managing Director (SPORTS),
Lakshadweep Tourism, KAVARATTI- 682555,
2) The Appellate Authority,
(Managing Director (SPORTS),
COMPLAINT (THIRD APPEAL) FILED UNDER SECTIONS 18 (1), 19 (3), 19 (8) (b) 20 (1) OF THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005
The appellant respectfully submits as follows:
1. In an appeal filed earlier before this commission as No. / . In the above appeal there was an order passed on . In the above order this commission was directed to the respondents to provide the information to the appellant .
The application filed for providing certain information and documents regarding the authorized Travel Agents and their respective contribution to SPORTS with regard to the business volume of Lakshadweep Tourism for the years 2009, 2010 and 2011 etc., and other related documents. (A true copy of the application is attached herewith and marked as Annexure-1)
2. The respondent defaulted in furnishing the information within 30 days of mandatory period. Thereafter the appellant filed the first appeal before the first appellate authority on 04-07-2012. (A true copy of the first appeal is attached herewith and marked as Annexure-2)
3. Subsequent to the filing of the first appeal, the first respondent provided a part of the information which was incomplete and hiding the facts.
4. Due to non-availability of crucial information, the appellant filed the second appeal on 21-11-2012 before the Central Information Commission, (A true copy of the second appeal is attached herewith and marked as Annexure-3)
5. The appellant was invited to participate a video conferencing held by the Central Information Commission, New Delhi on 06-02-2013 wherein the grievances in the matter was put forward. On 22-02-2013 a request was placed to Shri D. Karthikeyan, Managing Director (Sports) to inspect the records. (A true copy of the letter is attached herewith and marked as Annexure-4)
6. The Information Commissioner, Central Information Commission, New Delhi thereafter directed Respondent 1, the CPIO of SPORTS, vide his Order No.CIC/LS/A/2013/000166 dated 06-02-2013 to provide the certified copies of the required documents related thereto, within 02 weeks time. (A copy of the said order is produced herewith marked Annexure 5 for identification).
7. After the lengthy correspondence and telephonic conversations the undersigned had with the AGM of SPORTS, went to inspect the documents. The office of SPORTS had agreed to arrange the documents pertaining to Point No.4 in the application, within two weeks from the date of inspection. The Appellant had duly complied with the requirement of remitting necessary fees for receiving the documents. (A true copy of the request letter for inspection dated 22-03-2013 is attached herewith and marked as Annexure-6)
8. The AGM of SPORTS directed the Appellant to remit a sum of Rs.925.00 towards supply of the specified documents. This was duly complied with. A Cheque, No.038728 dated 17-5-2013, drawn on Union Bank of India for Rs.925.00 was sent to them, under cover of a letter dated 17-5-2013. (A copy of the said letter is produced herewith marked Annexure7 ).
9. Subsequently, a set of documents were received from the AGM of SPORTS. On scrutiny of the documents it was found that there were only 6 copies of payment receipts against 771 copies of reservation (Register) entries from Travel Agents and individuals. None of the document was certified by the CPIO as agreed. (A copy of the potentially contentious cover letter by the AGM of SPORTS, dated 15-06-2013 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure-8)
10. The respondents had collected specified amount as per details given above. The documents supplied in turn were of no use at all to the appellant. It is a matter of great regret that the applicant was not provided the information requested for despite the lapse of more than 15 months has lapsed from.
11. On 28-07-2013 a request was sent to the Respondent No.1 and the AGM of SPORTS to furnish the remaining copies of payment receipts at their own cost for both the advance and the final payments pertaining to the ‘registry listings’ submitted with us. The appellant has not yet received any further information from the respondents till the date. (A copy of the said letter is produced herewith marked Annexure 9).
12. The inaction and refusal on the part of respondents 1and 2in not furnishing the information sought by the appellant is highly arbitrary and illegal and hence liable to be interfered with by this Hon’ble Commission.
13. In the circumstances, the appellant is aggrieved and prefer this Complaint. Since statutory period for furnishing the information is over. The information sought by the appellant is of public interest in nature and it is held and controlled by the respondent. The respondent 1&2 has very well access to all the information sought by the appellant. The respondent 1&2 has deliberately denied the information. The reply furnished is fact hiding, against the spirit of the RTI Act and not in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
16. In view of the above circumstances this Complaint preferred before this Commission praying that to allow the prayers sought by the appellant considering the following;
a). Denial of information without sufficient reason is a contravention of Sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act 2005.
b). Documentwas submitted by the respondents is incomplete and does not contain the information sought by the appellant. Section 2 (j) of The RTI Act 2005 provides that ‘right to information’ means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority.
c) The document submitted by the respondent was contrary to facts and circumstances of the case.
d) The Appellate Authority ought to have considered the fact that the information sought by the appellant is information available with the 1st & 2nd respondents, which was denied to the appellant.
e) Section 8 i (j) of The Right to Information Act 2005 provide that the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. The information/application submitted by the appellant is one, which cannot be denied to the parliament or the State Legislate if the same question is raised before either house.
f) Section 8 (2) of The Right to Information Act 2005 provides that notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923) nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with sub – 2 (1), a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests. The application submitted by the appellant does not harm the protected interest of the Bank and no such reasons were given by the respondent No. 2 while rejecting the application submitted by the Appellant.
In the light of above contentions it ishumblysubmitted that the appellant has sought all the other legal remedies and now the only way is to approach this Hon’ble Commission for justice. Hence it is humbly prayed that this appeal may be considered and the reliefs sought for may be allowed.
It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Commission may be pleased to:-
i. Direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to furnish complete information sought by the appellant in Annexure A1 application.
ii. Impose penalty provided U/s 20 (1) of the R.T.I. Act for noncompliance of the provisions of the Act.
iii. Order to furnish all the remaining documents at free of cost.
iv. Recommending disciplinary action against the respondents under the Act.
v. Requiring the respondent to compensate the appellant herein under section 19 (8) (vi) (b) for the loss and the detriment suffered by him.
vi. Order refund of the sum of Rs.925.00 collected from the appellant, as the relevant information was not made available to the appellant.
vii. Grant such other reliefs and the when prayed for which are deemed fit and proper by this Hon’ble Commission in the interest of Justice.
D.B Binu, Advocate S/o D.A.Baskaran , aged 44. Years, (General Secretary, Human Rights Defence Forum), Providence Road, Kochi – 682018, Kerala do hereby declare that all whatever stated above are true and correct.
Dated this the 24 day of August 2013
The appellant hereby submit that he has not filed any Complaint/Appeal before any Authority or Court or any such proceeding is pending in respect of the subject matter raised in this Second Appeal.
List of Enclosures:
I N D E X
Description of the document
||Third Appeal (Present complaint)
||Annexure.A1: Copy of the application dtd. 31-05- 2012 submitted by the appellant.
||Annexure.A2: True copy of the First Appeal dtd. 04-07-2012.
||Annexure.A3: Copy of Second Appeal dated 21 November 2013
||Annexure A4: Copy of letter dated 22nd February, 2013, sent by the appellant to Shri D. Karthikeyan, Managing Director (SPORTS), about the proposed date for inspection of records and the type of records required for inspection.
||Annexure A5: True copy of Order No.CIC/LS/A/2013/000166 in regards with video conference dated 06-02-2013 of Information Commissioner, Shri M. L. Sharma, Central Information Commission, New Delhi.
||Annexure 6: Copy of reminder for inspection of records dated March 22, 2013, sent by the appellant to the AGM(SPORTS), W.Island, Cochin-682003.
||Annexure 7: Copy of letter dated 17-5-2013 sent by the Appellant to the AGM, SPORTS, forwarding Cheque No.038728 dated 17-5-2013, drawn on Union Bank of India for Rs.925.00 towards fee for supply of the documents.
||Annexure 8: Copy of the potentially contentious covering letter to the documents containing inadequate and irrelevant information, received from the AGM of SPORTS, dated 15-06-2013
||Annexure 9: Copy of the final reminder notice dated 28-06-2013 to the Respondent No.1 & the AGM of SPORTS, requesting to furnish the remaining copies of official receipts pertaining to the ‘registry listings’ submitted to the appellant.
Dated this the 26 day of August, 2013.
COCHIN CHAMBER OF LAWYERS,
PROVIDENCE ROAD KOCHI-18
Corrupt business practices in the U.T. of Lakshadweep
It is well known to the majority that some of the SPORTS officials, mainly the G.M. and above, have made huge financial gains by manipulations. The Administrators, the official custodians of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep, who is shamelessly protecting these corrupt practices, remain silent. Corrupt business practices in the U.T. of Lakshadweep
D B Binu vs UT Of Lakshadweep – Central Information Commission Respondents (SPORTS) are public entity, functioning under the directive of the Lakshadweep Administration, with the executive duty of conducting the Lakshadweep Tour Programmes as envisaged by the Union Territory of Lakshadweep, Government of India. SPORTS is duty-bound, under the rules prevailing in the country, to maintain proper accounts for the income and expenditure pertaining to the Lakshadweep Tour Programmes conducted by it during every season and subject the same for auditing. These documents, it is respectfully submitted, come under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Updates D B Binu vs Ut Of Lakshadweep – Central Information Commission 6 February, 2013: D B Binu vs Ut Of Lakshadweep – Central Information Commission
The Emergence of Land-Mafia in Lakshadweep
The small pieces land belonging to the illiterate Scheduled Tribes, one of the most impoverished and marginalized Scheduled Tribes in India, the people of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep are now being widely grabbed by the land mafia at a fast pace, with the help and connivance of corrupt officials of the Administration and SPORTS. The Emergence of Land-Mafia in Lakshadweep
Reliable information that proves cheating!
The information about the cheating by SPORTS (Society for Promotion of Nature Tourism & SPORTS) – a Society responsible for conducting Lakshadweep Tourism
The information about the cheating by SPORTS is startling. There have been consistent complaints about the corruption and incompetence of the SPORTS, the society functioning under the Lakshadweep Administrator for promoting Lakshadweep Tourism. But the ‘SPORTS’ purposefully ignore complaints and fail to answer any queries for redressal of grievances. http://lakshadweepforum.com/blogresources/reliable-information-that-proves-cheating/
Application for Information under Right to Information – Respondents (SPORTS) May 29, 2012
Certified copies of the information and documents in public interest with file notes and correspondence file U/S 6 (1), 6 (3) of the RTI Act on queries regarding the authorized Travel Agents and their respective contribution to SPORTS with regard to the business volume of Lakshadweep Tourism for the years 2009; 2010; & 2011 etc and other related documents. Full Text ‘D B Binu vs Ut Of Lakshadweep’: Application for Information under Right to Information – Respondents (SPORTS) May 29, 2012