Will the Karnataka Information Commission be impartial on BMIC – NICE Project Info ?

Will the Karnataka Information Commission impartial on BMIC Project Info ?

http://krcfart.blogspot.com/2006/07/is-information-commission-impartial.html 

This post on the right2information blog shows that it is very naive to expect an impartial Information Commission to judge cases on use of RTI Act in Karnataka.

…questions are already being raised on the appointment of the commissioner by the Dharam Singh Government: K K Misra was appointed on July 30 immediately after his retirement as chief secretary of Karnataka.

Reason: Barely four months ago, the Karnataka High Court passed strictures on Misra in the PIL related to the Rs 2,250 crore Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project.

The irony is, in its judgment delivered on May 3, the High Court directed that a complaint of perjury be filed against Misra for “knowingly withholding important facts and documents from the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and making false statements in the affidavits filed in this Court.’’

If the RTI application on the Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor (see this post for more details) were to come to the Information Commission, what is the probability that Misra will act fair? Zero.

…a person who “lies’’ to the High Court of Karnataka“cannot be called a person of eminence in public life’’ as envisaged by the RTI Act as a qualification for the post.

I wonder why is it that all the nominated posts generally go to either politicians or former bureaucrats. This is true with gubernatorial positions, ‘impartial’ commissions, chairmanship of corporations etc. It is obvious that politicians are preferred candidates for the job. But the apparent comfort level between the politicians and the bureaucrats exposes shows how deep the nexus is. I am sure that this wouldn’t have happened had civil servants been honest in general.

Each day brings another ivory tower in our democratic structure crashing down. The governors are already a disgraced lot, and now even the Election Commission is not safe (Read this post). Little surprise that a liar has been chosen as Information Commissioner.
_____________

RTI application filed for BMIC project

Pathi Vijay Kumar has filed an application for information for information regarding the Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project (BMIC) being carried out by Nandi Infrastructure Corridor enterprises (NICE). Here is the list of questions asked by him. Wonder what the exact situation is. Good work!

Information on BMIC and NICE applied for.

Submitted by vijay pathi Pathi Vijay Kumar
‘Ayodhya ’, Moka Road,
Gandhinagar market,
BELLARY
DATE: 10.06.2006
PH: 9342365645

The Public Information Officer,
Under RTI Act 2005, Right to Information Act,
Mysore Urban Development Authority,
Mysore.

Dear Sir,

Sub: Request for Information under Right to Information Act 2005.
Ref: on 6th and 7th of July 06. Several developments occurred reg BMIC /NICE project.

Please refer to the above-mentioned context. I request the following information

1. Why was the Bhoomi pooja / guddali pooja of NICE / BMIC from Mysore end stopped. Please provide me the reasons.
2. When was the decision to stop the Bhoomi pooja taken?
3. Provide me the Name and designation of all officers involved in arriving at this decision.
4. Has MUDA acquired the 15 acres of Land required for this BMIC project?
5. Will MUDA handover the land to NICE.
6. When will MUDA handover this land to NICE.
7. Has MUDA received the payments of approx 85 lakhs from KIADB?
8. If no payments have been received, has MUDA made any efforts to contact KIADB and demand payments? Please let me know action taken in getting payments.

I am requesting all the above information as per rights guaranteed by the RTI Act 2005. I am enclosing a Postal order of Rs 10 /- the Fee prescribed in the Act.
As per Act rules, provide me information within 30 days.

Postal order No: Yours faithfully

Date:
Amount. Vijay kumar

Note: BMIC means Banglore Mysore Infrastructure Corridor project.
NICE means Nandi Infrastructure Corridor enterprises.
______________________________

RTI Exposes :: MPs’ train tickets, ride for others –

MPs’ train tickets, ride for others

Hemender Sharma

CNN-IBN

Posted Monday , July 31, 2006 at 10:36Updated Monday , July 31, 2006 at 15:05

 

Bhopal: BJP MP from Damoh, C B Singh has an amazing ability: On October 12, 2005, Singh travelled in five different trains using 10 berths.

Of course, he was not on those trains. Using the Right to Information Act, CNN-IBN has found that many serving and former Members of Parliament are selling train tickets they get on concession or giving them away to supporters.

October 12, 2005, was not an exception for Singh.

Between September 2005 and February 2006, Singh made 117 train journeys. Singh was travelling from the same location to different destinations.

On September 19 last year, Singh went from Jabalpur to Bilaspur by train number 8254. Travel documents of September 20 show Singh boarding the same train from Jabalpur to Bilaspur.

On September 21, as well as September 22, Singh is travelling back from Bilaspur to Jabalpur by train number 8253. A week later, on

September 29: Singh is travelling to Bhopal from Allahabad by train number 1072, but he is also going from Damoh to Bina on train number 1469 on that same day. And on October 4, Singh is travelling from Jabalpur to Nagpur and from Jabalpur to Damoh on two different trains.

The list is endless and Singh appears to be on the move always and often to different destinations from different locations on the same date.

But, Singh is not the only MP to avail travel benefits provided by the railways.

There are five more sitting MPs from Madhya Pradesh who are either selling tickets they get against their concession passes or giving them away to their supporters all at the cost of the Indian Railways and the Indian taxpayer.

The MP from Satna, Ganesh Singh, has travelled on 22 occasions in the last six months. Out of those, on ten occasions he has travelled from the same place to different locations on the same day.

Arvind Kejriwal selected for Magsaysay Award – The 2006 Ramon Magsaysay Award for Emergent Leadership

Arvind Kejriwal selected for Magsaysay Awardhttp://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1832474.cms

KUALA LUMPUR: Head of Delhi-based Parivartan citizen’s movement, Arvind Kejriwal, was on Monday selected for this year’s Ramon Magsaysay Award for his contribution to India’s right-to-information movement and empowering poor citizens to fight corruption.

Besides Kejriwal, the other five selected for the award are Sanduk Ruit (Nepal), Ek Sonn Chan (Cambodia) Park Won Soon (South Korea) and Eugenia Duran Apostol and Antonio Meloto (both Philippine).

They would be presented the award, Asia’s version of the Nobel Prize, at a ceremony in Manila on August 31. The annual awards are named after late Philippine President Ramon Magsaysay.

In electing Kejriwal, 38, to receive the 2006 Ramon Magsaysay Award for Emergent Leadership, the board of trustees recognizes his activating India’s right-to-information movement at the grassroots, empowering New Delhi’s poorest citizens to fight corruption by holding government accountable to the people, the organisers said in a citation.

Kejriwal, a mechanical engineer from IIT Kharagpur, who joined the civil services as a member of the Indian Revenue Service in 1992, is currently on leave from the Government for two years. “The brazen corruption of the high and the mighty may grab headlines, but for ordinary people it is the ubiquity of everyday corruption that weighs heaviest. And that demoralizes.

Arvind Kejriwal, founder of India’s Parivartan , understands this, which is why his campaign for change begins with the small things,” the organisers said.

The 2006 Ramon Magsaysay Award for Emergent Leadership CITATION for Arvind Kejriwal
Ramon Magsaysay Award Presentation Ceremonies
31 August 2006, Manila, PhilippinesThe brazen corruption of the high and the mighty may grab headlines, but for ordinary people it is the ubiquity of everyday corruption that weighs heaviest. And that demoralizes. Arvind Kejriwal, founder of India’s Parivartan, understands this, which is why his campaign for change begins with the small things.

As a tax officer with the Indian Revenue Service, Arvind Kejriwal became aware of the many powers that tax officials held over private citizens and how easily these powers could be abused. Indeed, at the tax department, one expected to pay bribes as a matter of course. With a few kindred spirits, Kejriwal began to strategize about how to bring an end to this. In 2000, he founded Parivartan, meaning “change.” Parivartan appealed to the tax commissioner to make the tax department more transparent and less capricious. When this failed, it filed Public Interest Litigation directing the department to implement a five-point transparency plan. Eventually, Parivartan held a nonviolent protest, or satyagraha, outside the chief commissioner’s office. Threat of another protest with the press on hand convinced the tax chief to implement the reforms.

Meanwhile, on leave from his job, Kejriwal stationed himself with other Parivartan members outside the electricity department. There they exhorted visitors not to pay bribes and offered to facilitate their dealings with the department for free. Since then, Parivartan has settled 2,500 grievances with the electricity department on behalf of individuals. Some seven hundred more have benefited from the group’s “Don’t pay bribes!” campaign at the tax department.

Under the Delhi Right to Information Act of 2001, every citizen possesses the right to inspect government documents. Kejriwal put the new law to use in Sundernagari, a New Delhi slum where Parivartan was working among the poor. First, the group obtained official reports on all recent public-works projects in the area. Next, it led residents in a “social audit” of sixty-eight projects, stirring the community to action with neighborhood meetings and street plays. Then, in a large public hearing, the residents presented their findings and exposed misappropriations in sixty-four of the projects—embezzlement to the tune of seven million rupees! Today, in Sundernagari, local committees monitor public-works projects block by block, and no project may begin until the details of the contract have been made public.

The Indian government provides subsidized rations of wheat and rice to poor people through neighborhood ration shops. Records acquired by Kejriwal for Sundernagari revealed high levels of theft in the system. In one area, over 90 percent of the grain ration was being skimmed off by shopkeepers in collusion with certain food department officials. When Parivartan investigated this, one of its team members was savagely attacked. In protest, more than five thousand residents of the community held a monthlong “rations fast.” This and a mass rally riveted public attention, and foot-dragging officials finally moved to clean up the system.

Now in its seventh year, Parivartan has only ten full-time members. Although Kejriwal sometimes takes on larger issues—such as the successful 2005 campaign challenging a water-privatization plan for New Delhi—he has no plans to expand. He prefers to coordinate Parivartan’s efforts with other like-minded NGOs across India.

Thirty-eight-year-old Kejriwal reminds Indians that the boons of collective action, such as the honest delivery of services, have already been paid for through taxes. Citizens are entitled to them. The spirit of his movement was aptly captured by the women of Sundernagari as they rallied to protest cheating in neighborhood ration shops: “We are not begging from anyone!” they chanted. “We are demanding our rights.”

In electing Arvind Kejriwal to receive the 2006 Ramon Magsaysay Award for Emergent Leadership, the board of trustees recognizes his activating India’s right-to-information movement at the grassroots, empowering New Delhi’s poorest citizens to fight corruption by holding government accountable to the people.

Central Information Commission imposes penalty

Central Information Commission
Appeal: No. CIC/OK/C/2006/00042
Dated, the 28th July, 2006

Name of the Appellant: Shri Asgar Khan, AIMSC B-11, IIIrd Floor, Bhaskar Compound Abul Fazal Enclave, Okhla New Delhi – 110025

Name of the Public Authority: Jamia Hamdard University Hamdard Nagar, New Delhi – 110062

ORDER

WHEREAS this Commission by its Order dated 3rd July, 2006 directed the Registrar, Jamia Hamdard University, to explain the reasons as to why penal action under Section 20 should not be taken against him for denial of information to Shri Asgar Khan leading to his filing of a complaint with the Commission on 18th February, 2006;

WHEREAS his explanation was to reach this Commission within 21 days of the issue of the Order dated 3rd July, 2006;

WHEREAS the Registrar, Prof. Akhtar Majeed, affirmed before the Commission that he was competent to give reply/information on behalf of the University by virtue of the Memorandum of Association and Rules & Regulations of Jamia Hamdard University, adopted in 1989;

WHEREAS the Commission is of the opinion that he had denied the Appellant the information;

WHEREAS the Registrar failed to appear before the Commission on the date of hearing i.e. 24th July, 2006;

WHEREAS the Registrar did not make any request to the Commission seeking exemption from appearance on the date of hearing; and

WHEREAS the Commission has come to the conclusion that it is a fit case for imposition of penalty under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and a minimum delay of 55 (fifty-five) days has occurred from 6th May,2006 to 30th June, 2006 despite the Commission directions issued on 17.4.2006;

and

NOW the Commission imposes a penalty of Rs.13,750/- (rupees thirteen thousand seven hundred fifty) on Prof. Akhtar Majeed, Registrar, Jamia Hamdard, New Delhi.

The Commission further authorises and requests the Vice Chancellor, Jamia Hamdard, New Delhi to cause the recovery of the amount of penalty from the salary of Prof. Akhtar Majeed and remit the amount by Demand Draft/Banker’s Cheque drawn in favour of Pay & Accounts Officer, DP&AR, payable at New Delhi, to Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Assistant Registrar, Central information Commission, 4th Floor, Block No. IV, Old J.N.U. Campus,

New Delhi – 110067, by 15th September, 2006
Sd/-
(O.P. Kejariwal)
Information Commissioner

Authenticated true copy :
Sd/-
( L.C. Singhi )

Additional Registrar

CC:

1. Dr. S. Ahmad, Vice Chancellor, Jamia Hamdard University, Hamdard Nagar, New Delhi – 110062.
2. Prof. Akhtar Majeed, Registrar, Jamia Hamdard University, Hamdard Nagar, New Delhi – 110062.
3. Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Assistant Registrar, Central information Commission, 4th Floor, Block No. IV, Old J.N.U. Campus, New Delhi -110067.
4. Officer Incharge, NIC.
5. Press E Group, CIC.

First RTI appointment runs into trouble

First RTI appointment runs into trouble
Wednesday September 21 2005 00:00 IST

 

http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=IEH20050920123524&Page=H&Title=Top+Stories&Topic=0

 

TOP STORIES

Sep 21, 2005

NEW DELHI: Even before the Right to Information Act has come into force, the very first and so far the only appointment made under it has provoked a controversy.

Karnataka is the first state to have appointed its chief information commissioner as part of the independent appellate machinery that is required to be in place by October 12 in the states as well as the Centre.

But questions are already being raised on the appointment of the commissioner by the Dharam Singh Government: K K Misra was appointed on July 30 immediately after his retirement as chief secretary of Karnataka.

A local NGO, Ella Kannada Vedike International (E-KAVI), called upon the state Governor to suspend Misra immediately and initiate the process of his removal from office.

Reason: Barely four months ago, the Karnataka High Court passed strictures on Misra in the PIL related to the Rs 2,250 crore Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project.

The irony is, in its judgment delivered on May 3, the High Court directed that a complaint of perjury be filed against Misra for “knowingly withholding important facts and documents from the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and making false statements in the affidavits filed in this Court.”

E-KAVI alleged that a person who “lies” to the High Court of Karnataka“cannot be called a person of eminence in public life” as envisaged by the RTI Act as a qualification for the post.

Misra, when contacted in Bangalore, said: “This is news to me. I didn’t know these issues had been raised. I would like to comment only after seeing the representation.”

Misra could well say in his defence that, within 10 days of the High Court verdict, the Supreme Court passed a stay on his prosecution. The appeal filed by Misra is still pending before the apex court.

The NGO also questioned the wisdom of appointing a recently retired chief secretary as the chief information commissioner of the state.

Since the information that is sought could relate to the period when he was himself chief secretary, Misra cannot be, it said, “considered independent enough to be the final appellate authority” under the RTI Act. The NGO contended that Misra cannot “legally or morally” decide such disputes.

BOX

RI Fee structure

In the run-up to the enforcement of the Right to Information Act, the Centre has notified a fee structure for any information that is sought under the law after it comes into effect on October 12.

Every request for information will have to be accompanied by an application fee of Rs 10.

Once the request is accepted, the applicant will have to pay Rs 2 for every page of information.

If the applicant asks for any samples or models, he will have to pay the actual cost or price.

For inspection of records, no charge for the first hour but a fee of Rs 5 for every 15 minutes thereafter.

A flat charge of Rs 50 for information provided in a floppy.

DOPT and BUREAUCRACY needs BEHAVIOURAL CHANGE – Why perpetuate an illegality?

BEHAVIOURAL CHANGE IN BUREAUCRACY WOULD BE WELCOME.

The main question is: Whether it is the RTI Act 2005, passed by the
Parliament, being called the  best instrument for behavioural change, or
the distorted version presented by the DOPT on the official websites,
which seems to be in the process of being rubber-stamped through Cabinet
proposed amendment.  

Public will most welcome a change of  behaviour on
the part of certain coterie of officers, who wish to seek the back of
the official version of the RTI Act.  

These officers should be asked to carefully think whether: 'the
government can claim privilege to not disclose all sort of file notings, from
public, when settled law, under Art.74(2) of the Constitution and
sec.123 of the Evidence Act, allows it only in case of such Affairs of
State, as are reasonably well defined under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act'.
The procedure for claiming privilege has been honed over the last fifty
years, and stood test of time.  

Whose point can it be that:  the RTI
2005 was promulgated to deprive citizens of the right to such information
which was already available under existing laws?  

The Government should first change its behaviour and order the
obnoxious alteration done in definition of ‘information’ under the RTI Act,
as presented on the websites.  

Let the matter be properly and freely
discussed in the Parliament, and only after that the final version
displayed on the websites.   

Why perpetuate an illegality?

P.K. Aditya, Chandigarh

Dr Singh’s govt marching in the wrong direction – Even in RTI Act 2005 it is buckling to bureaucratic presurre to dilute the provisions of the law.

July 28, 2006
I think age is mellowing me — I find myself nodding in agreement all too often when Communist Party of India-Marxist leaders appear on screen. I thought the Marxists got it right when they pointed out that the Manmohan Singh ministry could spare us the rod by cutting excise duties on fuel.

I thought the Manmohan Singh ministry took a significant step in making governance as transparent as possible with the Right to Information Act. (Which the BJP had promised but never delivered!) Barely a year later, as we know, it is buckling to bureaucratic pressure to dilute the provisions of the law.

From denying information to, say, a Residents’ Welfare Association to diverting a debate in Parliament, I fear the Manmohan Singh ministry is marching in the wrong direction.

And I agreed once again when CPI-M General Secretary Prakash Karat said that Parliament has a right to discuss international treaties in general, and the India-American nuclear pact specifically.

When you think about it, this is such an obvious facet of democracy that it isn’t even worth arguing about. How can any democratic government bind a nation to a treaty unless the people — through their elected representatives, or even directly through a referendum — have had their say?

But Indian governments have always got away without any semblance of discussion. My mind goes back to 1994, when the Narasimha Rao ministry went ahead and made India sign up for the World Trade Organisation.

I don’t want to initiate a debate on whether or not this was good or bad. (The answers would, I suspect, be all over the map depending on whether you ask, say, a farmer or a stockbroker — and I don’t mean just in India.)

My point is that joining the World Trade Organisation meant that India was taking on certain obligations, but that neither the costs nor the benefits were thrashed out in public through open debate.

The same opacity prevails a dozen years later. It is shameful but the best way to learn the fine details of the Bush-Manmohan Singh nuclear deal is to read the US Congressional Journal. The men who wrote the American constitution had a healthy skepticism for the machinery of government, and deliberately installed a system of checks and balances.

Article II, Section 2.ii of the US constitution puts it down perfectly explicitly: ‘(The President) shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…’ The power can be, and has been, abused in the past.

The most famous occasion came in 1919, when a cabal in the US Senate refused to allow the United States to join the League of Nations after World War I. A majority of the Senators were in favour, but they were helpless because their constitution required a two thirds majority.

That may have been going too far but it is better than our system, which permits the Union Cabinet to sign any treaty without even bothering to refer it to Parliament. What happens if the US Senate agrees to the nuclear deal with India — but adds some qualifications? Is India legally obliged to swallow the draft? Or will it tear up the Bush-Manmohan Singh treaty, and renegotiate with a clean slate?

The UPA ministry is so allergic to the principle of legislative supervision of the executive that Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee has, allegedly, told the Left Front that even taking a Resolution of the House would be tantamount to a No-Confidence Motion. (See this article.)

This is a weird statement coming from Pranab Mukherjee, who lest we forget happens to be Leader of the House in the Lok Sabha. He is admitting, if not in so many words, that the Union Cabinet took a decision that it knew flew against the wishes of Parliament. How on earth can you justify that in a parliamentary democracy?

I am reasonably certain that the CPI-M leaders shall step back in the face of the defence minister’s threat-cum-appeal. But this mess would never have arisen in the first place had the ministers taken a sounding of the Lok Sabha’s mood before signing on the dotted line with the United States.

The MPs are right to be angry. Ministers come and go but India will be stuck with the consequences of treaties — any pact, not just the one with President Bush — long after the men who signed it are gone. The best way to ensure that an accord succeeds is to build a broad consensus within the Indian body politic before sitting to negotiate with a foreigner.

Prakash Karat is right, anything that has the potential to affect the security of India must be considered by Parliament. It cannot be the decision of just a few men acting on their own initiative. But why should we stop there?

The American constitution does not restrict the Senate to approving treaties alone; the same Article cited above also insists that the President seek the ‘advice and consent’ of the Senate before appointing ‘ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States…’

We have borrowed a lot from the American constitution, is there any reason why we should not take this too? Everyone knows how much trouble there has been recently over the dismissal of Dr Venugopal as Director of the All-India Institute of Medical Sciences.

There has been no less furore over the appointment of Naveen Chawla to the Election Commission. Had we followed the healthy American practice, subjecting ministerial whims to the supervision of Parliament, these embarrassments could have been avoided. (Please remember that the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the health ministry rose above party lines to ‘deplore’ Dr Venugopal’s dismissal.)

Every government would love to control what people get to know, or hear, or see. I don’t just mean BJP or Congress ministers, those in other nations are just as bad in this regard. I am sure President Bush would love it if he didn’t have to deal with all those pesky Senators! But a government’s desire for secrecy must, in a democracy, play second fiddle to a legislature acting as a forum for full, free, and fair debate.

I thought the Manmohan Singh ministry took a significant step in making governance as transparent as possible with the Right to Information Act. (Which the BJP had promised but never delivered!) Barely a year later, as we know, it is buckling to bureaucratic pressure to dilute the provisions of the law.

From denying information to, say, a Residents’ Welfare Association to diverting a debate in Parliament, I fear the Manmohan Singh ministry is marching in the wrong direction.

Manmohan Singh says RTI Act is the best instrument for enforcing behavioural change

BIG TALK: Manmohan Singh says RTI Act is the best instrument for enforcing behavioural change (Photo:Reuters).

 

 

 

Demand For Removal of Shri.KK Misra, Karnataka State Chief Information Commissioner under Section 17 (3) (b) & 17 (3) (e) of the Right To Information Act-2005

Sunday, September 18, 2005

To,

The Hon’ble Governor,

Karnataka.

 

Sub: Demand For Removal of Shri.KK Misra, Karnataka State Chief Information Commissioner under Section 17 (3) (b) & 17 (3) (e) of the Right To Information Act-2005

 

Sir,

We wish to bring following acts of omissions during implementation of the Right To Information Act-2005 by Government Of Karnataka:

1.      Section 15 of the Right To Information Act-2005 stipulates a minimum qualification for a candidate who shall be appointed as State Chief Information Commissioner, which are as under:

“ The State Chief Information Commissioner and the State Information Commissioners shall be Persons Of Eminence In Public Life with wide knowledge and experience in Law, Science And Technology, Social Service, Management, Journalism, Mass Media Or Administration And Governance.”

2.      We understand that that Mr.KK Misra who has been appointed as State Chief Information Commissioner vide notification number DPAR 77 RTI 2005 Bangalore Dated 30th July 2005, does not have the required qualifications for appointment as State Chief Information Commissioner.

3.      The basic qualification required is of  “Eminence In Public Life”. Government of Karnataka has been directed by Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka to File criminal cases against Shri.KK Misra and prosecute him as under:

ž       Under Sec. 340 of Cr.PC for “Knowingly Withholding Important Facts And Documents from the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and Making False Statements In The Affidavits Filed In This Court” in the Rs 2,250 Crores Bangalore Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project Case.

ž       On charges of ” Perjury And Withholding “ documents in the Rs 2,250 Crores Bangalore Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project Case. Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka also directed the Registrar General to file a complaint in this regard under section 388 Cr.PC.

4.       A person who Lies And Cheats to Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka as above cannot be called as a Person Of Eminence In Public Life.

5.      Shri.KK Misra’s appointment seems to have been made fraudulently violating the stipulated norms as laid down under section 15 of the Right To Information Act-2005, which are as follows:

ž       There is no documentary proof in public knowledge that, a meeting of the committee formed for the appointment of State Chief Information Commissioner was held. Hence it seems only minutes were drawn

ž       In view of the circumstantial evidence in above Para it can be deduced that List of eligible candidates for appointment as State Chief Information Commissioner was never prepared.

ž       Speaker of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly and Chairman of the Karnataka Legislative Council were never consulted while appointing Shri.KK Misra as State Chief Information Commissioner, which is the normal practice in any appointments made by government to important positions.

6.      It appears that Shri.KK Misra has appointed himself as State Chief Information Commissioner by abusing his position of Chief Secretary to Government of Karnataka. It is very brazen attempt to misuse his official capacity as he retired on 31^st July 2005 and Appointed as State Chief Information Commissioner on the same day i.e. 31^st July 2005

7.      A bureaucrat who presided over the state govt administration till recently cannot be considered independent enough to be the final apex appellate authority under the Right To Information Act. There would be disputes regarding requisitioning of information elicited from government functionaries when he was the chief secretary. He cannot legally/morally decide these disputes now as the information commissioner.

8.      This principle is followed scrupulously by the judiciary. Judges do not hear cases where any person who was their client while their practicing law figures in, or if there is anyone closely related, closely connected etc involved. The matter is passed on to other judges.

9.      Here we have only one chief information commissioner. Even if we presume that such matters will be passed on to the information commissioners, it must be noted that they are subordinate to the chief info commissioner who continues to be the boss and final arbitrator of the decision being dished out by the commission. So we cannot have such a person as State Chief Information Commissioner.

10.  His continuation in the post will seriously jeopardize / violate people’s fundamental right to information which has been upheld as an integral part of article 13 (1) of the constitution of India.

11.  From all above submissions it becomes clear that Shri.KK Misra is prima facie held to be involved in an offence involving moral turpitude, that too by Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka. This as good as conviction, for an institution as important as State Chief Information Commissioner, whose duty is to set up practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority.  

12.  From all above submissions it also becomes clear that Shri.KK Misra has developed Other interest as is likely to affect prejudicially his functions as the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner.

13.  Now it is very clear that Shri.KK Misra is:

ž        Not a person having Eminence In Public Life, hence not qualified to the office of the State Chief Information Commissioner.

ž       Prima facie held to be involved in an offence involving moral turpitude, by Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, which as good as conviction.

ž       Has acquired such financial or other interest as is likely to affect prejudicially his functions as the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner.

14.  Hence we request you utilise the powers vested in your office and your discretion to act under following Sections of the Right To Information Act-2005 and REMOVE KK MISRA FROM THE POSITION OF STATE CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER IMEADIATLY To Save Sanctity Of New Born Right To Information Act-2005 for charges summarized in Para number 13:    

Section 17 (3):  Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the Governor may by order remove from office the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner if a State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner, as the case may be,—

Section 17 (3) (b):  Has been convicted of an offence which, in the opinion of the Governor, involves moral turpitude; or

Section 17 (3) (e):  Has acquired such financial or other interest as is likely to affect prejudicially his functions as the State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner. 15.  The whole nation is anxiously awaiting your action in this regard. The success or failure of the Right To Information Act-2005 depends upon your quick and rightful action.

Yours Truly,

 

Copy to:

1.      The Hon’ble President of India.

2.      The Hon’ble Prime Minister of India.

3.      The Hon’ble Chief Minister Of Karnataka.

4.      The Hon’ble Dy Chief Minister Of Karnataka.

5.      Smt.Sonia Gandhi ji, The Chairperson United Progressive Alliance, The Chairperson National Advisory Council, and President, Indian National Congress, New Delhi.

6.      Shri.H.D.Devegowda, Former Prime Minister, National President Janata Dal (Secular) & Member of Parliament.

7.      Shri.Prakash Karat, General Secretary, CPI (M).

8.      Shri.A.B.Bardhan, General Secretary, CPI (I).

9.      Shri.L.K.Advani, Leader of Opposition, Loka Sabha.

10.  Shri.Jaswant Singh, Leader of Opposition, Rajya Sabha.

11.  The Central Vigilance Commissioner, New Delhi.

12.  The Loka Ayukta, Karnataka.

KIC – Karnataka State RTI website

Karnataka Information Commission “KIC”

Karnataka SIC website: www.kic.gov.in