aibe bci rti appeal

2
Mr. Milan Kumar Dey Chairman, Executive Committee and Appellate Public Information Officer Bar Council of India New Delhi 19 th October 2010 Sub: Appeal under s.19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 arising from my RTI applica tion dated 10 th August 2010. Dear Mr. Dey, In response to my RTI application dated 10 th August 2010 (Annexure-I), I received a response from the Bar Council of India dated 21 st September 2010 (Annexure-II). This is an appeal, u nder s.19 of the R TI Act 2005, arising ou t of the response of the Bar Council of India. I request you to reconsider the following issues: 1. In response to query no.10 in my original RTI application dated 10 th August 2010, where I had sought all contracts/ memorandums of understanding and/ or agreements between the Bar Council and Rainmaker, the Bar Council of India has claimed an exemption under s.8(1)(e) of the RTI Act 2005 as information available in a fiduciary relationship. Apart from requesting you to reconsider the Bar Council of India’s position that this is information available in a fiduciary relationship, I would also request you to provide this information in the ‘larger public interest’ as provided in s.8(1)(e) of the RTI Act 2005. Since this information relates to the spending of public money, I would request you to provide this information even if the Bar Council of India believes it to be i nformation available in a fiduciary relationship. 2. In response to query no.11 in my original RTI application, where information was sought on the amounts already paid and also on amounts proposed to be paid by the Bar Council of India to Rainmaker, the Bar Council of India has only stated that no money has been paid to Rainmaker. As is evident, the information sought on amounts to be paid in the future to Rainmaker has not been provided. I request you to provide information on the amounts that the Bar Council of India will pay Rainmaker in the future. Since I did not receive the information from the Bar Council of India, requested in my original RTI application dated 10 th August 2010, within the thirty (30) day time period stipulated by s. 7(1) of the RTI Act 2005, I also request you to refund Rs.500 as per s.7(6) of the RTI Act, paid to the Bar Council of India along with my original RTI application vide Demand Draft No. 211772 drawn on Syndicate Bank dated 9 th August 2010, and provide the information free of charge. A copy of the receipt is attached (Annexure III). …contd on p.2

Upload: anup-surendranath

Post on 09-Apr-2018

218 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: AIBE BCI RTI Appeal

8/8/2019 AIBE BCI RTI Appeal

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aibe-bci-rti-appeal 1/2

Mr. Milan Kumar Dey Chairman, Executive Committee and Appellate Public Information OfficerBar Council of IndiaNew Delhi

19 th October 2010

Sub: Appeal under s.19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 arising frommy RTI application dated 10 th August 2010.

Dear Mr. Dey,

In response to my RTI application dated 10 th August 2010 (Annexure-I) , Ireceived a response from the Bar Council of India dated 21 st September 2010(Annexure-II) . This is an appeal, under s.19 of the RTI Act 2005, arising out of the response of the Bar Council of India.

I request you to reconsider the following issues:

1. In response to query no.10 in my original RTI application dated 10 th August 2010, where I had sought all contracts/ memorandums of understanding and/ oragreements between the Bar Council and Rainmaker, the Bar Council of India hasclaimed an exemption under s.8(1)(e) of the RTI Act 2005 as informationavailable in a fiduciary relationship.

Apart from requesting you to reconsider the Bar Council of India’s position that

this is information available in a fiduciary relationship, I would also request youto provide this information in the ‘larger public interest’ as provided in s.8(1)(e)of the RTI Act 2005. Since this information relates to the spending of publicmoney, I would request you to provide this information even if the Bar Council of India believes it to be information available in a fiduciary relationship.

2. In response to query no.11 in my original RTI application, where informationwas sought on the amounts already paid and also on amounts proposed to bepaid by the Bar Council of India to Rainmaker, the Bar Council of India has onlystated that no money has been paid to Rainmaker. As is evident, the informationsought on amounts to be paid in the future to Rainmaker has not been provided. Irequest you to provide information on the amounts that the Bar Council of Indiawill pay Rainmaker in the future.

Since I did not receive the information from the Bar Council of India, requestedin my original RTI application dated 10 th August 2010, within the thirty (30) daytime period stipulated by s. 7(1) of the RTI Act 2005, I also request you to refundRs.500 as per s.7(6) of the RTI Act, paid to the Bar Council of India along with myoriginal RTI application vide Demand Draft No. 211772 drawn on SyndicateBank dated 9 th August 2010, and provide the information free of charge. A copyof the receipt is attached (Annexure III) .

…contd on p.2

Page 2: AIBE BCI RTI Appeal

8/8/2019 AIBE BCI RTI Appeal

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aibe-bci-rti-appeal 2/2

As per the requirement of the RTI Act, my address at which information may beprovided is:

Anup SurendranathC/o Rekha HariNo. 12-B, Shantiniketan5 th Cross, Ganesha Block Off Dinnur Main Road, R.T NagarBangalore 560032

Sincerely,

(Anup Surendranath)

Enclosures:

i) Annexure-I: Copy of the original RTI application dated 10 th August 2010

ii) Annexure-II: Copy of the Bar Council of India’s response dated 21 st September 2010

iii) Annexure-III: Copy of Receipt No. 974 issued by the Bar Council of India acknowledging payment of Rs. 500 to the Bar Council of Indiavide Demand Draft No. 211772 drawn on Syndicate Bank dated 9 th August 2010.