1. The document discusses a complaint filed with the Kerala State Information Commission regarding a response to a Right to Information (RTI) application. 2. The complainant had filed an RTI application with the Village Office, Pudussery Central seeking information about computer systems used in the office. When no response was received, he filed first and second appeals which also received no response. 3. In his decision, the Chief Information Commissioner noted that the complainant was absent from the hearing scheduled to address the complaint. The Commissioner determined that providing access to inspect documents was sufficient response to the original RTI application.

1. EXPOSING THE IDIOTS AND TRAITORS AMOUNG PUBLIC SERVANTS-VINSON M PAUL, CIC, KSIC
-P M Ravindran (raviforjustice@gmail.com)
Note: In all the correspondence reproduced here emphasis has been added, through
highlighting, for clarity
On 08 Aug 2016 I had applied for the following information to the Public Information Officer,
Village Office, Pudussery Central, Palakkad:
1.1. The date of installation of the first computer, including accessories like monitor, keyboard and
mouse, in the village office. Also provide the following details of its make (brand name) and cost,
including installation charges, if any.
1.2. The details as in para 1.1 above of all the systems added/discarded subsequently. In addition, the
details should also include the date of discarding and nature of disposal.
1.3. Details of accessories like printers, scanners, speakers, photostat machines etc ever used in the
village office. The details should contain all those mentioned in para 1.1 and 1.2, as applicable.
1.4. In case there has been/ are no scanners, printers, photostat machines, how were/are these
requirements being met?
1.5. Provide the details of the nearest establishment where these facilities are available and whose
services were being used by your office.
1.6. What is the rate at which photostat and scanning were/are being done. If there has been any
change in the rates, provide the rates applicable for the last five years along with the periods.
2. What is the status of resurvey and digitalization of land records in your office? If they are not complete
indicate the level of completion in percentage terms.
It had been received by the addressee on 11/8/16, as per the AD card of the postal department.
Since there was no response within the specified period the 1st appeal was sent to the
Tehsildar, Palakkad on 18/9/16 through e mail (tahrpkd.rev@kerala.gov.in). There was no
response to it either.
The 2nd appeal was then submitted to the Kerala State Information Commission on 21/11/16,
again through email. Copy of this email, along with the copy of the 1st appeal forwarded with it,
is given below:
from: Ravindran P M <raviforjustice@gmail.com>
to: sic@kerala.nic.in
date: Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 12:45 PM
subject:2nd appeal under the rti act-AVAILABILITY OF COMPUER AND OTHER DIGITAL SYSTEMS
AVAILABLE AT THE OFFICE OF VILLAGE OFFICE, PUDUSSERY CENTRAL
1. Refer the following documents:
1.1. My application dated 8/8/16 copy attached herewith and
1.2. My 1st appeal dated 18/9/16, forwarded herewith.

2. 2. There has been no response to the application and the 1st appeal.
3. You are required to direct the PIO to provide the complete information sought without
further delay and free of cost.
4. You are also required to impose mandatory penalty on the PIO and necessary administrative
action against the FAA.
5. I may also be compensated to the tune of Rs 5000/- for the frustrating delay and cost of
pursuing the appeals.
Yours truly,
P M Ravindran
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ravindran P M <raviforjustice@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 8:19 PM
Subject: 1st appeal under the rti act-AVAILABILITY OF COMPUER AND OTHER DIGITAL SYSTEMS
AVAILABLE AT THE OFFICE OF VILLAGE OFFICE, PUDUSSERY CENTRAL
To: tahrpkd.rev@kerala.gov.in
1. Refer my application, RTI/vopud-sys-080816-appln dated 08 Aug 2016, copy attached
herewith for your ready reference.
2. The application was delivered on 10/8/16 as per information provided at
http://www.indiapost.gov.in
3. There has been no response from the PIO till date.
4. You are required to direct the PIO to provide the complete information sought/copies of
documents without further delay and free of cost.
5. Your attention is invited to sec 5,6,7, 19 and 20 of the rti act and DoPT OM No 10/1/2013-IR
dated 6/10/2015
Yours truly
P M Ravindran
Appellant
rti-vopud-sys-080816-appln (Note: This is the copy of the application attached to the e mail)
The KSIC had sent a notice to the PIO on 26/12/16 (letter No 14609/SIC-Gen2/2016) seeking a
report by 16/1/17. The PIO had sent the reply through a letter dated 12/1/17, copy of which

3. was received by me on 16/1/17. The essence of the reply was that he had replied to my
application on 16/8/16 stating that the information sought was voluminous and that he had
granted permission to me to inspect the files.
I had submitted my counter as under:
from: Ravindran P M <raviforjustice@gmail.com>
to: sic@kerala.nic.in
date: Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 8:09 PM
subject:2nd appeal under the rti act-counter to the explanation given by the pio, village office,
pudussery central
Attention: 1. Chief Information Commissioner and
2. The additional Secretary (Law)
1. Refer my 2nd appeal dated 21/11/2016 and Village Office, Pudussery Central letter No
15/16/rti dated 12/1/17, copy of which has been received by me only on 16/1/17.
2. The explanation given by the pio is absurd, irrelevant and doesn't stand the scrutiny of law.
3. His first claim is that he had sent a reply dated 16/8/16. Unless supported by proof of having
sent it this claim can be dumped as a blatant lie. Firstly, the application itself was sent under
registered post /ad to ensure that these so called public servants do not get any excuse to
totally evade responding to the application. In any case, even if sent by ordinary post it could
have been delivered as has the current copy of PIO's explanation been delivered now. The next
important question that also arises is that I had sent my 1st appeal under the rti act to the
tehsildar, Palakkad on 18/9/2016. While there had been no response from the faa, could it be
that the faa had not even inquired into the matter and if even a cursory inquiry had been made,
even then the pio had not bothered to ensure that a copy of his response was delivered to me?
No doubt, only idiots, without even an iota of grey matter in their heads, can buy the kind of
explanations submitted by the pio!
2. The information sought is not exhaustive but limited to the use of digital systems in the
public authority and it is not that the public authority has been buying and discarding such
systems everyday. In fact the public authority is required to maintain proper records of
procurement and disposal of such and other assets accurately and keep them uptodate too.
3. Regarding maintaining records of transactions under the rti act also the circulars/orders
issued by the competent authority are very specific and unambiguous. Separate registers are
required to be maintained for recording the handling of documents under the rti act. Further
they are also required to submit summary of such transactions to their departments heads/ksic
which after compilation is required to be submitted to the state legislature also.
4. The information sought regarding digitalisation of land records is also a crucial one intended
to assess the compliance with laws of the public authority.

4. 5. The rti act had provided only 120 days from 15 jun 2005 for public authorities to update and
organise their records in a manner such that applications under the rti act received by them are
replied to promptly, completely and correctly.
6. It is evident that the public authority has not complied with any of the laws they are required
to comply with and worse, they are lying about responding to application under the rti act too!
7. There are many orders of high courts and the apex court which have clarified that excuses like
large volume of information, non availability of information etc cannot be accepted as excuses
as such excuses would negate the very purpose of the enactment of a law like the rti act which
seeks to empower the citizens to monitor the performance of the public authorities and also
control corruption.
8. It should also be noted that giving an opportunity to peruse documents is no justification for
wilful failure to provide the information sought.
9. The 2nd appeal has been given a number in a format which is seen used in the case of
complaints. This should also be seen as the failure of KSIC itself in taking cognisance of the 1st
appeal submitted and the failure of the faa to respond.
10. For reasons given above the information commissioner is required to
10.1. direct the pio to provide the complete information sought without further delay
10.2. impose the mandatory penalty on the pio for his default
10.3. direct administrative action on the faa for his default.
11. It is also placed on record that failure to do any of the three things listed at para 10 above
would invite prosecution under sec 219 of the ipc, without further notice.
Yours truly,
P M Ravindran
On getting a notice dated 7/4/18 on 11/4/18, for a hearing on 17/4/18, I sent a reply, on
124/18, as given below:
from: Ravindran P M <raviforjustice@gmail.com>
to: sic@kerala.nic.in
date: Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 4:01 PM
subject:appellant's reply to notice for hearing on 17/4/18
Attention: CIC, KSIC
1. Refer your notice for hearing on 17/4/18.
2. The following defects are noticed in the notice for hearing:

5. 2.1. The 2nd appeal submitted on 21/11/2016 had clearly mentioned the dates of submission of
the application and 1st appeal. Hence it is to be treated as a 2nd appeal and not as a complaint.
2.2. Under reference, the notice mentions a letter dated 16/8/16 purported to have been sent
by the SPIO to me. I had not received it. And this has been unambiguously brought out in my
rejoinder, dated 17/1/2017 (forwarded herewith for your ready reference), to the pio's reply,
dated 12/1/2017, to your notice of 26/12/16.
2.3. The lack of response of the faa also has been brought out in my 2nd appeal as well as the
rejoinder dated 17/1/2017.
3. Under the circumstances I am convinced that the hearing scheduled for 17/4/2018 is a farce
and I would be wasting my time and resources to participate in it.
4. At the same time I take this opportunity to inform you that at the present stage of the
proceedings your performance conveys your incompetence. Your decision of 17/4/18 is likely to
help reinforce my assessment of you as a traitor also. Reinforce because it is now well known
how you have been subverting the law, particularly Sec 6(3) and 20 of the RTI Act.
Yours truly,
P M Ravindran
On 21/6/18 I have received the copy of the decision, dated 5/6/18, of the CIC, Vinson M Paul, in
the appeal (wrongly numbered as for a complaint!). It has only confirmed my assessment
conveyed to him through my email of 12/4/18 (see para 4). Copy of this decision is given at the
end.
Without indulging in nit picking, for which of course there is plenty of scope, you may please
note the following defects or seek answers to these questions:
1. Should this be decided as a complaint or appeal?
2. Why has the CIC simply mentioned that the complainant (actually appellant, wrongly mentioned
as complainant!) was absent without bringing it on record that the appellant had responded to
the notice?
3. How has the CIC stated that the copy of the 1st
appeal was not (repeat NOT) submitted to the
Commission when it had been forwarded to him and specifically mentioned in para 1.2 of my 2nd
appeal submitted on 21/11/16? It cannot be that the 2nd
appeal had been received without the
forwarded mail!
4. Even if his subordinates had failed to bring the complete 2nd
appeal to his notice shouldn’t he
have gone through the 2nd
appeal himself and noted that it had been forwarded along with the
2nd
appeal itself?
5. Even granting that there had been lapses on all fronts, the question rises why had the issue not
been raised immediately on receipt of the 2nd
appeal?

6. 6. Why has the CIC condoned the lapse of the PIO in providing proof of sending the reply to my
application, during the hearing itself. Given that the hearing was through video conference,
shouldn’t it have been sought before the hearing? Or more precisely, shouldn’t the PIO have
produced such proof with his report dated 12/1/17 itself?
7. In para 6 of his decision the CIC states that ‘if the then Respondent wants to represent anything
in person before the commission the same should be made clear in his explanation. It implies
that the respondent who attended the hearing was not the respondent who should have been
provided the opportunity of being heard as specified in Sec 20 of the RTI Act. Thus the hearing
was a illegal and waste of time and resources at the cost the state exchequer.
8. Is the conclusion in para 7 of the decision correct? Is it enough if the PIOs permit the applicants
to inspect the documents personally and collect the information sought by them? If that be so
how can a citizen in Gauhati or Sikkim seek information from a public authority in Kerala?
Vinson M Paul had been a member of the IPS and retired as DGP. He had also held the post of
Vigilance Director in Kerala!
22 Jun 2018

7. 1
/4m
ftitNi---l,/-
'-K*ry17s:.s..1.1j:,/
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, KERALA
PUNNEN ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 OOl
Tel: 0471 2561600, 2561613, 2561614, 2561615 Fax: 047 1 2330920
Email: s.ic@kefalq.nic.in
Proceedings of the Complaint Petition No. 992(4)t2016/SIC
(File No. I 4609/SIC-G en2 12016)
Vinson M. Paul,
Sri. P.M. Ravindran,
2118, Aathira,
Kalpathy,
Palakkad,
Pin - 678 003.
Vs.
The State Public Information Officer &
. Village Officer,
Village Office Pudussery Central,
Palakkad..
Date of application u/s 6(1) 8.8.2016
Date of reply 16.8.2015
Date of First Appeal 18.9.20t6
Date of filing Complaint 21.tr.20t6
Date of receipt of Complaint in Commission 23.tr.2016
ORDER
Complaint Petitioner Sri. P.M Ravindran, represented before the
Commission that there was no response to his application under the RTI Act and
the first appeal. He requested the Commission to direct the Public Information
Officer to provide complete information without further delay and free of cost,
to take penal action against the Respondents and to compensate the Complaint
Petitioner to the tune of Rs.5,000/-
PRESENT
Chief Information Commissioner,:
)
."-r,ainant
I R.rpora.nt
I
(o
Er
t=t
tw

8. ;
2. The above complaint petition was taken on file as CP
No.992(4y16lSIC and detailed report was sought from the Public
Information Officer on 26.12.2016. Accordingly a report was furnished
to the Commission on I2.l.2Ol7 and the same was received in the office
of the Commission on 19.t.2017.
3. The Commission conducted its hearing in the Complaint
Petition through video conferencing on 17.4.2018 in which the Respondent
was present. The Complainant was absent.
4. In his application dated 8.8.2016, the Complaint Petitioner
souglt the following information from_ the Respondent
' . . =*
1.1 Date of installation of the first computer including accessories like
monitor, key board and mouse in the Village office Pudusssery Central.
Details like its make ( brand name) and cost including installation charges
were also sought.
1.2. Above details in respect of all the systems added/discarded
subsequently including date of discard and nature of disposal.
1.3. Details of accessories like printers, scanners, speakers, photostat
machines etc. used in the village office
1.4. In case there has been no scanners, printers and photostat machines,
how the above requirements were met.
1.5 Details of the nearest establishment where the above facilities are
Respondent office and so onavailable and whose services were used by the
nurnbgling__to 5_ items.
Reply to the above application was provided on 16.8.2016. In the above
reply, it was stated that the information sought by him could be gathered by
perusing the documents concerned. Though the Complaint Petitioner filed
his first appeal before the first Appellate Authority on 18.9.2016, copy of
the appeal preferred was not furnished to the Commission.
5. On scrutinizing the Complaint Petition and connected
documents, the Commission finds that the'Complaint Petitioner had sought
voluminous data and that gathering of the above information would result
in diverting the resources of the Respondent office considerably, thereby
disrupting its normal functioning. Hence the Respondent informed the
*
trrL-V.
:i:il:,*"

9. 3
Complaint Petitioner to scrutinize the documents concerned and gather the
information sought by him.
6. The Commission directs the then Respondent to produce
requisite proof to establish that the reply was furnished to the Complaint
Petitioner on 16.8.2016. If he fails to produce substantiating evidence,
the Commission will be constrained to take penal action against the Respondent
under Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act holding that no reply was furnished to the
Complaint Petitioner within the stipulated time limit. If the then Respondent
wants to represent anything in person before the Commission, . the same
should be made clear in his explanation.
7. The Commission finds that the above reply furniBhed by the
Public Information Officer is in accordance with the provisions of the RTI
Act and hence'the Commission dismisses this Complaint Petition on the 5th
day ofJune, 2018.
sd/-
Vinson M. Paul
Chief Information Commissioner
Authenticated Copy
L:Additional Secretary @aw)
bnk
a
lElIV