Cheriyath Jyothi B.Sc., M.B.,B.S.,

valayil, kizhakkambalam P. O. ,

aluva - 683562.

No. jy2010/rti/22k                                                                                   august 17, 2010.

The Kerala State Information Commission,  

T.C. 26/298, Punnen Road,

Thiruvananthapuram - 695039

CP  No.364(5)/2010/SIC

submission by the complainant in response to the reply filed by the opposite party

Sir,

In the context of the letter No. G1(A)/7621/10T.C. dated 02/06/2010 of the SPIO of the office of the commissioner of police thiruvananthapuram  addressed to the SIC kerala in CP  No.364(5)/2010/SIC  the complainant begs to supplement the facts mentioned in his original complaint dated march 31, 2010 and further  submit as follows:-

        A.    THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005 by definition is “an Act to provide for setting out the 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, . . . . . .     “. The state public information officer of  the commissioner of police thiruvananthapuram by their actions with regard to the complainant's request for information have put to naught the very purpose of  the Right to Information act 2005.

        B.   The complainant's request was for a copy of annexure R1 in the report submitted by the commissioner of police, thiruvananthapuram  before the high court of kerala in WP ( c ) 19891 of 2004.  

i)    As far as the complainant's information goes, the annexures are an integral part of the original document. However when the complainant initially made a request under the RTI 2005 for the report by the police commissioner Annexure R1 was not included in the documents provided.  ( If the complainant's memory is right the annexure R2 which was redundant as far as the complainant was concerned as it was a letter written by himself  was provided to him along with copy of the report ).   As such the complainant was forced to make a separate request under RTI  for the annexure R1 at a later date.  

ii)    The report submitted by the commissioner of police, thiruvananthapuram  before the high court of kerala in WP ( c ) 19891 of 2004 has been preserved till date  and  is readily available with the office of the commissioner of police thiruvananthapuram.  As such the complainant's humble feeling is that  Annexure R1  which is part and parcel of  the above report  also ought  to be available with the office of the police commissioner  and there should  not  have been any need to go to the medical college police to procure the same.

        C.   In view of the above the petitioner would beg to reiterate the statement made by him in para c.  i )   of the original complaint, that  he has strong reason to believe that the  document requested for, which was very much in the public domain, is being suppressed and he is being denied access to the document, in order to prevent him from  unveiling  a criminal conspiracy hatched out by the agents of the government  to deny him his life and liberties.

        D.   The SPIO, the complainant feels, is under the impression that all that is required to flout the law in response to a request for a copy of an incriminating document is to insist that it is SIMPLY NOT AVAILABLE.

        E.   the complainant will not be surprised if unknown to the complainant another similar “enquiry” or some such move is going on underground in the locality where he is staying at present in yet another desperate attempt to neutralize him by hook or crook.  

Yours faithfully

sd.

( c. jyothi )