Dear Ms Kalpana Swamy,
PIO, Public Health Foundation of India
1. I am shocked by your admission of “typographical error” and “apology”, six months after you provided wrong information to me and the Central Information Commission (CIC) in response to my RTI request dated 06 September 2011.
Much of what you have pointed out in your mail of 30 September 2012, however, had already been public knowledge.
2. You have obviously admitted to this “typographical error” only after it was pointed out to you and made public by Mr. Kapil Bajaj, another information seeker who had represented me at the CIC in the case resulting from the same request of mine.
You have thus given me no reason to believe that your admission is based on your own concern for truth and accuracy of the information that PHFI has been providing under the RTI Act, 2005, to me and other citizens.
3. On the contrary, PHFI has given me the following reasons to believe that dubiety of information you have been providing under the law has to do with much more than what you describe as “typographical error”.
(a) Even after admitting that you sent me wrong information as regards the composition of PHFI’s governing council on 27 March 2006, you have sent me no copy of any document filed with the Registrar that will testify to what you term as the “amended” figure of 24. Your “amendment” is meaningless unless you send me the certified copy of the document listing the composition of the governing council and bearing the stamp of the Registrar.
It’s shocking that instead of providing the proof, you have sent me “a copy of the minutes of the meeting of Governing Council dated 27th March 2006”, signed by Mr. Rajat Gupta, who, I understand, has been convicted of fraud in the US and will be sentenced this month.
These so called “minutes of the meeting” have as much credibility as PHFI and its former chairman have earned for themselves so far.
(b) After openly defying the RTI Act, 2005, for six years, PHFI has continued to be unserious about compliance with the law and has done a lot to destroy its own credibility. Will the CIC ever trust you after you copied wrong information to this statutory authority? Have you taken any step to inform the Commission about your “typographical error” and the consequent “amendment”?
What if other RTI applicants make you admit more “typographical errors” in coming days, weeks and months? Is PHFI absolutely sure that there are no more “typographical errors” in the responses that it has sent me?
Have you taken any step to review the information your have been providing to citizens since being compelled by the CIC decision of 14 February 2012 to comply with the RTI Act, 2005? (The decision, CIC/SG/C/2011/001273/17356, was made on my complaint.)
Your mail says nothing as to whether PHFI informed the Commission that wrong information had been provided to the latter. Nor does it say as to whether PHFI has taken any initiative to review the information that has been provided under the law since the CIC decision of 14 February 2012.
(c) You know very well that this is not the first time you have provided me dubious information, which has become even more unreliable by PHFI’s subsequent actions.
You had sent me on 28 March 2012 what you described as “certified true copy” of PHFI’s memorandum of association (MoA) listing eight members.
After I pointed out through my mail of 29 March 2012 that the “certified true copy” was not signed by the Registrar, you sent me on 25 April 2012 another copy of PHFI’s MoA – which you described “as originally filed at the inception” – listing eight additional members.
Even this later information has become unreliable because PHFI provided very different information to Mr. Bajaj in the form of minutes of meeting of the governing council on 09 February 2006, according to which, the eight additional members ostensibly joined and resigned from the society in the course of a single meeting.
If that is the case, how can the MoA that PHFI sent me on 25 April 2012 list the eight additional members and a total of 16 members?
Not only are your “minutes of meetings” unreliable, but the MoA listing 16 members has also been rendered dubious by the contradictory versions of information you have been sending to the RTI applicants.
Your mail is completely silent on this part of the information you provided in response to my request dated 06 September 2011.
I have lost all trust in your intention to send truthful information to applicants under the law of the land because of PHFI’s own actions. You cannot blame me, therefore, for believing that PHFI and its President Mr. K. Srinath Reddy may be quite capable of even forging documents, as is shown by the dubious information that you provided to Mr. Bajaj and made public by him.
(d) It is now public knowledge that PHFI’s first appellate authority Mr. V. Rao Aiyagari has admitted that you provided wrong information to Mr. Bajaj and that PHFI president Mr. K. Srinath Reddy himself signed a thoroughly dubious document, which bore the date of 03 August 2006.
Why would anyone sign in the year 2012 a document dated 03 August 2006, if not for misleading and hoodwinking the information seeker?
That, incidentally, is the same date that is borne by the copy of the minutes of the meeting of governing council (held ostensibly on 27th March 2006) which you have just sent me and which bears the signature of a person convicted of fraud.
What reason have I got to trust PHFI?
4. In light of PHFI’s own actions, I have no reason to believe that your “apology” has any element of sincerity in it. So I reject it.
Your mail has only managed to raise more questions about the information that PHFI has been providing under the RTI Act, 2005, and the integrity of the organization you work for.
I shudder to think what PHFI might have been doing to the public health of over a billion Indians by the exercise of the privileges it has been granted.
5. As I contemplate further action on this matter, I demand that you inform the CIC, as soon as possible, about the “typographical error”, the dual MoA mystery, the eight-or-sixteen ‘first members’ conundrum, and the other underhand secrets about the formation and existence of your organization that you might discover if you were to do a thorough review of the information you have been providing under the RTI Act.
I also expect to be informed of any action at your end.
1305, Dhruv, Ashok Van,
Mumbai – 400066
On 30 September 2012 07:43, Kalpana Swamy <email@example.com> wrote:
Dear Mr Kishanlal,
With reference to my response dated 28th March 2012 to your RTI questions, with due apologies, I wish to make an amendment as follows:
In response to question (a) under the sub heading ‘Incorporation & registration documents’, the number of Governing Council Members mentioned as 21 may please be read as 24. This was a typographical error. I am also attaching a copy of the minutes of the meeting of Governing Council dated 27th March 2006 to support this amendment. A reading of the minutes indicates change in strength during the course of the meeting, and a 24 member Governing Council coming into effect from 27th March 2006.
I once again sincerely regret this typographic mistake on my part.
Head (HR) and PIO
Public Health Foundation of India