Saturday, November 5, 2011

Re: [HumJanenge] Current dissatisfaction with increase in Petrl prices

Hello mksinghal,

You have raised sound issues on transparency in oil prices in public interest. Kerala High Court & competition commissioners are admitting petition on the issue.

Audited accounts of all Oil Manufacturing Companies (OMV) are uploaded and available on on respective website. I have downloaded audited accounts of all OMCs for last three financial years.

For your kind perusal, a sample IOC 2010-2011 audited accounts is enclosed herewith as a link:

This may be a starting point for further public scrutiny.

Regards,
-Joshi NM

On 5 November 2011 20:59, M K Singhal <mk.singhal@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
There is great dissatisfaction with increase in Petrol prices these days. To avoid such problems, I suggest that some RTI activists may enquire from IOC and other pvt sector petrol companies about the total amount of profits earned by them last year, how much of this was from petrol alone, what was the average crude oil price paid by them last year, copy of the claculations done by them to arrive at the selling price of petrol etc. How is it that same petrol prices are fixed by all petrol companies. Do they have a coterie to arrive at such decisions. In other countries, wherever petrol is deregulated, differant petrol companies fix differant selling prices for petrol. Besides, why should all petrol companies not upload their annual accounts for public view. Further, why should govt not have a regulating authority (on the pattern they have for telecommunications to scrutinize their costs and prices and due to which telecommunication costs are now so low) for petroleum products and another one for food for scrutinising their costs and prices.
mksinghal



--
Best Regards,
-Joshi NM

Re: [HumJanenge] Current dissatisfaction with increase in Petrl prices

Very good Idea!!!
Warm regards,

Rajesh A. Pandey
Thane, Maharashtra,
India.
rajeshapandey@gmail.com
# +91-9833377777

Repeat, Review, Reuse. Most important, Recycle for better tomorrow.

From: M K Singhal <mk.singhal@yahoo.co.in>
Sender: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2011 20:59:53 +0530 (IST)
To: <Invalid address>
ReplyTo: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Subject: [HumJanenge] Current dissatisfaction with increase in Petrl prices

There is great dissatisfaction with increase in Petrol prices these days. To avoid such problems, I suggest that some RTI activists may enquire from IOC and other pvt sector petrol companies about the total amount of profits earned by them last year, how much of this was from petrol alone, what was the average crude oil price paid by them last year, copy of the claculations done by them to arrive at the selling price of petrol etc. How is it that same petrol prices are fixed by all petrol companies. Do they have a coterie to arrive at such decisions. In other countries, wherever petrol is deregulated, differant petrol companies fix differant selling prices for petrol. Besides, why should all petrol companies not upload their annual accounts for public view. Further, why should govt not have a regulating authority (on the pattern they have for telecommunications to scrutinize their costs and prices and due to which telecommunication costs are now so low) for petroleum products and another one for food for scrutinising their costs and prices.
mksinghal

Re: [HumJanenge] A small clarification

it should be state info comission

On 11/5/11, Devasahayam MG <mgd@airtelmail.in> wrote:
> In an RTI application for info on the assets of High Court judges which is
> the second appellate authority - State Information Commission or Central
> Information Commission?
>
> M.G.Devasaayam
>


--
Sankar Prasad Pani
A-70, Sahidnagar, Bhubaneswar, Orissa
India
PIN-751007
Cell- 9437279278
http://environmentalrights-sankar.blogspot.com/

Re: [HumJanenge] Current dissatisfaction with increase in Petrl prices

Why such hue and cry on this hike? Let us be little honest, who are all consuming the petrol at first place? Does the PTS runs on petrol any where in India? Does the heavy transports run on petrol? Why subsidy? Let us not enjoy on others cost. I request, let us listen our inner voice. Let us differentiate what is JUST and what is UNJUST. Even private diesel vehicles should pay for diesel at market price. Why AM INDIAN should pay for my comfort. I have a diesel sedan. I will be lying by saying that increased diesel price will not pinch me. I will rather opt for cost cutting, than to expect fellow Indian specially those who can not afford personal cars, to pay for my fuel bill.
Regards
AK Mazumder
New Delhi
Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel

From: M K Singhal <mk.singhal@yahoo.co.in>
Sender: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2011 20:59:53 +0530 (IST)
To: <Invalid address>
ReplyTo: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Subject: [HumJanenge] Current dissatisfaction with increase in Petrl prices

There is great dissatisfaction with increase in Petrol prices these days. To avoid such problems, I suggest that some RTI activists may enquire from IOC and other pvt sector petrol companies about the total amount of profits earned by them last year, how much of this was from petrol alone, what was the average crude oil price paid by them last year, copy of the claculations done by them to arrive at the selling price of petrol etc. How is it that same petrol prices are fixed by all petrol companies. Do they have a coterie to arrive at such decisions. In other countries, wherever petrol is deregulated, differant petrol companies fix differant selling prices for petrol. Besides, why should all petrol companies not upload their annual accounts for public view. Further, why should govt not have a regulating authority (on the pattern they have for telecommunications to scrutinize their costs and prices and due to which telecommunication costs are now so low) for petroleum products and another one for food for scrutinising their costs and prices.
mksinghal

Re: [rti4empowerment] DCP zone !X makes mockery of RTI act

Mr. ALMEDIA , DONT FILE ANY FIRST APPEAL UNDER 19(1) OF THE ACT PERTAINING TO POLICE DEPARTMENT , SINCE THERE IS POOR KNOWLEDGE ABOUT RTI ACT AND IMPORTANCE OF THE RTI ACT , EVEN THEY DONT KNOW SECTION 4(1) A AND 4(1) B OF THE ACT , IT IS BETTER TO FILE COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 18 OF  THE ACT BEFORE THE STATE COMMISSION PERTAINING TO POLICE DEPARTMENT 

On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 6:01 PM, LESLIE ALMEIDA <lesals2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
Bandra (W) DCP zone 1X Pratap Digvekar  Making a Mockery of RTI act,
As an RTI activists, having a certified DOPT certificate and 5 yrs experience in practical field,  had filed 3 RTI applications first week of July 2011at Bandra west west division office of Add comm..of Police carter road, Bandra west, Mumbai 400050, this sees to Bandra to Jogeshwari , Pertaining to Bandra Police station, no response, filed 3, 1st appeals before DCP  on 29.08.2011 after several trips to both Bandra west Police station and DCP's office, the first appellant authority gave me date of hearing on 04 Nov, 2011, at 4 PM, there was a lot of appeals, I was no 8, every applicant came out in 5 minutes, when I went in there was No PIO of Bandra Police station, present, being just side of DCP's office, I asked where is the PIO, DCP did not respond, he asked me what was my complain about, I told him No complain only RTI appeal for which I have been called for, he did not even have the RTI appeal applications before him, so I asked him I have submitted my RTI applications For which as a applicant/ consumer I have fixed 20 Rs court fee stamps,.I read out my grounds for RTI appeal, in short: PIO neglected to provide info, PIO should be directed to provide info, PIO has not furnished any reason for not furnishing the info.I then read out my Info sought,  copies of 8 complains filed against me  dated so.copy of FIR filed against me dated Feb 2004 FIR no and date,the DCP told me I cannot get the Copy of FIR/Investigation report, I had no idea that An FIR was filed against me in 2004, until I got a copy of an complain under RTI made again in Feb 2011 listing all theses old complains, I was brutally stabbed on 23.01.2011 however survived. This complain was dated 20.02.2011.the abettor seing that I had lived. after a heated argument, the DCP called the PIO of Bandra Police station, which is just side of DCP's office, he told PIO not to give me copy of FIR as its 3rd party info, I told him I am affected party, FIR was filed against me, please refer to sec 11 of the RTI act. He was confused.he then half heartedly told PIO gavon tak tailya meaning give him the information or may be arrest him, he then asked me to leave, I told him I still have 2 more appeals, again he asked me what it was I told him when he conducts hearing he should have the original copy on his table, and not ask me again what is my problem, I showed him my copy of 2 appeals  but did not give it to him, he demanded to see my copy, I refused, he then told me not to act tough, that he is a DCP, I told him I do not care if he is a CP or a P.M., he threatened to get me arrested, I told him arrest me right away I do not mind going to Jail, he then told me to get out from his office, I got up and left. he did not take up the 2 appeals, as he had no original copy of same. Before leaving I told him that that previous DCP K.M.M. Prasanna was much  better than him, who conducted hearings in a just and orderly manner. again he shouted get out.This is our Police force, a Law unto themselves,who will Police the Police. I am contemplating complain u/s 18 of RTI act to SIC, however by past experience complains are never attended to as no provision ( time bound ) in the act Can someone having a effective solution to my problem, as I have been insulted and threatened by this 1st appeal authority . 
Mr Leslie Almeida ( Mumbai )
  

[HumJanenge] A small clarification

In an RTI application for info on the assets of High Court judges which is the second appellate authority - State Information Commission or Central Information Commission?
 
M.G.Devasaayam

[HumJanenge] Current dissatisfaction with increase in Petrl prices

There is great dissatisfaction with increase in Petrol prices these days. To avoid such problems, I suggest that some RTI activists may enquire from IOC and other pvt sector petrol companies about the total amount of profits earned by them last year, how much of this was from petrol alone, what was the average crude oil price paid by them last year, copy of the claculations done by them to arrive at the selling price of petrol etc. How is it that same petrol prices are fixed by all petrol companies. Do they have a coterie to arrive at such decisions. In other countries, wherever petrol is deregulated, differant petrol companies fix differant selling prices for petrol. Besides, why should all petrol companies not upload their annual accounts for public view. Further, why should govt not have a regulating authority (on the pattern they have for telecommunications to scrutinize their costs and prices and due to which telecommunication costs are now so low) for petroleum products and another one for food for scrutinising their costs and prices.
mksinghal

Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Flash: DoPT : Apply for CICs Posts

Hi Guptaji,

What about himself as an IC ? Shall we get the F / B / H words in future decisions ?

Btw his contribution to RTI is undisputed, notwithstanding the vocabulary he uses.

Sidharth



On 5 November 2011 16:26, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Whenever now our Sarabjit (Shri) uses B (B*st*rd) or H (H*r*m*) words for some body, I think that the contribution of that person have, in fact, been recognized or they have got a certificate from him to contribute more and work with more vigour.





Re: [HumJanenge] Blocking online content: Google gets more requests than govt

Any person can ASK for a particular webpage (eg.Wikipedia  article on Badal) to be blocked. It is not FEASIBLE for any CoCA to order an ISP to block that page (URL). The entire website has to be blocked.

On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Raju William <raju.william@gmail.com> wrote:
mr.Sarbajit
refer to Parnesh Parkash post, i want to know how reliable is the part mentioning blocking request regarding wikipedia on Punjab Dy CM Sukhbir Badal.
regards
raju  

On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 9:13 AM, C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> wrote:
Mr Sarbajit,

1. Just shared this, since one day someone might make a "request" for this googlegroup also to be blocked.

2. Mr Manoj Kamra is bent upon instigating you.....so that you can start using the "H" word for me too !
    The CV is definitely going to DoPT, specially since I will then become an "affected person" under Sec 4(1)(d).
    The RTI for the list of applicants as on 18 Nov evening, already delivered at North Block.

RTIwanted


From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, November 4, 2011 11:09 PM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Blocking online content: Google gets more requests than govt

Dear Karira

1) Pranesh Prakash is (as usual) talking through certain unmentionable body parts on this issue. It would be better to discuss such (RTI unconnected - except  to the extent that an RTI application was made) matters on specialised mailing lists.

2) Hope you have filled out and submitted ypur CV to DoPT. Any drafting tips would be "eminentky" appreciated.

Sarbajit


On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 7:54 PM, C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> wrote:

http://www.firstpost.com/india/google-indias-new-department-of-information-technology-121170.html


Blocking online content: Google gets more requests than govt


Pallavi Polanki Nov 2, 2011

Allowing a peek into what kind of information is requested to be blocked online and by who, the Department of Information Technology (DIT), in response to an RTI (Right to Information) query, has provided some intriguing details.
DIT lists names of bureaucrats, police officers and one politician who requested blocking content online as well as the websites they identified.
In all, 68 individual items were requested to be blocked under the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking Access of Information by Public) Rules 2009, to the DIT, which is the only authority mandated by the Information Technology Act 2000, to order blocking online content.
Speaking to Firstpost, Pranesh Prakash, programme manager at the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, who requested for the information under the RTI Act — and has posted it on a blog analysing the information received from DIT — said, "Information from a previous RTI application uncovered what all websites were officially blocked by the DIT, while this one uncovers what all website blocking requests the DIT received."
No prizes for guessing; pornographic sites topped the list of websites requested to be blocked. Mumbai's Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime) listed 60 adult content sites in his request. However, the DIT doesn't seem to have accepted the officer's request. The sites remain accessible.
According to Google's Transparency Report, released on 25 October, Google received requests for 358 individual items to be removed from its different services between January and June 2011. AFP Photo
Haneef Ali, Andhra Pradesh State President of the Bharatiya Janata Minority Morcha, is the only politician on the list. He requested the blocking of ablogpost, the title of which translates to "insult against Islam".
Up to four requests were made for blocking of political content, two of which came from Tamil Nadu. The secretary, Public (Law and Order) Department requested for the website tamil.net.in to be blocked and the principal secretary, IT Department, requested a blog to be shut down. Only the first request seems to have been accepted.
Also, in the line of political fire was a Wikipedia entry for Sukhbir Singh Badal. The principal secretary, IT Department, Punjab, requested the Wikipedia entry with the address 'en.wikipedia.org/Wiki/Sukhbir Singh Badal' to be blocked. However, Wikipedia does have an entry for the deputy chief minister of Punjab with a slightly tweaked address.
Not surprisingly, Mumbai's Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime) wanted a YouTube video ( identified in Prakash's blog as a video of Bal Thackeray's speech) to be blocked. Click on the link and a message from YouTube reads: "This video has been removed because its content violated YouTube's Terms of Service. Sorry about that."
A betting site betfair.com was sought to be shut down by a senior inspector from Mumbai's cyber crime cell. No luck. The site remains up and running.
Finally, Maharashtra's Commissioner sent in two requests:  Both are running.
Now for the interesting part: Prakash states that the data provided by the government "seemingly conflicts with the data released by the likes of Google (via its Transparency Report)."
According to Google's Transparency Report, released on 25 October, Google received requests for 358 individual items to be removed from its different services between January and June 2011. And 407 such requests were made in 2010.
Information provided by DIT, however, shows that only requests for 68 items (64 websites, one blog, and three specific web-pages) from eight separate requests were made to it. Of these, only three were for Google's services (two for Blogger and one for YouTube), points out Prakash.
While only DIT has the authority to order blocks, Google data shows that requests to 'remove content' far outnumber the requests made to DIT, suggesting that Google is receiving these requests directly from law enforcement agencies.
"The only explanation for this is that an order to 'block for access… or cause to be blocked for access by the public' is taken to be different from an order for removal of content… That would mean that while blocking is regulated by the IT Act, forcible removal of content is not. Thus, it would seem that forcible removal of online content is happening without clear regulation or limits," states Prakash. (emphasis added).
Prakash makes the case that when law enforcement agencies send requests to companies like Google to remove content they are "operating outside bounds set up by the Indian Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure as also the Information Technology Act."
He adds that companies tend to comply with such 'requests' even when they are not under legal obligation to do so because it might appear to them to "violate their own terms of service (which generally include a wide clause about content being in accordance with all local laws), community guidelines."
"This way, the intention of Parliament in enacting Section 69A of the IT Act — to regulate government censorship of the Internet and bring it within the bounds laid down in the Constitution—is defeated," states Prakash.






[rti4empowerment] DCP zone !X makes mockery of RTI act

Bandra (W) DCP zone 1X Pratap Digvekar  Making a Mockery of RTI act,
As an RTI activists, having a certified DOPT certificate and 5 yrs experience in practical field,  had filed 3 RTI applications first week of July 2011at Bandra west west division office of Add comm..of Police carter road, Bandra west, Mumbai 400050, this sees to Bandra to Jogeshwari , Pertaining to Bandra Police station, no response, filed 3, 1st appeals before DCP  on 29.08.2011 after several trips to both Bandra west Police station and DCP's office, the first appellant authority gave me date of hearing on 04 Nov, 2011, at 4 PM, there was a lot of appeals, I was no 8, every applicant came out in 5 minutes, when I went in there was No PIO of Bandra Police station, present, being just side of DCP's office, I asked where is the PIO, DCP did not respond, he asked me what was my complain about, I told him No complain only RTI appeal for which I have been called for, he did not even have the RTI appeal applications before him, so I asked him I have submitted my RTI applications For which as a applicant/ consumer I have fixed 20 Rs court fee stamps,.I read out my grounds for RTI appeal, in short: PIO neglected to provide info, PIO should be directed to provide info, PIO has not furnished any reason for not furnishing the info.I then read out my Info sought,  copies of 8 complains filed against me  dated so.copy of FIR filed against me dated Feb 2004 FIR no and date,the DCP told me I cannot get the Copy of FIR/Investigation report, I had no idea that An FIR was filed against me in 2004, until I got a copy of an complain under RTI made again in Feb 2011 listing all theses old complains, I was brutally stabbed on 23.01.2011 however survived. This complain was dated 20.02.2011.the abettor seing that I had lived. after a heated argument, the DCP called the PIO of Bandra Police station, which is just side of DCP's office, he told PIO not to give me copy of FIR as its 3rd party info, I told him I am affected party, FIR was filed against me, please refer to sec 11 of the RTI act. He was confused.he then half heartedly told PIO gavon tak tailya meaning give him the information or may be arrest him, he then asked me to leave, I told him I still have 2 more appeals, again he asked me what it was I told him when he conducts hearing he should have the original copy on his table, and not ask me again what is my problem, I showed him my copy of 2 appeals  but did not give it to him, he demanded to see my copy, I refused, he then told me not to act tough, that he is a DCP, I told him I do not care if he is a CP or a P.M., he threatened to get me arrested, I told him arrest me right away I do not mind going to Jail, he then told me to get out from his office, I got up and left. he did not take up the 2 appeals, as he had no original copy of same. Before leaving I told him that that previous DCP K.M.M. Prasanna was much  better than him, who conducted hearings in a just and orderly manner. again he shouted get out.This is our Police force, a Law unto themselves,who will Police the Police. I am contemplating complain u/s 18 of RTI act to SIC, however by past experience complains are never attended to as no provision ( time bound ) in the act Can someone having a effective solution to my problem, as I have been insulted and threatened by this 1st appeal authority . 
Mr Leslie Almeida ( Mumbai )
  

Re: [HumJanenge] Blocking online content: Google gets more requests than govt

mr.Sarbajit
refer to Parnesh Parkash post, i want to know how reliable is the part mentioning blocking request regarding wikipedia on Punjab Dy CM Sukhbir Badal.
regards
raju  

On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 9:13 AM, C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> wrote:
Mr Sarbajit,

1. Just shared this, since one day someone might make a "request" for this googlegroup also to be blocked.

2. Mr Manoj Kamra is bent upon instigating you.....so that you can start using the "H" word for me too !
    The CV is definitely going to DoPT, specially since I will then become an "affected person" under Sec 4(1)(d).
    The RTI for the list of applicants as on 18 Nov evening, already delivered at North Block.

RTIwanted


From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, November 4, 2011 11:09 PM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Blocking online content: Google gets more requests than govt

Dear Karira

1) Pranesh Prakash is (as usual) talking through certain unmentionable body parts on this issue. It would be better to discuss such (RTI unconnected - except  to the extent that an RTI application was made) matters on specialised mailing lists.

2) Hope you have filled out and submitted ypur CV to DoPT. Any drafting tips would be "eminentky" appreciated.

Sarbajit


On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 7:54 PM, C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> wrote:

http://www.firstpost.com/india/google-indias-new-department-of-information-technology-121170.html


Blocking online content: Google gets more requests than govt


Pallavi Polanki Nov 2, 2011

Allowing a peek into what kind of information is requested to be blocked online and by who, the Department of Information Technology (DIT), in response to an RTI (Right to Information) query, has provided some intriguing details.
DIT lists names of bureaucrats, police officers and one politician who requested blocking content online as well as the websites they identified.
In all, 68 individual items were requested to be blocked under the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking Access of Information by Public) Rules 2009, to the DIT, which is the only authority mandated by the Information Technology Act 2000, to order blocking online content.
Speaking to Firstpost, Pranesh Prakash, programme manager at the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, who requested for the information under the RTI Act — and has posted it on a blog analysing the information received from DIT — said, "Information from a previous RTI application uncovered what all websites were officially blocked by the DIT, while this one uncovers what all website blocking requests the DIT received."
No prizes for guessing; pornographic sites topped the list of websites requested to be blocked. Mumbai's Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime) listed 60 adult content sites in his request. However, the DIT doesn't seem to have accepted the officer's request. The sites remain accessible.
According to Google's Transparency Report, released on 25 October, Google received requests for 358 individual items to be removed from its different services between January and June 2011. AFP Photo
Haneef Ali, Andhra Pradesh State President of the Bharatiya Janata Minority Morcha, is the only politician on the list. He requested the blocking of ablogpost, the title of which translates to "insult against Islam".
Up to four requests were made for blocking of political content, two of which came from Tamil Nadu. The secretary, Public (Law and Order) Department requested for the website tamil.net.in to be blocked and the principal secretary, IT Department, requested a blog to be shut down. Only the first request seems to have been accepted.
Also, in the line of political fire was a Wikipedia entry for Sukhbir Singh Badal. The principal secretary, IT Department, Punjab, requested the Wikipedia entry with the address 'en.wikipedia.org/Wiki/Sukhbir Singh Badal' to be blocked. However, Wikipedia does have an entry for the deputy chief minister of Punjab with a slightly tweaked address.
Not surprisingly, Mumbai's Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime) wanted a YouTube video ( identified in Prakash's blog as a video of Bal Thackeray's speech) to be blocked. Click on the link and a message from YouTube reads: "This video has been removed because its content violated YouTube's Terms of Service. Sorry about that."
A betting site betfair.com was sought to be shut down by a senior inspector from Mumbai's cyber crime cell. No luck. The site remains up and running.
Finally, Maharashtra's Commissioner sent in two requests:  Both are running.
Now for the interesting part: Prakash states that the data provided by the government "seemingly conflicts with the data released by the likes of Google (via its Transparency Report)."
According to Google's Transparency Report, released on 25 October, Google received requests for 358 individual items to be removed from its different services between January and June 2011. And 407 such requests were made in 2010.
Information provided by DIT, however, shows that only requests for 68 items (64 websites, one blog, and three specific web-pages) from eight separate requests were made to it. Of these, only three were for Google's services (two for Blogger and one for YouTube), points out Prakash.
While only DIT has the authority to order blocks, Google data shows that requests to 'remove content' far outnumber the requests made to DIT, suggesting that Google is receiving these requests directly from law enforcement agencies.
"The only explanation for this is that an order to 'block for access… or cause to be blocked for access by the public' is taken to be different from an order for removal of content… That would mean that while blocking is regulated by the IT Act, forcible removal of content is not. Thus, it would seem that forcible removal of online content is happening without clear regulation or limits," states Prakash. (emphasis added).
Prakash makes the case that when law enforcement agencies send requests to companies like Google to remove content they are "operating outside bounds set up by the Indian Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure as also the Information Technology Act."
He adds that companies tend to comply with such 'requests' even when they are not under legal obligation to do so because it might appear to them to "violate their own terms of service (which generally include a wide clause about content being in accordance with all local laws), community guidelines."
"This way, the intention of Parliament in enacting Section 69A of the IT Act — to regulate government censorship of the Internet and bring it within the bounds laid down in the Constitution—is defeated," states Prakash.





[HumJanenge] DCP Zone 1X making mockery of RTI act.

Bandra (W) DCP zone 1X Pratap Digvekar  Making a Mockery of RTI act,
As an RTI activists, having a certified DOPT certificate and 5 yrs experience in practical field,  had filed 3 RTI applications first week of July 2011at Bandra west west division office of Add comm..of Police carter road, Bandra west, Mumbai 400050, this sees to Bandra to Jogeshwari , Pertaining to Bandra Police station, no response, filed 3, 1st appeals before DCP  on 29.08.2011 after several trips to both Bandra west Police station and DCP's office, the first appellant authority gave me date of hearing on 04 Nov, 2011, at 4 PM, there was a lot of appeals, I was no 8, every applicant came out in 5 minutes, when I went in there was No PIO of Bandra Police station, present, being just side of DCP's office, I asked where is the PIO, DCP did not respond, he asked me what was my complain about, I told him No complain only RTI appeal for which I have been called for, he did not even have the RTI appeal applications before him, so I asked him I have submitted my RTI applications For which as a applicant/ consumer I have fixed 20 Rs court fee stamps,.I read out my grounds for RTI appeal, in short: PIO neglected to provide info, PIO should be directed to provide info, PIO has not furnished any reason for not furnishing the info.I then read out my Info sought,  copies of 8 complains filed against me  dated so.copy of FIR filed against me dated Feb 2004 FIR no and date,the DCP told me I cannot get the Copy of FIR/Investigation report, I had no idea that An FIR was filed against me in 2004, until I got a copy of an complain under RTI made again in Feb 2011 listing all theses old complains, I was brutally stabbed on 23.01.2011 however survived. This complain was dated 20.02.2011.the abettor seing that I had lived. after a heated argument, the DCP called the PIO of Bandra Police station, which is just side of DCP's office, he told PIO not to give me copy of FIR as its 3rd party info, I told him I am affected party, FIR was filed against me, please refer to sec 11 of the RTI act. He was confused.he then half heartedly told PIO gavon tak tailya meaning give him the information or may be arrest him, he then asked me to leave, I told him I still have 2 more appeals, again he asked me what it was I told him when he conducts hearing he should have the original copy on his table, and not ask me again what is my problem, I showed him my copy of 2 appeals  but did not give it to him, he demanded to see my copy, I refused, he then told me not to act tough, that he is a DCP, I told him I do not care if he is a CP or a P.M., he threatened to get me arrested, I told him arrest me right away I do not mind going to Jail, he then told me to get out from his office, I got up and left. he did not take up the 2 appeals, as he had no original copy of same. Before leaving I told him that that previous DCP K.M.M. Prasanna was much  better than him, who conducted hearings in a just and orderly manner. again he shouted get out.This is our Police force, a Law unto themselves,who will Police the Police. I am contemplating complain u/s 18 of RTI act to SIC, however by past experience complains are never attended to as no provision ( time bound ) in the act Can someone having a effective solution to my problem, as I have been insulted and threatened by this 1st appeal authority . 
Mr Leslie Almeida ( Mumbai )
  
 

Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Flash: DoPT : Apply for CICs Posts

Whenever now our Sarabjit (Shri) uses B (B*st*rd) or H (H*r*m*) words for some body, I think that the contribution of that person have, in fact, been recognized or they have got a certificate from him to contribute more and work with more vigour.


From: C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com>
To: "humjanenge@googlegroups.com" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, 5 November 2011 9:15 AM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Flash: DoPT : Apply for CICs Posts

Mr Manoj Kamra,

Now Mr Srabajit will start using the "H" word for me too !

RTiwanted


From: manoj <manojkamra@gmail.com>
To: "HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005" <HumJanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 11:43 PM
Subject: [HumJanenge] Re: Flash: DoPT : Apply for CICs Posts

Dear Sh.Batra ji and list,

  This time , we should support karira ji as the first choice among
future ICs' as he has posted more than 27000 messages in his website
besides participating in other websites.His contribution seems to be
deserving for IC.We should discuss this issue as time is very short to
reach to conclusion.

with regards
manoj kamra


shOn Oct 31, 8:57 pm, lokesh batra <batra_lok...@yahoo.com> wrot
> Flash : Apply for Central Information Commissioners  Post: DoPT Circular
>
> 31 October 2011
>
> DoPT has issued a circular requesting applications for Central Information Commissioners appointment :
>  
> Quote
>
> "Persons fulfilling the criteria for appointment as Information Commissioner and interested for appointment to the post may send their particulars in the enclosed proforma by post to Under Secretary (IR), Department of Personnel and Training, North Block, New Delhi or  through e-mail to usrti-d...@nic.in   by November 18, 2011. Persons who are serving under the State/Central Government or any other  organization, may send their particulars through proper channel."
> Unquote
>  
>  
> Full text of the circular can be read on LINK below :
>  
>  http://circulars.nic.in/WriteReadData/CircularPortal/D2/D02nic/ic.pdf
>  
>  
> My take :
>  
> Government needs to be congratulated for making process of selection of Information Commissioner open to public.
>  
> This has been long standing demand of RTI Activists.
>  
> The big question is ... will  the entire process of selection become transparent?
>  
> I recommend those who desire to apply for the post to send their application by Speed Post in addition to sending it by email. The movement of Speed Post letter can be tracked on Dept of Posts website. 
>  
> Remember on 10 Dec 2010, DoPT had issued a circular seeking public comments on proposed amendment to RTI
> Rules by email...
>  
> After sending my comments I had followed it with an RTI seeking file details on which public views were being processed and had asked for attested hard copy of my comments sent by email. DoPT had not diariesd public comments in any file and could not show me the so called folder in which public comments placed as claimed by CPIO (DoPT).
>  
> When ever I checked with DoPT CPIO, I was told the said folder containing Public Comments "NOT TRACEBLE". The file on which the amendment to RTI rules was delibrated in DoPT had only NAC's comments.
>  
> Media story on my RTI can be read on the link below.
>  http://www.governancenow.com/gov-next/rti/draft-rti-rules-no-mechanis...
>  
>  
> Good Luck to candidates.
>  
> Best
> {Commodore Lokesh Batra (Retd.)}
> Social & RTI Activist
> BringChange
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Flash: DoPT : Apply for CICs Posts

Freinds ,
Mere posting messages in Web may not be the creitieria fopr Emminince . However i would like to draw attention of all , to probe WHY Dopt has not put up all the procedure to Scrutinise and filter down people .one reason being as on date Excepting ICSG none other was weighted Down for thier RTI Contributions
The emminence in thier eyes is totally a differnt one . but I would like to see all IC Aspirants Standing in a "Q" and the Three Most emminent Persons Conducting VIVA for them as seen when Children are selected for INDIAN IDOL or DANCE INDIA DANCE ( Why ofcourse i am very Satarical and i propose to write a fresh version of the Animal Farm)
Is it Not totally absurd & silly and Infact Stinking asking People to Apply rather than Scout and select . The People who Drafted Those Sections in RTI ACT 2005 Must be Puking .
We Donot know and are aware But I defiently Know of This fact " MY Neighbour is an  MP and is Close to One of the Persons who Certainly has to be the Member of the selection committee , Only yesterday I saw a Known President of an NGO  waiting at this MPs House and i very well Known he only Comes to Bangalore on Friday night and even his high profile wife is out of station . This person When asked Told me that he wants to pull Strings Through this MP Because the Member on CIC Selection committee Defiently visits MP House for an important festival & Pooja
So We all advertise that we will HELP in these LOGISTICS ???

N vikramsimha , KRIA Koota , #12 Sumeru Sir M N Krishna Rao Road , Basvangudi < Bangalore 560004.

--- On Sat, 5/11/11, C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Flash: DoPT : Apply for CICs Posts
To: "humjanenge@googlegroups.com" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
Date: Saturday, 5 November, 2011, 9:15 AM

Mr Manoj Kamra,

Now Mr Srabajit will start using the "H" word for me too !

RTiwanted


From: manoj <manojkamra@gmail.com>
To: "HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005" <HumJanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 11:43 PM
Subject: [HumJanenge] Re: Flash: DoPT : Apply for CICs Posts

Dear Sh.Batra ji and list,

  This time , we should support karira ji as the first choice among
future ICs' as he has posted more than 27000 messages in his website
besides participating in other websites.His contribution seems to be
deserving for IC.We should discuss this issue as time is very short to
reach to conclusion.

with regards
manoj kamra


shOn Oct 31, 8:57 pm, lokesh batra <batra_lok...@yahoo.com> wrot
> Flash : Apply for Central Information Commissioners  Post: DoPT Circular
>
> 31 October 2011
>
> DoPT has issued a circular requesting applications for Central Information Commissioners appointment :
>  
> Quote
>
> "Persons fulfilling the criteria for appointment as Information Commissioner and interested for appointment to the post may send their particulars in the enclosed proforma by post to Under Secretary (IR), Department of Personnel and Training, North Block, New Delhi or  through e-mail to usrti-d...@nic.in   by November 18, 2011. Persons who are serving under the State/Central Government or any other  organization, may send their particulars through proper channel."
> Unquote
>  
>  
> Full text of the circular can be read on LINK below :
>  
>  http://circulars.nic.in/WriteReadData/CircularPortal/D2/D02nic/ic.pdf
>  
>  
> My take :
>  
> Government needs to be congratulated for making process of selection of Information Commissioner open to public.
>  
> This has been long standing demand of RTI Activists.
>  
> The big question is ... will  the entire process of selection become transparent?
>  
> I recommend those who desire to apply for the post to send their application by Speed Post in addition to sending it by email. The movement of Speed Post letter can be tracked on Dept of Posts website. 
>  
> Remember on 10 Dec 2010, DoPT had issued a circular seeking public comments on proposed amendment to RTI
> Rules by email...
>  
> After sending my comments I had followed it with an RTI seeking file details on which public views were being processed and had asked for attested hard copy of my comments sent by email. DoPT had not diariesd public comments in any file and could not show me the so called folder in which public comments placed as claimed by CPIO (DoPT).
>  
> When ever I checked with DoPT CPIO, I was told the said folder containing Public Comments "NOT TRACEBLE". The file on which the amendment to RTI rules was delibrated in DoPT had only NAC's comments.
>  
> Media story on my RTI can be read on the link below.
>  http://www.governancenow.com/gov-next/rti/draft-rti-rules-no-mechanis...
>  
>  
> Good Luck to candidates.
>  
> Best
> {Commodore Lokesh Batra (Retd.)}
> Social & RTI Activist
> BringChange
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Friday, November 4, 2011

[HumJanenge] Fwd: Comments on Draft “Citizens Right to Grievance Redress Bill, 2011”

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Col NR Kurup <colnrkurup@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2011 11:06:03 +0530
Subject: Comments on Draft "Citizens Right to Grievance Redress Bill, 2011"
To: ": pk.jha@nic.in," <satish@arpg.nic.in>

Sir,

Please accept my following comments on the Draft "Citizens Right to Grievance
Redress Bill, 2011"

1. Add definition to following terms also to Section 2 as
(m) Maladministration
(n) Allegation
(o) Grievance
(p) Grievance Redress
(q) Third Party
(r) Final disposal Report
(s) Corruption
(t) Undue influence.
(u) Act done in good faith

2. Add following as Section 2(K)(iv)(F)Any non-government Organization
who has been allotted government land or land acquired by government
or provided any infra-structure facilities free or subsidized or
under any special provision by government

3. Add following to Section 4(1): " In case of failure of any public
authority to publish its Cityzen Charter and Grievance Redressal
Officer within 6 months as specified, relevant provisions of
systems/practice of Citizen Charter of Grievence Redressal system
published by any other public authority of the State as chosen by the
Complainant will be deemed to have come into force in the defaulted
public authority in dealing with the complaint of that particular
Complainant

4.Add following to Section 7(1). "When no such officer is appointed in
such administrative unit the Officer immediately Unior to the Head of
Office present on duty of that particular administrative Unit is
deemed as the Grievance Redressal Officer of that administrative unit
automatically.

5. Add following to Para 9(4). " This report should include Grievance
Redress Officer's observations he has made to the Head of Department
recommending the penalty to be imposed. "

6. The empowerment of authorities with power vested in a civil Court
under Code of Civil Procedure 1908 stipulated in Sections 11(3)I,
21(1) and 38(1) is not enforceable on the Complainant/Appellant or
their representatives but only to the Respondent/ other members of
public authorities and third party/parties connected with it.

7. Add following as Section 43(4): "The Grievance Reddressal Officer
or Head of Department acting as Appellate Aujthority or The State
Public Grievence Redressal Commission or the Central Public Redressal
Commission while dealing with the complaint will ensure that under no
circumstances a Complainant or Appellant or any of his representative
is compelled to be present outside the geographical jurisdiction of
Complainant's home district as specified by him in his Complaint or
made to sustain any loss/damage for failure to be present/represented
in such outside district proceedings".

8. Add following as Section 45(3): All Penalty/punishment awarded
should be recorded in the Service Book of the incumbent concerned
within 7 days under intimation to the awardee and fact report to the
Head of Department.

9. Add following as Section 54: "During the enquiry proceedings if any
of the witnesses make any statement refuting the alleged complaint as
false, it is deemed as the witness is making an allegation that the
Complaint/part of the complaint is false and amount to character
assassination of the Complainant. In such cases the witness who made
such statement be made to repeat the same in the presence and hearing
of the complainant and Complainant be given opportunity to cross
examine the witness who made such statement of character assassination
and fact recorded

10. Add following as Section 55: " Advocates are forbidden from
representing Complainant and Respondent unless the Complainant himself
is a practicing Advocate."

Col NR Kurup (Retd),
Deepam, Mutteri Madham,
Chettemcoon, Tellicherry-670101
Kerala
<colnrkurup@gmaill.com>
9847128960

[HumJanenge] Proposal for an RTI

It is well known that MPs are paid many allowances such as Petrol Allowance, Electricity Allowance, Telephone Allowance, Daily Allowance, highly subzidised housing and cafeteria, etc etc besides heavy salaries at par with highest paid govt employees. They are not required to give any certificate to the effect that their actual expenses under those heads were not less than the allowances thus claimed by them and hence they save lot of money for their personal benefit through these allowances. Will any RTI activist like to file an RTI application with appropriate govt agency to know the basis on which these allowances were sanctioned for MPs and steps taken by govt to ensure that these allowances have not become a source of personal benefit to MPs. This is important in view of the controversy recently raised by some congress ministers reg Kiran Bedi having saved some money from travelling costs due to her for use of her NGO.
mksinghal

Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Flash: DoPT : Apply for CICs Posts

Mr Manoj Kamra,

Now Mr Srabajit will start using the "H" word for me too !

RTiwanted


From: manoj <manojkamra@gmail.com>
To: "HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005" <HumJanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 11:43 PM
Subject: [HumJanenge] Re: Flash: DoPT : Apply for CICs Posts

Dear Sh.Batra ji and list,

  This time , we should support karira ji as the first choice among
future ICs' as he has posted more than 27000 messages in his website
besides participating in other websites.His contribution seems to be
deserving for IC.We should discuss this issue as time is very short to
reach to conclusion.

with regards
manoj kamra


shOn Oct 31, 8:57 pm, lokesh batra <batra_lok...@yahoo.com> wrot
> Flash : Apply for Central Information Commissioners  Post: DoPT Circular
>
> 31 October 2011
>
> DoPT has issued a circular requesting applications for Central Information Commissioners appointment :
>  
> Quote
>
> "Persons fulfilling the criteria for appointment as Information Commissioner and interested for appointment to the post may send their particulars in the enclosed proforma by post to Under Secretary (IR), Department of Personnel and Training, North Block, New Delhi or  through e-mail to usrti-d...@nic.in   by November 18, 2011. Persons who are serving under the State/Central Government or any other  organization, may send their particulars through proper channel."
> Unquote
>  
>  
> Full text of the circular can be read on LINK below :
>  
>  http://circulars.nic.in/WriteReadData/CircularPortal/D2/D02nic/ic.pdf
>  
>  
> My take :
>  
> Government needs to be congratulated for making process of selection of Information Commissioner open to public.
>  
> This has been long standing demand of RTI Activists.
>  
> The big question is ... will  the entire process of selection become transparent?
>  
> I recommend those who desire to apply for the post to send their application by Speed Post in addition to sending it by email. The movement of Speed Post letter can be tracked on Dept of Posts website. 
>  
> Remember on 10 Dec 2010, DoPT had issued a circular seeking public comments on proposed amendment to RTI
> Rules by email...
>  
> After sending my comments I had followed it with an RTI seeking file details on which public views were being processed and had asked for attested hard copy of my comments sent by email. DoPT had not diariesd public comments in any file and could not show me the so called folder in which public comments placed as claimed by CPIO (DoPT).
>  
> When ever I checked with DoPT CPIO, I was told the said folder containing Public Comments "NOT TRACEBLE". The file on which the amendment to RTI rules was delibrated in DoPT had only NAC's comments.
>  
> Media story on my RTI can be read on the link below.
>  http://www.governancenow.com/gov-next/rti/draft-rti-rules-no-mechanis...
>  
>  
> Good Luck to candidates.
>  
> Best
> {Commodore Lokesh Batra (Retd.)}
> Social & RTI Activist
> BringChange
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Re: [HumJanenge] Blocking online content: Google gets more requests than govt

Mr Sarbajit,

1. Just shared this, since one day someone might make a "request" for this googlegroup also to be blocked.

2. Mr Manoj Kamra is bent upon instigating you.....so that you can start using the "H" word for me too !
    The CV is definitely going to DoPT, specially since I will then become an "affected person" under Sec 4(1)(d).
    The RTI for the list of applicants as on 18 Nov evening, already delivered at North Block.

RTIwanted


From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, November 4, 2011 11:09 PM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Blocking online content: Google gets more requests than govt

Dear Karira

1) Pranesh Prakash is (as usual) talking through certain unmentionable body parts on this issue. It would be better to discuss such (RTI unconnected - except  to the extent that an RTI application was made) matters on specialised mailing lists.

2) Hope you have filled out and submitted ypur CV to DoPT. Any drafting tips would be "eminentky" appreciated.

Sarbajit


On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 7:54 PM, C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> wrote:

http://www.firstpost.com/india/google-indias-new-department-of-information-technology-121170.html


Blocking online content: Google gets more requests than govt


Pallavi Polanki Nov 2, 2011

Allowing a peek into what kind of information is requested to be blocked online and by who, the Department of Information Technology (DIT), in response to an RTI (Right to Information) query, has provided some intriguing details.
DIT lists names of bureaucrats, police officers and one politician who requested blocking content online as well as the websites they identified.
In all, 68 individual items were requested to be blocked under the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking Access of Information by Public) Rules 2009, to the DIT, which is the only authority mandated by the Information Technology Act 2000, to order blocking online content.
Speaking to Firstpost, Pranesh Prakash, programme manager at the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, who requested for the information under the RTI Act — and has posted it on a blog analysing the information received from DIT — said, "Information from a previous RTI application uncovered what all websites were officially blocked by the DIT, while this one uncovers what all website blocking requests the DIT received."
No prizes for guessing; pornographic sites topped the list of websites requested to be blocked. Mumbai's Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime) listed 60 adult content sites in his request. However, the DIT doesn't seem to have accepted the officer's request. The sites remain accessible.
According to Google's Transparency Report, released on 25 October, Google received requests for 358 individual items to be removed from its different services between January and June 2011. AFP Photo
Haneef Ali, Andhra Pradesh State President of the Bharatiya Janata Minority Morcha, is the only politician on the list. He requested the blocking of ablogpost, the title of which translates to "insult against Islam".
Up to four requests were made for blocking of political content, two of which came from Tamil Nadu. The secretary, Public (Law and Order) Department requested for the website tamil.net.in to be blocked and the principal secretary, IT Department, requested a blog to be shut down. Only the first request seems to have been accepted.
Also, in the line of political fire was a Wikipedia entry for Sukhbir Singh Badal. The principal secretary, IT Department, Punjab, requested the Wikipedia entry with the address 'en.wikipedia.org/Wiki/Sukhbir Singh Badal' to be blocked. However, Wikipedia does have an entry for the deputy chief minister of Punjab with a slightly tweaked address.
Not surprisingly, Mumbai's Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime) wanted a YouTube video ( identified in Prakash's blog as a video of Bal Thackeray's speech) to be blocked. Click on the link and a message from YouTube reads: "This video has been removed because its content violated YouTube's Terms of Service. Sorry about that."
A betting site betfair.com was sought to be shut down by a senior inspector from Mumbai's cyber crime cell. No luck. The site remains up and running.
Finally, Maharashtra's Commissioner sent in two requests:  Both are running.
Now for the interesting part: Prakash states that the data provided by the government "seemingly conflicts with the data released by the likes of Google (via its Transparency Report)."
According to Google's Transparency Report, released on 25 October, Google received requests for 358 individual items to be removed from its different services between January and June 2011. And 407 such requests were made in 2010.
Information provided by DIT, however, shows that only requests for 68 items (64 websites, one blog, and three specific web-pages) from eight separate requests were made to it. Of these, only three were for Google's services (two for Blogger and one for YouTube), points out Prakash.
While only DIT has the authority to order blocks, Google data shows that requests to 'remove content' far outnumber the requests made to DIT, suggesting that Google is receiving these requests directly from law enforcement agencies.
"The only explanation for this is that an order to 'block for access… or cause to be blocked for access by the public' is taken to be different from an order for removal of content… That would mean that while blocking is regulated by the IT Act, forcible removal of content is not. Thus, it would seem that forcible removal of online content is happening without clear regulation or limits," states Prakash. (emphasis added).
Prakash makes the case that when law enforcement agencies send requests to companies like Google to remove content they are "operating outside bounds set up by the Indian Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure as also the Information Technology Act."
He adds that companies tend to comply with such 'requests' even when they are not under legal obligation to do so because it might appear to them to "violate their own terms of service (which generally include a wide clause about content being in accordance with all local laws), community guidelines."
"This way, the intention of Parliament in enacting Section 69A of the IT Act — to regulate government censorship of the Internet and bring it within the bounds laid down in the Constitution—is defeated," states Prakash.