Saturday, November 12, 2011

Re: [HumJanenge] Citizens Grievance Redress Draft Bill 2011- how far citizen-friendly?

Beside other anti citizen provisions in the bill , the worst is making of  a Head of department as judicial authority. HoD should only be an Appellate Authority and no more. The whole bill must be similar to the RTI  Act 2005.


From: Chitta Behera <chittabehera1@yahoo.co.in>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 12 November 2011 7:20 PM
Subject: [HumJanenge] Citizens Grievance Redress Draft Bill 2011- how far citizen-friendly?

Citizens Grievance Redress Draft Bill 2011- how far citizen-friendly?

Spurred on by the strident campaign of Anna Hazare for a comprehensive anti-graft legislation in the shape of Jan Lokpal Bill, the Government of India in the Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances has already made its first positive response by way of mooting a draft law called Citizens Right to Grievance Redress Bill 2011. This draft law along with an overview was placed on the website of the said Department w.e.f. 2nd instant for eliciting public response receivable by 23rd November 2011. The draft bill, purportedly covered under item no.8 (actionable wrongs) of Concurrent List in the Constitution aims at institutionalizing an administrative mechanism in each public authority Central or provincial for ensuring time-bound delivery of goods and services as per the norms laid down in their respective Citizens' Charters coupled with appellate authorities at various levels for redressing the public grievances arising from any act of violation of the said Charters. Worth recollecting that Anna Hazare used to describe such a kind of rights based dispensation as the major plank of his Jan Lokpal Bill, and in fact, the latest version of the Bill (2.3) in its Chapter-XIII titled 'Grievance Redressal System' provides for the authorities and procedures that are required for ensuring a hassle-free regime of guaranteeing rights and entitlements to the public at large across the country. It therefore behoves the informed citizenry at large including the campaigners of Jan Lokpal Bill to partake of and contribute to the great ongoing debate as to whether and how far the Government mooted Draft Bill would cater to the pent-up aspiration of multitude of Indians for an easy access to their multifarious rights and entitlements in respect of public goods and services.
 
While launching the draft bill in a joint press meet at New Delhi on 3rd Nov 2011 both Jairam Ramesh Minister Rural Development and V Narayanasamy Minister of State for Personnel asserted that it is only one component of a package of anti-corruption laws envisaged for enactment in winter session of Parliament commencing 23rd Nov, others being the Bills on Lokpal, Judicial Standards and Accountability, Public Procurement and Whistle Blowers Protection. Unlike Anna Hazare's original scheme of creating a single, integrated, monolithic law for addressing to issues of corruption and misfeasance at all levels across the State in its comprehensive sense of the term, that of the Government seems to split the whole dispensation into a few discrete, sectoral laws, each dedicated to tackle such issues in a specific, citizen-related domain of our multi-pillared and multilayered polity. From the standpoint of feasibility and optimality, the official scheme seems to present a better option, no doubt. If we build our anti-graft regime of governance on this centrifugal model, the lurking anxiety around Anna's model that it would vest absolute power in one colossal overlord watch-dogging the entire system from top to bottom would hold no ground. Yet, there also exists a flip side to the Government's model of decentralization, which if not remedied right now, might throw the entire system out of gear by way of pitting one law against another, and thereby rendering the existing scenario of mal-governance more chaotic and unwieldy. Given the preference for the decentralization model of the Government, what is however required utmost on the part of the latter is to ensure a seamless coherence and integrity among the host of laws bundled into the single basket, purported to reform the system of governance as a whole. By all reckoning, the RTI Act 2005 which being a pioneering statute heralded the much awaited era of governance reforms and is in place for last six years does also belong to this basket. The would-be, kindred laws need therefore to fall in line with letter and spirit of RTI Act. In a nutshell, the RTI Act 2005 which is on the whole an effective, user-friendly law and proved so by experience should serve as the matrix, respecting which the rest of the kindred laws need to be built up.         
 
The duo of Ministers while releasing the draft bill did also vociferate on its semblance to the RTI Act in terms of structure and procedures. But the moot point arises, is this assertion correct? A proper answer to this poser necessitates a scrutiny of the basic nuances of the Draft bill on grievance redress from the perspective of the RTI Act. The first and foremost distinction that makes RTI Act a class apart is its Section 22 providing for its overriding power vis-à-vis the rest of laws and instrumentalities of the State including the draconian Official Secrets Act 1923, whereas the Section 50 of the Draft Bill taking a contrarian position reads, "The provisions of this Act are in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force". This single provision if retained in the would-be Act would render it vulnerable and ineffective from the day one of its enforcement, since there are still hundreds of laws in force across the country which not only lack in any time-limit for the delivery of public goods and services, but also allow for discretion to the Ministers and bureaucrats in distributing largesse to the persons whomsoever they like to oblige.
 
The next striking difference between the two concerns the penalty provision against the errant public servants. While Section 20 (1) of RTI Act provides for a fine of Rs.250/- per a day's delay extending to a maximum of Rs.25,000/- leviable on the Public Information Officer proved guilty, Section 45 of the Draft bill merely and abstractly says that a 'lump-sum penalty' shall be imposed on the 'designated officers' and 'grievance redress officers' on account of the 'mala fide action' on their part and the rate of such penalty shall be 'specified from time to time as prescribed in the rules framed under this Act'. As regards the rule making power, Section 51 has vested it to the 'appropriate government', which going by the definition in Section 2(b) means Central Government or State Government. But, as everyone knows pretty well, the basic reason behind the success story of RTI Act is its clear provision for a specified amount of hefty fine in addition to the disciplinary proceedings, which drove the concerned officer, actuated by a fear of penalty, to act more or less as per the mandate of law. If the power to specify the amount of fine, as envisaged under the Draft bill, is placed under the Rule making power of the Centre and State Governments and that too exercisable by them from time to time, it may so happen that a Government might not volunteer to specify the amount of fine at all, or would specify such a ridiculously low amount as to be of no consequence to the habitual defaulters among the officers. In fact, as per the Section 7 of the recently enforced Delhi (Right of Citizen to time bound delivery of services) Act, 2011 the defaulting officer is liable to pay only Rs.10/- per day's delay, maximum amount being limited to Rs.200/-. It is now an open secret that the Delhi Act has remained, nay, shall ever remain a non-starter precisely on account of its ludicrous provision around penalty. Thus, if the Central Government really wants the public servants to deliver the public goods and services timely and properly as per the citizens charter, the proposed draft law itself, like the RTI Act, ought to specify a hefty amount of penalty against the errant officer, and shouldn't abandon this crucial matter to the discretionary rule-making power of the Centre or States.
 
As is well known, the RTI Act under Section 25 provides for a comprehensive annual report on the state of implementation of the Act as prepared by the concerned Information Commission to be submitted to the Parliament or State legislature, as the case may be, by the respective Government. It is a wholesome provision in the sense that the legislators of country are being kept abreast of the doings or misdoings of the public authorities in respect of the duties cast on the latter for giving effect to the mandate of the concerned law. But, woefully enough, such a provision is conspicuously absent from the draft law on grievance redress.
 
Last but not the least, unlike the RTI Act which to its credit is a citizen-friendly law in fullest sense of the term, the proposed draft law on public grievances, for all its pro-citizen gestures, accommodates a highly pernicious provision potentially poised against the appellant citizens vide Sections 23 and 39, which are spaciously captioned as 'Proceedings before the Commission to be judicial proceedings'. Clothed in the hard-hitting professional jargons of law, it defies comprehension even by an average lawyer, let alone the common citizens whom the proposed law ironically seeks to serve and save. The provision says, all proceedings before the Grievance Redressal Commission at Centre or in a State "shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings within the meaning of sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code and the Commission shall be deemed to be a civil court for the purposes of sections 345 and 346 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973". Precisely speaking, Section 193 of IPC provides for 'punishment for false evidence', which may extend to 3 years of imprisonment of either description coupled with an unspecified amount of fine, while its Section 228 provides for punishment for 'Intentional insult or interruption to public servant sitting in any stage of a judicial proceeding', which may extend to six months of simple imprisonment or a fine of Rs.1000/- or both. Coming to CrPC, its Section 345 prescribes 'Procedures in certain cases of contempt' that may result in imposition of a fine extending to Rs.200/- and in default of its payment, simple imprisonment for maximum 1 month. Section 346 of CrPC prescribes 'Procedure where Court considers that case should not be dealt with under Section 345', which vests the Court with the power inter alia to forward the case of an offender to a Magistrate, who shall deal with the case, 'as if it were instituted on a police report'. Under the circumstances, the proponents of the draft bill should and must explain, against whom such draconian provisions are mooted, if not the common citizens, in whose name it has been dedicated.         
 
(Chitta Behera, 4A Jubilee Tower, Choudhury Bazar, Cuttack-9, Mobile: 9437577546, Dt 12.11.2011)


[HumJanenge] Citizens Grievance Redress Draft Bill 2011- how far citizen-friendly?

Citizens Grievance Redress Draft Bill 2011- how far citizen-friendly?

Spurred on by the strident campaign of Anna Hazare for a comprehensive anti-graft legislation in the shape of Jan Lokpal Bill, the Government of India in the Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances has already made its first positive response by way of mooting a draft law called Citizens Right to Grievance Redress Bill 2011. This draft law along with an overview was placed on the website of the said Department w.e.f. 2nd instant for eliciting public response receivable by 23rd November 2011. The draft bill, purportedly covered under item no.8 (actionable wrongs) of Concurrent List in the Constitution aims at institutionalizing an administrative mechanism in each public authority Central or provincial for ensuring time-bound delivery of goods and services as per the norms laid down in their respective Citizens' Charters coupled with appellate authorities at various levels for redressing the public grievances arising from any act of violation of the said Charters. Worth recollecting that Anna Hazare used to describe such a kind of rights based dispensation as the major plank of his Jan Lokpal Bill, and in fact, the latest version of the Bill (2.3) in its Chapter-XIII titled 'Grievance Redressal System' provides for the authorities and procedures that are required for ensuring a hassle-free regime of guaranteeing rights and entitlements to the public at large across the country. It therefore behoves the informed citizenry at large including the campaigners of Jan Lokpal Bill to partake of and contribute to the great ongoing debate as to whether and how far the Government mooted Draft Bill would cater to the pent-up aspiration of multitude of Indians for an easy access to their multifarious rights and entitlements in respect of public goods and services.
 
While launching the draft bill in a joint press meet at New Delhi on 3rd Nov 2011 both Jairam Ramesh Minister Rural Development and V Narayanasamy Minister of State for Personnel asserted that it is only one component of a package of anti-corruption laws envisaged for enactment in winter session of Parliament commencing 23rd Nov, others being the Bills on Lokpal, Judicial Standards and Accountability, Public Procurement and Whistle Blowers Protection. Unlike Anna Hazare's original scheme of creating a single, integrated, monolithic law for addressing to issues of corruption and misfeasance at all levels across the State in its comprehensive sense of the term, that of the Government seems to split the whole dispensation into a few discrete, sectoral laws, each dedicated to tackle such issues in a specific, citizen-related domain of our multi-pillared and multilayered polity. From the standpoint of feasibility and optimality, the official scheme seems to present a better option, no doubt. If we build our anti-graft regime of governance on this centrifugal model, the lurking anxiety around Anna's model that it would vest absolute power in one colossal overlord watch-dogging the entire system from top to bottom would hold no ground. Yet, there also exists a flip side to the Government's model of decentralization, which if not remedied right now, might throw the entire system out of gear by way of pitting one law against another, and thereby rendering the existing scenario of mal-governance more chaotic and unwieldy. Given the preference for the decentralization model of the Government, what is however required utmost on the part of the latter is to ensure a seamless coherence and integrity among the host of laws bundled into the single basket, purported to reform the system of governance as a whole. By all reckoning, the RTI Act 2005 which being a pioneering statute heralded the much awaited era of governance reforms and is in place for last six years does also belong to this basket. The would-be, kindred laws need therefore to fall in line with letter and spirit of RTI Act. In a nutshell, the RTI Act 2005 which is on the whole an effective, user-friendly law and proved so by experience should serve as the matrix, respecting which the rest of the kindred laws need to be built up.         
 
The duo of Ministers while releasing the draft bill did also vociferate on its semblance to the RTI Act in terms of structure and procedures. But the moot point arises, is this assertion correct? A proper answer to this poser necessitates a scrutiny of the basic nuances of the Draft bill on grievance redress from the perspective of the RTI Act. The first and foremost distinction that makes RTI Act a class apart is its Section 22 providing for its overriding power vis-à-vis the rest of laws and instrumentalities of the State including the draconian Official Secrets Act 1923, whereas the Section 50 of the Draft Bill taking a contrarian position reads, "The provisions of this Act are in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force". This single provision if retained in the would-be Act would render it vulnerable and ineffective from the day one of its enforcement, since there are still hundreds of laws in force across the country which not only lack in any time-limit for the delivery of public goods and services, but also allow for discretion to the Ministers and bureaucrats in distributing largesse to the persons whomsoever they like to oblige.
 
The next striking difference between the two concerns the penalty provision against the errant public servants. While Section 20 (1) of RTI Act provides for a fine of Rs.250/- per a day's delay extending to a maximum of Rs.25,000/- leviable on the Public Information Officer proved guilty, Section 45 of the Draft bill merely and abstractly says that a 'lump-sum penalty' shall be imposed on the 'designated officers' and 'grievance redress officers' on account of the 'mala fide action' on their part and the rate of such penalty shall be 'specified from time to time as prescribed in the rules framed under this Act'. As regards the rule making power, Section 51 has vested it to the 'appropriate government', which going by the definition in Section 2(b) means Central Government or State Government. But, as everyone knows pretty well, the basic reason behind the success story of RTI Act is its clear provision for a specified amount of hefty fine in addition to the disciplinary proceedings, which drove the concerned officer, actuated by a fear of penalty, to act more or less as per the mandate of law. If the power to specify the amount of fine, as envisaged under the Draft bill, is placed under the Rule making power of the Centre and State Governments and that too exercisable by them from time to time, it may so happen that a Government might not volunteer to specify the amount of fine at all, or would specify such a ridiculously low amount as to be of no consequence to the habitual defaulters among the officers. In fact, as per the Section 7 of the recently enforced Delhi (Right of Citizen to time bound delivery of services) Act, 2011 the defaulting officer is liable to pay only Rs.10/- per day's delay, maximum amount being limited to Rs.200/-. It is now an open secret that the Delhi Act has remained, nay, shall ever remain a non-starter precisely on account of its ludicrous provision around penalty. Thus, if the Central Government really wants the public servants to deliver the public goods and services timely and properly as per the citizens charter, the proposed draft law itself, like the RTI Act, ought to specify a hefty amount of penalty against the errant officer, and shouldn't abandon this crucial matter to the discretionary rule-making power of the Centre or States.
 
As is well known, the RTI Act under Section 25 provides for a comprehensive annual report on the state of implementation of the Act as prepared by the concerned Information Commission to be submitted to the Parliament or State legislature, as the case may be, by the respective Government. It is a wholesome provision in the sense that the legislators of country are being kept abreast of the doings or misdoings of the public authorities in respect of the duties cast on the latter for giving effect to the mandate of the concerned law. But, woefully enough, such a provision is conspicuously absent from the draft law on grievance redress.
 
Last but not the least, unlike the RTI Act which to its credit is a citizen-friendly law in fullest sense of the term, the proposed draft law on public grievances, for all its pro-citizen gestures, accommodates a highly pernicious provision potentially poised against the appellant citizens vide Sections 23 and 39, which are spaciously captioned as 'Proceedings before the Commission to be judicial proceedings'. Clothed in the hard-hitting professional jargons of law, it defies comprehension even by an average lawyer, let alone the common citizens whom the proposed law ironically seeks to serve and save. The provision says, all proceedings before the Grievance Redressal Commission at Centre or in a State "shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings within the meaning of sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code and the Commission shall be deemed to be a civil court for the purposes of sections 345 and 346 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973". Precisely speaking, Section 193 of IPC provides for 'punishment for false evidence', which may extend to 3 years of imprisonment of either description coupled with an unspecified amount of fine, while its Section 228 provides for punishment for 'Intentional insult or interruption to public servant sitting in any stage of a judicial proceeding', which may extend to six months of simple imprisonment or a fine of Rs.1000/- or both. Coming to CrPC, its Section 345 prescribes 'Procedures in certain cases of contempt' that may result in imposition of a fine extending to Rs.200/- and in default of its payment, simple imprisonment for maximum 1 month. Section 346 of CrPC prescribes 'Procedure where Court considers that case should not be dealt with under Section 345', which vests the Court with the power inter alia to forward the case of an offender to a Magistrate, who shall deal with the case, 'as if it were instituted on a police report'. Under the circumstances, the proponents of the draft bill should and must explain, against whom such draconian provisions are mooted, if not the common citizens, in whose name it has been dedicated.         
 
(Chitta Behera, 4A Jubilee Tower, Choudhury Bazar, Cuttack-9, Mobile: 9437577546, Dt 12.11.2011)

Re: Fwd: [rti4empowerment] NEW AMENDMENT RULES TO RTI ACT IN KARNATAKA STATE

I call upon Vikram, Shashi Kumar ji and all other to work under ne banner forgetting thier personal differences.  Do not give any chance to KSIC to exploit the situation and work at its whims and fancies, forgetting the Act.


From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, 11 November 2011 11:40 PM
Subject: Re: Fwd: [rti4empowerment] NEW AMENDMENT RULES TO RTI ACT IN KARNATAKA STATE

Dear Friends

I have read this Karnataka RTI related thread quite carefully.

It appears that RTI activists from Karnataka lag behind the rest of
India quite considerably (second in their egos only to my friends from
Maharashtra) and the situation is easily exploited by the SCIC to
divide and rule.

It is far better that the RTI Act is scrapped in Karnataka before such
actions expand to the rest of India (like that 150 word per RTI rule).

Sarbajit

On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 10:14 PM, Vikram Simha
<vikramsimha54@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> Dear Shashi Kumar
> I am sorry , Once Again I repeat that You Confuse yourself and Tend to club all Problems or Difficulties that the Common man faces to One Issue which has come out. My First mail was Very explicit it is our Own making of EGO clashes and ONEUPMANSHIP Being Played by Certain So called ACTIVISTS .
> It Is No Doubt that this Rule Made by the GOK is a Very silly one without Giving a proper understanding to the IDEA IDEALS and practice of the act
> I Can Just say that the people who Have Brought the ammendement must have Thought they Are experts but We all will Become if Do not ascertain our Rights under RTI section 18 . Yes I do agree i have an ACTIUON PLAN and Rananeethi which Can only Conveyed Personally and Not in these Forums for obvious reason .
> If the KIC is Inviting Trouble Every day it is their Bliss
> as reagads all Your other problems As activists We Got to Work and Slog and It is only the First part To discuss it for an Planning
> N vikramsimha , KRIA Koota , #12 Sumeru Sir M N Krishna Rao Road , Basvangudi < Bangalore 560004.
>
>
> --- On Fri, 11/11/11, Anand Acf <acfanand@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Anand Acf <acfanand@gmail.com>
>> Subject: Fwd: [rti4empowerment] NEW AMENDMENT RULES TO RTI ACT IN KARNATAKA STATE
>> To: scic@karnataka.gov.in
>> Cc: "rti4empowerment" <rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com>, secy-kic@karnataka.gov.in
>> Date: Friday, 11 November, 2011, 5:42 PM
>> Dear A.k.m. Naik,
>>
>> Forwarded fro Kind Attention
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: "SHASHI KUMAR.A.R." <rudreshtechnology@gmail.com>
>> Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 00:27:06 +0530
>> Subject: Re: [rti4empowerment] NEW AMENDMENT RULES TO RTI
>> ACT IN KARNATAKA STATE
>> To: rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com
>>
>> Dear elder brother Sri. Vikram sir
>>
>> Thank you sir , I   am not offensive or
>> defensive to your coment , It is my
>> job to write as a journalist what i saw in the KIC , To day
>> also i had seen
>> the commission official  who is receiving
>> the  complaints or appeals is
>> refusing to take the complaints under section 18 of the act
>> and they are
>> directing  1st to use section 19(1) and then come to
>> the commission and to
>> see the gazette notification which is displayed on the
>> notice board
>> As an law graduate i  know and very ordinary
>> citizen  says the rule made is
>> perfect , But My question is what is the necessity of
>> making gazette
>> notification by the government the law which is already
>> existing in RTI Act
>> 2005   pertaining to 1st appeal before the
>> respective appelate authority
>>  and then to the KIC ,
>> The Karntaka information commisssion is having 6
>> information commissioners
>> and must see that all the departments must appoint PIO's
>> and appelate
>> authorites and to bring awareness &basics of RTI Act ,
>> Even after lapse of  6 years  majority  of
>> the government departments fails
>> to comply section 4(1)a / b of the act ,  One of our
>> volunteer filed rti
>> application pertaining to all the offices under
>> Vidhanasoudha and
>> vikas soudha [ 47 applications] , But the bundle is sent
>> back to him and
>> then he sent through COP / Ordinary post and it is deemed
>> to be received
>>  Even after lapse of more than 1 year no response from any
>> body from
>> vidhanasoudha / Vikasasoudha , But  complaint
>> under section 18 is filed to
>> the commission ,  but commission instead of hearing
>> the complaints ,
>> directed the petitioner to provide details regarding
>> all the pio names and
>> addresses , The government heads are not complying either
>> section  4(1) a
>> or b , even i filed  rti application 2 years back with
>> city civil court ,
>> they collected further fee but even after several hearings
>> no information
>> is provided but information commissoners are retiring and
>> Pio;s of courts
>> retiring ,but application is still pending in the
>> commisson  , this story
>> is same to other courts also , Karnataka lokayuktha office
>> not complied the
>> same ,KARNATAKA HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION  STILL NOT
>> HAVING ITS OFFICIAL
>> WEBSITE , WHAT WE CAN EXPECT FROM AT  RURAL KARNATAKA
>> LIKE GRAMA PANCHAYATH
>> LEVEL
>>
>> Thank you
>>
>> ARS KUMAR. BE LLB MA JOURNALISM [ MA HUMAN RIGHTS ]
>> SOCIAL ACTIVIST & JOURNALIST
>> Correspondent to the Weekly news paper " REPORTER"
>> Correspondent to Breaking News today News paper
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Anand Acf <acfanand@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I don't find any mistake in the amendment. It clearly
>> states no one
>> > can approach KIC u/s 19(3) with out approaching FAA
>> u/s 19(1)
>> >
>> > On 11/9/11, SHASHI KUMAR.A.R. <rudreshtechnology@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > > *DEAR BROTHERS /SISTERS / RTI USERS *
>> > > *FOR KIND ATTENTION *
>> > > *
>> > > *
>> > > *KARNATAKA  GOVT  ISSUED AN GAZETTE
>> NOTIFICATION  DATED 22/10/11 ,
>> > ENCLOSED
>> > > THE PDF VERSION , NOW THE KARNATAKA INFORMATION
>> COMMISSION IS REFUSING
>> > THE
>> > > COMPLAINTS FILED BY THE RTI APPLICANTS UNDER
>> SECTION 18(1) OF THE RTI ACT
>> > > AND KIC OFFICIALS ARE  DIRECTING ALL THE RTI
>> APPLICANTS NOT FILE ANY
>> > > COMPLAINTS UNDER SECTION 18 (1) OF THE ACT ,
>> BUT  THEY ARE DIRECTING RTI
>> > > APPLICANTS TO  FILE  1ST APEAL UNDER
>> SECTION 19 (1) OF THE ACT BEFORE THE
>> > > RESPECTIVE PUBLIC APPELATE AUHTHORITIES AND THEN
>> ONLY ALL THE APPLICANTS
>> > > MUST FILE 2ND APPEAL UNDER 19(3) OF  THE
>> ACT  BEFORE KARNATAKA
>> > INFORMATION
>> > > COMMISSION ,  *
>> > > *ONE OF THE OFFICIAL SAID SECTION 18 IS SCRAPPED
>> *
>> > > *
>> > > *
>> > > *I AM REQUESTING EVERY  CITIZEN /ACTIVIST /
>> SOCIAL WORKER / RTI USER TO
>> > > EXAMINE THE GAZETTE AND PLEASE GIVE VALUABLE
>> COMENTS  , WHETHER THIS RULE
>> > > MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT  IS VALID AS PER THE
>> PROVISIONS OF THE RTI ACT  ?
>> > *
>> > > *AFTER SIX YEARS OF LAPSE  ALSO MOST OF THE
>> GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS DONT
>> > > WANT RTI ACT TO BRING TRANSPARENCY AND GOOD
>> GOVERNANCE IN THIER OFFICES
>> > AND
>> > > NOT INTERESTED TO IMPLEMENT SECTION 4(1) A &
>> B OF THE ACT  WITH GREAT
>> > > SPIRIT *
>> > > *MOST  OF THEM DONT KNOW WHAT IS MEANT BY
>> PIO  AND THEY HAVE NOT
>> > APPOINTED
>> > > APPLELATE AUTHORITY  ALSO , *
>> > > *THIS IS THE TRICK PLAYED BY KARNATAKA
>> INFORMATION COMMISSION  WHO ARE
>> > > RETIRED BUREAUCRATS   TO SUPRESS
>> THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION   TO SIT IDLE
>> > > AND TO GET  THE  AROUND 1.5 LAKSH
>> SALARY AND  OTHER  BENIFITS ,
>> > PRIVILAGES
>> > > , CAR , PERKS ETC , *
>> > > *THEY DONT WANT TO HEAR AND PROVIDE THE
>> INFORMATION SOUGHT   UNDER
>> > SECTION
>> > >  18 OF THE ACT , AND ACTIVISTS NEED THE ACT
>> TO EXPOSE THE CORRUPTION IN
>> > THE
>> > > STATE  , **EALIER KARNATAKA IS A SILICON
>> CITY  NOW IT BECOME SILICON HUB
>> > > FOR CORRUPTION  ,*
>> > > * DAY BY DAY RTI ACT IS BECOMING DILUTE  ,
>> EARLIER CHIEF INFORMATION
>> > > COMMISSIONER KK MISHRA RECOMONDED FOR ONE SUBJECT
>> AND 150 WORDS , NOW
>> >  THIS
>> > > IS THE SITUATION ,  IF  THE APPLICATION
>> UNDER SECTION 18 (1) OF THE ACT
>> > IS
>> > > NOT HEARD , WHAT IS THE NECESSARY OF SIX
>> INFORMATION COMMISSIONERS , NOW
>> > > SOME OF THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER IS HEARING
>> MORNING SESSION ONLY
>> > ABOUT
>> > > 10 TO 12 COMPLAINTS AND SOME OF THEM HEARING MORE
>> THAN 25  WITHIN  1
>> > HOUR ,
>> > >  SOME OF THEM ARE NOT SPENDING MORE THAN
>> FRACTION OF SECOND TO DISPOSE
>> > THE
>> > > COMPLAINTS , AFTER NOON NO HEARINGS , BUT EACH
>> INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
>> > IS
>> > > GETING EQUAL TO HIGH COURT JUDGES SALARY BUT WHAT
>> IS THE PROGRESS AND OUT
>> > > PUT FROM THEM TO THE CITIZENS *
>> > > *
>> > > *
>> > > *WITH REGARDS *
>> > > *
>> > > *
>> > > *ARS KUMAR .BE. LLB , MA JOURNALISM [ MA HUMAN
>> RIGHTS ]*
>> > > *SOCIAL ACTIVIST *
>> > > *SWAMY VIVEKANANDA RTI JANA JAGRUTHI MISSION *
>> > > *KARNATAKA *
>> > > *[image: image.png]
>> > > *
>> > > *[image: image.png]
>> > > *
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Anand S.
>> > Coordinator, Anti Corruption Forum
>> > Bangalore 560 085.
>> > Cell No. +91-87928-91066
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Anand S.
>> Coordinator, Anti Corruption Forum
>> Bangalore 560 085.
>> Cell No. +91-87928-91066
>>
>


Friday, November 11, 2011

Re: Fwd: [rti4empowerment] NEW AMENDMENT RULES TO RTI ACT IN KARNATAKA STATE

Dear Friends

I have read this Karnataka RTI related thread quite carefully.

It appears that RTI activists from Karnataka lag behind the rest of
India quite considerably (second in their egos only to my friends from
Maharashtra) and the situation is easily exploited by the SCIC to
divide and rule.

It is far better that the RTI Act is scrapped in Karnataka before such
actions expand to the rest of India (like that 150 word per RTI rule).

Sarbajit

On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 10:14 PM, Vikram Simha
<vikramsimha54@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> Dear Shashi Kumar
> I am sorry , Once Again I repeat that You Confuse yourself and Tend to club all Problems or Difficulties that the Common man faces to One Issue which has come out. My First mail was Very explicit it is our Own making of EGO clashes and ONEUPMANSHIP Being Played by Certain So called ACTIVISTS .
> It Is No Doubt that this Rule Made by the GOK is a Very silly one without Giving a proper understanding to the IDEA IDEALS and practice of the act
> I Can Just say that the people who Have Brought the ammendement must have Thought they Are experts but We all will Become if Do not ascertain our Rights under RTI section 18 . Yes I do agree i have an ACTIUON PLAN and Rananeethi which Can only Conveyed Personally and Not in these Forums for obvious reason .
> If the KIC is Inviting Trouble Every day it is their Bliss
> as reagads all Your other problems As activists We Got to Work and Slog and It is only the First part To discuss it for an Planning
> N vikramsimha , KRIA Koota , #12 Sumeru Sir M N Krishna Rao Road , Basvangudi < Bangalore 560004.
>
>
> --- On Fri, 11/11/11, Anand Acf <acfanand@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Anand Acf <acfanand@gmail.com>
>> Subject: Fwd: [rti4empowerment] NEW AMENDMENT RULES TO RTI ACT IN KARNATAKA STATE
>> To: scic@karnataka.gov.in
>> Cc: "rti4empowerment" <rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com>, secy-kic@karnataka.gov.in
>> Date: Friday, 11 November, 2011, 5:42 PM
>> Dear A.k.m. Naik,
>>
>> Forwarded fro Kind Attention
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: "SHASHI KUMAR.A.R." <rudreshtechnology@gmail.com>
>> Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 00:27:06 +0530
>> Subject: Re: [rti4empowerment] NEW AMENDMENT RULES TO RTI
>> ACT IN KARNATAKA STATE
>> To: rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com
>>
>> Dear elder brother Sri. Vikram sir
>>
>> Thank you sir , I   am not offensive or
>> defensive to your coment , It is my
>> job to write as a journalist what i saw in the KIC , To day
>> also i had seen
>> the commission official  who is receiving
>> the  complaints or appeals is
>> refusing to take the complaints under section 18 of the act
>> and they are
>> directing  1st to use section 19(1) and then come to
>> the commission and to
>> see the gazette notification which is displayed on the
>> notice board
>> As an law graduate i  know and very ordinary
>> citizen  says the rule made is
>> perfect , But My question is what is the necessity of
>> making gazette
>> notification by the government the law which is already
>> existing in RTI Act
>> 2005   pertaining to 1st appeal before the
>> respective appelate authority
>>  and then to the KIC ,
>> The Karntaka information commisssion is having 6
>> information commissioners
>> and must see that all the departments must appoint PIO's
>> and appelate
>> authorites and to bring awareness &basics of RTI Act ,
>> Even after lapse of  6 years  majority  of
>> the government departments fails
>> to comply section 4(1)a / b of the act ,  One of our
>> volunteer filed rti
>> application pertaining to all the offices under
>> Vidhanasoudha and
>> vikas soudha [ 47 applications] , But the bundle is sent
>> back to him and
>> then he sent through COP / Ordinary post and it is deemed
>> to be received
>>  Even after lapse of more than 1 year no response from any
>> body from
>> vidhanasoudha / Vikasasoudha , But  complaint
>> under section 18 is filed to
>> the commission ,  but commission instead of hearing
>> the complaints ,
>> directed the petitioner to provide details regarding
>> all the pio names and
>> addresses , The government heads are not complying either
>> section  4(1) a
>> or b , even i filed  rti application 2 years back with
>> city civil court ,
>> they collected further fee but even after several hearings
>> no information
>> is provided but information commissoners are retiring and
>> Pio;s of courts
>> retiring ,but application is still pending in the
>> commisson  , this story
>> is same to other courts also , Karnataka lokayuktha office
>> not complied the
>> same ,KARNATAKA HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION  STILL NOT
>> HAVING ITS OFFICIAL
>> WEBSITE , WHAT WE CAN EXPECT FROM AT  RURAL KARNATAKA
>> LIKE GRAMA PANCHAYATH
>> LEVEL
>>
>> Thank you
>>
>> ARS KUMAR. BE LLB MA JOURNALISM [ MA HUMAN RIGHTS ]
>> SOCIAL ACTIVIST & JOURNALIST
>> Correspondent to the Weekly news paper " REPORTER"
>> Correspondent to Breaking News today News paper
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Anand Acf <acfanand@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I don't find any mistake in the amendment. It clearly
>> states no one
>> > can approach KIC u/s 19(3) with out approaching FAA
>> u/s 19(1)
>> >
>> > On 11/9/11, SHASHI KUMAR.A.R. <rudreshtechnology@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > > *DEAR BROTHERS /SISTERS / RTI USERS *
>> > > *FOR KIND ATTENTION *
>> > > *
>> > > *
>> > > *KARNATAKA  GOVT  ISSUED AN GAZETTE
>> NOTIFICATION  DATED 22/10/11 ,
>> > ENCLOSED
>> > > THE PDF VERSION , NOW THE KARNATAKA INFORMATION
>> COMMISSION IS REFUSING
>> > THE
>> > > COMPLAINTS FILED BY THE RTI APPLICANTS UNDER
>> SECTION 18(1) OF THE RTI ACT
>> > > AND KIC OFFICIALS ARE  DIRECTING ALL THE RTI
>> APPLICANTS NOT FILE ANY
>> > > COMPLAINTS UNDER SECTION 18 (1) OF THE ACT ,
>> BUT  THEY ARE DIRECTING RTI
>> > > APPLICANTS TO  FILE  1ST APEAL UNDER
>> SECTION 19 (1) OF THE ACT BEFORE THE
>> > > RESPECTIVE PUBLIC APPELATE AUHTHORITIES AND THEN
>> ONLY ALL THE APPLICANTS
>> > > MUST FILE 2ND APPEAL UNDER 19(3) OF  THE
>> ACT  BEFORE KARNATAKA
>> > INFORMATION
>> > > COMMISSION ,  *
>> > > *ONE OF THE OFFICIAL SAID SECTION 18 IS SCRAPPED
>> *
>> > > *
>> > > *
>> > > *I AM REQUESTING EVERY  CITIZEN /ACTIVIST /
>> SOCIAL WORKER / RTI USER TO
>> > > EXAMINE THE GAZETTE AND PLEASE GIVE VALUABLE
>> COMENTS  , WHETHER THIS RULE
>> > > MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT  IS VALID AS PER THE
>> PROVISIONS OF THE RTI ACT  ?
>> > *
>> > > *AFTER SIX YEARS OF LAPSE  ALSO MOST OF THE
>> GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS DONT
>> > > WANT RTI ACT TO BRING TRANSPARENCY AND GOOD
>> GOVERNANCE IN THIER OFFICES
>> > AND
>> > > NOT INTERESTED TO IMPLEMENT SECTION 4(1) A &
>> B OF THE ACT  WITH GREAT
>> > > SPIRIT *
>> > > *MOST  OF THEM DONT KNOW WHAT IS MEANT BY
>> PIO  AND THEY HAVE NOT
>> > APPOINTED
>> > > APPLELATE AUTHORITY  ALSO , *
>> > > *THIS IS THE TRICK PLAYED BY KARNATAKA
>> INFORMATION COMMISSION  WHO ARE
>> > > RETIRED BUREAUCRATS   TO SUPRESS
>> THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION   TO SIT IDLE
>> > > AND TO GET  THE  AROUND 1.5 LAKSH
>> SALARY AND  OTHER  BENIFITS ,
>> > PRIVILAGES
>> > > , CAR , PERKS ETC , *
>> > > *THEY DONT WANT TO HEAR AND PROVIDE THE
>> INFORMATION SOUGHT   UNDER
>> > SECTION
>> > >  18 OF THE ACT , AND ACTIVISTS NEED THE ACT
>> TO EXPOSE THE CORRUPTION IN
>> > THE
>> > > STATE  , **EALIER KARNATAKA IS A SILICON
>> CITY  NOW IT BECOME SILICON HUB
>> > > FOR CORRUPTION  ,*
>> > > * DAY BY DAY RTI ACT IS BECOMING DILUTE  ,
>> EARLIER CHIEF INFORMATION
>> > > COMMISSIONER KK MISHRA RECOMONDED FOR ONE SUBJECT
>> AND 150 WORDS , NOW
>> >  THIS
>> > > IS THE SITUATION ,  IF  THE APPLICATION
>> UNDER SECTION 18 (1) OF THE ACT
>> > IS
>> > > NOT HEARD , WHAT IS THE NECESSARY OF SIX
>> INFORMATION COMMISSIONERS , NOW
>> > > SOME OF THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER IS HEARING
>> MORNING SESSION ONLY
>> > ABOUT
>> > > 10 TO 12 COMPLAINTS AND SOME OF THEM HEARING MORE
>> THAN 25  WITHIN  1
>> > HOUR ,
>> > >  SOME OF THEM ARE NOT SPENDING MORE THAN
>> FRACTION OF SECOND TO DISPOSE
>> > THE
>> > > COMPLAINTS , AFTER NOON NO HEARINGS , BUT EACH
>> INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
>> > IS
>> > > GETING EQUAL TO HIGH COURT JUDGES SALARY BUT WHAT
>> IS THE PROGRESS AND OUT
>> > > PUT FROM THEM TO THE CITIZENS *
>> > > *
>> > > *
>> > > *WITH REGARDS *
>> > > *
>> > > *
>> > > *ARS KUMAR .BE. LLB , MA JOURNALISM [ MA HUMAN
>> RIGHTS ]*
>> > > *SOCIAL ACTIVIST *
>> > > *SWAMY VIVEKANANDA RTI JANA JAGRUTHI MISSION *
>> > > *KARNATAKA *
>> > > *[image: image.png]
>> > > *
>> > > *[image: image.png]
>> > > *
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Anand S.
>> > Coordinator, Anti Corruption Forum
>> > Bangalore 560 085.
>> > Cell No. +91-87928-91066
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Anand S.
>> Coordinator, Anti Corruption Forum
>> Bangalore 560 085.
>> Cell No. +91-87928-91066
>>
>

Re: Fwd: [rti4empowerment] NEW AMENDMENT RULES TO RTI ACT IN KARNATAKA STATE

Dear Shashi Kumar
I am sorry , Once Again I repeat that You Confuse yourself and Tend to club all Problems or Difficulties that the Common man faces to One Issue which has come out. My First mail was Very explicit it is our Own making of EGO clashes and ONEUPMANSHIP Being Played by Certain So called ACTIVISTS .
It Is No Doubt that this Rule Made by the GOK is a Very silly one without Giving a proper understanding to the IDEA IDEALS and practice of the act
I Can Just say that the people who Have Brought the ammendement must have Thought they Are experts but We all will Become if Do not ascertain our Rights under RTI section 18 . Yes I do agree i have an ACTIUON PLAN and Rananeethi which Can only Conveyed Personally and Not in these Forums for obvious reason .
If the KIC is Inviting Trouble Every day it is their Bliss
as reagads all Your other problems As activists We Got to Work and Slog and It is only the First part To discuss it for an Planning
N vikramsimha , KRIA Koota , #12 Sumeru Sir M N Krishna Rao Road , Basvangudi < Bangalore 560004.


--- On Fri, 11/11/11, Anand Acf <acfanand@gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Anand Acf <acfanand@gmail.com>
> Subject: Fwd: [rti4empowerment] NEW AMENDMENT RULES TO RTI ACT IN KARNATAKA STATE
> To: scic@karnataka.gov.in
> Cc: "rti4empowerment" <rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com>, secy-kic@karnataka.gov.in
> Date: Friday, 11 November, 2011, 5:42 PM
> Dear A.k.m. Naik,
>
> Forwarded fro Kind Attention
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "SHASHI KUMAR.A.R." <rudreshtechnology@gmail.com>
> Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 00:27:06 +0530
> Subject: Re: [rti4empowerment] NEW AMENDMENT RULES TO RTI
> ACT IN KARNATAKA STATE
> To: rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com
>
> Dear elder brother Sri. Vikram sir
>
> Thank you sir , I   am not offensive or
> defensive to your coment , It is my
> job to write as a journalist what i saw in the KIC , To day
> also i had seen
> the commission official  who is receiving 
> the  complaints or appeals is
> refusing to take the complaints under section 18 of the act
> and they are
> directing  1st to use section 19(1) and then come to
> the commission and to
> see the gazette notification which is displayed on the
> notice board
> As an law graduate i  know and very ordinary
> citizen  says the rule made is
> perfect , But My question is what is the necessity of
> making gazette
> notification by the government the law which is already
> existing in RTI Act
> 2005   pertaining to 1st appeal before the
> respective appelate authority
> and then to the KIC ,
> The Karntaka information commisssion is having 6
> information commissioners
> and must see that all the departments must appoint PIO's
> and appelate
> authorites and to bring awareness &basics of RTI Act ,
> Even after lapse of  6 years  majority  of
> the government departments fails
> to comply section 4(1)a / b of the act ,  One of our
> volunteer filed rti
> application pertaining to all the offices under
> Vidhanasoudha and
> vikas soudha [ 47 applications] , But the bundle is sent
> back to him and
> then he sent through COP / Ordinary post and it is deemed
> to be received
> Even after lapse of more than 1 year no response from any
> body from
> vidhanasoudha / Vikasasoudha , But  complaint 
> under section 18 is filed to
> the commission ,  but commission instead of hearing
> the complaints ,
> directed the petitioner to provide details regarding 
> all the pio names and
> addresses , The government heads are not complying either
> section  4(1) a
> or b , even i filed  rti application 2 years back with
> city civil court ,
> they collected further fee but even after several hearings
> no information
> is provided but information commissoners are retiring and
> Pio;s of courts
> retiring ,but application is still pending in the
> commisson  , this story
> is same to other courts also , Karnataka lokayuktha office
> not complied the
> same ,KARNATAKA HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION  STILL NOT
> HAVING ITS OFFICIAL
> WEBSITE , WHAT WE CAN EXPECT FROM AT  RURAL KARNATAKA
> LIKE GRAMA PANCHAYATH
> LEVEL
>
> Thank you
>
> ARS KUMAR. BE LLB MA JOURNALISM [ MA HUMAN RIGHTS ]
> SOCIAL ACTIVIST & JOURNALIST
> Correspondent to the Weekly news paper " REPORTER"
> Correspondent to Breaking News today News paper
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Anand Acf <acfanand@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I don't find any mistake in the amendment. It clearly
> states no one
> > can approach KIC u/s 19(3) with out approaching FAA
> u/s 19(1)
> >
> > On 11/9/11, SHASHI KUMAR.A.R. <rudreshtechnology@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > *DEAR BROTHERS /SISTERS / RTI USERS *
> > > *FOR KIND ATTENTION *
> > > *
> > > *
> > > *KARNATAKA  GOVT  ISSUED AN GAZETTE
> NOTIFICATION  DATED 22/10/11 ,
> > ENCLOSED
> > > THE PDF VERSION , NOW THE KARNATAKA INFORMATION
> COMMISSION IS REFUSING
> > THE
> > > COMPLAINTS FILED BY THE RTI APPLICANTS UNDER
> SECTION 18(1) OF THE RTI ACT
> > > AND KIC OFFICIALS ARE  DIRECTING ALL THE RTI
> APPLICANTS NOT FILE ANY
> > > COMPLAINTS UNDER SECTION 18 (1) OF THE ACT ,
> BUT  THEY ARE DIRECTING RTI
> > > APPLICANTS TO  FILE  1ST APEAL UNDER
> SECTION 19 (1) OF THE ACT BEFORE THE
> > > RESPECTIVE PUBLIC APPELATE AUHTHORITIES AND THEN
> ONLY ALL THE APPLICANTS
> > > MUST FILE 2ND APPEAL UNDER 19(3) OF  THE
> ACT  BEFORE KARNATAKA
> > INFORMATION
> > > COMMISSION ,  *
> > > *ONE OF THE OFFICIAL SAID SECTION 18 IS SCRAPPED
> *
> > > *
> > > *
> > > *I AM REQUESTING EVERY  CITIZEN /ACTIVIST /
> SOCIAL WORKER / RTI USER TO
> > > EXAMINE THE GAZETTE AND PLEASE GIVE VALUABLE
> COMENTS  , WHETHER THIS RULE
> > > MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT  IS VALID AS PER THE
> PROVISIONS OF THE RTI ACT  ?
> > *
> > > *AFTER SIX YEARS OF LAPSE  ALSO MOST OF THE
> GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS DONT
> > > WANT RTI ACT TO BRING TRANSPARENCY AND GOOD
> GOVERNANCE IN THIER OFFICES
> > AND
> > > NOT INTERESTED TO IMPLEMENT SECTION 4(1) A &
> B OF THE ACT  WITH GREAT
> > > SPIRIT *
> > > *MOST  OF THEM DONT KNOW WHAT IS MEANT BY
> PIO  AND THEY HAVE NOT
> > APPOINTED
> > > APPLELATE AUTHORITY  ALSO , *
> > > *THIS IS THE TRICK PLAYED BY KARNATAKA
> INFORMATION COMMISSION  WHO ARE
> > > RETIRED BUREAUCRATS   TO SUPRESS
> THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION   TO SIT IDLE
> > > AND TO GET  THE  AROUND 1.5 LAKSH
> SALARY AND  OTHER  BENIFITS ,
> > PRIVILAGES
> > > , CAR , PERKS ETC , *
> > > *THEY DONT WANT TO HEAR AND PROVIDE THE
> INFORMATION SOUGHT   UNDER
> > SECTION
> > >  18 OF THE ACT , AND ACTIVISTS NEED THE ACT
> TO EXPOSE THE CORRUPTION IN
> > THE
> > > STATE  , **EALIER KARNATAKA IS A SILICON
> CITY  NOW IT BECOME SILICON HUB
> > > FOR CORRUPTION  ,*
> > > * DAY BY DAY RTI ACT IS BECOMING DILUTE  ,
> EARLIER CHIEF INFORMATION
> > > COMMISSIONER KK MISHRA RECOMONDED FOR ONE SUBJECT
> AND 150 WORDS , NOW
> >  THIS
> > > IS THE SITUATION ,  IF  THE APPLICATION
> UNDER SECTION 18 (1) OF THE ACT
> > IS
> > > NOT HEARD , WHAT IS THE NECESSARY OF SIX
> INFORMATION COMMISSIONERS , NOW
> > > SOME OF THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER IS HEARING
> MORNING SESSION ONLY
> > ABOUT
> > > 10 TO 12 COMPLAINTS AND SOME OF THEM HEARING MORE
> THAN 25  WITHIN  1
> > HOUR ,
> > >  SOME OF THEM ARE NOT SPENDING MORE THAN
> FRACTION OF SECOND TO DISPOSE
> > THE
> > > COMPLAINTS , AFTER NOON NO HEARINGS , BUT EACH
> INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
> > IS
> > > GETING EQUAL TO HIGH COURT JUDGES SALARY BUT WHAT
> IS THE PROGRESS AND OUT
> > > PUT FROM THEM TO THE CITIZENS *
> > > *
> > > *
> > > *WITH REGARDS *
> > > *
> > > *
> > > *ARS KUMAR .BE. LLB , MA JOURNALISM [ MA HUMAN
> RIGHTS ]*
> > > *SOCIAL ACTIVIST *
> > > *SWAMY VIVEKANANDA RTI JANA JAGRUTHI MISSION *
> > > *KARNATAKA *
> > > *[image: image.png]
> > > *
> > > *[image: image.png]
> > > *
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Anand S.
> > Coordinator, Anti Corruption Forum
> > Bangalore 560 085.
> > Cell No. +91-87928-91066
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Anand S.
> Coordinator, Anti Corruption Forum
> Bangalore 560 085.
> Cell No. +91-87928-91066
>

Fwd: [rti4empowerment] NEW AMENDMENT RULES TO RTI ACT IN KARNATAKA STATE

Dear A.k.m. Naik,

Forwarded fro Kind Attention

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "SHASHI KUMAR.A.R." <rudreshtechnology@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 00:27:06 +0530
Subject: Re: [rti4empowerment] NEW AMENDMENT RULES TO RTI ACT IN KARNATAKA STATE
To: rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com

Dear elder brother Sri. Vikram sir

Thank you sir , I am not offensive or defensive to your coment , It is my
job to write as a journalist what i saw in the KIC , To day also i had seen
the commission official who is receiving the complaints or appeals is
refusing to take the complaints under section 18 of the act and they are
directing 1st to use section 19(1) and then come to the commission and to
see the gazette notification which is displayed on the notice board
As an law graduate i know and very ordinary citizen says the rule made is
perfect , But My question is what is the necessity of making gazette
notification by the government the law which is already existing in RTI Act
2005 pertaining to 1st appeal before the respective appelate authority
and then to the KIC ,
The Karntaka information commisssion is having 6 information commissioners
and must see that all the departments must appoint PIO's and appelate
authorites and to bring awareness &basics of RTI Act ,
Even after lapse of 6 years majority of the government departments fails
to comply section 4(1)a / b of the act , One of our volunteer filed rti
application pertaining to all the offices under Vidhanasoudha and
vikas soudha [ 47 applications] , But the bundle is sent back to him and
then he sent through COP / Ordinary post and it is deemed to be received
Even after lapse of more than 1 year no response from any body from
vidhanasoudha / Vikasasoudha , But complaint under section 18 is filed to
the commission , but commission instead of hearing the complaints ,
directed the petitioner to provide details regarding all the pio names and
addresses , The government heads are not complying either section 4(1) a
or b , even i filed rti application 2 years back with city civil court ,
they collected further fee but even after several hearings no information
is provided but information commissoners are retiring and Pio;s of courts
retiring ,but application is still pending in the commisson , this story
is same to other courts also , Karnataka lokayuktha office not complied the
same ,KARNATAKA HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION STILL NOT HAVING ITS OFFICIAL
WEBSITE , WHAT WE CAN EXPECT FROM AT RURAL KARNATAKA LIKE GRAMA PANCHAYATH
LEVEL

Thank you

ARS KUMAR. BE LLB MA JOURNALISM [ MA HUMAN RIGHTS ]
SOCIAL ACTIVIST & JOURNALIST
Correspondent to the Weekly news paper " REPORTER"
Correspondent to Breaking News today News paper

On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Anand Acf <acfanand@gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't find any mistake in the amendment. It clearly states no one
> can approach KIC u/s 19(3) with out approaching FAA u/s 19(1)
>
> On 11/9/11, SHASHI KUMAR.A.R. <rudreshtechnology@gmail.com> wrote:
> > *DEAR BROTHERS /SISTERS / RTI USERS *
> > *FOR KIND ATTENTION *
> > *
> > *
> > *KARNATAKA GOVT ISSUED AN GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 22/10/11 ,
> ENCLOSED
> > THE PDF VERSION , NOW THE KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION IS REFUSING
> THE
> > COMPLAINTS FILED BY THE RTI APPLICANTS UNDER SECTION 18(1) OF THE RTI ACT
> > AND KIC OFFICIALS ARE DIRECTING ALL THE RTI APPLICANTS NOT FILE ANY
> > COMPLAINTS UNDER SECTION 18 (1) OF THE ACT , BUT THEY ARE DIRECTING RTI
> > APPLICANTS TO FILE 1ST APEAL UNDER SECTION 19 (1) OF THE ACT BEFORE THE
> > RESPECTIVE PUBLIC APPELATE AUHTHORITIES AND THEN ONLY ALL THE APPLICANTS
> > MUST FILE 2ND APPEAL UNDER 19(3) OF THE ACT BEFORE KARNATAKA
> INFORMATION
> > COMMISSION , *
> > *ONE OF THE OFFICIAL SAID SECTION 18 IS SCRAPPED *
> > *
> > *
> > *I AM REQUESTING EVERY CITIZEN /ACTIVIST / SOCIAL WORKER / RTI USER TO
> > EXAMINE THE GAZETTE AND PLEASE GIVE VALUABLE COMENTS , WHETHER THIS RULE
> > MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT IS VALID AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE RTI ACT ?
> *
> > *AFTER SIX YEARS OF LAPSE ALSO MOST OF THE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS DONT
> > WANT RTI ACT TO BRING TRANSPARENCY AND GOOD GOVERNANCE IN THIER OFFICES
> AND
> > NOT INTERESTED TO IMPLEMENT SECTION 4(1) A & B OF THE ACT WITH GREAT
> > SPIRIT *
> > *MOST OF THEM DONT KNOW WHAT IS MEANT BY PIO AND THEY HAVE NOT
> APPOINTED
> > APPLELATE AUTHORITY ALSO , *
> > *THIS IS THE TRICK PLAYED BY KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION WHO ARE
> > RETIRED BUREAUCRATS TO SUPRESS THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION TO SIT IDLE
> > AND TO GET THE AROUND 1.5 LAKSH SALARY AND OTHER BENIFITS ,
> PRIVILAGES
> > , CAR , PERKS ETC , *
> > *THEY DONT WANT TO HEAR AND PROVIDE THE INFORMATION SOUGHT UNDER
> SECTION
> > 18 OF THE ACT , AND ACTIVISTS NEED THE ACT TO EXPOSE THE CORRUPTION IN
> THE
> > STATE , **EALIER KARNATAKA IS A SILICON CITY NOW IT BECOME SILICON HUB
> > FOR CORRUPTION ,*
> > * DAY BY DAY RTI ACT IS BECOMING DILUTE , EARLIER CHIEF INFORMATION
> > COMMISSIONER KK MISHRA RECOMONDED FOR ONE SUBJECT AND 150 WORDS , NOW
> THIS
> > IS THE SITUATION , IF THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 18 (1) OF THE ACT
> IS
> > NOT HEARD , WHAT IS THE NECESSARY OF SIX INFORMATION COMMISSIONERS , NOW
> > SOME OF THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER IS HEARING MORNING SESSION ONLY
> ABOUT
> > 10 TO 12 COMPLAINTS AND SOME OF THEM HEARING MORE THAN 25 WITHIN 1
> HOUR ,
> > SOME OF THEM ARE NOT SPENDING MORE THAN FRACTION OF SECOND TO DISPOSE
> THE
> > COMPLAINTS , AFTER NOON NO HEARINGS , BUT EACH INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
> IS
> > GETING EQUAL TO HIGH COURT JUDGES SALARY BUT WHAT IS THE PROGRESS AND OUT
> > PUT FROM THEM TO THE CITIZENS *
> > *
> > *
> > *WITH REGARDS *
> > *
> > *
> > *ARS KUMAR .BE. LLB , MA JOURNALISM [ MA HUMAN RIGHTS ]*
> > *SOCIAL ACTIVIST *
> > *SWAMY VIVEKANANDA RTI JANA JAGRUTHI MISSION *
> > *KARNATAKA *
> > *[image: image.png]
> > *
> > *[image: image.png]
> > *
> >
>
>
> --
> Anand S.
> Coordinator, Anti Corruption Forum
> Bangalore 560 085.
> Cell No. +91-87928-91066
>

--
Anand S.
Coordinator, Anti Corruption Forum
Bangalore 560 085.
Cell No. +91-87928-91066

Thursday, November 10, 2011

[rti4empowerment] NEW AMENDMENT RULES TO RTI ACT IN KARNATAKA STATE

Dear Shashi Kumar A.R.
 
        I am of the view that when you yourself is an LLB and journalist, you can tackle this case yourself. You may send a complaint by post, instead of delivering the same personally.  If that is rejected on the basis of notification or u r asked to file second appeal instead, challenge that rejection in the High Court.  After all, Right to Information is a Fundamental Right and no one else other than Parliament can amend the Act.  The notification of this far reacing consequence come under the amendment and not under the category of framing rules and regulations. Therefore, the notification nullifying one important section of the Act is bad in law, illegal and has no force in law but a simple piece of paper.    I am not a law graduate but from my experience, I know this very well.  In the Karnataka High Court, this can be challenged under article 226 of the Constitution. 
 
Request you to send me copy of the notification again as your previous mail attaching the notification is not traceable, might have been deleted by mistake.

From: SHASHI KUMAR.A.R. <rudreshtechnology@gmail.com>
To: rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, 11 November 2011 12:27 AM
Subject: Re: [rti4empowerment] NEW AMENDMENT RULES TO RTI ACT IN KARNATAKA STATE

Dear elder brother Sri. Vikram sir 

Thank you sir , I   am not offensive or defensive to your coment , It is my job to write as a journalist what i saw in the KIC , To day also i had seen 
the commission official  who is receiving  the  complaints or appeals is refusing to take the complaints under section 18 of the act and they are directing  1st to use section 19(1) and then come to the commission and to see the gazette notification which is displayed on the notice board 
As an law graduate i  know and very ordinary citizen  says the rule made is perfect , But My question is what is the necessity of making gazette notification by the government the law which is already existing in RTI Act 2005   pertaining to 1st appeal before the respective appelate authority  and then to the KIC , 
The Karntaka information commisssion is having 6 information commissioners and must see that all the departments must appoint PIO's and appelate authorites and to bring awareness &basics of RTI Act , 
Even after lapse of  6 years  majority  of the government departments fails to comply section 4(1)a / b of the act ,  One of our volunteer filed rti application pertaining to all the offices under Vidhanasoudha and 
vikas soudha [ 47 applications] , But the bundle is sent back to him and then he sent through COP / Ordinary post and it is deemed to be received  Even after lapse of more than 1 year no response from any body from vidhanasoudha / Vikasasoudha , But  complaint  under section 18 is filed to the commission ,  but commission instead of hearing the complaints ,
directed the petitioner to provide details regarding  all the pio names and addresses , The government heads are not complying either section  4(1) a or b , even i filed  rti application 2 years back with city civil court , they collected further fee but even after several hearings no information is provided but information commissoners are retiring and Pio;s of courts retiring ,but application is still pending in the commisson  , this story is same to other courts also , Karnataka lokayuktha office not complied the same ,KARNATAKA HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION  STILL NOT HAVING ITS OFFICIAL WEBSITE , WHAT WE CAN EXPECT FROM AT  RURAL KARNATAKA LIKE GRAMA PANCHAYATH LEVEL 

Thank you 

ARS KUMAR. BE LLB MA JOURNALISM [ MA HUMAN RIGHTS ]
SOCIAL ACTIVIST & JOURNALIST 
Correspondent to the Weekly news paper " REPORTER"
Correspondent to Breaking News today News paper 



On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Anand Acf <acfanand@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't find any mistake in the amendment. It clearly states no one
can approach KIC u/s 19(3) with out approaching FAA u/s 19(1)

On 11/9/11, SHASHI KUMAR.A.R. <rudreshtechnology@gmail.com> wrote:
> *DEAR BROTHERS /SISTERS / RTI USERS *
> *FOR KIND ATTENTION *
> *
> *
> *KARNATAKA  GOVT  ISSUED AN GAZETTE NOTIFICATION  DATED 22/10/11 , ENCLOSED
> THE PDF VERSION , NOW THE KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION IS REFUSING THE
> COMPLAINTS FILED BY THE RTI APPLICANTS UNDER SECTION 18(1) OF THE RTI ACT
> AND KIC OFFICIALS ARE  DIRECTING ALL THE RTI APPLICANTS NOT FILE ANY
> COMPLAINTS UNDER SECTION 18 (1) OF THE ACT , BUT  THEY ARE DIRECTING RTI
> APPLICANTS TO  FILE  1ST APEAL UNDER SECTION 19 (1) OF THE ACT BEFORE THE
> RESPECTIVE PUBLIC APPELATE AUHTHORITIES AND THEN ONLY ALL THE APPLICANTS
> MUST FILE 2ND APPEAL UNDER 19(3) OF  THE ACT  BEFORE KARNATAKA INFORMATION
> COMMISSION ,  *
> *ONE OF THE OFFICIAL SAID SECTION 18 IS SCRAPPED *
> *
> *
> *I AM REQUESTING EVERY  CITIZEN /ACTIVIST / SOCIAL WORKER / RTI USER TO
> EXAMINE THE GAZETTE AND PLEASE GIVE VALUABLE COMENTS  , WHETHER THIS RULE
> MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT  IS VALID AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE RTI ACT  ? *
> *AFTER SIX YEARS OF LAPSE  ALSO MOST OF THE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS DONT
> WANT RTI ACT TO BRING TRANSPARENCY AND GOOD GOVERNANCE IN THIER OFFICES AND
> NOT INTERESTED TO IMPLEMENT SECTION 4(1) A & B OF THE ACT  WITH GREAT
> SPIRIT *
> *MOST  OF THEM DONT KNOW WHAT IS MEANT BY PIO  AND THEY HAVE NOT APPOINTED
> APPLELATE AUTHORITY  ALSO , *
> *THIS IS THE TRICK PLAYED BY KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION  WHO ARE
> RETIRED BUREAUCRATS   TO SUPRESS THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION   TO SIT IDLE
> AND TO GET  THE  AROUND 1.5 LAKSH SALARY AND  OTHER  BENIFITS , PRIVILAGES
> , CAR , PERKS ETC , *
> *THEY DONT WANT TO HEAR AND PROVIDE THE INFORMATION SOUGHT   UNDER SECTION
>  18 OF THE ACT , AND ACTIVISTS NEED THE ACT TO EXPOSE THE CORRUPTION IN THE
> STATE  , **EALIER KARNATAKA IS A SILICON CITY  NOW IT BECOME SILICON HUB
> FOR CORRUPTION  ,*
> * DAY BY DAY RTI ACT IS BECOMING DILUTE  , EARLIER CHIEF INFORMATION
> COMMISSIONER KK MISHRA RECOMONDED FOR ONE SUBJECT AND 150 WORDS , NOW  THIS
> IS THE SITUATION ,  IF  THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 18 (1) OF THE ACT IS
> NOT HEARD , WHAT IS THE NECESSARY OF SIX INFORMATION COMMISSIONERS , NOW
> SOME OF THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER IS HEARING MORNING SESSION ONLY ABOUT
> 10 TO 12 COMPLAINTS AND SOME OF THEM HEARING MORE THAN 25  WITHIN  1 HOUR ,
>  SOME OF THEM ARE NOT SPENDING MORE THAN FRACTION OF SECOND TO DISPOSE THE
> COMPLAINTS , AFTER NOON NO HEARINGS , BUT EACH INFORMATION COMMISSIONER IS
> GETING EQUAL TO HIGH COURT JUDGES SALARY BUT WHAT IS THE PROGRESS AND OUT
> PUT FROM THEM TO THE CITIZENS *
> *
> *
> *WITH REGARDS *
> *
> *
> *ARS KUMAR .BE. LLB , MA JOURNALISM [ MA HUMAN RIGHTS ]*
> *SOCIAL ACTIVIST *
> *SWAMY VIVEKANANDA RTI JANA JAGRUTHI MISSION *
> *KARNATAKA *
> *[image: image.png]
> *
> *[image: image.png]
> *
>


--
Anand S.
Coordinator, Anti Corruption Forum
Bangalore 560 085.
Cell No. +91-87928-91066



Re: [rti4empowerment] NEW AMENDMENT RULES TO RTI ACT IN KARNATAKA STATE

 
 
Gupta ji aap bhainsh ke aage bekar me hi bin bajaa rahe ho

On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 9:49 AM, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Dear Sarabjit Roy,

In response to my request to be categorical, u have advised me that i do not know how to read English properly.  I am sorry to state that I request you the same.

Please go through section 18 of the Act again and you will find that under sub section 2, Commissions may iniitate an inquiry in the matter. 

Under sub-section 3, Commissions while inquiring int any matter, have the same power pwers as are vested in a civil court while trying  suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in some respect, details given from (a) to (e).

This options are not available in appeal cases filed u.s. 19(3) of the Act.  Unfortunately, Commissions rarely take resort to these provision. Recently, a case has come to notice where a State Commission (probably Punjab) used this section and issued bailable warrant against a PIO.

However, according to your advise, I am trying to know how to read between the line apart from reading in lines.  Advise you for the same.

Regards,
M K Gupta



From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 9 November 2011 11:50 PM

Subject: Re: [rti4empowerment] NEW AMENDMENT RULES TO RTI ACT IN KARNATAKA STATE

Dear Guptaji

For the umpteenth time I am advising you that you do not know how to
read English properly.

The new Karnataka RTI Rules amendments do NOT curtail the right of
applicant to file a complaint u/s 18(1)(c) if the PIO fails to give a
reply to the RTI request within the time period prescribed.

I also do not see where the RTI Act specifies that the penalties for
complaints is more stringent than that for appeals.

Sarbajit

On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 2:00 PM, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> There is a need to panic.  If we do not receive the reply to RTI
> application, applicant has a right to go to the Commission directly in
> complaint u.s. 18.  How that option can be snacthed without due process of
> law. Other grounds to approach the Commission are enumerated sub sections
> (a) to (f) of section 18.
> There is no time limit to go to Commission in complaint case while in
> appeal, the limitation is of 90 days.
> In complaint, the penal provisions are more stringenent than in appeal.
> I would like Shri Sarabjit Roy to be categorical about his thinking on these
> points.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Bhaskar Prabhu <mahitiadhikarmanch@gmail.com>
> To: rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 9 November 2011 1:41 PM
> Subject: Re: [rti4empowerment] NEW AMENDMENT RULES TO RTI ACT IN KARNATAKA
> STATE
>
> I agree with Sarbajit and Vinita, this pertains only to appeal process.
>
> Bhaskar Prabhu
> Mahiti Adhikar Manch
>
> On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Vinita Vishwas Deshmukh
> <vinitapune@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I don't think there's anything to get panicky - it only says that first you
> should go to the appellate authority. my two bits
> cheers and warm rgds
> vinita
> Vinita Deshmukh
> Senior Journalist
> 98230 36663
> Consulting Editor, MoneyLife
> www.truecoloursofpune.blogspot.com
> co-author of the book`To The Last Bullet'
> Convener, Pune Metro Jagruti Abhiyaan
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 7:37 AM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The amended rules are perfectly ok and only concern 2nd appeals u/s 19(3).
> This has no bearing whatsover on complaints filed u/s 18.
>
> Sarbajit
>
>
>
>
>
>



Re: [rti4empowerment] NEW AMENDMENT RULES TO RTI ACT IN KARNATAKA STATE

Dear elder brother Sri. Vikram sir 

Thank you sir , I   am not offensive or defensive to your coment , It is my job to write as a journalist what i saw in the KIC , To day also i had seen 
the commission official  who is receiving  the  complaints or appeals is refusing to take the complaints under section 18 of the act and they are directing  1st to use section 19(1) and then come to the commission and to see the gazette notification which is displayed on the notice board 
As an law graduate i  know and very ordinary citizen  says the rule made is perfect , But My question is what is the necessity of making gazette notification by the government the law which is already existing in RTI Act 2005   pertaining to 1st appeal before the respective appelate authority  and then to the KIC , 
The Karntaka information commisssion is having 6 information commissioners and must see that all the departments must appoint PIO's and appelate authorites and to bring awareness &basics of RTI Act , 
Even after lapse of  6 years  majority  of the government departments fails to comply section 4(1)a / b of the act ,  One of our volunteer filed rti application pertaining to all the offices under Vidhanasoudha and 
vikas soudha [ 47 applications] , But the bundle is sent back to him and then he sent through COP / Ordinary post and it is deemed to be received  Even after lapse of more than 1 year no response from any body from vidhanasoudha / Vikasasoudha , But  complaint  under section 18 is filed to the commission ,  but commission instead of hearing the complaints ,
directed the petitioner to provide details regarding  all the pio names and addresses , The government heads are not complying either section  4(1) a or b , even i filed  rti application 2 years back with city civil court , they collected further fee but even after several hearings no information is provided but information commissoners are retiring and Pio;s of courts retiring ,but application is still pending in the commisson  , this story is same to other courts also , Karnataka lokayuktha office not complied the same ,KARNATAKA HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION  STILL NOT HAVING ITS OFFICIAL WEBSITE , WHAT WE CAN EXPECT FROM AT  RURAL KARNATAKA LIKE GRAMA PANCHAYATH LEVEL 

Thank you 

ARS KUMAR. BE LLB MA JOURNALISM [ MA HUMAN RIGHTS ]
SOCIAL ACTIVIST & JOURNALIST 
Correspondent to the Weekly news paper " REPORTER"
Correspondent to Breaking News today News paper 



On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Anand Acf <acfanand@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't find any mistake in the amendment. It clearly states no one
can approach KIC u/s 19(3) with out approaching FAA u/s 19(1)

On 11/9/11, SHASHI KUMAR.A.R. <rudreshtechnology@gmail.com> wrote:
> *DEAR BROTHERS /SISTERS / RTI USERS *
> *FOR KIND ATTENTION *
> *
> *
> *KARNATAKA  GOVT  ISSUED AN GAZETTE NOTIFICATION  DATED 22/10/11 , ENCLOSED
> THE PDF VERSION , NOW THE KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION IS REFUSING THE
> COMPLAINTS FILED BY THE RTI APPLICANTS UNDER SECTION 18(1) OF THE RTI ACT
> AND KIC OFFICIALS ARE  DIRECTING ALL THE RTI APPLICANTS NOT FILE ANY
> COMPLAINTS UNDER SECTION 18 (1) OF THE ACT , BUT  THEY ARE DIRECTING RTI
> APPLICANTS TO  FILE  1ST APEAL UNDER SECTION 19 (1) OF THE ACT BEFORE THE
> RESPECTIVE PUBLIC APPELATE AUHTHORITIES AND THEN ONLY ALL THE APPLICANTS
> MUST FILE 2ND APPEAL UNDER 19(3) OF  THE ACT  BEFORE KARNATAKA INFORMATION
> COMMISSION ,  *
> *ONE OF THE OFFICIAL SAID SECTION 18 IS SCRAPPED *
> *
> *
> *I AM REQUESTING EVERY  CITIZEN /ACTIVIST / SOCIAL WORKER / RTI USER TO
> EXAMINE THE GAZETTE AND PLEASE GIVE VALUABLE COMENTS  , WHETHER THIS RULE
> MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT  IS VALID AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE RTI ACT  ? *
> *AFTER SIX YEARS OF LAPSE  ALSO MOST OF THE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS DONT
> WANT RTI ACT TO BRING TRANSPARENCY AND GOOD GOVERNANCE IN THIER OFFICES AND
> NOT INTERESTED TO IMPLEMENT SECTION 4(1) A & B OF THE ACT  WITH GREAT
> SPIRIT *
> *MOST  OF THEM DONT KNOW WHAT IS MEANT BY PIO  AND THEY HAVE NOT APPOINTED
> APPLELATE AUTHORITY  ALSO , *
> *THIS IS THE TRICK PLAYED BY KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION  WHO ARE
> RETIRED BUREAUCRATS   TO SUPRESS THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION   TO SIT IDLE
> AND TO GET  THE  AROUND 1.5 LAKSH SALARY AND  OTHER  BENIFITS , PRIVILAGES
> , CAR , PERKS ETC , *
> *THEY DONT WANT TO HEAR AND PROVIDE THE INFORMATION SOUGHT   UNDER SECTION
>  18 OF THE ACT , AND ACTIVISTS NEED THE ACT TO EXPOSE THE CORRUPTION IN THE
> STATE  , **EALIER KARNATAKA IS A SILICON CITY  NOW IT BECOME SILICON HUB
> FOR CORRUPTION  ,*
> * DAY BY DAY RTI ACT IS BECOMING DILUTE  , EARLIER CHIEF INFORMATION
> COMMISSIONER KK MISHRA RECOMONDED FOR ONE SUBJECT AND 150 WORDS , NOW  THIS
> IS THE SITUATION ,  IF  THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 18 (1) OF THE ACT IS
> NOT HEARD , WHAT IS THE NECESSARY OF SIX INFORMATION COMMISSIONERS , NOW
> SOME OF THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER IS HEARING MORNING SESSION ONLY ABOUT
> 10 TO 12 COMPLAINTS AND SOME OF THEM HEARING MORE THAN 25  WITHIN  1 HOUR ,
>  SOME OF THEM ARE NOT SPENDING MORE THAN FRACTION OF SECOND TO DISPOSE THE
> COMPLAINTS , AFTER NOON NO HEARINGS , BUT EACH INFORMATION COMMISSIONER IS
> GETING EQUAL TO HIGH COURT JUDGES SALARY BUT WHAT IS THE PROGRESS AND OUT
> PUT FROM THEM TO THE CITIZENS *
> *
> *
> *WITH REGARDS *
> *
> *
> *ARS KUMAR .BE. LLB , MA JOURNALISM [ MA HUMAN RIGHTS ]*
> *SOCIAL ACTIVIST *
> *SWAMY VIVEKANANDA RTI JANA JAGRUTHI MISSION *
> *KARNATAKA *
> *[image: image.png]
> *
> *[image: image.png]
> *
>


--
Anand S.
Coordinator, Anti Corruption Forum
Bangalore 560 085.
Cell No. +91-87928-91066

Re: [HumJanenge] RTI misuse: NGO to cough up 75K

They deserved it. Its because of some pests like this that we all RTI Activists are branded as nuisance.

On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 9:26 PM, sandeep kumar <drsandgupta@gmail.com> wrote:
good move by high court. these type of persons abusing the
transparency law must be punished.

On 11/10/11, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> RTI misuse: NGO to cough up 75K
>
> Abhinav Garg TNN
>
> New Delhi: Harassment through misuse of RTI Act can cost you dearly.
>
> An
>  NGO that used to hound MCD officials by swarming them with offensive
> RTI querieshaslearntthisthehard way.The Supreme Court has asked
> Paardarshita Public Welfare tocoughup a fineofRs 75,000 and pay
> ittotheBlindRelief Association,dismissing its plea to set aside a Delhi
> high court order.
> A division bench comprising Justice D K Jain and
> JusticeA nilKD ave rejectedthe argument put forward by the NGO and its
> general secretary Harkishan DasNirjhawan that the HC needlessly
> penalized them for seeking information under the transparency act.
> Nirjhawan
>  had earned the courts wrath for demanding answers under RTI on sexual
> health and parentage of some of MCDs officials.HC was not amused when in
>  November last year,the MCD informed it that Nirjhawan,who had then
> filed a PIL on alleged corruption in the organization of Commonwealth
> Games,constantly terrified them by threatening to expose them by filing
> such RTIs.
> The PIL sought an inquiry intotheinvolvementof certain MCD
>  engineers in the Commonwealth Games scam.It alleged corruption on the
> part of the engineering department of the MCD,saying the engineers
> siphoned off public funds.
> HC dismissed the PIL and imposed a
> punitive fine on the NGO for RTI misuse.However,an unrepentant Nirjhawan
>  chosetochallengetheHCorder before the apex court.Sources in the MCD
> claim despite the strong HC penalty,he still moves around in various
> offices of the civic agency carrying secret electronic gadgets to
> terrorize the officials.
> Withtheostensible purpose of nailing the
> corrupt,the NGO resortstobullying andintimidation,threatening MCD staff
> withcourtcases and more RTIs,agency officials said.
> Now,with even the
>  apex court throwing out Nirjhawans appeal,many hope the NGO will mend
> its ways.In one of his RTIs that left the HC shocked,Nirjhawan asked the
>  MCD to tell if some of its officials in the south zone area suffered
> from sexually-transmitteddiseases,if any of them had a surrogate or
> stepmother and their details and asked for a DNA report of an engineer
> in MCD to ascertain his parentage.RTI is a great act,it is people like
> you who give it a bad name, the bench had then observed,surprised to see
>  how an NGO purportedly dedicated to eliminating corruption  could
> adoptsuchlowtacticsfor a private agenda.
> abhinav.garg@timesgroup.com


--
Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
989, Sector 15-A, Opposite bishnoi Colony, Hisar-125001, INDIA
Phone: 91-99929-31181



--

  Thanks & Regards

  Prashant Uikey

  Founder - "IT'S MY RIGHT" Forum: CLICK TO JOIN
  Striving For Protection & Successful Implementation Of Citizen's Rights

  Mob: +91 9821936000