Saturday, December 10, 2011

Re: [HumJanenge] Transparency in Public Private Partnership Projects in India- Calling the Planning Commission's Bluff- Part 2

They can't give u this information since their is nothing like private public in these contracts except the corruption part.The complete finances are public arranged privately n pocketed jointly. Such coys arrange their part of finances through equity n banks, the rest is from the govt. Land is allotted almost free hence, where is the private money n the complete benefit goes to the private payers,so the janta is thoroughly cheated and why so because the bureaucrats n politicians at all level get their share of benefit.

From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>; venkatesh@humanrightsinitiative.org
Sent: Saturday, 10 December 2011 7:29 AM
Subject: [HumJanenge] Transparency in Public Private Partnership Projects in India- Calling the Planning Commission's Bluff- Part 2

Dear Venkatesh

If the agreement for a commercial PPP contains a "confidentiality
clause" then exemption u/s 8(1)(d) squarely awaits to be invoked by a
PIO. The only strategy you have now is "larger public interest" and it
is a little too late to invoke it at CIC level

It is another thing entirely that Mr.Montek Singh can say anything he
wishes to say.

Sarbajit
(via HJ-GG)

On 12/9/11, Venkatesh <venkatesh@humanrightsinitiative.org> wrote:
> Dear all,
> Last month I had circulated an email alert relating to our efforts of
> testing the claim of the Deputy Chairperson of the Planning Commission of
> India that any person can get a certified copy of the consession agreement
> relating to a public private partnership (PPP) project if the model
> concession agreement is followed. We had filed a test information request
> under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) with the Department of
> Ports, Government of Puducherry for the Puducherry Port PPP project. As no
> response was received for 30 days we filed a first appeal with the
> Department. The Department responded stating that a 'confidentiality
> agreement' in the concession agreement required them to consult with the
> third party, a private company based in Delhi. We now have a final decision
> in this matter.
>
> The First Appellate Authority has rejected our appeal stating as follows:
>
> "With reference to your appeal under Right to Information Act 2005 cited
> second above, I am to inform you that your request is not acceded as per
> Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act 2005" (scanned copy of the rejection order is
> attached).
>
> The Planning Commission's bluff stands exposed. Despite the claim made by
> their Deputy Chairperson in his reply to the Chief Information Commissioner,
> Central Information Commission. that any person can get a certified copy of
> the concession agreement from the department responsible for the PPP, this
> does not seem to be true in actual practice.
>
> What is wrong with the first appellate authority's order?
> The first appellate authority has mechanically rejected the appeal without
> giving any detailed reasons. He has not given a speaking order as is the
> requirement under the RTI Act. A speaking order contains detailed reasons
> for the final decision made along with a weighing of the pros and cons in
> favour of and against disclosure. The first appellate authority has failed
> to mention any specific objections raised by the third party despite that
> procedure having been initiated. Even stranger is the absence of any date on
> the order of the appellate authority. Only the envelope containing the order
> sent to me mentions the date as 16/11/2011 along with the number of the
> letter. So the order is also invalid as it was issued 60 days after the
> submission of the appeal. Under Section 19(6) of the RTI Act the first
> appellate authority is obligated to give a decision on a first appeal within
> 30 days. However the appellate authority may taken 15 more days but resons
> have to be recorded in the decision explaining the cause of delay. Even this
> requirement has not been complied with.
>
> So the Department of Ports, Puducherry has delivered a double whammy. It has
> not only falsified the claim of the Planning Commission's Deputy
> Chairperson, it has also flouted the provisions of the RTI Act without any
> compunction.
>
> We will file a second appeal with the Central Information Commission soon.
>
> I request all readers to similarly test transparency in PPPs in their own
> States.


 

Friday, December 9, 2011

Re: [HumJanenge] Transparency in Public Private Partnership Projects in India- Calling the Planning Commission's Bluff- Part 2

Hearty congratulations to Mr Venkatesh for seeking an insight into PPP projects. Since May 2010, I have been touching upon early importance of re-vamping our National E Governance Plan (NEGP) of 2005 vintage to include tendering, evaluating, ordering, execution and monitoring all PPPs based projects and their O&M to build transparency in the handling of a $ trillion outlay in the current 5 year plan by the Govt. This has gone in vain even though privately some top bureaucrats agree to this proposition. Mr Venkatesh, you have hit upon the most sensitive area where it pains the maximum to the Govt. I think, this is just the beginning of the situation never experienced in our country earlier. Just like the developed countries also went through a transition and are now happily enjoying the fruits of transparency, we too would start seeing this in India. The only way is to maintain the pressure by exercising our rights. This is where the well experienced Mr Sarbajit can also guide the members while we are in transition. The country when in total transparency in spending huge public money in an e governance era would heave a sigh of relief from such scourge. Until that, experts like Mr Sarbajit would be required to contribute more and more to help the info seekers under the aegis of RTI.    

Jai Hind.

With warm regards,

Col Mahesh Khera

Founder KTMT, India
Premium Partner and Leader of Global Consulting Management Platforms

Phone - +91-120-4318375, +91-120-2450197  
Mob    - +91-9310716167  
VOIP  -  +1 973-551-3246
Skype-   mahesh.khera
Mail    -  mahesh.khera@ktmt.in
          -  mahesh@locationlabs.com

Web   - http://www.ktmt.in 
          - http://www.locationlabs.com

Convergence has  enabled many telecom companies to serve digitalized societies by multi  play@ of voice, High Speed Internet, GDP growth driving apps, streaming TV, mobile and fixed mobile convergence for their daily business, work, location, safety, security, governance, social, and entertainment  needs.
 
@MPVNO,  NTOC, JEC and JNS are SMs of KTMT 
 


From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>; venkatesh@humanrightsinitiative.org
Sent: Saturday, 10 December 2011 7:29 AM
Subject: [HumJanenge] Transparency in Public Private Partnership Projects in India- Calling the Planning Commission's Bluff- Part 2

Dear Venkatesh

If the agreement for a commercial PPP contains a "confidentiality
clause" then exemption u/s 8(1)(d) squarely awaits to be invoked by a
PIO. The only strategy you have now is "larger public interest" and it
is a little too late to invoke it at CIC level

It is another thing entirely that Mr.Montek Singh can say anything he
wishes to say.

Sarbajit
(via HJ-GG)

On 12/9/11, Venkatesh <venkatesh@humanrightsinitiative.org> wrote:
> Dear all,
> Last month I had circulated an email alert relating to our efforts of
> testing the claim of the Deputy Chairperson of the Planning Commission of
> India that any person can get a certified copy of the consession agreement
> relating to a public private partnership (PPP) project if the model
> concession agreement is followed. We had filed a test information request
> under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) with the Department of
> Ports, Government of Puducherry for the Puducherry Port PPP project. As no
> response was received for 30 days we filed a first appeal with the
> Department. The Department responded stating that a 'confidentiality
> agreement' in the concession agreement required them to consult with the
> third party, a private company based in Delhi. We now have a final decision
> in this matter.
>
> The First Appellate Authority has rejected our appeal stating as follows:
>
> "With reference to your appeal under Right to Information Act 2005 cited
> second above, I am to inform you that your request is not acceded as per
> Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act 2005" (scanned copy of the rejection order is
> attached).
>
> The Planning Commission's bluff stands exposed. Despite the claim made by
> their Deputy Chairperson in his reply to the Chief Information Commissioner,
> Central Information Commission. that any person can get a certified copy of
> the concession agreement from the department responsible for the PPP, this
> does not seem to be true in actual practice.
>
> What is wrong with the first appellate authority's order?
> The first appellate authority has mechanically rejected the appeal without
> giving any detailed reasons. He has not given a speaking order as is the
> requirement under the RTI Act. A speaking order contains detailed reasons
> for the final decision made along with a weighing of the pros and cons in
> favour of and against disclosure. The first appellate authority has failed
> to mention any specific objections raised by the third party despite that
> procedure having been initiated. Even stranger is the absence of any date on
> the order of the appellate authority. Only the envelope containing the order
> sent to me mentions the date as 16/11/2011 along with the number of the
> letter. So the order is also invalid as it was issued 60 days after the
> submission of the appeal. Under Section 19(6) of the RTI Act the first
> appellate authority is obligated to give a decision on a first appeal within
> 30 days. However the appellate authority may taken 15 more days but resons
> have to be recorded in the decision explaining the cause of delay. Even this
> requirement has not been complied with.
>
> So the Department of Ports, Puducherry has delivered a double whammy. It has
> not only falsified the claim of the Planning Commission's Deputy
> Chairperson, it has also flouted the provisions of the RTI Act without any
> compunction.
>
> We will file a second appeal with the Central Information Commission soon.
>
> I request all readers to similarly test transparency in PPPs in their own
> States.


[HumJanenge] Transparency in Public Private Partnership Projects in India- Calling the Planning Commission's Bluff- Part 2

Dear Venkatesh

If the agreement for a commercial PPP contains a "confidentiality
clause" then exemption u/s 8(1)(d) squarely awaits to be invoked by a
PIO. The only strategy you have now is "larger public interest" and it
is a little too late to invoke it at CIC level

It is another thing entirely that Mr.Montek Singh can say anything he
wishes to say.

Sarbajit
(via HJ-GG)

On 12/9/11, Venkatesh <venkatesh@humanrightsinitiative.org> wrote:
> Dear all,
> Last month I had circulated an email alert relating to our efforts of
> testing the claim of the Deputy Chairperson of the Planning Commission of
> India that any person can get a certified copy of the consession agreement
> relating to a public private partnership (PPP) project if the model
> concession agreement is followed. We had filed a test information request
> under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) with the Department of
> Ports, Government of Puducherry for the Puducherry Port PPP project. As no
> response was received for 30 days we filed a first appeal with the
> Department. The Department responded stating that a 'confidentiality
> agreement' in the concession agreement required them to consult with the
> third party, a private company based in Delhi. We now have a final decision
> in this matter.
>
> The First Appellate Authority has rejected our appeal stating as follows:
>
> "With reference to your appeal under Right to Information Act 2005 cited
> second above, I am to inform you that your request is not acceded as per
> Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act 2005" (scanned copy of the rejection order is
> attached).
>
> The Planning Commission's bluff stands exposed. Despite the claim made by
> their Deputy Chairperson in his reply to the Chief Information Commissioner,
> Central Information Commission. that any person can get a certified copy of
> the concession agreement from the department responsible for the PPP, this
> does not seem to be true in actual practice.
>
> What is wrong with the first appellate authority's order?
> The first appellate authority has mechanically rejected the appeal without
> giving any detailed reasons. He has not given a speaking order as is the
> requirement under the RTI Act. A speaking order contains detailed reasons
> for the final decision made along with a weighing of the pros and cons in
> favour of and against disclosure. The first appellate authority has failed
> to mention any specific objections raised by the third party despite that
> procedure having been initiated. Even stranger is the absence of any date on
> the order of the appellate authority. Only the envelope containing the order
> sent to me mentions the date as 16/11/2011 along with the number of the
> letter. So the order is also invalid as it was issued 60 days after the
> submission of the appeal. Under Section 19(6) of the RTI Act the first
> appellate authority is obligated to give a decision on a first appeal within
> 30 days. However the appellate authority may taken 15 more days but resons
> have to be recorded in the decision explaining the cause of delay. Even this
> requirement has not been complied with.
>
> So the Department of Ports, Puducherry has delivered a double whammy. It has
> not only falsified the claim of the Planning Commission's Deputy
> Chairperson, it has also flouted the provisions of the RTI Act without any
> compunction.
>
> We will file a second appeal with the Central Information Commission soon.
>
> I request all readers to similarly test transparency in PPPs in their own
> States.

[HumJanenge] Re: [HumJanenge-YG] RTI Activist and Anti-Corruption Crusader Shot Dead in Bihar- An Update

Dear Venkatesh

Unfortunately you are misinforming the public on how the term "forthwith" is interpreted in Indian Police / Legal circles. (PPW versus PPR)

"Forthwith" = within 14 days.

PS:  I make no comment on this  ;-)
PPS: I am posting this on HJ-GG for reasons very well known to all of us.

Sarbajit

On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Venkatesh <venkatesh@humanrightsinitiative.org> wrote:
 

Dear all,
This is an update on the murder of RTI activist Ram Vilas Singh in
Lakhisarai, Bihar. I have been informed that the deceased's son managed to
get a first information report (FIR) about the murder regeistered at the
Lakhisarai Town Police Station. Today's Indian Express has carried a story
on this dastardly incident:
<http://www.indianexpress.com/news/rti-activist-shot-dead-in-bihar/885698/>
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/rti-activist-shot-dead-in-bihar/885698/

When I spoke with Rajkishore this morning about the progress of the case he
narrated the usual story about police cooperation. Despite the filing of the
FIR the police apparently has not furnished the deceased's son (complainant)
with a copy of the FIR. He has allegedly been told that the body of the
activist would be sent for postmortem examination and after that procedure
is completed a copy of the FIR can be given. If this is true it is so
typical of the working of the police in most parts of the country. Section
154(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 clearly states as follows: "A
copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1) shall be given
forthwith, free of cost, to the informant." Despite this clear statement of
the right of the complainant, the police fails to comply with the
requirement of the law. The term 'forthwith' is forgotten and the
bureaucratic wheels take their own time to turn in favour of the victim. The
police is so understaffed and busy, you see, they have little time for
complying with such 'minor' obligations.

Interestingly, the much touted Bihar Right to Public Service Guarantee Act,
2011 (attached) which allows for payment of compensation to citizens for
deficiency in the performance of a public service does not include the
police department. Had the police been included under this law they would
have had to pay a lumpsum amount from their pocket to the complainant for
delay in providing a copy of the FIR. Are changemakers in the State
Government paying attention to such lacunae in the implementation of the
Service Guarantee Act? It is the failure to perform such tiny tiny
obligations that add up to the massive dissatisfaction with police
performance. The system is most predictable in its non-compliant mode.
Compliance with the law seems to be an unreasonable expectation.

Thanks
Venkatesh Nayak
Programme Coordinator
Access to Information Programme
Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative
B-117, First Floor, Sarvodaya Enclave
New Delhi- 110 017
Tel: +91-1143180215/ 43180201
Fax: +91-11-26864688
Website: www.humanrightsinitiative.org
<http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/>
Skype: venkatesh.nayak@skype.com
Alternate Email ID: nayak.venkatesh@gmail.com

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
messages in archives can be accessed only by members, but all are welcome to join hum janenge group. visit http://indiarti.blogspot.com to know everything on rti.
.

__,_._,___

Wednesday, December 7, 2011

[rti4empowerment] WORLD ANTICORRUPTION DAY 9TH DEC 2011

DEAR FRIENDS , 


ALL ARE WELCOME ,


         ON THE OCASSION OF "WORLD ANTI-CORRUPTION DAY" ON 9TH DEC 2011
       

                  " KARNATAKA  BRASHTACHARA  VIRODHI RANGA"

          ALONG WITH THE SUPPORT OF ALL OTHER ORGANISATIONS  

FIGHTING AGAINST CORRUPTION IN KARNATAKA   HOLDING  THE FOLLOWING  

PROGRAMMES AT LEGISLATURES CONFERENCE HALL 

  [ LH- CONFERENCE HALL ] -  BEHIND VIDHANA SOUDHA , BANGALORE 


                                 GROUP DISCUSSION 

                                BETWEEN  :   2-30 PM TO 5 PM    


PRESIDED BY : SRI . H.S. DORESWAMY , FREEDOM FIGHTER , BANGALORE 



                                       CONCLUDING SESSION   

                                     FROM 5-15 PM ONWARDS 



INAUGURATION   :     HONABLE JUSTICE SRI. SHYLENDRA KUMAR 

                                    HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA , BANGALORE 



CHIEF  GUESTS   :      SRI. VAIDYANATHAN PROFESSOR ,

                                    INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT, BANGALORE 


                                     SRI . RAVINDRA RESHME , SENIOR JOURNALIST , BANGALORE 


PRESIDED BY       :     SRI.K.R.PET KRISHNA FORMER SPEAKER 

                                      LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

                                      GOVT OF KARNATAKA 


PLEASE  PARTICIPATE  IN LARGE NUMBER  AND MAKE THE PROGRAME SUCCESSFUL 

TO BUILD CORRUPTION FREE  INDIA 

THANK YOU 

WITH REGARDS 

KARNATAKA BRASHTACHARA VIRODHI RANGA & 

ALL THE ORGANISATIONS  FIGHTING AGAINST CORRUPTION IN KARANTAKA 

NOTE : INVITATION CARD ATTACHED / PLEASE CIRCULATE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE 

FOR MORE INFORMATION :PLEASE CONTACT 

Mr. M.N. SUBRAMANYA  - SOCIAL ACTIVIST -9980078705 

Mr. A.R.SHASHI KUMAR - RTI ACTIVIST -9448487427 

Smt. JAYASHREE -SOCIAL ACTIVIST -9343833168 

Monday, December 5, 2011

Re: [HumJanenge] CIC. Shailesh Gandhi tells RBI to disclose Coop. Banks' Info to Whilstleblower

 (ordinarily I would have used much stronger language which involves the oscillatory motion when a tongue is applied to an unmentionable body part) 

Great wordings!!!

Regards,

Hemant

On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
This is yet another thread which shows how these NCPRI haramis (and the list gets longer each day) are out to screw the public and shaft the RTI Act simultaneously. .

The only reason sarkari chamchas (ordinarily I would have used much stronger language which involves the oscillatory motion when a tongue is applied to an unmentionable body part) like SG are where they are is because of their quisling status.

Sarbajit

From: C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com>
 

This CIC order has been "stayed" by the Delhi HC.
Please see the last post in this thread:
http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/84691-inspection-reports-apex-cooperative-banks-have-disclosed.html

RTIwanted




--

[HumJanenge] CIC. Shailesh Gandhi tells RBI to disclose Coop. Banks' Info to Whilstleblower

This is yet another thread which shows how these NCPRI haramis (and the list gets longer each day) are out to screw the public and shaft the RTI Act simultaneously. .

The only reason sarkari chamchas (ordinarily I would have used much stronger language which involves the oscillatory motion when a tongue is applied to an unmentionable body part) like SG are where they are is because of their quisling status.

Sarbajit

From: C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com>
 

This CIC order has been "stayed" by the Delhi HC.
Please see the last post in this thread:
http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/84691-inspection-reports-apex-cooperative-banks-have-disclosed.html

RTIwanted

Sunday, December 4, 2011

Re: [HumJanenge] Re: FILING APPLICATION PR REQUEST WITHOUT GIVING REASONS

This will clear the doubt of all:

The Nodal Officer,
Central Information Commission,
Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi-110067.
5.11.2011.
 
Sub: Information under RTI Act, 2005.
 
Ref:    My request dated 25.9.2011 sent on 26.9.11 by speed post to Shri Satyananda Mishra, Chief Information Commissioner.
 
Sir,
 
          In my compliant number CIC/AD/C/2010/000144, Mrs. Annapurna Dixit has out rightly rejected my application for taking action against Shri D K Das, PIO (now Retd), NSD, All India Radio for submitting false affidavits before the IC and has also registered two false FIR/NCS with the Delhi Police falsely declaring that the file has been lost and therefore, information cannot be provided.
2.       In this regard, I request you to inform furnish the following information:
i.        The status of my aforesaid request sent to the Chief IC.
          ii        If my request to make a complaint to the First Class Magistrate for the perjury committed by the CPIO has been rejected, please provide the file notings arriving at this decision.
3.       I am enclosing a copy of my aforesaid request.
4.                 I am enclosing IPO for Rs. 10/- numbering ___________ as RTI fee. 
 
 
 
FURTHER INFORMATION FOR YOU-
 
Giving False statement on oath is a crime. You can recourse to file an application and with the PA as well as with the Information Commission (with copy to the police) stating that you intend to proceed with a criminal complaint against the erring PIO (who gave false affidavit on oath) and request the PA as well as Information commission to follow their duty under law to proceed to inquire further into the matter and file a complaint with the magistrate within a reasonable time under Section 193, 196, 209, 211, 463 and 471 of Indian Penal Code read with the provisions of 340 Cr PC. PA/SIC or CIC that by not following the procedure, they are ventilation the law where a public functionary is duty bound to report the matter to the court of Magistrate of appropriate jurisdiction.
 
It may be mentioned here that the offenses mentioned in Section 195 (1)(b) Cr PC the Court cannot take cognizance except on the complaint to the said court by the aggrieved person. Section 193 IPC and various related sections of IPC like 193 to 196, 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, 463 and related sections, the Court only takes cognizance if the aggrieved party (State or the complainant) comes forward and it is pertinent to mention herein that the Court (read here the Commission too) in whose proceedings a false claim or false document has been submitted does not take any action suo-moto, so the aggrieved person has to show and come forward to prove that the other party has in fact stated false facts and has in fact given or submitted false evidence in relation to Court Proceedings. It is also pointed out that if you choose to file a criminal complaint, you have to be present in the court on all the hearings. You absence even in a single hearing will dismiss the case. So, it is always better that the State/Police may file the complaint.
 
It is most respectfully submitted that under Section 340 clause 1 sub clause (a) to (e) prescribes a procedure wherein the Court after a preliminary inquiry forwards the complaint to the Magistrate. Herein preliminary inquiry means that the concerned court hears both the parties i.e. the complainant/aggrieved party and the party who is purported to have stated false facts and may either dismiss the complaint under Section 340 Cr PC or may record a finding to that effect and forward it to the magistrate:
 
a) Record a finding to that effect;
(b) Make a complaint thereof in writing;
(c) Send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction;

If u want, I may send the copy of my aforesaid complaint dated 25.9.11 to CCIC.

Thanks, Sarbajit ji.

 ***********************************************************************************************************************************

Dear Guptaji

I am very confused

1) You filed a REQUEST (??) to the "Chief Information" (??)

2) The Information you sought concerns rejection of your
"complaint" (for perjury) to the First Class Magistrate. So why should
CIC have it ???

3) What "Competent Authority" do you refer to ?

4) Why should CIC take a decision on your complaint to a Magistrate ?

Sarbajit

On Dec 4, 7:45 pm, "M.K. Gupta" <mkgupta...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> I
> submitted an RTIapplication to the Central Information Commission for
> giving information on the status of my request sent to the Chief Information
> and (ii) if my request has been rejected, to provide the file notings arriving
> at that decision.
>
> In
> reply to the above, I received a reply from Shri Dhirendra Kumar, CPIO stating
> (i) your request has been filed and (ii) the nothing relating to the rejection
> of your complaint to the First Class Magistrate for the perjury is not
> available in our record.
>
> I am curious
> to know whether any request should be filed without any making noting and taking
> informed decision to file the same silently.   The statement that "the notings relating to the rejection to your
> complaint to the first class Magistrate for the perjury is not available in our
> record" means no noting or noting may be in the record of some other
> unit/deptt.
>
> Can a
> request or application should be just filed by the subordinate staff without
> taking a decision or written direction by the Competent Authority?  Even if the Competent Authority has just
> written "file" on the application, should it not be informed and copy be
> provided to the applicant?
>
> Whether
> something further can be done in the case to know the reason of inaction on my application.  In such a case, whether first appeal
> should be filed and if so, what should be the grounds?
>
> I shall be grateful for your
> valuable guidance.

[HumJanenge] Re: FILING APPLICATION PR REQUEST WITHOUT GIVING REASONS

Dear Guptaji

I am very confused

1) You filed a REQUEST (??) to the "Chief Information" (??)

2) The Information you sought concerns rejection of your
"complaint" (for perjury) to the First Class Magistrate. So why should
CIC have it ???

3) What "Competent Authority" do you refer to ?

4) Why should CIC take a decision on your complaint to a Magistrate ?

Sarbajit

On Dec 4, 7:45 pm, "M.K. Gupta" <mkgupta...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> I
> submitted an RTIapplication to the Central Information Commission for
> giving information on the status of my request sent to the Chief Information
> and (ii) if my request has been rejected, to provide the file notings arriving
> at that decision.
>
> In
> reply to the above, I received a reply from Shri Dhirendra Kumar, CPIO stating
> (i) your request has been filed and (ii) the nothing relating to the rejection
> of your complaint to the First Class Magistrate for the perjury is not
> available in our record.
>
> I am curious
> to know whether any request should be filed without any making noting and taking
> informed decision to file the same silently.   The statement that "the notings relating to the rejection to your
> complaint to the first class Magistrate for the perjury is not available in our
> record" means no noting or noting may be in the record of some other
> unit/deptt.
>
> Can a
> request or application should be just filed by the subordinate staff without
> taking a decision or written direction by the Competent Authority?  Even if the Competent Authority has just
> written "file" on the application, should it not be informed and copy be
> provided to the applicant?
>
> Whether
> something further can be done in the case to know the reason of inaction on my application.  In such a case, whether first appeal
> should be filed and if so, what should be the grounds?
>
> I shall be grateful for your
> valuable guidance.

[HumJanenge] FILING APPLICATION PR REQUEST WITHOUT GIVING REASONS

I submitted an RTI application to the Central Information Commission for giving information on the status of my request sent to the Chief Information and (ii) if my request has been rejected, to provide the file notings arriving at that decision.
 
In reply to the above, I received a reply from Shri Dhirendra Kumar, CPIO stating (i) your request has been filed and (ii) the nothing relating to the rejection of your complaint to the First Class Magistrate for the perjury is not available in our record.
 
I am curious to know whether any request should be filed without any making noting and taking informed decision to file the same silently.   The statement that "the notings relating to the rejection to your complaint to the first class Magistrate for the perjury is not available in our record" means no noting or noting may be in the record of some other unit/deptt.
 
Can a request or application should be just filed by the subordinate staff without taking a decision or written direction by the Competent Authority?  Even if the Competent Authority has just written "file" on the application, should it not be informed and copy be provided to the applicant?
 
Whether something further can be done in the case to know the reason of inaction on my application.  In such a case, whether first appeal should be filed and if so, what should be the grounds?
 
I shall be grateful for your valuable guidance.

Re: [HumJanenge] WHAT IS OUR PROBLEM ?

It is very difficult to handle politicians in a democracy. On certain account they may be criminals but on certain areas they r also popular in their constituency. In their area of influence they do some good work also so they get votes in that area. At times they protect people from the high handedness of police n bureaucrats hence they become popular like certain decoits in olden times became darlings of the people.The negative voting can be one part of the solution.

From: Justice Kamleshwar Nath <justicekn@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, 2 December 2011 6:29 PM
Subject: RE: [HumJanenge] WHAT IS OUR PROBLEM ?
Very well said. What is the way out? Galvanizing Public Opinion – but How? The latest is the move to push up MPs in the Roll of Precedence, including bringing MPs at par with Chief Justice of High Court ! A large number of MPs have Criminal background, and even those convicted are 'hosted' by State under Section 8(4) of Representation of People Act 1951. Surely both the Houses of Parliament will demonstrate OBEDIENCE as Peoples' representatives reflecting latter's will ! What is the way out?
 
            Regards,
                 KN
 
 
 
 
 
From the Desk of :
Justice Kamleshwar Nath
Retd.
:
Up-Lokayukta ( Karnataka ),
Vice Chairman – C.A.T ( Allahabad ),
Judge – High Court ( Lucknow & Allahabad )
Address
:
`Gunjan', C - 105, Niralanagar, Lucknow : 226 020. Uttar Pradesh , India
Phone(s)
:
+91-522-2789033 & +91-522-4016459. Mobile : +91-9415010746
 
From: humjanenge@googlegroups.com [mailto: humjanenge@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of Devasahayam MG
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 1:39 PM
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com ; karmayog.org; psn.1946
Subject: [HumJanenge] WHAT IS OUR PROBLEM ?
 

cid:1.1665807116@web190004.mail.sg3.yahoo.com