Saturday, March 10, 2012

Re: [.RTI.] [HumJanenge] STOP mailing me in "humjanenge@googlegroups.com"

Dear Sarabjit,

I also tried the procedure suggested by you. The site tells me that I
am not subscribed and suggests I contact the adminitrator.
I am still getting the mails.

Rgards,
Raj Dhillon

On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Madam
>
> YOU ARE NOT A MEMBER OF HUMJANENGE@GOOGLEGROUPS
>
> So, we cannot unsubscribe you / delete your email ID
>
> Please follow the simple procedure we have suggested below (and for
> which we have no liability),
>
> Almost everyone  who does as we suggested has been able to delete
> their emails on their own.
>
>
> On 3/8/12, Anuradha Upadhyay <anuradha_upadhyay@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Why don't you delete the name? How many time do I need to request? Sad....
>> Sent on my BlackBerry® from Vodafone
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
>> Sender: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
>> Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 21:13:05
>> To: humjanenge<humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
>> Reply-To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
>> Subject: [.RTI.] [HumJanenge] STOP mailing me in
>>  "humjanenge@googlegroups.com"
>>
>> IMPORTANT
>>
>> IF
>> you are receiving emails from ""humjanenge@googlegroups.com"" but are
>> NOT a member of the group,
>>
>> THEN
>> you are receiving FORWARDED emails from the [.RTI.] network, so
>>
>> GOTO
>> https://lists.riseup.net/www/sigrequest/humjanenge
>>
>> enter your email ID
>> and UNSUBSCRIBE manually
>>
>> HJ@gg cannot unsubscribe you from the [RTI.] network. so please do not email
>> us.
>>
>> Sarbajit
>>

Re: [HumJanenge] No delay at CIC. 45 days to hearing/disposal.

presently, nothing can be done by the client against the lawyers. once money is paid the petitioner has no power  and is at mercy of the advocate.  the reality of the advocate is only known after you engage him/her. only one thing a petitioner can do is to just pray to God. beniwal  

--- On Sat, 10/3/12, Hari Goyal <rtidwarka@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

From: Hari Goyal <rtidwarka@yahoo.co.in>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] No delay at CIC. 45 days to hearing/disposal.
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com, yadavrajeev_2005@yahoo.co.in
Cc: "RTI Activist Hari Goyal" <rtidwarka@yahoo.co.in>
Date: Saturday, 10 March, 2012, 7:34 PM

Dear Mr. Rajeev Kumar,

You have made a good suggestion. For going to the Court, is there any organization who is ready to help the common man honestly and at affordable charges. On the basis of my experience in Delhi, a majority of advocates are dishonest and Bar Council is not prepared to take action against whom you make a complaint. Advocates take full fee in advance and then don't appear in the court. Even they refuse to return your papers/case files to make your suffer financially.
I shall appreciate if you have any suggestion against this corruption/cheating ?

Dr. Hari Dev Goyal
Indian Economic Service (1968 Batch)  
rtidwarka@yahoo.co.in
10.03.2012


--- On Wed, 29/2/12, rajeev kumar <yadavrajeev_2005@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

From: rajeev kumar <yadavrajeev_2005@yahoo.co.in>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] No delay at CIC. 45 days to hearing/disposal.
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Wednesday, 29 February, 2012, 10:43 PM

RTI is toothless act and it is strange what you expect from it. Best thing is to approach court.

Regards,
Rajeev Yadav,
National President,
(B.Sc., M.B.A., L.L.B., P.G.D. Human Rights),
Adhikaar the rights path,
+919811242471.
www.adhikaar.in
.

--- On Mon, 27/2/12, Sandeep gupta <drsandgupta@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Sandeep gupta <drsandgupta@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] No delay at CIC. 45 days to hearing/disposal.
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Monday, 27 February, 2012, 4:52 AM

I had filed a complaint in august 2010 related to no reply from
petroleum ministry related to information demanded on section 4. when
i filed rti as to ask the action taken, it was decided on feb 15 with
issuance of notice. many of the cases filed by in may 2011 (IC-SS) are
yet to be heard.
i had filed many cases in feb 2011 related to bsnl (MLS). all except
one are yet to be heard.
I had filed many cases related to income tax department, CBDT in
november 2011. all are yet to be heard.
even there is no mention on the cic website about cases filed against
bsnl, income tax

On 2/26/12, sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear members
>
> I have just had a PRIVATE chat with some people authorised to speak on
> behalf of CIC (I am fighting them in a case before SC)
>
> 1) The actual outstanding pendency in the CIC is only around 2,700
> cases (data wef Jan/Feb 2012)
>
> 2) The biggest culprit in terms of cases stuck is IC(Shailesh Gandhi)
> who has around 800-900 cases stuck with him, some from as far back as
> July 2011. In comparison CIC(SM) is up to date with a a pendency of
> around 40-50 days.
>
> 3) No. 2 in terms of delay is IC(AD).
>
> 4) Whereas the CIC website reflects that around 27,000 cases are
> pending, there is some computer glitch and the figure has been
> multiplied by 10 due to file movement and poor dak records..
>
> I have no comments on these statements. My dear readers are encouraged
> to  share their views.to the list.
>
> Sarbajit


--
Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
1778, Sector 14, Hisar-125001, INDIA
Phone: 91-99929-31181

Re: [HumJanenge] shailesh gandhi insult old appellant

many countries including USA has system of recording proceedings in courts. but indian judges do not want to be cought on their dictatorial behaviour in court rooms. some of them have said totally different then what was written in the judgement and order.  hence do not allow the the recording of the proceedings. time has come to initiate and force govt. to make arrangements for recording of proceedings in CIC , CAT and all  other courts including HC and SC. the people appointed to act as judge can not be allowed to become dictator and above the Law. beniwal 

--- On Sat, 10/3/12, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

From: M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] shailesh gandhi insult old appellant
To: "humjanenge@googlegroups.com" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
Date: Saturday, 10 March, 2012, 7:49 PM

We should not blindly believe on this. There must be some provocation which has not been mentioned. 
When the hearing is held in open court as per RTI Act, I think there is no need of hidden camera, rather camera should be there with due permission because that does not disturb the proceedings.  In fact, all ICs should have cameras for recording proceedings. A beginning should be made for this which can later be introduced in Courts also.



From: Manoj Kamra <manojkamra@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, 9 March 2012 5:35 AM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] shailesh gandhi insult old appellant

Yes, Mr.Raja Bunch approach to examine papers before blindly supporting and lamenting IC Gandhi on blindly believing Mr.Mishra will be better route. Till date, he has not reproduced his content of application.
 
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 11:52 AM, raja bunch <bunch_raja@yahoo.co.in> wrote: 
Mr Mishra please post all the docs in this concern on the site and then people will answer U.
Rgds
Bunch


From: jaiprakash narain <coljpn@yahoo.co.in>
To: "humjanenge@googlegroups.com" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 7 March 2012 12:12 PM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] shailesh gandhi insult old appellant

He may be the so to be called high class citizen of this country who hates a common man,his fate will be like congress in UP. They are few chosen one by the present Govt.

From: gandhi times <gandhi_times@yahoo.co.in>
To: rtiindia <rti_india@yahoogroup.com>; "rti4empowerment@yahoogroups.com" <rti4empowerment@yahoogroups.com>; hum <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 6 March 2012 8:01 PM
Subject: [HumJanenge] shailesh gandhi insult old appellant

Shailesh Gandhi calls "shut up" to old person in hearing  C.I.C.
dear friends,
I am an aged activist influnced by anna hazare. today i went to Shailesh Gandhi in hearing of appeal . I filed R.T.I. Application to P.I.O. City zone A.C. / A.S. Yadav on 27.9.11. inspite after five months PIO did not transfer my RTI application to concerned Departments. RTI was regarding fraud/embezzlement of public fund of huge amount in MCD Delhi in January,Feb. to 2011. The fraud was admitted by PIO but a ordinary letter was sent to police on 25.8.11 to lodge FIR . In hearing I  (appellant) requested shailesh gandhi that PIO being incharge of administration so direction should be given to lodge FIR against him. In anger shailesh gandhi asked me to "shut up" only to please the corrupt MCD Babus . He repeated the insulting behaviour for me . SG asked PIO to transfer the  RTI application to concerned deptts. S.G. did not impose any penalty on PIO or APIO for delay & giving incompleted information. SG mostly favour PIOs. Only  few appellants who are personally known to him or influential  citizens including females  have got justified  decisions orders. I have attended almost all R.T.I. seminars,meetings etc. since 2006 called by Arvind Kezriwal & found that 90% appellants were crying being victims of orders of SG. On the other hand the corruption mafia of MCD is most happy with him. I graduated from Delhi University & studied Law more than one third century ago remained honest . Now at this old age i am shocked to get insulted from this I C. I am intersted to know his background if anybody can send me. I have heard from none about his honesty   I do not know which political person / lobby of bombay did  recommand his name in CIC but i know that his profile is not equal to other I Cs/CIC. Now in the words of abrahim lincoln     "I do not want to call him corrupt but i don't know what else to call him".will somebody suggest me what should i do because being gandhiwadi i didn't say any word when he insulted me today in hearing of my appeal. I am pained. God bless him.          
                                                                                                 RAMESH MISRA                                                                                          







--
Manoj K.Kamra
7B37,JNV Nagar,
Bikaner-334003
Mob-9414139029



Re: [HumJanenge] No delay at CIC. 45 days to hearing/disposal.

The CIC is not only toothless but ineffecient and corrupt.

Some of my cases were heard after two years.

The Cab Sectt (RAW), DOPT, MHA, NSCS, CBI etc consistently refuse to
comply with orders.

In several cases, notice was not sent to me, and cases decided ex
parte. The CIC could not show proof of despatch.

In one case involving the NSCS, Shri Pankaj P. Shreyaskar claimed to
have sent the intimation to some others by Fax. The Fax numbers were
found to be wrong. The case was decided in favour of NSCS. I later
learned that Shri Shreyaskar was being considered for posting to the
NSCS.


In one case, involving the RAW, my presence was recorded, by forrging
my name and signature on the attendance sheet. In one case, an early
hearing was held, without notice to me, without the concurrence of the
CIC, by some one else writing a sentence below the typed order signed
by the CIC (Wajahat Habibullah), who agreed that there had been an
error by his office. He advised me to file a review petition. When it
was heard, he dismissed it, saying the CIC has no powers of review.

The intelligence agencies and CBI a have been exempted, but not the
Armed Forces and other security forces, which actually provide
national security. Why?

According to the OSA, military secerts are more sensitive -they invite
14 years., against 3 years for others.

Personnel of the exempted organisations cannot even ask for mundane
information concerning their pay, promotions etc, which a soldier can.
Is this not discrimination and violative of Art 14 of the
Constitution?

Maj Gen VK Singh (Retd)
9873494521

On 10/03/2012, Hari Goyal <rtidwarka@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> Dear Mr. Rajeev Kumar,
>
> You have made a good suggestion. For going to the Court, is there any
> organization who is ready to help the common man honestly and at affordable
> charges. On the basis of my experience in Delhi, a majority of advocates are
> dishonest and Bar Council is not prepared to take action against whom you
> make a complaint. Advocates take full fee in advance and then don't appear
> in the court. Even they refuse to return your papers/case files to make your
> suffer financially.
> I shall appreciate if you have any suggestion against this
> corruption/cheating ?
>
> Dr. Hari Dev Goyal
> Indian Economic Service (1968 Batch)
> rtidwarka@yahoo.co.in
> 10.03.2012
>
>
> --- On Wed, 29/2/12, rajeev kumar <yadavrajeev_2005@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
>
> From: rajeev kumar <yadavrajeev_2005@yahoo.co.in>
> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] No delay at CIC. 45 days to hearing/disposal.
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, 29 February, 2012, 10:43 PM
>
> RTI is toothless act and it is strange what you expect from it. Best thing
> is to approach court.
>
> Regards,
>
> Rajeev Yadav,
>
> National President,
>
> (B.Sc., M.B.A., L.L.B., P.G.D. Human Rights),
>
> Adhikaar the rights path,
>
> +919811242471.
>
> www.adhikaar.in
>
> .
>
> --- On Mon, 27/2/12, Sandeep gupta <drsandgupta@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From: Sandeep gupta <drsandgupta@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] No delay at CIC. 45 days to hearing/disposal.
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> Date: Monday, 27 February, 2012, 4:52 AM
>
> I had filed a complaint in august 2010 related to no reply from
> petroleum ministry related to information demanded on section 4. when
> i filed rti as to ask the action taken, it was decided on feb 15 with
> issuance of notice. many of the cases filed by in may 2011 (IC-SS) are
> yet to be heard.
> i had filed many cases in feb 2011 related to bsnl (MLS). all except
> one are yet to be heard.
> I had filed many cases related to income tax department, CBDT in
> november 2011. all are yet to be heard.
> even there is no
> mention on the cic website about cases filed against
> bsnl, income tax
>
> On 2/26/12, sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dear members
>>
>> I have just had a PRIVATE chat with some people authorised to speak on
>> behalf of CIC (I am fighting them in a case before SC)
>>
>> 1) The actual outstanding pendency in the CIC is only around 2,700
>> cases (data wef Jan/Feb 2012)
>>
>> 2) The biggest culprit in terms of cases stuck is IC(Shailesh Gandhi)
>> who has around 800-900 cases stuck with him, some from as far back as
>> July 2011. In comparison CIC(SM) is up to date with a a pendency of
>> around 40-50 days.
>>
>> 3) No. 2 in terms of delay is IC(AD).
>>
>> 4) Whereas the CIC website reflects that around 27,000 cases are
>> pending, there is some computer glitch and
> the figure has been
>> multiplied by 10 due to file movement and poor dak records..
>>
>> I have no comments on these statements. My dear readers are encouraged
>> to  share their views.to the list.
>>
>> Sarbajit
>
>
> --
> Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
> 1778, Sector 14, Hisar-125001, INDIA
> Phone: 91-99929-31181
>

Re: [HumJanenge] shailesh gandhi insult old appellant

We should not blindly believe on this. There must be some provocation which has not been mentioned. 
When the hearing is held in open court as per RTI Act, I think there is no need of hidden camera, rather camera should be there with due permission because that does not disturb the proceedings.  In fact, all ICs should have cameras for recording proceedings. A beginning should be made for this which can later be introduced in Courts also.



From: Manoj Kamra <manojkamra@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, 9 March 2012 5:35 AM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] shailesh gandhi insult old appellant

Yes, Mr.Raja Bunch approach to examine papers before blindly supporting and lamenting IC Gandhi on blindly believing Mr.Mishra will be better route. Till date, he has not reproduced his content of application.
 
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 11:52 AM, raja bunch <bunch_raja@yahoo.co.in> wrote: 
Mr Mishra please post all the docs in this concern on the site and then people will answer U.
Rgds
Bunch


From: jaiprakash narain <coljpn@yahoo.co.in>
To: "humjanenge@googlegroups.com" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 7 March 2012 12:12 PM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] shailesh gandhi insult old appellant

He may be the so to be called high class citizen of this country who hates a common man,his fate will be like congress in UP. They are few chosen one by the present Govt.

From: gandhi times <gandhi_times@yahoo.co.in>
To: rtiindia <rti_india@yahoogroup.com>; "rti4empowerment@yahoogroups.com" <rti4empowerment@yahoogroups.com>; hum <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 6 March 2012 8:01 PM
Subject: [HumJanenge] shailesh gandhi insult old appellant

Shailesh Gandhi calls "shut up" to old person in hearing  C.I.C.
dear friends,
I am an aged activist influnced by anna hazare. today i went to Shailesh Gandhi in hearing of appeal . I filed R.T.I. Application to P.I.O. City zone A.C. / A.S. Yadav on 27.9.11. inspite after five months PIO did not transfer my RTI application to concerned Departments. RTI was regarding fraud/embezzlement of public fund of huge amount in MCD Delhi in January,Feb. to 2011. The fraud was admitted by PIO but a ordinary letter was sent to police on 25.8.11 to lodge FIR . In hearing I  (appellant) requested shailesh gandhi that PIO being incharge of administration so direction should be given to lodge FIR against him. In anger shailesh gandhi asked me to "shut up" only to please the corrupt MCD Babus . He repeated the insulting behaviour for me . SG asked PIO to transfer the  RTI application to concerned deptts. S.G. did not impose any penalty on PIO or APIO for delay & giving incompleted information. SG mostly favour PIOs. Only  few appellants who are personally known to him or influential  citizens including females  have got justified  decisions orders. I have attended almost all R.T.I. seminars,meetings etc. since 2006 called by Arvind Kezriwal & found that 90% appellants were crying being victims of orders of SG. On the other hand the corruption mafia of MCD is most happy with him. I graduated from Delhi University & studied Law more than one third century ago remained honest . Now at this old age i am shocked to get insulted from this I C. I am intersted to know his background if anybody can send me. I have heard from none about his honesty   I do not know which political person / lobby of bombay did  recommand his name in CIC but i know that his profile is not equal to other I Cs/CIC. Now in the words of abrahim lincoln     "I do not want to call him corrupt but i don't know what else to call him".will somebody suggest me what should i do because being gandhiwadi i didn't say any word when he insulted me today in hearing of my appeal. I am pained. God bless him.          
                                                                                                 RAMESH MISRA                                                                                          







--
Manoj K.Kamra
7B37,JNV Nagar,
Bikaner-334003
Mob-9414139029



Re: [HumJanenge] No delay at CIC. 45 days to hearing/disposal.

Dear Mr. Rajeev Kumar,

You have made a good suggestion. For going to the Court, is there any organization who is ready to help the common man honestly and at affordable charges. On the basis of my experience in Delhi, a majority of advocates are dishonest and Bar Council is not prepared to take action against whom you make a complaint. Advocates take full fee in advance and then don't appear in the court. Even they refuse to return your papers/case files to make your suffer financially.
I shall appreciate if you have any suggestion against this corruption/cheating ?

Dr. Hari Dev Goyal
Indian Economic Service (1968 Batch)  
rtidwarka@yahoo.co.in
10.03.2012


--- On Wed, 29/2/12, rajeev kumar <yadavrajeev_2005@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

From: rajeev kumar <yadavrajeev_2005@yahoo.co.in>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] No delay at CIC. 45 days to hearing/disposal.
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Wednesday, 29 February, 2012, 10:43 PM

RTI is toothless act and it is strange what you expect from it. Best thing is to approach court.

Regards,
Rajeev Yadav,
National President,
(B.Sc., M.B.A., L.L.B., P.G.D. Human Rights),
Adhikaar the rights path,
+919811242471.
www.adhikaar.in
.

--- On Mon, 27/2/12, Sandeep gupta <drsandgupta@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Sandeep gupta <drsandgupta@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] No delay at CIC. 45 days to hearing/disposal.
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Monday, 27 February, 2012, 4:52 AM

I had filed a complaint in august 2010 related to no reply from
petroleum ministry related to information demanded on section 4. when
i filed rti as to ask the action taken, it was decided on feb 15 with
issuance of notice. many of the cases filed by in may 2011 (IC-SS) are
yet to be heard.
i had filed many cases in feb 2011 related to bsnl (MLS). all except
one are yet to be heard.
I had filed many cases related to income tax department, CBDT in
november 2011. all are yet to be heard.
even there is no mention on the cic website about cases filed against
bsnl, income tax

On 2/26/12, sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear members
>
> I have just had a PRIVATE chat with some people authorised to speak on
> behalf of CIC (I am fighting them in a case before SC)
>
> 1) The actual outstanding pendency in the CIC is only around 2,700
> cases (data wef Jan/Feb 2012)
>
> 2) The biggest culprit in terms of cases stuck is IC(Shailesh Gandhi)
> who has around 800-900 cases stuck with him, some from as far back as
> July 2011. In comparison CIC(SM) is up to date with a a pendency of
> around 40-50 days.
>
> 3) No. 2 in terms of delay is IC(AD).
>
> 4) Whereas the CIC website reflects that around 27,000 cases are
> pending, there is some computer glitch and the figure has been
> multiplied by 10 due to file movement and poor dak records..
>
> I have no comments on these statements. My dear readers are encouraged
> to  share their views.to the list.
>
> Sarbajit


--
Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
1778, Sector 14, Hisar-125001, INDIA
Phone: 91-99929-31181

Friday, March 9, 2012

Re: [HumJanenge] AP High Court judgment regarding compliance of SIC order

Dear Sarbjit ji 

I do second your views on comment of AP HC judgement. Previously SIC Arunachal Pradesh has also issued arrest warrant of PIO who had to execute bail bond.

In another instance Mr WH has also observed "concealment of Information to be punishable offense". So CIC/SIC's powers are adequately stringent.

Regards

Trivendra


From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, 9 March 2012 10:06 PM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] AP High Court judgment regarding compliance of SIC order

ANOTHER EXCELLENT HC JUDGMENT !!!
Thanks for giving us this one Mr. Karira.

The operative portion is as under:-

"3.      The Right to Information Act, 2005 is a self-contained
enactment and it provides for stringent measures for enforcement of
the orders of the authorities passed thereunder for providing
information.  If the required information is not furnished by the
respondents, then the petitioner instead of approaching the
authorities under Section 20 of the said Act, approached this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution.  This Court is not the
executing Court for implementation of the orders passed by various
authorities under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

4.      In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed, giving
liberty to the petitioner to approach the proper authority under
Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005."

This simply means that CIC / SIC have all the STRINGENT powers to
ENFORCE NON-COMPLIANCE OF THEIR ORDERS.

It also means that the ONLY remedy if info is not supplied pursuant to
a TIME-BOUND direction of CIC/SIC, then the appellant is ONLY entitled
to have PENALTY imposed on CPIO. and/or a disciplinary action against
CPIO as envisaged u/s 20. (NB: I personally feel that a section 18
complaint also lies but the same was not agitated properly before the
Court)

Lets see if this AP HC judgment is overturned.

Sarbajit

On 3/9/12, C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Attached is a judgment of the AP High Court regarding compliance of SIC
> orders.
>
> Just for information, the APIC passed its order after the SC judgment on
> answer sheets and quoted extensively from it.
>
> Cant figure out as to how applicant can approach a APIC under Sec 20 ?
> Approach can be only under Sec 18(1)(a to f) or Sec 19(3).
> Sec 20 specifies the power of the SIC for imposing penalty, after following
> dues process (show cause, etc.).
>
> What about the "information" ? How will SIC now ensure compliance of its
> orders to disclose "information" ?
> (specially when the public authority has already said it will not disclose).
>
> Please give views.
>
> RTIwanted
>
> PS: Original order available
> here: http://hc.ap.nic.in/orders/wp_1380_2012.html


Re: [HumJanenge] AP High Court judgment regarding compliance of SIC order

If the PIO refuses to supply information despite being given a
time-bound direction to do so by the final appellate body, then the
Ld. Judge has held that the remedy is "stringent" penalty /
disciplinary action by CIC/SIC as envisaged in section 20.

SHOULD THE PIO then seek a stay on the penalty HE will have to
approach the HC, which makes it much easier for the applicant as
burden of proof is on PIO and not on applicant. <smile>

SHOULD THE SIC NOT IMPOSE PENALTY, then the Appellant can approach HC
in appropriate writ - use Muzib Ur Rehman's decision in Delhi High
Court

Basically what Ld Judge is saying is - IT I S PREMATURE FOR YOU TO
COME TO ME NOW

At the end of it all, the HC will order the info to be disclosed in
any case or the penalty will follow.

Sarbajit

On 3/9/12, C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The objective of the RTI Act is to disseminate/obtain information.
> What is the point in ONLY getting a penalty imposed, if information is not
> provided ?
>
> Nowhere does Sec 20 state that if Penalty is paid, information need not be
> provided.
>
> RTIwanted
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
>
> It also means that the ONLY remedy if info is not supplied pursuant to
> a TIME-BOUND direction of CIC/SIC, then the appellant is ONLY entitled
> to have PENALTY imposed on CPIO. and/or a disciplinary action against
> CPIO as envisaged u/s 20. (NB: I personally feel that a section 18
> complaint also lies but the same was not agitated properly before the
> Court)

Re: [HumJanenge] AP High Court judgment regarding compliance of SIC order

On 3/9/12, suresh nangia <sknangia2004@yahoo.com> wrote:
> My dear Sarbajit
>
> Could you please arrange to put the text of AP High Court Judgement on
> this Board
> It is a very interesting and useful judgement
>
> S K NANGIA
>

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH,

TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE


PRESENT:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

WRIT PETITION No.1380 of 2012

Between:

Kadiyam Shekhar Babu

… Petitioner

And


The Chairman,

A.P. Public Service Commission, Hyderabad,

& another.

… Respondents


This Court made the following:

ORDER:-

The petitioner approached this Court with this writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking writ of
Mandamus declaring action of the respondents in not issuing photostat
copy of answer sheet in compliance with order, dated 19.08.2011,
passed by the Chief Information Commissioner of the A.P. Information
Commission, as illegal and arbitrary and to direct the respondents to
comply with the said direction of the A.P. Information Commission.
The petitioner appeared for the entrance test for Group-I services in
the year 2008 conducted by the A.P. Public Service Commission (in
short, "APPSC") and failed. The petitioner was given marks list. The
petitioner submitted application to the Secretary of APPSC for supply
of photostat copy of his answer sheet under Right to Information Act,
2005. The said application was rejected. The petitioner filed appeal
before the appellate authority and it was also rejected. Therefore,
the petitioner filed second appeal by way of Appeal No.12618/CIC/2009
before the A.P. Information Commission (in short, "APIC"), Hyderabad.
The Chief Information Commissioner by order, dated 19.08.2011, held
that the petitioner is entitled to seek Photostat copies of answer
sheets from the respondents and directed the respondents to furnish
certified copies of answer sheets to the petitioner free of cost,
within 30 days from the date of receipt of the said order.

2. In case the respondents did not comply with the said order
passed by the APIC, then remedy of the petitioner is under Section 20
of the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the said information
commission. Section 20 of the said Act reads as follows:

"20. Penalties - (1) Where the Central Information
Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at
the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that
the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information
Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause,
refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished
information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section
7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given
incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed
information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any
manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two
hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or
information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty
shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees:

Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the
State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a
reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on
him:


Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted
reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information
Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.


(2) Where the Central Information Commission or the State
Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding
any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public
Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the
case may be, has, without any reasonable cause and persistently,
failed to receive an application for information or has not furnished
information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section
7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given
incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed
information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any
manner in furnishing the information, it shall recommend for
disciplinary action against the Central Public Information Officer or
the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under the
service rules applicable to him."


3. The Right to Information Act, 2005 is a self-contained
enactment and it provides for stringent measures for enforcement of
the orders of the authorities passed thereunder for providing
information. If the required information is not furnished by the
respondents, then the petitioner instead of approaching the
authorities under Section 20 of the said Act, approached this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution. This Court is not the
executing Court for implementation of the orders passed by various
authorities under the Right to Information Act, 2005.


4. In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed, giving
liberty to the petitioner to approach the proper authority under
Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.


_____________________________
SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J


Date: 05.03.2012

ES

Re: [HumJanenge] AP High Court judgment regarding compliance of SIC order

The objective of the RTI Act is to disseminate/obtain information.
What is the point in ONLY getting a penalty imposed, if information is not provided ?

Nowhere does Sec 20 state that if Penalty is paid, information need not be provided.

RTIwanted


From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>

It also means that the ONLY remedy if info is not supplied pursuant to
a TIME-BOUND direction of CIC/SIC, then the appellant is ONLY entitled
to have PENALTY imposed on CPIO. and/or a disciplinary action against
CPIO as envisaged u/s 20. (NB: I personally feel that a section 18
complaint also lies but the same was not agitated properly before the
Court)



Re: [HumJanenge] shailesh gandhi insult old appellant

 Mishra wont be able to prove it, and even if said "SHUT UP" Sailesh will deny it, as for me 1st appeal or 2nd appeal i always carry my portable make cirix pocket recorder, today most mobile phones have recording facility, when case comes up for argument, 1st appeal or SIC/CIC says one thing, in order is a different thing.
 proceedings can be recorded and uploaded on computer, now a days there are spy cameras with recording facility, and one can uplad same on you tube, etc.:&gt; smug

From: Dipak Shah <djshah1944@yahoo.com>
To: "humjanenge@googlegroups.com" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2012 3:26 AM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] shailesh gandhi insult old appellant

Some time back I had talk with him. Over the phone. He also insulted me like that since it is under litigation he may no be in a position to help me at all!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Since it a old dated 18 years back. Futile to help at all!!!
C A Shah D J
USA

From: Manoj Kamra <manojkamra@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, 9 March 2012 7:35 AM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] shailesh gandhi insult old appellant

Yes, Mr.Raja Bunch approach to examine papers before blindly supporting and lamenting IC Gandhi on blindly believing Mr.Mishra will be better route. Till date, he has not reproduced his content of application.
 
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 11:52 AM, raja bunch <bunch_raja@yahoo.co.in> wrote: 
Mr Mishra please post all the docs in this concern on the site and then people will answer U.
Rgds
Bunch

From: jaiprakash narain <coljpn@yahoo.co.in>
To: "humjanenge@googlegroups.com" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 7 March 2012 12:12 PM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] shailesh gandhi insult old appellant

He may be the so to be called high class citizen of this country who hates a common man,his fate will be like congress in UP. They are few chosen one by the present Govt.

From: gandhi times <gandhi_times@yahoo.co.in>
To: rtiindia <rti_india@yahoogroup.com>; "rti4empowerment@yahoogroups.com" <rti4empowerment@yahoogroups.com>; hum <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 6 March 2012 8:01 PM
Subject: [HumJanenge] shailesh gandhi insult old appellant

Shailesh Gandhi calls "shut up" to old person in hearing  C.I.C.
dear friends,
I am an aged activist influnced by anna hazare. today i went to Shailesh Gandhi in hearing of appeal . I filed R.T.I. Application to P.I.O. City zone A.C. / A.S. Yadav on 27.9.11. inspite after five months PIO did not transfer my RTI application to concerned Departments. RTI was regarding fraud/embezzlement of public fund of huge amount in MCD Delhi in January,Feb. to 2011. The fraud was admitted by PIO but a ordinary letter was sent to police on 25.8.11 to lodge FIR . In hearing I  (appellant) requested shailesh gandhi that PIO being incharge of administration so direction should be given to lodge FIR against him. In anger shailesh gandhi asked me to "shut up" only to please the corrupt MCD Babus . He repeated the insulting behaviour for me . SG asked PIO to transfer the  RTI application to concerned deptts. S.G. did not impose any penalty on PIO or APIO for delay & giving incompleted information. SG mostly favour PIOs. Only  few appellants who are personally known to him or influential  citizens including females  have got justified  decisions orders. I have attended almost all R.T.I. seminars,meetings etc. since 2006 called by Arvind Kezriwal & found that 90% appellants were crying being victims of orders of SG. On the other hand the corruption mafia of MCD is most happy with him. I graduated from Delhi University & studied Law more than one third century ago remained honest . Now at this old age i am shocked to get insulted from this I C. I am intersted to know his background if anybody can send me. I have heard from none about his honesty   I do not know which political person / lobby of bombay did  recommand his name in CIC but i know that his profile is not equal to other I Cs/CIC. Now in the words of abrahim lincoln     "I do not want to call him corrupt but i don't know what else to call him".will somebody suggest me what should i do because being gandhiwadi i didn't say any word when he insulted me today in hearing of my appeal. I am pained. God bless him.          
                                                                                                 RAMESH MISRA                                                                                          







--
Manoj K.Kamra
7B37,JNV Nagar,
Bikaner-334003
Mob-9414139029





Re: [HumJanenge] shailesh gandhi insult old appellant

Some time back I had talk with him. Over the phone. He also insulted me like that since it is under litigation he may no be in a position to help me at all!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Since it a old dated 18 years back. Futile to help at all!!!
C A Shah D J
USA


From: Manoj Kamra <manojkamra@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, 9 March 2012 7:35 AM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] shailesh gandhi insult old appellant

Yes, Mr.Raja Bunch approach to examine papers before blindly supporting and lamenting IC Gandhi on blindly believing Mr.Mishra will be better route. Till date, he has not reproduced his content of application.
 
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 11:52 AM, raja bunch <bunch_raja@yahoo.co.in> wrote: 
Mr Mishra please post all the docs in this concern on the site and then people will answer U.
Rgds
Bunch


From: jaiprakash narain <coljpn@yahoo.co.in>
To: "humjanenge@googlegroups.com" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 7 March 2012 12:12 PM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] shailesh gandhi insult old appellant

He may be the so to be called high class citizen of this country who hates a common man,his fate will be like congress in UP. They are few chosen one by the present Govt.

From: gandhi times <gandhi_times@yahoo.co.in>
To: rtiindia <rti_india@yahoogroup.com>; "rti4empowerment@yahoogroups.com" <rti4empowerment@yahoogroups.com>; hum <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 6 March 2012 8:01 PM
Subject: [HumJanenge] shailesh gandhi insult old appellant

Shailesh Gandhi calls "shut up" to old person in hearing  C.I.C.
dear friends,
I am an aged activist influnced by anna hazare. today i went to Shailesh Gandhi in hearing of appeal . I filed R.T.I. Application to P.I.O. City zone A.C. / A.S. Yadav on 27.9.11. inspite after five months PIO did not transfer my RTI application to concerned Departments. RTI was regarding fraud/embezzlement of public fund of huge amount in MCD Delhi in January,Feb. to 2011. The fraud was admitted by PIO but a ordinary letter was sent to police on 25.8.11 to lodge FIR . In hearing I  (appellant) requested shailesh gandhi that PIO being incharge of administration so direction should be given to lodge FIR against him. In anger shailesh gandhi asked me to "shut up" only to please the corrupt MCD Babus . He repeated the insulting behaviour for me . SG asked PIO to transfer the  RTI application to concerned deptts. S.G. did not impose any penalty on PIO or APIO for delay & giving incompleted information. SG mostly favour PIOs. Only  few appellants who are personally known to him or influential  citizens including females  have got justified  decisions orders. I have attended almost all R.T.I. seminars,meetings etc. since 2006 called by Arvind Kezriwal & found that 90% appellants were crying being victims of orders of SG. On the other hand the corruption mafia of MCD is most happy with him. I graduated from Delhi University & studied Law more than one third century ago remained honest . Now at this old age i am shocked to get insulted from this I C. I am intersted to know his background if anybody can send me. I have heard from none about his honesty   I do not know which political person / lobby of bombay did  recommand his name in CIC but i know that his profile is not equal to other I Cs/CIC. Now in the words of abrahim lincoln     "I do not want to call him corrupt but i don't know what else to call him".will somebody suggest me what should i do because being gandhiwadi i didn't say any word when he insulted me today in hearing of my appeal. I am pained. God bless him.          
                                                                                                 RAMESH MISRA                                                                                          







--
Manoj K.Kamra
7B37,JNV Nagar,
Bikaner-334003
Mob-9414139029



Re: [HumJanenge] AP High Court judgment regarding compliance of SIC order

The objective of the RTI Act is to disseminate/obtain information.
What is the point in ONLY getting a penalty imposed, if information is not provided ?

Nowhere does Sec 20 state that if Penalty is paid, information need not be provided.

RTIwanted


From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>

It also means that the ONLY remedy if info is not supplied pursuant to
a TIME-BOUND direction of CIC/SIC, then the appellant is ONLY entitled
to have PENALTY imposed on CPIO. and/or a disciplinary action against
CPIO as envisaged u/s 20. (NB: I personally feel that a section 18
complaint also lies but the same was not agitated properly before the
Court)



Re: [HumJanenge] AP High Court judgment regarding compliance of SIC order

My dear Sarbajit
 
      Could you please arrange to put the text of AP High Court Judgement on this Board
It is a very interesting and useful judgement
 
S K NANGIA 

--- On Fri, 9/3/12, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] AP High Court judgment regarding compliance of SIC order
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Friday, 9 March, 2012, 10:06 PM

ANOTHER EXCELLENT HC JUDGMENT !!!
Thanks for giving us this one Mr. Karira.

The operative portion is as under:-

"3.       The Right to Information Act, 2005 is a self-contained
enactment and it provides for stringent measures for enforcement of
the orders of the authorities passed thereunder for providing
information.  If the required information is not furnished by the
respondents, then the petitioner instead of approaching the
authorities under Section 20 of the said Act, approached this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution.  This Court is not the
executing Court for implementation of the orders passed by various
authorities under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

4.       In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed, giving
liberty to the petitioner to approach the proper authority under
Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005."

This simply means that CIC / SIC have all the STRINGENT powers to
ENFORCE NON-COMPLIANCE OF THEIR ORDERS.

It also means that the ONLY remedy if info is not supplied pursuant to
a TIME-BOUND direction of CIC/SIC, then the appellant is ONLY entitled
to have PENALTY imposed on CPIO. and/or a disciplinary action against
CPIO as envisaged u/s 20. (NB: I personally feel that a section 18
complaint also lies but the same was not agitated properly before the
Court)

Lets see if this AP HC judgment is overturned.

Sarbajit

On 3/9/12, C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Attached is a judgment of the AP High Court regarding compliance of SIC
> orders.
>
> Just for information, the APIC passed its order after the SC judgment on
> answer sheets and quoted extensively from it.
>
> Cant figure out as to how applicant can approach a APIC under Sec 20 ?
> Approach can be only under Sec 18(1)(a to f) or Sec 19(3).
> Sec 20 specifies the power of the SIC for imposing penalty, after following
> dues process (show cause, etc.).
>
> What about the "information" ? How will SIC now ensure compliance of its
> orders to disclose "information" ?
> (specially when the public authority has already said it will not disclose).
>
> Please give views.
>
> RTIwanted
>
> PS: Original order available
> here: http://hc.ap.nic.in/orders/wp_1380_2012.html

Re: [HumJanenge] AP High Court judgment regarding compliance of SIC order

ANOTHER EXCELLENT HC JUDGMENT !!!
Thanks for giving us this one Mr. Karira.

The operative portion is as under:-

"3. The Right to Information Act, 2005 is a self-contained
enactment and it provides for stringent measures for enforcement of
the orders of the authorities passed thereunder for providing
information. If the required information is not furnished by the
respondents, then the petitioner instead of approaching the
authorities under Section 20 of the said Act, approached this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution. This Court is not the
executing Court for implementation of the orders passed by various
authorities under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

4. In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed, giving
liberty to the petitioner to approach the proper authority under
Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005."

This simply means that CIC / SIC have all the STRINGENT powers to
ENFORCE NON-COMPLIANCE OF THEIR ORDERS.

It also means that the ONLY remedy if info is not supplied pursuant to
a TIME-BOUND direction of CIC/SIC, then the appellant is ONLY entitled
to have PENALTY imposed on CPIO. and/or a disciplinary action against
CPIO as envisaged u/s 20. (NB: I personally feel that a section 18
complaint also lies but the same was not agitated properly before the
Court)

Lets see if this AP HC judgment is overturned.

Sarbajit

On 3/9/12, C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Attached is a judgment of the AP High Court regarding compliance of SIC
> orders.
>
> Just for information, the APIC passed its order after the SC judgment on
> answer sheets and quoted extensively from it.
>
> Cant figure out as to how applicant can approach a APIC under Sec 20 ?
> Approach can be only under Sec 18(1)(a to f) or Sec 19(3).
> Sec 20 specifies the power of the SIC for imposing penalty, after following
> dues process (show cause, etc.).
>
> What about the "information" ? How will SIC now ensure compliance of its
> orders to disclose "information" ?
> (specially when the public authority has already said it will not disclose).
>
> Please give views.
>
> RTIwanted
>
> PS: Original order available
> here: http://hc.ap.nic.in/orders/wp_1380_2012.html

Re: [HumJanenge] AP High Court judgment regarding compliance of SIC order

just write to sic about non compliance of its orders with a request to
direct accordingly

On 3/9/12, C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Attached is a judgment of the AP High Court regarding compliance of SIC
> orders.
>
> Just for information, the APIC passed its order after the SC judgment on
> answer sheets and quoted extensively from it.
>
> Cant figure out as to how applicant can approach a APIC under Sec 20 ?
> Approach can be only under Sec 18(1)(a to f) or Sec 19(3).
> Sec 20 specifies the power of the SIC for imposing penalty, after following
> dues process (show cause, etc.).
>
> What about the "information" ? How will SIC now ensure compliance of its
> orders to disclose "information" ?
> (specially when the public authority has already said it will not disclose).
>
> Please give views.
>
> RTIwanted
>
> PS: Original order available
> here: http://hc.ap.nic.in/orders/wp_1380_2012.html


--
Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
1778, Sector 14, Hisar-125001, INDIA
Phone: 91-99929-31181

Re: [HumJanenge] shailesh gandhi insult old appellant

Finally Black Sheep has been revealed. Hi is Capitalist by Profession
and he has proved. I think he planned well in advance by getting
support of Anna Hazare to become CIC. Now he need not any support of
any body.

On 3/6/12, gandhi times <gandhi_times@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> Shailesh Gandhi calls "shut up" to old person in hearing C.I.C.


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

Re: [HumJanenge] shailesh gandhi insult old appellant

I think the file number is "cic/sg/a/2012/000051" and/or "cic/sg/a/2012/000578"

IC(SG)'s pending list shows date of hearing as 09-03-2012, so dont
know how hearing was held on 06-03-2012 as claimed by Mr Mishra.


On 3/9/12, Manoj Kamra <manojkamra@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, Mr.Raja Bunch approach to examine papers before blindly supporting and
> lamenting IC Gandhi on blindly believing Mr.Mishra will be better
> route. Till date, he has not reproduced his content of application.
>
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 11:52 AM, raja bunch <bunch_raja@yahoo.co.in>wrote:
>
>> Mr Mishra please post all the docs in this concern on the site and then
>> people will answer U.
>> Rgds
>> Bunch
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* jaiprakash narain <coljpn@yahoo.co.in>
>> *To:* "humjanenge@googlegroups.com" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, 7 March 2012 12:12 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [HumJanenge] shailesh gandhi insult old appellant
>>
>> He may be the so to be called high class citizen of this country who
>> hates a common man,his fate will be like congress in UP. They are few
>> chosen one by the present Govt.
>>
>> *From:* gandhi times <gandhi_times@yahoo.co.in>
>> *To:* rtiindia <rti_india@yahoogroup.com>; "
>> rti4empowerment@yahoogroups.com" <rti4empowerment@yahoogroups.com>; hum <
>> humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, 6 March 2012 8:01 PM
>> *Subject:* [HumJanenge] shailesh gandhi insult old appellant
>>
>> Shailesh Gandhi calls "shut up" to old person in hearing C.I.C.
>> dear friends,
>> I am an aged activist influnced by anna hazare. today i went to
>> ShaileshGandhi in hearing of appeal . I filed R.T.I. Application to P.I.O.
>> City
>> zone A.C. / A.S. Yadav on 27.9.11. inspite after five months PIO did not
>> transfer my RTI application to concerned Departments. RTI was regarding
>> fraud/embezzlement of public fund of huge amount in MCD Delhi in
>> January,Feb. to 2011. The fraud was admitted by PIO but a ordinary letter
>> was sent to police on 25.8.11 to lodge FIR . In hearing I (appellant)
>> requested shailesh gandhi that PIO being incharge of administration so
>> direction should be given to lodge FIR against him. In anger shailesh
>> gandhi asked me to "shut up" only to please the corrupt MCD Babus . He
>> repeated the insulting behaviour for me . SG asked PIO to transfer the
>> RTI application to concerned deptts. S.G. did not impose any penalty on
>> PIO or APIO for delay & giving incompleted information. SG mostly favour
>> PIOs. Only few appellants who are personally known to him or influential
>> citizens including females have got justified decisions orders. I have
>> attended almost all R.T.I. seminars,meetings etc. since 2006 called by
>> Arvind Kezriwal & found that 90% appellants were crying being victims of
>> orders of SG. On the other hand the corruption mafia of MCD is most happy
>> with him. I graduated from Delhi University & studied Law more than one
>> third century ago remained honest . Now at this old age i am shocked to
>> get
>> insulted from this I C. I am intersted to know his background if anybody
>> can send me. I have heard from none about his honesty I do not know
>> which
>> political person / lobby of bombay did recommand his name in CIC but i
>> know that his profile is not equal to other I Cs/CIC. Now in the words of
>> abrahim lincoln "I do not want to call him corrupt but i don't know
>> what else to call him".will somebody suggest me what should i do because
>> being gandhiwadi i didn't say any word when he insulted me today in
>> hearing of my appeal. I am pained. God bless him.
>>
>> RAMESH MISRA
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Manoj K.Kamra
> 7B37,JNV Nagar,
> Bikaner-334003
> Mob-9414139029
>

[HumJanenge] AP High Court judgment regarding compliance of SIC order

Attached is a judgment of the AP High Court regarding compliance of SIC orders.

Just for information, the APIC passed its order after the SC judgment on answer sheets and quoted extensively from it.

Cant figure out as to how applicant can approach a APIC under Sec 20 ? 
Approach can be only under Sec 18(1)(a to f) or Sec 19(3).
Sec 20 specifies the power of the SIC for imposing penalty, after following dues process (show cause, etc.).

What about the "information" ? How will SIC now ensure compliance of its orders to disclose "information" ?
(specially when the public authority has already said it will not disclose).

Please give views.

RTIwanted

PS: Original order available here: http://hc.ap.nic.in/orders/wp_1380_2012.html 

[HumJanenge] mailto:sympa@lists.riseup.net?subject=unsubscribe%20humjanenge

mailto:sympa@lists.riseup.net?subject=unsubscribe%20humjanenge

Is the link to stop receiving emails from RISEUP.NET. ... CLICK ON IT

Please note that "humjanenge@googlegroups.com" is NOT sending this
flood of emails.

YOU IDIOTS ARE !!!!

How do I get off the "riseup" mailing list run by SYMPA software and
stop receiving these emails ???

ANSWER:
Send an email to "sympa@lists.riseup.net"
With subject as "unsubscribe%20humjanenge" also known as "unsubscribe
humjanenge"

That is all there is to it. (Even a retarded monkey can do it .. in
fact over 400 people .. or monkeys .. have already done so)

Sarbajit
Group Moderator "humjanenge@googlegroups.com"
(PS: We have nothing to do with the people who are sending you these
emails, so please don't email me)

Re: [HumJanenge] shailesh gandhi insult old appellant

Yes, Mr.Raja Bunch approach to examine papers before blindly supporting and lamenting IC Gandhi on blindly believing Mr.Mishra will be better route. Till date, he has not reproduced his content of application.
 
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 11:52 AM, raja bunch <bunch_raja@yahoo.co.in> wrote: 
Mr Mishra please post all the docs in this concern on the site and then people will answer U.
Rgds
Bunch


From: jaiprakash narain <coljpn@yahoo.co.in>
To: "humjanenge@googlegroups.com" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 7 March 2012 12:12 PM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] shailesh gandhi insult old appellant

He may be the so to be called high class citizen of this country who hates a common man,his fate will be like congress in UP. They are few chosen one by the present Govt.

From: gandhi times <gandhi_times@yahoo.co.in>
To: rtiindia <rti_india@yahoogroup.com>; "rti4empowerment@yahoogroups.com" <rti4empowerment@yahoogroups.com>; hum <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 6 March 2012 8:01 PM
Subject: [HumJanenge] shailesh gandhi insult old appellant

Shailesh Gandhi calls "shut up" to old person in hearing  C.I.C.
dear friends,
I am an aged activist influnced by anna hazare. today i went to Shailesh Gandhi in hearing of appeal . I filed R.T.I. Application to P.I.O. City zone A.C. / A.S. Yadav on 27.9.11. inspite after five months PIO did not transfer my RTI application to concerned Departments. RTI was regarding fraud/embezzlement of public fund of huge amount in MCD Delhi in January,Feb. to 2011. The fraud was admitted by PIO but a ordinary letter was sent to police on 25.8.11 to lodge FIR . In hearing I  (appellant) requested shailesh gandhi that PIO being incharge of administration so direction should be given to lodge FIR against him. In anger shailesh gandhi asked me to "shut up" only to please the corrupt MCD Babus . He repeated the insulting behaviour for me . SG asked PIO to transfer the  RTI application to concerned deptts. S.G. did not impose any penalty on PIO or APIO for delay & giving incompleted information. SG mostly favour PIOs. Only  few appellants who are personally known to him or influential  citizens including females  have got justified  decisions orders. I have attended almost all R.T.I. seminars,meetings etc. since 2006 called by Arvind Kezriwal & found that 90% appellants were crying being victims of orders of SG. On the other hand the corruption mafia of MCD is most happy with him. I graduated from Delhi University & studied Law more than one third century ago remained honest . Now at this old age i am shocked to get insulted from this I C. I am intersted to know his background if anybody can send me. I have heard from none about his honesty   I do not know which political person / lobby of bombay did  recommand his name in CIC but i know that his profile is not equal to other I Cs/CIC. Now in the words of abrahim lincoln     "I do not want to call him corrupt but i don't know what else to call him".will somebody suggest me what should i do because being gandhiwadi i didn't say any word when he insulted me today in hearing of my appeal. I am pained. God bless him.          
                                                                                                 RAMESH MISRA                                                                                          







--
Manoj K.Kamra
7B37,JNV Nagar,
Bikaner-334003
Mob-9414139029

Thursday, March 8, 2012

[rti4empowerment] Fw: NO NEED FOR SANCTIONS

:-(||&gt; give up

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: leslie almeida <leslie_almeida@rediffmail.com>
To: bandrabuzz@gmail.com
Sent: Friday, March 9, 2012 9:05 AM
Subject: NO NEED FOR SANCTIONS

NO SANCTION REQUIRED TO PROSECUTE CORRUPT GOVERNMENT SERVANT OPINES SUPREME COURT IN THE RECENT ORDER DATED 28 2 12 CITATION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 464 OF 2012 (arising out of S.L.P. (Crl) No). 6908 of 2008) OM KR. DHANKAR Appellant (s) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T R. M. LODHA, J.


Re: [HumJanenge] My complaint to the Honourable President of India with kind and active help of Mr Surinderpal, Advocate from Ludhiana

Dear Sandeep

1) In IC(SS)'s order I do not see any reference to fact of YOUR
applying for reasons why YOU were not selected. Has you SPECIFICALLY
asked and pursued for the same, the situation would have been somewhat
different and IC(SS) or any "seasoned bureaucrat" .would have passed
appropriate orders.

2) Have you specifically alleged "corruption" in your not being
shortlisted for selection ?. This fact also does not seem to be
reflected in IC(SS)'s order. Did you pursue this line of attack in
your GROUNDS for appeal ?.

3) In any case, IC(SS)'s order has preserved / allowed you every legal
avenue to pursue your PERSONAL non-selection for the post. If you
choose not to use them (because you know the outcome) and instead
choose to blame the "judge", seasoned persons like us know where the
fault lies.

4) I cannot comment on 1 lakh pensioners, as it is hypothetical /
irrelevant in the present matter.

Sarbajit

On 3/8/12, Sandeep gupta <drsandgupta@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is asking why i was not shortlisted for a selection not allowed under
> RTI? SS whom you say as seasoned bureaucrat cannot give decision on
> the same.
> For me an activist is that who is using the act or helping the others
> use/understand the act.
> it is funny that my applications at digging the corruption are termed
> as vexatious.
> I used rti to dig out one lakh illegal old age pensioners in Punjab.
> if sushma singh were there, i would never had got that information. I
> do not mind being branded as user/misuser/activist if my intentions
> are right.
> when i am knowing well that information is being shielded only because
> it will expose bigwigs, then my ultimate aim is to get it.
> Sushma singh does not know ABC of RTI act.
>
>
>

Re: [HumJanenge] Re: collector office is private property of collector latur

Dear Mr. Vaidya

As you state you are a STUDENT of law, let me assist you in your
furthering your study.

1) A District Magistrate (or his junior SDM) are considered to be
"executive magistrates".

2) The role / powers of Executive Magistrates are quite clearly
decribed / specified in the same CrPC you rely on (and which
role/powers. you seem to be ignoring). Their decisions may be appealed
to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate / District Sessions judge for
some matters.

3) RTI Act does not confer any RIGHT for you (citizen of India) to
receive any information u/s 4 of the Act. Section 4 casts STATUTORY
OBLIGATIONS on the State to perform certain tasks so that the citizens
can exercise their RIGHTS u/s 6 or otherwise.

4) Failure of State to carry out STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS to the extent
it denies any RIGHTS of citizens may be addressed in ORIGINAL
jurisdiction of a High Court u/a 226. You will have to disclose a
CAUSE OF ACTION.

All these are very basic things, which you will be learning NEXT SEMESTER

IF you want to discuss with me, kindly give a PARA-WISE reply to my
short points as above, instead of beating around the bush with wild
rhetoric and ad-homimem attacks.

My own expertise in this area is borne out by the DB judgment of Delhi
High Court on this issue which ruled in my favour .but which the CIC
has challenged in SLP to deny me the info..

Sarbajit

On 3/8/12, prasadbvaidya@yahoo.com <prasadbvaidya@yahoo.com> wrote:
> sir ,
> in Ratlam Municipal Council Vs vardichand supreme court gave borad
> definition of nuisance. Public have right to file complaint U/S 133
> with the District Magistrate (although SDM are generally handle such
> matters) but if u read provisions of section 133 clearly i can say
> that in law no where it has been mentioned that only SDM is empowered
> to deal such matter
> The decision of SDM or person handling such matters is quasi judicial
> only since these authorities cannot be called as civil court.
> therefore these authorities must inform reasons to affected persons.
> U/s 4 of RTI every public authority must publish information including
> officers working with their powers and group of consultation etc since
> the office district Magistrate is also covered under RTI Act they have
> to publish info u/s 4 which includes powers of District Magistrate ,
> Subdivisional magistrate etc
>
> i have right to know what is action taken by authority on my complaint
> u/s 133 of crpc and such right is confered by s6 of RTI Act which
> isapplicable these authorities since they are under supervisory
> jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of
> India and u know case subhash agrawal vs Secretary of supreme court
> cic decision
> On Mar 8, 8:25 pm, Sarbajit Roy <sroy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> As you are studying law (which BTW I never did), you would be better
>> able than I to know how section 4 is to be enforced under RTI Act and
>> who is to enforce it, especially in the case when the Public Authority
>> has appointed PIO and FAA and the State Govt has also notified an
>> Information Commission.
>>
>> You can read this to see if it helps you. This is the first case about
>> section 4 disclosure since 2005 and the matter is now in SLP in SC. So
>> good luck.
>>
>> http://lobis.nic.in/dhc/BDA/judgement/21-05-2010/BDA21052010CW1271420...
>>
>> Sarbajit
>>
>> On 3/8/12, prasadbvai...@yahoo.com <prasadbvai...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > collector of latur district las not published info u/s 4 of RTI Act
>> > 2005 appointed pio and appellate authority without prior approval of
>> > governor of maharashtra state and also appointed senior clerk as pio
>> > and roject officer as appellate authority where as in other districts
>> > Deputy collector is pio and collector is appellate authority
>> > Bombay High Court issued direction to quasi judicial authorities to
>> > dispose all appeals and complaints in 8 weeks but latur collector has
>> > b not followed decision and kept pending for 6 months when i
>> > approached him and requested him regarding info under section 4 of rti
>> > act and action taken on complaint u/s 133 of criminal procedure code
>> > 1973 he ordered to throw me out of collector office can i have right
>> > to see infor u/s 4 and visit collector office- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>