Friday, December 31, 2010

[HumJanenge] Ref: Circuit House Rules/ RTI

As a common man- it would interesting to educate myself how mytax dollars are spent by the govertment machinery.
 

These rent-free accommodation, the cost of proper maintenance and upkeep of the Circuit Houses not

underestimating their prime location, and number of workforce - are these parallel to what corporate India offers?

 

Do they justify the value addition to the system?

 

Has there been any RTI request ?

 

Thanks,

 

p.s. had some personal experiences during my recent india trip

 

Arun Rai

 

 


Re: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: APPOINTMENT OF CCIC

so the Committee will have a record of its proceedings or not?

On Sat, 01 Jan 2011 04:11:52 +0530 wrote
>12(3) says, "Chief Information Commissioner and Information
Commissionersshall be appointed by the President on the recommendation
of a Committee consisting of -"
>
In such circumstances, what other name to the Committee can be given?
However, DoPT has not objected on this score and has provided the
information, though partially.

This issue is not about the Committee or Selection Comm.... but about
the procedure of selection and the adoption of the criterion for the
same.




>


From: sroy 1947
>To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
>Sent: Fri, 31 December, 2010 11:11:47 AM
>Subject: [HumJanenge] Re: APPOINTMENT OF CCIC
>
>
Dear Guptaji
>
>From where did you form the opinion (or receive information) that the
committee of 12(3) is a SELECTION committee.
>
>Your entire request is founded on the false premise that it is a
selection committee.
>
>Sarbajit



>
>
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 4:14 PM, M.K. Gupta
wrote:
>




For context, copy of RTI application (I have deleted my Residential
address and phone number).

The Central Public Information Officer,
C/o. Secretary,
Deptt. of Personal and Training,
New Delhi.
6.10.2010.
Sub: Information under RTI Act, 2005 – Selection of Chief Information
Commissioner.

Respected Sir,

Kindly provide the following information on the selection of Chief
Information Commissioner under RTI Act, 2005:
1. Names of the members who attended the meeting of the Selection
Committee.
2. Date, time and venue of the meeting.
3. Names of the short-listed candidates considered for the post.
4. Whether the short listing and selection criteria would be made
public by putting the same on the Deptt. website or by any other means.
5. Kindly provide a copy of the proceedings/minutes of the Selection
Committee Meeting.
B. If some part of the solicited information does not belong to your
Department, I request you to transfer that part to the concerned Public
Authority u.s. 6(3) of the Act.
C. I am enclosing a postal order for Rs. 10/- numbering 88E 389218
dated 30.9.2010 issued from the Dwarka Post Office.
Yours faithfully,


(Mahendra Kumar Gupta)



>

>



From: Sarbajit Roy
>To: rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com
>Sent: Thu, 30 December, 2010 8:39:33 AM

>Subject: Re: [rti4empowerment] APPOINTMENT OF CCIC
>



>Dear WEDS
>
>1) The specific point you are making is?
>2) In what context ?
>
>Sarbajit
>
>PS: So far none of what you have said can be applied to Mr Gupta's
case.
>
>
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 3:59 AM, DSouza Wilberious Evanglist
wrote:
>



Dear M.K.Gupta & others,

Please read section 4(c&d) of RTI Act 2005.






(c)

publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies or
announcing the decisions which affect public;


(d)

provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to
affected persons.
& remember,

PREFACE

Constitution is a living document, an instrument which makes the
government system work
Premble,

WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly
resolved to constitute India into a 1[SOVEREIGN
SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC] and
to secure to all its citizens:
JUSTICE, social, economic and political;
LIBERTY of thought, ex-pression, belief, faith and
worship;
EQUALITY of status and of opportunity;
and to promote among them all
FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual
and the 2[unity and integrity of the Nation];
IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twentysixth
day of November, 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT,
ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS
CONSTITUTION.

RTI Act 2005, Section 8(i), ultimate line reads as follows:

Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament
or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.

1. From this you would agree that the People of India have installed
the Constitution of India & the Government therewithin to themselves &
to govern them. Hence, in Democracy, the Government is defined as A
GOVERNMENT BY A PEOPLE; OF THE PEOPLE & FOR THE PEOPLE.

2. Hence, the Government & all its functionaries are accountable &
answerable to the People of India. Hence, the People of India have a
right to question the Government that they have installed within the
framework of the Constitution on its acts & omissions. This is
otherwise known as the Right to Information.

3. This Right to Information of the People of India is inalienable,
axiomatic, fundamental as well as human right . This has been
reaffirmed by the Supreme Court of India as a fundamental right forming
a facet of Art. 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Read 6 above.

4. To access, seek, receive & impart information is a Human Right (HR),
as per Article 19 of The International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR) that was adopted by the General Assembly of The United
Nations on the 16th December 1966, as cardinal principles of Human
Right, embodied in The Protection of Human Rights Act 1993 section 2(d)
& (f) forming a facet of Art. 21 Part III, Fundamental Right (FR) i.e.
Right to
life & Liberty, of the Constitution of India.
5. Freedom of Information lies at the root of the rights discourse.
Failure of the State to provide access to information or State
suppression of information can lead to the most egregious forms of
human rights violations. The Right to Information (RTI) is fundamental
to the realisation of rights as well as effective democracy, which
requires informed participation by all.


Regards,
WEDS

>




From: M.K. Gupta
>To: rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com
>Sent: Wed, 29 December, 2010 13:23:21
>Subject: [rti4empowerment] APPOINTMENT OF CCIC
>



>


By filing an RTI, I asked from the DoPT names of short-listed
candidates considered for the post of Chief Information Commissioner
and whether the short listing and selection criteria would be made
public.

On filing the first appeal, Shri Anuradha S. Chagti, Dy. Secy. & First
Appellate Authority has informed that no documents are available on
these points and an appeal against this order of FAA can be made to the
CIC.

It seems that only one name was considered at the time of appointing
Shri A N Tiwari as CCIC or the DoPT has taken a decision to appoint the
Senior Most IC as CIC and / or only one name was considered.

What next? Views of activists are request whether second appeal is
desirable on the two aforesaid issues.
>
>
>
>
>
>


[HumJanenge] STRICT enforcing of group REGULATIONS now active

Dear friends

Best wishes for New Year to everyone.
just to remind again that Humjanenge moderators
are strictly watching to take action for breech of
group regulations from today.

S D Sharma

Re: [rti4empowerment] NITISH SHOW THE WAY TO CURB CORRUPTION

May be there are more than 30 IAS Officers in Bihar.
 I do not know in which context "all"
was used in Sri Gupta's mail.
 
--- On Sat, 1/1/11, raja bunch <bunch_raja@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

From: raja bunch <bunch_raja@yahoo.co.in>
Subject: Re: [rti4empowerment] NITISH SHOW THE WAY TO CURB CORRUPTION
To: rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com
Date: Saturday, 1 January, 2011, 12:31 AM

I hope the rest of the Civil Servants follow the example.
All the best to them and our Netas so called Social servants.
Wish all A happy and prosperous New year 2011.
 
Bunch-Mumbai 

--- On Fri, 31/12/10, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

From: M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in>
Subject: [rti4empowerment] NITISH SHOW THE WAY TO CURB CORRUPTION
To: rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com
Date: Friday, 31 December, 2010, 9:11 PM

NITISH SHOW THE WAY TO CURB CORRUPTION

 

          All the 30 IAS officers have submitted their Assests Details to the Chief Minister, Mr. Nitish Kumar.  The details shall be put on the Website.  Thus under the leadership of Nitish, Bihar has shown the way to other states.


Re: [rti4empowerment] NITISH SHOW THE WAY TO CURB CORRUPTION

I hope the rest of the Civil Servants follow the example.
All the best to them and our Netas so called Social servants.
Wish all A happy and prosperous New year 2011.
 
Bunch-Mumbai 

--- On Fri, 31/12/10, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

From: M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in>
Subject: [rti4empowerment] NITISH SHOW THE WAY TO CURB CORRUPTION
To: rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com
Date: Friday, 31 December, 2010, 9:11 PM

NITISH SHOW THE WAY TO CURB CORRUPTION

 

          All the 30 IAS officers have submitted their Assests Details to the Chief Minister, Mr. Nitish Kumar.  The details shall be put on the Website.  Thus under the leadership of Nitish, Bihar has shown the way to other states.


Re: [rti4empowerment] NITISH SHOW THE WAY TO CURB CORRUPTION

Dear Gupta ji & shashi Kumar
We know that Nitish govt. is very popular and this step by him
is praiseworthy
Dr. JN Sharma

On 12/31/10, SHASHI KUMAR.A.R. <rudreshtechnology@gmail.com> wrote:
> In karnataka it is different , If we ask asset and liability of IAS
> officers , The Ministry officials says this is a third party information and
> this cannot be made public and they are ready bring corruption free ,
> transparent good governance in Karnataka , Even some of the officials went
> and obtained stay order , The other states of india shall follow Bihar
> Model
> India Bachao from clutches of bureucrats corruption
>
> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 9:11 PM, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
>
>> *NITISH SHOW THE WAY TO CURB CORRUPTION***
>>
>> * *
>> * *All the 30 IAS officers have submitted their Assests Details
>> to the Chief Minister, Mr. Nitish Kumar. The details shall be put on the
>> Website. Thus under the leadership of Nitish, Bihar has shown the way to
>> other states.
>>
>>
>

Re: [rti4empowerment] NITISH SHOW THE WAY TO CURB CORRUPTION

When Ministers are shrouded in mistry on corruption, how can they dare to ask the bureaucracy to be honest par excellance.  Bureaucrats who know the loopholes, may retaliate.  Corruption flows from high to lower level like water.  

On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 10:20 PM, SHASHI KUMAR.A.R. <rudreshtechnology@gmail.com> wrote:
In karnataka it is different , If we ask asset and liability of  IAS officers , The Ministry officials says this is a third party information and this cannot be made public and they are ready bring corruption free , transparent good governance in Karnataka , Even some of the officials went and obtained stay order , The other states of india shall follow Bihar Model 
India Bachao from clutches of bureucrats corruption 


On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 9:11 PM, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

NITISH SHOW THE WAY TO CURB CORRUPTION

 

          All the 30 IAS officers have submitted their Assests Details to the Chief Minister, Mr. Nitish Kumar.  The details shall be put on the Website.  Thus under the leadership of Nitish, Bihar has shown the way to other states.



Re: [rti4empowerment] NITISH SHOW THE WAY TO CURB CORRUPTION

In karnataka it is different , If we ask asset and liability of  IAS officers , The Ministry officials says this is a third party information and this cannot be made public and they are ready bring corruption free , transparent good governance in Karnataka , Even some of the officials went and obtained stay order , The other states of india shall follow Bihar Model 
India Bachao from clutches of bureucrats corruption 

On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 9:11 PM, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

NITISH SHOW THE WAY TO CURB CORRUPTION

 

          All the 30 IAS officers have submitted their Assests Details to the Chief Minister, Mr. Nitish Kumar.  The details shall be put on the Website.  Thus under the leadership of Nitish, Bihar has shown the way to other states.


[rti4empowerment] NITISH SHOW THE WAY TO CURB CORRUPTION

NITISH SHOW THE WAY TO CURB CORRUPTION

 

          All the 30 IAS officers have submitted their Assests Details to the Chief Minister, Mr. Nitish Kumar.  The details shall be put on the Website.  Thus under the leadership of Nitish, Bihar has shown the way to other states.

Re: [HumJanenge] reg sedition

DEAR JOHN
MAY THE NEW YEAR 2011 BRINGS FOR YOU & YOUR FAMILY
MORE OF LOVE,HARMONY,PEACE, HEALTH & PROSPERITY
DR. J.N. SHARMA
ADVOCATE,HUMANRIGHTS ACTIVIST
MOB: 09335231213

On 12/31/10, RTI Movement <rim.chennai@gmail.com> wrote:
> *A NEW LEAF - 2011-*
>
> *IS BEING UNFOLDED UNTO YOU*
>
> *BY LORD GOD*
>
> *WITH PEACE, HAPPINESS & PROSPERITY*
>
> *WRITTEN ON IT.*
>
> *HAPPY NEW YEAR!*
>
>
>
> JOHN LOPEZ/ RIM CHENNAI
>

Re: [HumJanenge] CHRI's comments to draft Rules

Dear Venkatesh

I have uploaded the PDF to HJ@GG as discussed.

2 small points

a) Did u manage to send this to DoPT in time by email, and/or did it bounce back.
b) Where is the NCPRI  NAC version and what, if any, are the diffs.

Sarbajit

On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 6:44 PM, sroy 1947 <sroy1947@gmail.com> wrote:
PDF File from CHRI is attached, reposted due to group's CP rules.

"Dear all,
As our office remains closed for a week on account of the winter break I could not email our analysis of the Draft RTI Rules 2010 before the deadline. My apologies for the same. I have attached a pdf version of our preliminary comments sent to the DoPT about what needs to be changed in the proposed Rules. This is for your reference. When the office reopens in January this document will be uploaded on our website.
Until then I wish you all a evry happy new year. I hope 2011 turns out to be the very best for transarency at all levels of the administration and all users of the RTI Act.
Yours sincerely,
Venkatesh Nayak
Programme Coordinator
Access to Information Programme
Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative"

[HumJanenge] CHRI's comments to draft Rules

PDF File from CHRI is attached, reposted due to group's CP rules.

"Dear all,
As our office remains closed for a week on account of the winter break I could not email our analysis of the Draft RTI Rules 2010 before the deadline. My apologies for the same. I have attached a pdf version of our preliminary comments sent to the DoPT about what needs to be changed in the proposed Rules. This is for your reference. When the office reopens in January this document will be uploaded on our website.
Until then I wish you all a evry happy new year. I hope 2011 turns out to be the very best for transarency at all levels of the administration and all users of the RTI Act.
Yours sincerely,
Venkatesh Nayak
Programme Coordinator
Access to Information Programme
Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative"

Re: [HumJanenge] reg sedition

Sorry Mr.Roy
it was the news published by the Transparancy International.
I am sorry  , it was a typing mistake
According to the reports of Transparency International " the police and judiciary are the most corrupt institutions in this country which in turn is one of the most corrupt in the whole world. "

On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 11:04 AM, sroy 1947 <sroy1947@gmail.com> wrote:
I could not but agree with you that "Transparency International" is a most corrupt institution.

best wishes

Sarbajit


On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 10:06 PM, K N Jagadesh kumar <jkgroup999@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear sarbjit Roy
The below statement is 100%
"Transparency International the police and judiciary are the most corrupt institutions in this country which in turn is one of the most corrupt in the whole world. "
Now
"its shame to talk-Crime to express"
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Dwarakanath /group

I dont know in what context this definition has been uploaded, perhaps it refers to PMK's warnings in Binayak' Sens' discussions

I surmise that PMK is concerned about members like Major Ravi who were similarly jailed for their utterances and now go about posting pro-Maoist comments on various unmoderated blogs and RTI groups purporting to be written to Constitutional Officers. To illustrate such utterances
http://iesmorg.blogspot.com/2010/06/views-of-maj-pm-ravindran.html

"This letter is a deliberate effort in that direction. The only other option available to me is to pray that the naxalites and maoists chose their targets correctly whenever they decide to strike because the other options- approaching the police or the judiciary- is beyond the pale of ordinary mortals in this country. It is pertinent to recall that as per the survey results of Transparency International the police and judiciary are the most corrupt institutions in this country which in turn is one of the most corrupt in the whole world. "

We don't need a police officer like Amitabh Thakur, IPS to see that such statements would otherwise directly fall under definition of sedition you have uploaded except for the fig-leaf of its purportedly being written to a Chief Minister,

Sarbajit


On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 6:42 AM, Dwarakanath <dwarakanathdm@gmail.com> wrote:
Friends, I reproduce below the definition of 'sedition' under the Indian Penal Code. for information:
  124-A:   Sedition – whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government established by law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment for Life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.  [explanation-1- The expression "disaffection" includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity, Explanation 2- Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures   of the Government with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means, without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.  Explanation 3- Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.




--
K N Jagadesh Kumar
9845500932
jkgroup999@gmail.com





--
K N Jagadesh Kumar
9845500932
jkgroup999@gmail.com

Re: [HumJanenge] reg sedition

Dear Dwarkanath
 
You have 100% with in the limit of Constitutionla Provisional, "Freedom of speech" which is a fundamental Right of every citizen.
.
Just because some one want to keep a watch on us , they just cant take our Fundemantal Rights .
 
In Preamble it says " we the people of India, having solemly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens, The Justice, Liberty,Equality,Fraternity on 26/11/1949, do hereby Adopt, Enact, & Give to ourselves THIS CONSTITUTION.
 
The Supremecourt Gave Direction to Trail court to finish the trial of Dr.Binayak sen & others within the decmeber 2010. we welcome this decision.
why the same decision were not took in
1)"The Bhopal tragedy trial  which took 26 years to decide the fate of five lakh people's life?.
2) "The Bofors which is still investigated & the trial is run to find out the kick backs of defence deal?
3) Recently in the august 2010, in Bangalore Governmnet beggars colony at a time more than 286 beggars (Official record) died in a month. Governmnet ordered for COD enquirey. But even after four months the file is laying in the chief Minister of karanataka without any decision.
Article -14 of Indian Constitution says" Equality before Law"
This means Law is supreme and every citizen should be equally treated.
But in reality poor peoples life doesn't have any value in INDIA.
The amount of corruption in 2G, Adarsha, CWG, if at all Indian government wants a loan of 4 lakh crores from IMF or world bank we will be asked to pledge some states to get this loan amount . 
As you have rightly said, lets understand basic law of the land along with our Rights and duties which we are alredy abide.
if at all any body feels that this does not fit in this groop discussion, you can remove me from the mailing address.
At last "its my right to express" No body can take this including the system of the day.
 
K N Jagadesh kumar
 
BBM/MBA/LL.B/IPR
Civil Contractor/RTI activist
n Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 10:01 PM, Dwarakanath <dwarakanathdm@gmail.com> wrote:
friends, I do understand that there are a lot of its and buts in the country as far as honesty or integrity or lawfulness or compliance with laws are concerned.  I am a born Indian and will be for ever. But being an Indian, it is my fundamental duty, irrespective of what others do, to abide by the Constitution and strive to improve, educate the masses about their rights, liberties and duty (under Article 51-A). I have to honestly  put my effort to bring peace and tranquility to the extent possible.   I believe in the mass understanding the law of the country and do their bit to not only abide by it but also take corrective peaceful action wherever it is necessary.  The country belongs to all of us  and not a private property of any individuals or any political parties.   I do not intend or attempt to gain any name, fame or  rewards in this venture.  If my writings offend any of the groups or anybody else, they have the privilege either to ignore or to block the display of write ups.Regards, dwarakanathdm,nbca

On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Dwarakanath /group

I dont know in what context this definition has been uploaded, perhaps it refers to PMK's warnings in Binayak' Sens' discussions

I surmise that PMK is concerned about members like Major Ravi who were similarly jailed for their utterances and now go about posting pro-Maoist comments on various unmoderated blogs and RTI groups purporting to be written to Constitutional Officers. To illustrate such utterances
http://iesmorg.blogspot.com/2010/06/views-of-maj-pm-ravindran.html

"This letter is a deliberate effort in that direction. The only other option available to me is to pray that the naxalites and maoists chose their targets correctly whenever they decide to strike because the other options- approaching the police or the judiciary- is beyond the pale of ordinary mortals in this country. It is pertinent to recall that as per the survey results of Transparency International the police and judiciary are the most corrupt institutions in this country which in turn is one of the most corrupt in the whole world. "

We don't need a police officer like Amitabh Thakur, IPS to see that such statements would otherwise directly fall under definition of sedition you have uploaded except for the fig-leaf of its purportedly being written to a Chief Minister,

Sarbajit


On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 6:42 AM, Dwarakanath <dwarakanathdm@gmail.com> wrote:
Friends, I reproduce below the definition of 'sedition' under the Indian Penal Code. for information:
  124-A:   Sedition – whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government established by law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment for Life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.  [explanation-1- The expression "disaffection" includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity, Explanation 2- Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures   of the Government with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means, without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.  Explanation 3- Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.





--
K N Jagadesh Kumar
9845500932
jkgroup999@gmail.com

Re: [HumJanenge] Handing over the group ownership

Dear friends,
I am glad to know the Network of RTI activists. As I have been also
actively involved with the RTI related action, I want to join with
your Network. Please inform me the steps to be taken.
With all best wishes for a very Happy and prosperous New Year 2011.
Sincerely yours
Malay Dewanji

On 12/31/10, Sanjeev Santoshi <sanjscot@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dear PMK
>
> This is very unexpected news. HJ-google is the most dynamic e-group
> for RTI citizens now have and all credits must go out to you and the
> FORE team for this.
>
> Many of us are curious who PMK really is. Will we ever know ?
>
> Sanjeev
>
> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 4:03 PM, PMK1504 <humjanenge.owner@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dear members
>>
>> This RTI google group was conceived only a few months ago to represent the
>> Federation of Online RTI E-groups ("FORE").
>>
>> The concept of a Federation includes the amalgamation of individuals or
>> groups who subscribe to common ideals / goals and a shared vision. In the
>> Federation, the management of the components of the consortium is
>> individually retained.
>>
>> I am pleased to say that the first phase of our Federation has been
>> achieved. We now have 3,000 active members and have successfully achieved
>> our first engagement as a group with the Government over the RTI Rules
>> amendment issue.
>>
>> It is now time for me to step down so that a moderator/owner of another
>> group from the Federation can take over in 2011, and so that I can devote
>> time to my own RTI mailing list which has been badly neglected.
>>
>> PMK
>>
>


--
Malay Dewanji
Hony. General Secretary, LAMP, Kolkata.
and
Hony. Secretary General, AIAVA, New Delhi.
Phone:919830082476

Re: [HumJanenge] Fw: Rx for “Lost file” excuse by Government departments: Public Records Act

Victor, thnx for sharing this info. really important , can come in
handy when doing follow up of lost(?) files in Govt depts.
I mean with the kind of hundreds of staff employed by the respected
govt, one still resorts to lost! resorts.
Regards.

On 12/31/10, Vijay Kapoor <vijay99kapoor@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dear Sarbajit:
> Sorry.  Wont consciously do it again. (I was only trying to disseminate info
> as widely as possible.)
> Regards,Victor
>
> --- On Thu, 12/30/10, sroy 1947 <sroy1947@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From: sroy 1947 <sroy1947@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Fw: Rx for "Lost file" excuse by Government
> departments: Public Records Act
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> Date: Thursday, December 30, 2010, 9:32 PM
>
> Dear Victor
>
> 1) Kindly do not cross-post messages. After 24 hours the group management
> will be terminating members who cross post.
>
> 2) Krishnaraj Rao does not possess a true copy of the PR Act. The "real"
> version can be found here (published by the National Archives u/s 4)
>
> http://nationalarchives.nic.in/writereaddata/html_en_files/html/public_records93.html
>
> 3) Section 9 of the Act in this version (not 10 as he claims) reads as
> follows:
>
>
> "Whoever contravenes any of the provisions of
> section 4 or section 8 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term
> which may extend to five years or with fine which may extend to ten
> thousand rupees or with both. "
>
> Section 4 deals with taking records out of India without permission
> Section 8 deals with destruction or disposal of records.
> (Rule 9(4) specifies that destruction is to take place by burning /
> shredding in the presence of the records office,  "disposal" has not been
> prescribed)
>
> www.sdobishnupur.in/Acts%20and%20Rules/Dictionery/1654.pdf
>
> The case of "lost" records is therefore not covered under this penal clause
> at all.
>
> Furthermore nowhere in the Act is it specified that the offences are
> "cognisable" and that a FIR can be registered or how/who has to register it.
>
> Lastly I may mention, that this scheme of FIR under Public Records Act was
> repeatedly used by a corrupt IC, but on my formal complaint to the CCIC (not
> Mr Habibullah) the corrupt practice of issuing FIRs for cash seems to have
> stopped.
>
>
> THE MORE RTI EGROUPS LIKE OURS ARE ALLOWED TO BE MISUSED BY THE LIKES OF
> KRISHNARAJ RAO, THE MORE THE CORRUPT ICS WILL BE EMBOLDENED TO PERPETUATE
> THEIR CORRUPTION.
>
> Sarbajit
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 2:42 AM, Victor Cooper <victor99cooper@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> --- On Thu, 12/30/10, Krishnaraj Rao <sahasipadyatri@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> From: Krishnaraj Rao <sahasipadyatri@gmail.com>
> Subject: [rti4empowerment] "Lost file" excuse? Get FIR against Records
> Officer using these sections of Public Records Act
>
> To: rti-forum-for-instant-information-@googlegroups.com,
> rti4empowerment@yahoogroups.com, rtikerala@yahoogroups.co.in, "Dr Mohd Naved
> Khan RTIgroup" <mohdnavedkhan@gmail.com>
>
> Date: Thursday, December 30, 2010, 1:34 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear RTI
> activists,
>
>
>
> Just as we have the Public Information Officer
> (PIO) in every public authority, there is a Records Officer (RO) in almost
> every
> government department who can be fined Rs 10,000 or imprisoned for five
> years if
> documents are lost or tampered.
>
>
>
> FOR CENTRAL GOVT DOCUMENTS, read Sec 10 of "Public Records Act 1993":
> http://tinyurl.com/PublicRecords1
>
>
>
>
>
> FOR MAHARASHTRA
> GOVT DOCUMENTS, read Sec 9 of "Maharashtra Act No 4 of 2006":
> http://tinyurl.com/PublicRecords3
>
>
>
>
> Quite often, we
> are denied information due to our own ignorance of these laws. No government
> employee can blandly say, "File lost" to an information seeker. There are
> clear-cut laws providing for who is to be held responsible and what is to be
> done in case documents or files are lost, misplaced or stolen. Therefore,
> under
> RTI, "File lost" can only be given as a reason for DELAY in providing
> information, but not as a reason for DENIAL of information.
>
>
>
> If a file is
> lost, there is a clear-cut procedure that the officer designated as "Records
> Officer" has to follow. This may be summarized as "SRF" i.e.
>
> a) SEARCH
>
> b) RECONSTRUCT the file
>
>
> c) Register FIR.
>
>
>
> UNDERSTAND THESE KEY
> SECTIONS OF PUBLIC RECORDS ACT 1993:
>
> SECTION 6:
>
> Every
> records creating agency shall nominate one of its officers as records
> officer
> to discharge the functions under this Act.
>
>
>
> Every
> records creating agency may set up such number of record rooms in such
> places
> as it deems fit and shall place each record room under the charge of a
> records
> officer.
>
>
>
> SECTION 8:
>
> The
> records officer shall, in the event of any unauthorised removal,
> destruction,
> defacement or alteration of any public records under his charge,
> forthwith
> take appropriate action for the recovery or restoration of such public
> records.
>
>
>
> The
> records officer shall submit a report in writing to the Director
> General or
> as the case may be, the head of the Archives without any delay on any
> information
> about any unauthorised removal, destruction, defacement or alteration
> of
> any public record under his charge and about the action initiated by
> him
> and shall take action as he may deem necessary, subject to the
> directions,
> if any, given by Director General or, as the case may be, head of the
> Archives.
>
>
>
> The
> records officer may seek assistance from any government officer or any
> other person for the purpose of recovery or restoration of public
> records
> and such officer or person shall render all assistance to the records
> officer.
>
>
>
> SECTION 10: Whoever
> contravenes any of the provisions of section 4 or section 8 shall be
> punishable
> with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or with fine
> which
> may extend to ten thousand rupees or with both.
>
>
>
> MAHARASHTRA ACTIVISTS: The corresponding sections of the State Act
> are 5, 7 & 9.
>
>
>
> Exactly how, when and where must public
> records be classified, preserved, withdrawn or destroyed? Study Public
> Records RULES 1997:
> http://tinyurl.com/PublicRecords2
>
>
> (These rules apply to Central Govt
> documents, but there must be similar rules for State Govt.)
>
>
>
> Especially read the forms given at the bottom of the Rules,
> particularly Form 8, which enables citizens to enroll as "Research Scholars"
> and study the documents
> at National Archives of India. Many hidden treasures may lie in these
> archives,
> waiting to be discovered by you!
>
>
>
> Warm Regards,
>
> Krish
>
> 98215 88114
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __._
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [HumJanenge] Statement on the Saxena Committee Report on the Forest Rights Act

Thnx for speaking up for the Trees and Forests.
I wonder if people like shri pawar are totally blind to the fact that
this precious natural wealth , once lost will never be gained again.
Just for their personal gains these nincompoops are killing nature. I
heard pawar say on a tv channel, that he did this to Lavasa as he fell
in love?) with the beauty of the site.
God forbid what he does to people...???? Devastate them.Ruin them.
Guess the Farmers are a better judge for this.
Regards.

On 12/31/10, rights@rediffmail.com <rights@rediffmail.com> wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From:&nbsp;Campaign for Survival and
> Dignity&nbsp;&lt;forestcampaignnews@gmail.com&gt;
> Date: Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 6:59 PM
> Subject: Statement on the Saxena Committee Report on the Forest Rights Act
> To:&nbsp;forestcampaign@gmail.com
>
>
> Friends,
> The controversial Saxena Committee on the Forest Rights Act has submitted
> its report, which has finally been made public. We know that this report
> will be projected as pro-people and pro-rights.&nbsp;But this report will be
> most useful to those who set it up – a Ministry and a forest
> bureaucracy1that wants more power, while&nbsp;presenting a facade of being
> sensitive and pro-people.&nbsp;Here are some reasons why.Regarding the
> implementation of the Act, the Committee has endorsed what we and others
> have been pointing out for a long time. It points out the problems in rights
> recognition, recommends action against illegal evictions, and calls for
> recognition of community rights, coming to the same conclusions as
> the&nbsp;Council for Social Development report&nbsp;and what the movements
> have been saying. It identifies the forest bureaucracy as a major problem.
> In itself, this is welcome.&nbsp;But when it comes to what should
> be&nbsp;done&nbsp;about these problems, and especially about&nbsp;MoEF
> and&nbsp;the forest bureaucracy, the report&nbsp;falls&nbsp;apart.
> On the Environment Ministry:&nbsp;The Committee's recommendations target
> everyone&nbsp;except the&nbsp;Environment Ministry, the&nbsp;Central agency
> most responsible for policies in violation of the Act.&nbsp;Out of eleven
> pages of findings in chapter 11, MoEF's actions are covered in half a page.
> The most dangerous of these actions&nbsp;(click here to know more)&nbsp;-
> illegal forest diversion for corporate projects; rapidly expanding
> afforestation and "conservation" programs with enormous potential for land
> grabbing and conflict; and the huge sums of money being deployed for this -
> are barely touched in the recommendations. The chapter on development
> projects admits "some clearances" were illegal. But there has not been a
> single case where the Ministry has complied with the law on diversion, and
> the Committee neither recommends cancellation of illegal clearances nor
> justice for those whose rights have been illegally violated. There are no
> recommendations on afforestation, except for vague statements that policies
> should be "reviewed" and should "respect the FRA." Whose job is it to review
> these illegal actions, if not this Committee?
> On Joint Forest Management:&nbsp;The Ministry's current favorite program -
> Joint Forest Management (click here to know more) – is being expanded across
> the country and is a major tool in the Forest Department's efforts to block
> communities from managing forests or exercising rights. It is condemned in
> the first half of chapter 8 of the report and in one part of the
> recommendations; but other parts say it should continue in most areas and
> even that it has "advantages." Then, the "alternative recommendations"
> (signed by half the members of the Committee) condemn it again.&nbsp;Thus
> the Ministry can do pretty much anything on JFM and still claim the
> Committee's endorsement.
> On "redefining forest governance":&nbsp;On this issue – which was said to be
> the Committee's raison d'etre - the report says that the status quo of Joint
> Forest Management and Forest Department supervision should continue in the
> vast majority of forest areas (those where communities do not file formal
> claims for community forest resource rights). The "alternative
> recommendations" say there should be changes, but agree that there is no
> legal requirement for them (they would need "a new statute or amendment of
> existing statutes").&nbsp;This is the&nbsp;escape clause&nbsp;the forest
> authorities have been looking for.&nbsp;After the structure of the Forest
> Department has been identified as being the single biggest reason for the
> failure to respect the law, when even the Home Secretary has attacked their
> zamindari attitude and abuse of power,&nbsp;the&nbsp;committee legitimises
> the status quo&nbsp;until&nbsp;there is&nbsp;a "new statute or amendment of
> existing statutes".&nbsp;This is a total misreading of the law and a
> backpedaling on the most crucial issue in forest areas today.
> Riddled with other contradictions:&nbsp;On non-timber forest produce,
> crucial to people's livelihoods, the report identifies many problems, but
> then only says free sale should be permitted – while advocating continuation
> of other existing structures, which numerous government reports have
> condemned (the "alternative recommendations" disagree). Satellite imagery
> (currently a major tool for rejections) is endorsed and celebrated as a mode
> for verifying rights in one section, which however also contains one
> sentence admitting it "cannot verify the existence of any right under the
> Act" (p. 66). On whether or not people should be removed from wildlife
> habitats, the report advocates two diametrically opposed views in the same
> paragraph (p. 131), one of which is called "dissenting" - but is in the main
> text. After describing critical tiger habitat notifications as "in violation
> of the Act", once again it only recommends a "review" (p. 217).In sum, the
> report is a mishmash that permits the Environment Ministry to do what it
> pleases, and still to claim the mantle of being pro-people. Indeed, almost
> any point raised in favour of people can be contradicted by citing some
> other part of the report.When the Campaign was invited to join this
> Committee, we declined for precisely this reason.&nbsp;It is not the
> findings of government committees that matter, but whether and how they can
> be used by the powers that be. The nature and constitution of this
> committee, as reflected in its report, lent themselves to precisely such
> manipulation. We can be sure that all the ambiguities and contradictions in
> this report will be exploited to the fullest extent, even as the positive
> points it raises will be quietly discarded except where they serve the
> establishment's interests.The struggle in forest areas is today reaching a
> pitch where the Central government is on the back foot. Whether in Vedanta
> and POSCO, or in the hellholes of Operation Green Hunt, or in the anti-dam
> movements of the Northeast, we see people resisting a brutal machine that
> respects neither law nor life. The forest bureaucracy is one crucial cog in
> that machine. Let us not permit it to clothe itself in the language of
> rights and hide its true face.Campaign for Survival and
> Dignity9873657844,&nbsp;www.forestrightsact.com
> 1&nbsp;The fiction of a "joint committee" does not require much attention.
> This "joint committee" includes six forest officers, one of whom is
> co-chair, as against one Tribal Ministry representative. Meanwhile, as the
> report itself describes, this "joint committee" was first notified by the
> Environment Ministry alone, which then roped in the Tribal Ministry after
> criticism. In August, the Tribal Minister chose to write to the Environment
> Minister to complain about the Committee's functioning, not to the chair,
> showing who actually controls the Committee. Finally, the report itself
> declares that the Tribal Ministry member "hardly attended the meetings of
> the Committee, nor sent his representative." The "joint committee" fiction
> was just the result of pressure from the Environment Ministry on an
> apathetic and weak Tribal Ministry, in order to escape the charge of
> exceeding its mandate.
>
>

Re: [HumJanenge] Re: APPOINTMENT OF CCIC

12(3) says, "Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners shall be appointed by the President on the recommendation of a Committee consisting of -"
In such circumstances, what other name to the Committee can be given?
However, DoPT has not objected on this score and has provided the information, though partially.
 
This issue is not about the Committee or Selection Comm.... but about the procedure of selection and the adoption of the criterion for the same. 
 
 
 


From: sroy 1947 <sroy1947@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, 31 December, 2010 11:11:47 AM
Subject: [HumJanenge] Re: APPOINTMENT OF CCIC

Dear Guptaji

From where did you form the opinion (or receive information) that the committee of 12(3) is a SELECTION committee.

Your entire request is founded on the false premise that it is a selection committee.

Sarbajit


On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 4:14 PM, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

For context, copy of RTI application (I have deleted my Residential address and phone number). 

 

The Central Public Information Officer,

C/o. Secretary,

Deptt. of Personal and Training,

New Delhi.

6.10.2010.

Sub: Information under RTI Act, 2005 – Selection of Chief Information Commissioner.

 

Respected Sir,

 

Kindly provide the following information on the selection of Chief Information Commissioner under RTI Act, 2005:

1.                 Names of the members who attended the meeting of the Selection Committee.

2.                 Date, time and venue of the meeting.

3.                 Names of the short-listed candidates considered for the post.

4.                 Whether the short listing and selection criteria would be made public by putting the same on the Deptt. website or by any other means.

5.                 Kindly provide a copy of the proceedings/minutes of the Selection Committee   Meeting.

B.       If some part of the solicited information does not belong to your Department, I request you to transfer that part to the concerned Public Authority u.s. 6(3) of the Act.

C.       I am enclosing a postal order for Rs. 10/- numbering 88E 389218 dated 30.9.2010 issued from the Dwarka Post Office.

Yours faithfully,

 

 

(Mahendra Kumar Gupta)

 

 




From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, 30 December, 2010 8:39:33 AM

Subject: Re: [rti4empowerment] APPOINTMENT OF CCIC

Dear WEDS

1) The specific point you are making is?
2) In what context ?

Sarbajit

PS: So far none of what you have said can be applied to Mr Gupta's case.

On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 3:59 AM, DSouza Wilberious Evanglist <wilevades@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Dear M.K.Gupta & others,
 
Please read section 4(c&d) of RTI Act 2005.
 

(c)

 publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies or announcing the decisions which affect public;

(d)

provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.

& remember,
 

PREFACE

 

Constitution is a living document, an instrument which makes the government system work
Premble,

WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly

resolved to constitute India into a 1[SOVEREIGN

SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC] and

to secure to all its citizens:

JUSTICE, social, economic and political;

LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and

worship;

EQUALITY of status and of opportunity;

and to promote among them all

FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual

and the 2[unity and integrity of the Nation];

IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twentysixth

day of November, 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT,

ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS

CONSTITUTION.

 

RTI Act 2005, Section 8(i), ultimate line reads as follows:

 

Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.

 

1.    From this you would agree that the People of India have installed the Constitution of India & the Government therewithin to themselves & to govern them. Hence, in Democracy, the Government is defined as A GOVERNMENT BY A PEOPLE; OF THE PEOPLE & FOR THE PEOPLE.

 

2.    Hence, the Government & all its functionaries are accountable & answerable to the People of India. Hence, the People of India have a right to question the Government that they have installed within the framework of the Constitution on its acts & omissions. This is otherwise known as the Right to Information.

 

3.    This Right to Information of the People of India is inalienable, axiomatic, fundamental as well as human right . This has been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court of India as a fundamental right forming a facet of Art. 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Read 6 above.

 

4.    To access, seek, receive & impart information is a Human Right (HR), as per Article 19 of The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) that was adopted by the General Assembly of The United Nations on the 16th December 1966, as cardinal principles of Human Right, embodied in The Protection of Human Rights Act 1993 section 2(d) & (f) forming a facet of Art. 21 Part III, Fundamental Right (FR) i.e. Right to life & Liberty, of the Constitution of India.

5.    Freedom of Information lies at the root of the rights discourse. Failure of the State to provide access to information or State suppression of information can lead to the most egregious forms of human rights violations. The Right to Information (RTI) is fundamental to the realisation of rights as well as effective democracy, which requires informed participation by all.

 

 

Regards,

WEDS



From: M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in>
To: rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, 29 December, 2010 13:23:21
Subject: [rti4empowerment] APPOINTMENT OF CCIC

By filing an RTI, I asked from the DoPT names of short-listed candidates considered for the post of Chief Information Commissioner and whether the short listing and selection criteria would be made public.

 

On filing the first appeal, Shri Anuradha S. Chagti, Dy. Secy. & First Appellate Authority has informed that no documents are available on these points and an appeal against this order of FAA can be made to the CIC.

 

It seems that only one name was considered at the time of appointing Shri A N Tiwari as CCIC or the DoPT has taken a decision to appoint the Senior Most IC as CIC and / or only one name was considered.

 

What next?  Views of activists are request whether second appeal is desirable on the two aforesaid issues.








Re: [HumJanenge] Handing over the group ownership

Dear PMK

This is very unexpected news. HJ-google is the most dynamic e-group
for RTI citizens now have and all credits must go out to you and the
FORE team for this.

Many of us are curious who PMK really is. Will we ever know ?

Sanjeev

On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 4:03 PM, PMK1504 <humjanenge.owner@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear members
>
> This RTI google group was conceived only a few months ago to represent the
> Federation of Online RTI E-groups ("FORE").
>
> The concept of a Federation includes the amalgamation of individuals or
> groups who subscribe to common ideals / goals and a shared vision. In the
> Federation, the management of the components of the consortium is
> individually retained.
>
> I am pleased to say that the first phase of our Federation has been
> achieved. We now have 3,000 active members and have successfully achieved
> our first engagement as a group with the Government over the RTI Rules
> amendment issue.
>
> It is now time for me to step down so that a moderator/owner of another
> group from the Federation can take over in 2011, and so that I can devote
> time to my own RTI mailing list which has been badly neglected.
>
> PMK
>

[HumJanenge] Handing over the group ownership

Dear members

This RTI google group was conceived only a few months ago to represent the Federation of Online RTI E-groups ("FORE").

The concept of a Federation includes the amalgamation of individuals or groups who subscribe to common ideals / goals and a shared vision. In the Federation, the management of the components of the consortium is individually retained.

I am pleased to say that the first phase of our Federation has been achieved. We now have 3,000 active members and  have successfully achieved our first engagement as a group with the Government over the RTI Rules amendment issue.

It is now time for me to step down so that a moderator/owner of another group from the Federation can take over in 2011, and so that I can devote time to my own RTI mailing list which has been badly neglected.

PMK

Re: [HumJanenge] reg sedition

 

 

A NEW LEAF - 2011-

IS BEING UNFOLDED UNTO YOU

BY LORD GOD

WITH PEACE, HAPPINESS & PROSPERITY

WRITTEN ON IT.

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

 

 JOHN LOPEZ/ RIM CHENNAI

 

Re: [HumJanenge] Fw: Rx for “Lost file” excuse by Government departments: Public Records Act

Dear Sarbajit:

Sorry.  Wont consciously do it again. (I was only trying to disseminate info as widely as possible.)

Regards,
Victor


--- On Thu, 12/30/10, sroy 1947 <sroy1947@gmail.com> wrote:

From: sroy 1947 <sroy1947@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Fw: Rx for "Lost file" excuse by Government departments: Public Records Act
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Thursday, December 30, 2010, 9:32 PM

Dear Victor

1) Kindly do not cross-post messages. After 24 hours the group management will be terminating members who cross post.

2) Krishnaraj Rao does not possess a true copy of the PR Act. The "real" version can be found here (published by the National Archives u/s 4)
http://nationalarchives.nic.in/writereaddata/html_en_files/html/public_records93.html

3) Section 9 of the Act in this version (not 10 as he claims) reads as follows:

"Whoever contravenes any of the provisions of section 4 or section 8 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees or with both. "

Section 4 deals with taking records out of India without permission
Section 8 deals with destruction or disposal of records.
(Rule 9(4) specifies that destruction is to take place by burning / shredding in the presence of the records office,  "disposal" has not been prescribed)
www.sdobishnupur.in/Acts%20and%20Rules/Dictionery/1654.pdf

The case of "lost" records is therefore not covered under this penal clause at all.
Furthermore nowhere in the Act is it specified that the offences are "cognisable" and that a FIR can be registered or how/who has to register it.

Lastly I may mention, that this scheme of FIR under Public Records Act was repeatedly used by a corrupt IC, but on my formal complaint to the CCIC (not Mr Habibullah) the corrupt practice of issuing FIRs for cash seems to have stopped.

THE MORE RTI EGROUPS LIKE OURS ARE ALLOWED TO BE MISUSED BY THE LIKES OF KRISHNARAJ RAO, THE MORE THE CORRUPT ICS WILL BE EMBOLDENED TO PERPETUATE THEIR CORRUPTION.

Sarbajit


On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 2:42 AM, Victor Cooper <victor99cooper@yahoo.com> wrote:


--- On Thu, 12/30/10, Krishnaraj Rao <sahasipadyatri@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Krishnaraj Rao <sahasipadyatri@gmail.com>
Subject: [rti4empowerment] "Lost file" excuse? Get FIR against Records Officer using these sections of Public Records Act
To: rti-forum-for-instant-information-@googlegroups.com, rti4empowerment@yahoogroups.com, rtikerala@yahoogroups.co.in, "Dr Mohd Naved Khan RTIgroup" <mohdnavedkhan@gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, December 30, 2010, 1:34 AM

 

Dear RTI activists,

 

Just as we have the Public Information Officer (PIO) in every public authority, there is a Records Officer (RO) in almost every government department who can be fined Rs 10,000 or imprisoned for five years if documents are lost or tampered.

 

FOR CENTRAL GOVT DOCUMENTS, read Sec 10 of "Public Records Act 1993": http://tinyurl.com/PublicRecords1

 

FOR MAHARASHTRA GOVT DOCUMENTS, read Sec 9 of "Maharashtra Act No 4 of 2006": http://tinyurl.com/PublicRecords3

 

Quite often, we are denied information due to our own ignorance of these laws. No government employee can blandly say, "File lost" to an information seeker. There are clear-cut laws providing for who is to be held responsible and what is to be done in case documents or files are lost, misplaced or stolen. Therefore, under RTI, "File lost" can only be given as a reason for DELAY in providing information, but not as a reason for DENIAL of information.

 

If a file is lost, there is a clear-cut procedure that the officer designated as "Records Officer" has to follow. This may be summarized as "SRF" i.e.

a) SEARCH

b) RECONSTRUCT the file

c) Register FIR.

 

UNDERSTAND THESE KEY SECTIONS OF PUBLIC RECORDS ACT 1993:

SECTION 6:

  1. Every records creating agency shall nominate one of its officers as records officer to discharge the functions under this Act.

 

  1. Every records creating agency may set up such number of record rooms in such places as it deems fit and shall place each record room under the charge of a records officer.

 

SECTION 8:

  1. The records officer shall, in the event of any unauthorised removal, destruction, defacement or alteration of any public records under his charge, forthwith take appropriate action for the recovery or restoration of such public records.

 

  1. The records officer shall submit a report in writing to the Director General or as the case may be, the head of the Archives without any delay on any information about any unauthorised removal, destruction, defacement or alteration of any public record under his charge and about the action initiated by him and shall take action as he may deem necessary, subject to the directions, if any, given by Director General or, as the case may be, head of the Archives.

 

  1. The records officer may seek assistance from any government officer or any other person for the purpose of recovery or restoration of public records and such officer or person shall render all assistance to the records officer.

 

SECTION 10: Whoever contravenes any of the provisions of section 4 or section 8 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees or with both.

 

MAHARASHTRA ACTIVISTS: The corresponding sections of the State Act are 5, 7 & 9.

 

Exactly how, when and where must public records be classified, preserved, withdrawn or destroyed? Study Public Records RULES 1997: http://tinyurl.com/PublicRecords2

(These rules apply to Central Govt documents, but there must be similar rules for State Govt.)

 

Especially read the forms given at the bottom of the Rules, particularly Form 8, which enables citizens to enroll as "Research Scholars" and study the documents at National Archives of India. Many hidden treasures may lie in these archives, waiting to be discovered by you!

 

Warm Regards,

Krish

98215 88114

__._