First of all, all of us have to discipline ourselves to refrain from person acrimony & remember that our goal is to render RTI fool proof, potent & effective. Apart from the varied information that all of us seek foremost is to pressurise public authorities to disclose the following unfailingly as per section 4 of RTI Act unfailingly.
| (b) | publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,— | |
| | (i) | the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties; |
| | (ii) | the powers and duties of its officers and employees; |
| | (iii) | the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; |
| | (iv) | the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; |
| | (v) | the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions; |
| | (vi) | a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control; |
| | (vii) | the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof; |
| | (viii) | a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public; |
| | (ix) | a directory of its officers and employees; Under accountability, the following information should be available. A. In the information about their accountability for acts & omissions by them in discharge of their duties as functionaries of (name public authority), should contain the following information too which is concomitant of the term accountability : 1. The hierarchical functionary/ies who is/are empowered to initiate disciplinary action as per the departmental disciplinary procedure, in case of these functionaries are accused of, a. Violating the Fundamental & Human Rights of Citizens of India e.g. showing disrespect to, use of abusive language, signs of disrespect, discourteous behavior, use of physical force, derision, mockery, innuendos behaving in an accentuated manner e.g. show of anger, contempt, speaking in an inflected voice, demeaning, snide remarks etc. b. Acting ultra vires (beyond allowed empowerment limits) in discharge of their functions & exercise of powers vested with them. c. For selective application of rule, exception in application of rules, disparate application of rules, abuse of authority to favour one to the detriment of another, transgression of authority, trespassing the powers vested with a hierarchical functionary, failure to implement laws rules, favouritism, nepotism in application of laws etc., |
This should first & foremost be insisted from Central & State Information Commissions. Appointment of Information Commissioners falls under section 4 (c) & (d) of RTI Act 2005 as follows:
| (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. |
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.
Information commissioners should fulfill the criteria under section 12(5) & 15(5) of RTI Act 2005.
The Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners shall be persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media or administration and governance.
The State Chief Information Commissioner and the State Information Commissioners shall be persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media or administration and governance.
Appointment of Information Commissioners falls within the purview of Section 4(c & d) of RTI Act 2005
Regards, WEDS
From: M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in>
To: rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, 25 December, 2010 12:52:13
Subject: Re: Reply: [rti4empowerment] REQUEST TO USE RTI POWER TO INITIATE CONFISCATION OF CORRUPT POLITICIANS AGRICULTURAL LANDS UNDER KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT
From: DSouza Wilberious Evanglist <wilevades@yahoo.co.uk>
To: Dr. Jagnarain Sharma <dr.jagnarainsharma@gmail.com>; rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com; legaldocumentations@yahoo.co.in; humjanenge@googlegroups.com; rtiyashada@gmail.co; thekirti@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, 25 December, 2010 12:32:15 PM
Subject: Reply: [rti4empowerment] REQUEST TO USE RTI POWER TO INITIATE CONFISCATION OF CORRUPT POLITICIANS AGRICULTURAL LANDS UNDER KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT
From: Dr. Jagnarain Sharma <dr.jagnarainsharma@gmail.com>
To: rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com
Cc: legaldocumentations@yahoo.co.in; humjanenge@googlegroups.com; rtiyashada@gmail.co; thekirti@yahoogroups.com; wilevades@yahoo.co.uk
Sent: Sat, 25 December, 2010 8:14:44
Subject: Re: Reply: [rti4empowerment] REQUEST TO USE RTI POWER TO INITIATE CONFISCATION OF CORRUPT POLITICIANS AGRICULTURAL LANDS UNDER KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT
Dear Weds Sri dhara & all
On the front is corruption on the back is corruption in the
middle corruption every where there is only corruption.
Thanks for enlightment
Pl. Keep it up
Regards
Dr JN Sharma
ADVOCATE/ HUMANRIGHTS ACTIVIST
On 12/25/10, DSouza Wilberious Evanglist <wilevades@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Dear Sridhara Babu,
>
> It was an absorbing conversation with you yesterday.
>
> The following is an e-mail that I sent The New Indian Express who
> demurred to
> deliver it to Lokayukta or publish it, about the corruption,
> maladministration
> in Karnataka Lokayukta despite rehetorie of Justice K Santhosh Hegde in
> press.
>
> I have attached the following files which please read at your lesuire. They
> are
> cent percent scientific & logical.
>
> The file Power of RTI is being edited & I shall send it to you later.
>
> 1. Wisdom by Scientific Facts.
> 2. RTI Act 2005 - how information Commissioners Should Function.
> 3. Blind Beliefd- Does God Exist!!!????
>
> Dear Sir,
>
> Accidentally I read at page 6 of The New Indian Express Friday, August 29,
> 2009
> Bangalore, a report titled There is Corruption at all Levels& also at page 6
> of
> The New Indian Express Saturday, August 30, 2009 Bangalore, another report
> titled Voice of People will help Lokayukta
>
> I was amused whether in both the statements wherein The Lokayukta, Hon'ble
> Justice K Santhosh Hegde stated so, to include The Karnataka Lokayuktatoo?
>
> It stands to reason to assume that these statements excluded The Lokayukta &
> The
> Karnataka Lokayukta. However, paradoxically & in fact they apply to both.
>
> Let me narrate my experience with The Karnataka Lokayukta.
>
> I addressed an application under RTI Act 2005 dated 23 03 2009 using the
> premise
> of deemed PIO as elucidated under section 5 (4 & 5) read with section 6
> (1&3),
> 22, 23 & 24 of RTI Act 2005 to The Lokayukta, Hon'ble Justice K. Santhosh
> Hegde
> by his proper name & sent it by professional courier Udupi on 26 03 2008 way
> bill nd.4688524.
>
> It was delivered to the addressee but, neither did I receive an
> acknowledgement
> nor the information sought. I talked to Registrar Moosa Kunhi, Dy. Registrar
> B.
> M. Mallikarjunaiah, & office of Asst. Registrar 8 (ARE 8) S. D. Parmaj to a
> lady
> who demurred to disclose her name despite being a public servant.
>
> Only after I sent a copy of that application again on 3rd July 2009, I
> received
> a reply dated. 27 07 2009.
>
>
> Does it not tantamount to disobedience of law as per section 166 of IPC 1860
> by
> the Lokayukta Hon'ble Justice K Santhosh Hegde?
>
> The information was sought on case COMPT/LOK/MYS191/2008 dated 19 12 2008
> which
> was recommended for closure by S.D. Parmaj, ARE 8 without even sending a
> letter
> enquiry against the respondent, the current Dy. Commissioner Udupi, P.
> Hemalatha
> IAS, recommending to The Lokayukta that it is a case against not providing
> information sought under RTI Act 2005 & is outside the purview of Lokayukta.
> The
> Lokayukta, Hon'ble Justice K. Santhosh Hegde, just as if he is a bureaucrat
> blindly endorsed the note by ARE 8, without even ever bothering to know what
> the
> complaint was about.
>
> My complaint was lucidly documented with unassailable & conclusive proof
> against
> Dy. Commissioner Udupi, P. Hemalatha I.A.S for abusing authority, acting
> ultra
> vires, violation of human right, transgressing her powers, disobedience of
> law
> making her liable under section 166 of IPC 1860. However, ARE 8 who is
> district
> & Sessions Judge (retd.), could not even display ordinary prudence &
> judgement
> to find a valid case in my complaint. An eloquent testimony to, absence of
> transparency, abuse of authority to favour one & harm another &
> maladministration in Karnataka Lokayukta logically leading to the conclusion
> of
> existence of corruption in The Karnataka Lokayukta itself.
>
>
> The same complaint against Dy. Commissioner Udupi, P.Hemalatha IAS on the
> same
> issue was filed with NHRC New Delhi for violation of my Human Rights has
> been
> adjudged as having a prima facie case by N.H.R.C & is under enquiry. Only
> the
> Lokayukta chose to exonerate her in my complaint without even an enquiry.
>
> Another complaint nd. COMPT/LOK/MYS193/2008 dated 19 12 2008 against former
> Dy.
> Commissioner Udupi, V. Ponnuraj I.A.S for abusing authority, disobeying law,
> acting arbitrarily filed with The Karnataka Lokayukta, also assigned to ARE
> 8,
> S.D. Parmaj, is yet to adjudicated.
>
>
> A complaint for human right violation has also been filed with NHRC New
> Delhi
> for violation of my Human Rights against former Dy. Commissioner Udupi, V.
> Ponnuraj I.A.S, has been adjudged as having a prima facie case by N.H.R.C &
> is
> under enquiry!
>
> I had sought status of both of my complaints as well as the course of action
> that would initiated by the Lokayukta to deliver justice to me, if not the
> reasons therefor, by an application under RTI Act 2005 section 6(1) at the
> time
> of filing complaint itself but, the information is yet to be received
> despite 7
> months! An eloquent testimony to lethargy & blatant disobedience of law,
> tantamount to maladministration in Lokayukta which was established to
> oversee
> good governance! What a paradox! I am reminded of the vernacular saying
> "Baeli
> yeddu hola maidante?" {Fence that is designed to protect field from cattle,
> if
> by itself grazes the field?}
>
> I shall send a complaint against S.D. Parmaj, ARE 8, Karnataka Lokayukta, to
> Lokayukta. I shall observe how this shall be dealt with by Lokayukta. As a
> citizen & one of the governed, I have a right to demand transparency in
> functioning of every Public Authority. The Government & its
> instrumentalities
> are to be accountable to the governed after implementation of RTI Act 2005.
> We
> are a democratic nation where the GOVERNMENT IS BY A PEOPLE; OF THE PEOPLE &
> FOR
> THE PEOPLE!
>
> In another instance Udupi Town Police station ASI refused to accept my
> complaint
> under sections 268,269,270,339,425 & 426 of IPC 1860, disobedience of duty
> enjoined by Article 51A of Constitution with offence relevant to
>
> (a) Offences against the State.
> (b) Offences against the public tranquility.
> (d) Offences affecting life.
> (i) Offences of mischief against property.
>
> Every public office has this displayed on a board:
>
> In case of under delay or harassment caused by an official or public servant
> in
> attending to official work the same may be brought to the notice of under:
>
> Registrar Karnata Lokayukta, M. S. Building, Dr. Ambedkar Veethi, Bangalore
> 56001.
>
> Encouraged by this, I called Lokayukta to complain to Registrar Karnata
> Lokayukta. Registrar Moosa Kunhi was not at his desk. The lady in his office
> did
> not know where he was. When I narrated why I called, the lady said "We do
> not do
> anything, you have to contact the local Lokayukta Office" When I asked why
> the
> board should be displayed as stating above, there was no answer. Lady did
> not
> disclose her name. I had contacted the Circle Police Inspector Udupi, Ganesh
> Hegde & narrated him the incident. As he was at Mangalore undergoing
> training, I
> requested him to advice Town Police Station Udupi & re-approached ASI
> informing
> him my talk with CIP, who accepted it.
>
>
> In the meantime I had talked to Dy. SP Lokayukta Udupi, Prabhudev Bimane to
> persuade police to initiate action.
>
> This is the state of affaires of The Karnataka Lokayukta claiming overseeing
> of
> good governance! Probably the dictum is "DO WHAT I SAY BUT, DON'T DO AS I
> DO"
>
> Will The New Indian Express be intrepid to deliver this to Lolayukta Hon'ble
> Justice K Santhosh Hegde?
>
> Regards,
> WEDS
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: sridhara babu <legaldocumentations@yahoo.co.in>
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com; rtiyashada@gmail.co; Karnataka Intiative
> RTI
> <thekirti@yahoogroups.com>; rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Fri, 24 December, 2010 11:42:36
> Subject: [rti4empowerment] REQUEST TO USE RTI POWER TO INITIATE CONFISCATION
> OF
> CORRUPT POLITICIANS AGRICULTURAL LANDS UNDER KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT
>
>
>
> DEAR
>
> RTI ACTIVISTS OF KARNATAKA
>
> KINDLY READ THE ANNEXED ARTICLE IT GIVES YOU IDEA TO INITIATE CONFISCATION
> PROCEEDINGS BEFORE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONERS AGAINST CORRUPT POLITICIANS
> AGRICULTURAL LANDS UNDER KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT.
>
>
> SRIDHARA BABU N
> ADVOCATE
> FOUNDER PRESIDENT: HUMAN RIGHTS AND ANTI-CORRUPTION FOUNDATION (R)
> EXECUTIVE PRESIDENT OF TUMKUR DISTRICT: ALL INDIA LAWYERS UNION (AILU)
> LEGAL DOCUMENTATIONS
> G.K.ROAD, K.R.EXTENSION
> TUMKUR, KARNATAKA, INDIA
> PH:9880339764
> http://sridharababu.blogspot.com
>
>
>
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.