Saturday, April 2, 2011
Re: [HumJanenge] Govt Spent Rs 3,554.78 Crore on Hajj Subsidy Last Decade
Congress is a political party that breeds malafide things by all means. Destroying families by gender biased laws to hushing information by making RTI weak this party has no right . role of Courts must not be mentioned at all. They are highest concealers of information. I will request all RTI activist to train your guns on court because RTI act is menat to tame the untammable which most of the court thinksthemselves.
Re: [HumJanenge] DoPT concedes on RTI Rules
Dear all , In karnataka if the PIO levied the penalty on PIO'S no pio is obeying the orders , Then the RTI Applicants have to follow up the case to pay the penalty imposed other wise case will be burried , State information commisison is not interested to comply its order on PIO'S , I filed an RTI Application seeking informaiton about number of cases penalty levied by various information commissioners and thier name whether penalty levied is recovered the commission failed to provide the complete information , This is the way how the information commmsisioners are implementing the rti act
ARS KUMAR. BE, LLB , MA JOURNALISM
SOCIAL ACTIVIST & JOURNALIST
On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 6:13 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Karira
After reading the DoPT circular I referred to, how did you come to the
conclusion that I am the one behind getting penalties imposed on
frivolous applicants by the CIC.
To the contrary, all the matter in the public domain makes it clear
1) That CIC wants powers to to penalise / imprison frivolous
applicants / appellants
2) That NCPRI founders are running dogs of the imperialist CIC and
that Mr Shailesh Gandhi (ex NCPRI convenor) is now elevated to the
exalted status of 'gharelu kutta'.
3) That the DoPT circular clearly mentions that Aruna Roy, Shekar
Singh, Nikhil De etc participated in CIC's meeting where this
outrageous demand was taken up for consideration and there is not a
whimper of disagreement from them recorded..
Is it not curious that when we are the only citizens who seek to
defend the RTI movement against such h****is, there is a cacophony of
orchestrated protest which seeks to question our motives and impugn
our bonafides. This actually shows that we are on the right track.
Sarbajit
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 7:24 PM, C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Mr. Sarbajit,
> Let the CIC first do its defined job properly !
> Let it first tell us how many show cause notices issued by ICs
> How many show cause notices were responded to ?
> How many penalties levied ?
> How many penalties contested in Courts ?
> How many penalties actually paid ?
> They don't even do that properly.
> Why do you want to burden these poor senior citizens with more decision
> making and more work ?
> Leave them alone.
> RTIwanted
> ________________________________
> From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Friday, April 1, 2011 10:35 AM
> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] DoPT concedes on RTI Rules
>
> And tomorrow is 2nd April !!
>
> No doubt the Govt has powers to set fees and recover costs for
> enabling RTI provisions. Each of the fees and costs they have now
> agreed to levy can be justified under RTI Act. As such we do not want
> to appeal these.
>
> The one we plan to file a 2nd appeal to CIC is to be informed on the
> specific provisions of RTI Act which enable a penalty to be levied on
> frivolous / vexatious APPELLANTS. (please note this is not levied on
> frivolous APPLICANTS) and the reasoning on how this forms part of
> Appeal Procedure.
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 10:31 AM, C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Members, please remember that today is 1st April !
>> ________________________________
>> From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
>> To: humjanenge <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
>> Sent: Friday, April 1, 2011 12:05 AM
>> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] DoPT concedes on RTI Rules
>>
>> Summary of latest status on DoPT's RTI Rules in reply to 3 RTIs and
>> after 1 decided first appeal.
>>
>> FEES:
>> 1) No change in RTI Application fee. It stays at Rs.10
>> 2) First Appeal fees fixed at Rs 25 or Court Fee in concerned State
>> under Court Fee Act, whichever is higher.
>> 3) Second Appeal fee to CIC fixed at Rs 250
>> NB: Third parties have been exempted from paying appeal fees.
>>
>> COSTS:
>> 1) Costs on hire of machinery, is prescribed for color photocopy
>> (Rs.20 per A3/A4 page) and scanning of documents (Rs. 5 per A3/A4
>> page)
>> 2) Forwarding Cost u/s 6(3) is fixed at Rs.50 per transfer
>> 3) Cost of issuing Third Party notice u/s 11 is fixed at Rs. 50 per
>> notice.
>>
>> FINES:
>> The CIC is being given powers to levy fines upto Rs. 10,000 on /
>> vexatious appellants as part of appeal procedure. It is not clear
>> which provision / section of RTI Act the DoPT intends to use to
>> justify this. We are planning to file 2nd appeal to CIC.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Re: [HumJanenge] BBMP, Bangalore website lists PIOs info in the regional language.
Mr. Abhinav
You can pay the property tax at BBMP Help centre at your ward and you can contact Additional commissioner of BBMP MAHADEVAPURA ZONE , MAHADEVPURA for any query about how to pay the property tax , You can see the advertisements in Decan herald and other news papers in 1st week of april , See property tax is nothing to do with occupancy certificate or building without plan , You can pay the tax
ARS KUMAR. BE. LLB. MA JOURNALISM
SOCIAL ACTIVIST & JOURNALIST
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 10:21 PM, Anand acf <acfanand@gmail.com> wrote:
As I visited the web site I feel that they have not obtained occupancy
certificate, hence you may not get the information sought.
Regards
On 4/1/11, Anand acf <acfanand@gmail.com> wrote:
> When you make an application, they will reply in kannada. What will you do
> then?
> -->
> On 3/31/11, Abhinav <a.h.agarwal@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dear All,
>>
>> Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagar Palike lists the information about Public
>> Information officers on its website http://www.bbmp.gov.in/ in Kanadda.
>> Can
>> someone help me to get the Name, address in English.me
>>
>> I want the information on the payment of Property tax, Betterment charges
>> by
>> Alpine Housing Development Corporation Limited (www.alpinehousing.com)
>> for
>> various flats in the multistorey Apartment complex
>>
>> called Alpine Eco in Dodenekkundi, Bangalore.
>> --
>> Thanks
>> Abhinav
>>
>> PIO list attached.
>>
>> "
>> Have a heart that never hardens, a temper that never tires, and a touch
>> that
>> never hurts...
>> "
>>
>
>
> Anand S.
> Coordinator, Anti Corruption Forum
> Bangalore 560 085.
> Cell No. +91-92410-12730
>
--
Anand S.
Coordinator, Anti Corruption Forum
Bangalore 560 085.
Cell No. +91-92410-12730
[HumJanenge] Complaint Lodged To CEC Against Nadia DM Sanjoy Bansal
Dear Sir/Madam,
Kindly read the story published in the News from Nadia ( http://newsfromnadia.com/home.html on 31.03.2011).
You are also kindly requested to forward this message as much as you can "in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority".
Complaint Lodged To CEC Against Nadia DM Sanjoy Bansal.
NFN NETWORK
Kolkata, March 31: Indian Pride, an organization of 'Right to Information' (RTI) Activists in the state, has raised question about credibility of Nadia District Magistrate Sanjay Bansal to function as the District Election Officer (DEO) in connection with conduction of free and fare assembly poll in the district.
Referring to a recent verdict of Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) of state Arun Kumar Bhattacharjee, in which he directed the state government to initiate disciplinary action against Mr. Bansal for 'malafidely denying information' under RTI Act, the organization appealed to the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and President of India Pratibha Patil to check Mr. Bansal's credibility.
The referred verdict on the RTI complaint given by the CIC bears special significance as his status is equivalent to EC, which in real term raised questions about the officer's integrity and accountability.
In her petition Priyanka Das, Joint Secretary of Indian Pride, has stated that the offence of Mr. Bansal was quite serious because he ignored such an Act which aims to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority.
Moreover, Mr. Bansal failed to prove his 'sincerity' as the CIC observed in his order (No. 1934(3) (Order)–WBIC/RTI/850/08 Dated 06-08-2010), she added.
While the EC is yet to make any observation on the matter, the President of India has referred the case to the Joint Secretary (Coordination & PG), Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi.
When contacted Mr. Bansal refused to speak in detail as the matter is 'subjudice'. However, he stated that the Kolkata High Court has given a stay order on the matter.
According to records of CIC office, while working as the Additional District Magistrate (General) in South 24-Parganas during August last year, Bansal failed not provide information to a RTI petitioner (Shri Samar Ketan Ghosh of Falta, South 24-Parganas) about the "misappropriation of government fund for illegal construction on a disputed land".
The CIC was extremely displeased on Bansal as he "shown utter disregard to the provision of RTI Act" and failed to "prove his sincerity" despite the show cause notice. The CIC also stated that Mr. Bansal failed to act "Diligently and reasonably to furnish information".
However, Mr. Bansal said: "The time provided for the reply was not enough."
The impact of his denial of information was so serious that the CIC in his order directed the Personnel and Administrative Reforms department of the state government to take necessary action in the matter. The CIC also turned down a request of Mr. Bansal to reconsider his order.
Petitioner Priyanka Das said: "The incident amply raised doubts about his integrity and accountability because denying information under RTI in other term is an utter disregard to the objective of the act which, as per it's preamble, ensures access to information under the control of public authority in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority.
Regards,
RTI Activist
Re: [HumJanenge] DoPT concedes on RTI Rules
Dear Karira
After reading the DoPT circular I referred to, how did you come to the
conclusion that I am the one behind getting penalties imposed on
frivolous applicants by the CIC.
To the contrary, all the matter in the public domain makes it clear
1) That CIC wants powers to to penalise / imprison frivolous
applicants / appellants
2) That NCPRI founders are running dogs of the imperialist CIC and
that Mr Shailesh Gandhi (ex NCPRI convenor) is now elevated to the
exalted status of 'gharelu kutta'.
3) That the DoPT circular clearly mentions that Aruna Roy, Shekar
Singh, Nikhil De etc participated in CIC's meeting where this
outrageous demand was taken up for consideration and there is not a
whimper of disagreement from them recorded..
Is it not curious that when we are the only citizens who seek to
defend the RTI movement against such h****is, there is a cacophony of
orchestrated protest which seeks to question our motives and impugn
our bonafides. This actually shows that we are on the right track.
Sarbajit
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 7:24 PM, C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Mr. Sarbajit,
> Let the CIC first do its defined job properly !
> Let it first tell us how many show cause notices issued by ICs
> How many show cause notices were responded to ?
> How many penalties levied ?
> How many penalties contested in Courts ?
> How many penalties actually paid ?
> They don't even do that properly.
> Why do you want to burden these poor senior citizens with more decision
> making and more work ?
> Leave them alone.
> RTIwanted
> ________________________________
> From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Friday, April 1, 2011 10:35 AM
> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] DoPT concedes on RTI Rules
>
> And tomorrow is 2nd April !!
>
> No doubt the Govt has powers to set fees and recover costs for
> enabling RTI provisions. Each of the fees and costs they have now
> agreed to levy can be justified under RTI Act. As such we do not want
> to appeal these.
>
> The one we plan to file a 2nd appeal to CIC is to be informed on the
> specific provisions of RTI Act which enable a penalty to be levied on
> frivolous / vexatious APPELLANTS. (please note this is not levied on
> frivolous APPLICANTS) and the reasoning on how this forms part of
> Appeal Procedure.
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 10:31 AM, C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Members, please remember that today is 1st April !
>> ________________________________
>> From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
>> To: humjanenge <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
>> Sent: Friday, April 1, 2011 12:05 AM
>> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] DoPT concedes on RTI Rules
>>
>> Summary of latest status on DoPT's RTI Rules in reply to 3 RTIs and
>> after 1 decided first appeal.
>>
>> FEES:
>> 1) No change in RTI Application fee. It stays at Rs.10
>> 2) First Appeal fees fixed at Rs 25 or Court Fee in concerned State
>> under Court Fee Act, whichever is higher.
>> 3) Second Appeal fee to CIC fixed at Rs 250
>> NB: Third parties have been exempted from paying appeal fees.
>>
>> COSTS:
>> 1) Costs on hire of machinery, is prescribed for color photocopy
>> (Rs.20 per A3/A4 page) and scanning of documents (Rs. 5 per A3/A4
>> page)
>> 2) Forwarding Cost u/s 6(3) is fixed at Rs.50 per transfer
>> 3) Cost of issuing Third Party notice u/s 11 is fixed at Rs. 50 per
>> notice.
>>
>> FINES:
>> The CIC is being given powers to levy fines upto Rs. 10,000 on /
>> vexatious appellants as part of appeal procedure. It is not clear
>> which provision / section of RTI Act the DoPT intends to use to
>> justify this. We are planning to file 2nd appeal to CIC.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Re: [HumJanenge] Shall the Orissa Information Commission mend its administrative lapses?
| One or two instances can be termed as lapse. The repetition of this practice time and again cannot be termed as lapse but deliberate. If this is the working of the SIC, there is no need for the PIOs or Public Authorities to be afraid of SIC. --- On Sat, 2/4/11, Pradip Pradhan <pradippradhan63@gmail.com> wrote:
|
[HumJanenge] Shall the Orissa Information Commission mend its administrative lapses?
Shall the Orissa Information Commission mend its administrative lapses?
Dear friends,
On 23.12.2008, I had filed an RTI Application to the PIO, I and PR Dept., Govt. of Orissa seeking some information about any arrangement/ procedure, if put in place by Govt. for citizens to access information proactively disclosed under Section 4 of RTI Act. Being dissatisfied with the decision of PIO and subsequently that of 1st Appellate Authority, I made a 2nd appeal to Orissa Information Commission in the month of March 2009.
Around fourteen months after that, the case was heard by Mr. Jagadanand Mohanty, State Information Commissioner on 1.5.2010 last. Then the case was again heard and finally disposed on 29.6.10 by him. In his decision the Commissioner directed the nodal Officer-cum- Secretary, Information and Public Relations Department, Govt. of Orissa to issue guidelines for inspection of the information proactively disclosed under Section 4 of the RTI Act.
Being absent in the final hearing, I could not know the date of disposal of the said case and the direction issued by the Commission. Strangely enough, after a long lapse of 9 months, I got the copy of the above decision of the Commission dispatched on 23.3.2011. Had it been sent just after the disposal of the cases, it could have been of much benefit to me along with whole lot of information seekers who are still fighting to access the information disclosed suo motu by the State public authorities all across the State under Section 4 (1b) of the RTI Act.
Secondly, this is however not a single, isolated instance of the administrative lapse shown by Orissa Information Commission, but one of lot many where the decisions made by the Commission reach to the complainants after a long lapse of several months. Needless to say, because of such negligence by the office of the Commission, a larger number of complainants are left in the lurch as to the status of their cases in the office of the Commission.
Thirdly, such complainants, being in dark about the fate of their complaints at the level of the Commission, were naturally deprived of the opportunity to avail the route of grievance redressal by other appropriate authorities (such as Complaint before Governor under Section 17 of Act), especially in situations where Orissa Information Commission failed to do justice to them.
It won't be out of place here to observe here that the lapses of the above kind have been particularly observed in cases which have been disposed by Mr.Jagadanand State Information Commissioner. It is due such a lapse that a few months back, on 11.12.2010 last, Mr. Prahallad Padhi from Patnagarh, Bolangir had lodged a complaint under Section 17 against Mr. Jagadanand State Information Commissioner before the Governor, Orissa saying that though his case (SA No- 15/2009) had been disposed of by Mr. Jagadanand Mohanty on 6.7.2010, the copy of his decision didn't reach him even after six months.
Next, on 11.12. 2010 last, Mr. Sushant Kumar Sa from Bolangir has also submitted a similar complaint to Governor, Orissa against Mr. Jagadanand Mohanty alleging that though his case was disposed of by SIC Mr. Jagadanand Mohanty on 6.7.10 , he didn't receive the copy of the decision even after six months.
During our meeting with Mr. Tarun Kanti Mishra, the Chief Orissa Information Commissioner of Orissa on 18.12.2010, I had appraised him about the problem of long delay in intimating the complainants on the decisions made by the Commission. He had assured us to take remedial steps in this regard. But as the present case shows up, the administration of the Commission suffers from the same malaise as it used to during his predecessor's regime.
Pradip Pradhan
Odisha Soochana Adhikar Abhijan
M-99378-43482
Date-2.4.2011
Dear friends,
On 23.12.2008, I had filed an RTI Application to the PIO, I and PR Dept., Govt. of Orissa seeking some information about any arrangement/ procedure, if put in place by Govt. for citizens to access information proactively disclosed under Section 4 of RTI Act. Being dissatisfied with the decision of PIO and subsequently that of 1st Appellate Authority, I made a 2nd appeal to Orissa Information Commission in the month of March 2009.
Around fourteen months after that, the case was heard by Mr. Jagadanand Mohanty, State Information Commissioner on 1.5.2010 last. Then the case was again heard and finally disposed on 29.6.10 by him. In his decision the Commissioner directed the nodal Officer-cum- Secretary, Information and Public Relations Department, Govt. of Orissa to issue guidelines for inspection of the information proactively disclosed under Section 4 of the RTI Act.
Being absent in the final hearing, I could not know the date of disposal of the said case and the direction issued by the Commission. Strangely enough, after a long lapse of 9 months, I got the copy of the above decision of the Commission dispatched on 23.3.2011. Had it been sent just after the disposal of the cases, it could have been of much benefit to me along with whole lot of information seekers who are still fighting to access the information disclosed suo motu by the State public authorities all across the State under Section 4 (1b) of the RTI Act.
Secondly, this is however not a single, isolated instance of the administrative lapse shown by Orissa Information Commission, but one of lot many where the decisions made by the Commission reach to the complainants after a long lapse of several months. Needless to say, because of such negligence by the office of the Commission, a larger number of complainants are left in the lurch as to the status of their cases in the office of the Commission.
Thirdly, such complainants, being in dark about the fate of their complaints at the level of the Commission, were naturally deprived of the opportunity to avail the route of grievance redressal by other appropriate authorities (such as Complaint before Governor under Section 17 of Act), especially in situations where Orissa Information Commission failed to do justice to them.
It won't be out of place here to observe here that the lapses of the above kind have been particularly observed in cases which have been disposed by Mr.Jagadanand State Information Commissioner. It is due such a lapse that a few months back, on 11.12.2010 last, Mr. Prahallad Padhi from Patnagarh, Bolangir had lodged a complaint under Section 17 against Mr. Jagadanand State Information Commissioner before the Governor, Orissa saying that though his case (SA No- 15/2009) had been disposed of by Mr. Jagadanand Mohanty on 6.7.2010, the copy of his decision didn't reach him even after six months.
Next, on 11.12. 2010 last, Mr. Sushant Kumar Sa from Bolangir has also submitted a similar complaint to Governor, Orissa against Mr. Jagadanand Mohanty alleging that though his case was disposed of by SIC Mr. Jagadanand Mohanty on 6.7.10 , he didn't receive the copy of the decision even after six months.
During our meeting with Mr. Tarun Kanti Mishra, the Chief Orissa Information Commissioner of Orissa on 18.12.2010, I had appraised him about the problem of long delay in intimating the complainants on the decisions made by the Commission. He had assured us to take remedial steps in this regard. But as the present case shows up, the administration of the Commission suffers from the same malaise as it used to during his predecessor's regime.
Pradip Pradhan
Odisha Soochana Adhikar Abhijan
M-99378-43482
Date-2.4.2011
Friday, April 1, 2011
Re: [rti4empowerment] Public meeting:- fight against corruption
Dear Haridas, on the issue of withdrawl of UPC, I differ with you. The expenditure on UPC up to 2 or maxinus 3 pages (up to 20 gm.) was rs. 5+3 = 8 and it even after that, any PIO pr Public Authority can legally claim that they have not received RTI appplication or any other communication sent under UPC. One A4 size paper weighs about 5 grams. Now, you can send any letter by speed post up to 50 gm (accommodate 8 pages with envelope) in Rs 12/- locally and in Rs 25 any where in India. U can track its movement and can have a printed movement particulars too from India Post website which is a valid proof of delivery. In a nutsheel, the RTI or any other letter sent by UPC in the past was equal to ordinary post on the part of the receipient as he was always open to refuse its receipt whereas it is not possible in the case of speed post. However, u do not have the facility of tracking in registry and it is costlier than speed post too. Off the records, Postal Department has withdrawn the facility of UPC because of its large scal misuse withthe connivance of its staff. --- On Sat, 2/4/11, haridas mandal <acsman123@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
|
Re: [rti4empowerment] Public meeting:- fight against corruption
| Dear Friends You all trying your best for the INSTANT NIRVANA and will land up in making instant Khidri. Movement for empowerment in the form of free flow of information is not akin to street fighting against corruption. Though corruption is one of the major issue. It is bringing in more transparency at the highest level. We the RTI activists should focus on: a) simplification of procedures to submit an application. b) Deleting each and clause for exemptions in any manner incl the bogey of national security , sovereignty etc etc. c) Even the clause for exemption that the matter is sub-judice be deleted. d) Now that UPC is withdrawn by the Post Offices how one could be able to file an application to PIOs without being bleed ed( where 77 % live or starve at Rs 20 A day) as registered letter will cost Appx Rs 30 per application. This is the cunning BURA CATs which is hell bent on putting the final nail to the coffin of RTI Act at its 5 th year. Is CIC is alerted or he being another Mr IAS.COM is a party to the conspiracy? e) Number of days to send a reply by a PIO stating this info is exempted is also 30 days. Which should be reduced to only 10 days. f) There is no time limit for Appellate Auth to dispose of the petition especially where the appellate auth is the immediate superior auth and sits next to PIO/CPIO in the same building. It should be damn well specified give them no loose ropes. g) Sec 8(1)(a) and (j) is being terribly abused by the govt officials especially the BURA - CATS who are extremely confident that nothing under the umbrella of the erstwhile IAS.COM as CIC/ICs will happen to them. We must compel govt of the day at the centre as well as at the states to de-Bureaucratise Info Commission to make it meaningful and effective. The Babus must feel the heats under their XXX and act fastest possible to dispose of the RTI application. h) Finally the info commission itself is under clout of the mighty IAS.COM . The commission must get its power from the people of India. Selection of the CIC must be by the people represented by the Elected members of the Panchayat / Municipality / Corporation along with the three musketeers i.e PM, HM and the leader of the opposition. Later Three Musketeers be supplemented by the CM and the leaders of the opposition in the States. --- On Sat, 2/4/11, LESLIE ALMEIDA <lesals2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
|
[rti4empowerment] Public meeting:- fight against corruption
Venue:- Nare Park off Ambedkar road parel Mumbai date: 03.04.2011 sunday Time: 5.30 PM Citizens, Members and Volunteers are requested to join the meeting for creating more awareness regarding Corruption Issues in general public. Anna Hazare, Kiran Bedi, Swami Agnivesh, Arvind Kejriwal, Medha Patkar, Akhil Gogoi and others will be addressing this huge public meeting... Contact IAC - Mumbai (Call Centre) for further information and details of te event - +919820183924 and Landline: 022 - 27744012 ***Note***: Request one and all kindly not to carry any type of luggage / bags / carry bags etc to the venue. These are strictly prohibited at venue for security reasons.... |
Re: [HumJanenge] BBMP, Bangalore website lists PIOs info in the regional language.
As I visited the web site I feel that they have not obtained occupancy
certificate, hence you may not get the information sought.
certificate, hence you may not get the information sought.
Regards
On 4/1/11, Anand acf <acfanand@gmail.com> wrote:
> When you make an application, they will reply in kannada. What will you do
> then?
>
> On 3/31/11, Abhinav <a.h.agarwal@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dear All,
>>
>> Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagar Palike lists the information about Public
>> Information officers on its website http://www.bbmp.gov.in/ in Kanadda.
>> Can
>> someone help me to get the Name, address in English.me
>>
>> I want the information on the payment of Property tax, Betterment charges
>> by
>> Alpine Housing Development Corporation Limited (www.alpinehousing.com)
>> for
>> various flats in the multistorey Apartment complex
>>
>> called Alpine Eco in Dodenekkundi, Bangalore.
>> --
>> Thanks
>> Abhinav
>>
>> PIO list attached.
>>
>> "
>> Have a heart that never hardens, a temper that never tires, and a touch
>> that
>> never hurts...
>> "
>>
>
>
> --
> Anand S.
> Coordinator, Anti Corruption Forum
> Bangalore 560 085.
> Cell No. +91-92410-12730
>
--
Anand S.
Coordinator, Anti Corruption Forum
Bangalore 560 085.
Cell No. +91-92410-12730
Re: [HumJanenge] DoPT concedes on RTI Rules
Mr. Sarbajit,
Let the CIC first do its defined job properly !
Let it first tell us how many show cause notices issued by ICs
How many show cause notices were responded to ?
How many penalties levied ?
How many penalties contested in Courts ?
How many penalties actually paid ?
They don't even do that properly.
Why do you want to burden these poor senior citizens with more decision making and more work ?
Leave them alone.
RTIwanted
From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, April 1, 2011 10:35 AM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] DoPT concedes on RTI Rules
And tomorrow is 2nd April !!
No doubt the Govt has powers to set fees and recover costs for
enabling RTI provisions. Each of the fees and costs they have now
agreed to levy can be justified under RTI Act. As such we do not want
to appeal these.
The one we plan to file a 2nd appeal to CIC is to be informed on the
specific provisions of RTI Act which enable a penalty to be levied on
frivolous / vexatious APPELLANTS. (please note this is not levied on
frivolous APPLICANTS) and the reasoning on how this forms part of
Appeal Procedure.
Sarbajit
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 10:31 AM, C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Members, please remember that today is 1st April !
> ________________________________
> From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
> To: humjanenge <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, April 1, 2011 12:05 AM
> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] DoPT concedes on RTI Rules
>
> Summary of latest status on DoPT's RTI Rules in reply to 3 RTIs and
> after 1 decided first appeal.
>
> FEES:
> 1) No change in RTI Application fee. It stays at Rs.10
> 2) First Appeal fees fixed at Rs 25 or Court Fee in concerned State
> under Court Fee Act, whichever is higher.
> 3) Second Appeal fee to CIC fixed at Rs 250
> NB: Third parties have been exempted from paying appeal fees.
>
> COSTS:
> 1) Costs on hire of machinery, is prescribed for color photocopy
> (Rs.20 per A3/A4 page) and scanning of documents (Rs. 5 per A3/A4
> page)
> 2) Forwarding Cost u/s 6(3) is fixed at Rs.50 per transfer
> 3) Cost of issuing Third Party notice u/s 11 is fixed at Rs. 50 per notice.
>
> FINES:
> The CIC is being given powers to levy fines upto Rs. 10,000 on /
> vexatious appellants as part of appeal procedure. It is not clear
> which provision / section of RTI Act the DoPT intends to use to
> justify this. We are planning to file 2nd appeal to CIC.
>
>
>
>
[HumJanenge] Urgent Appeal: Journalists assaulted in Assam University, Silchar
BARAK HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION COMMITTEE
Urgent Appeal No. BHRPC Case No 63/2011/UA/24/210 Dated: 31 March 2011
Dear Friends,
Acting on the information provided by Barak Human Rights Protection Committee (BHRPC), the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) issued an Urgent Appeal concerning the incident of assault on journalists at the Assam University campus, Silchar allegedly for covering students' protests and demonstrations. It is reported that the journalists sustained serious injuries and their cameras, laptops and other equipments were snatched away and destroyed. Please take the suggested actions.
Yours sincerely
Waliullah Ahmed Laskar
Urgent Appeal Desk
Barak Human Rights Protection Committee
Rongpur, Silchar-9, Assam, India
INDIA: Journalists assaulted in Assam University
March 31, 2011
ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION – URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME
Urgent Appeal Case: AHRC-UAC-071-2011
Please click here to take action
31 March 2011
——————————————————
INDIA: Journalists assaulted in Assam University
ISSUES: Freedom of opinion and expression; Assault; Witness Protection
——————————————————
Dear friends,
The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received information from the Barak Human Rights Protection Committee (BHRPC) that a group of journalists were assaulted at the Assam University campus in Assam. It is alleged that the proctor of the university is behind the incident. The journalists claim that the security staff who attacked the journalists at the behest of the proctor, destroyed their laptops, camera and other equipments. The journalists were covering a protest and demonstration by the students claiming adequate sanitation, drinking water and other basic amenities within the university. One of the journalist who was injured had to be admitted at the Silchar Medical College and Hospital (SMCH) due to serious injuries he suffered in the incident. Four other journalists were treated at the primary health centre inside the university campus.
CASE NARRATIVE :
On 25 February 2011, the Proctor of the Assam University, Mr. Manabendra Dutta Choudhury, Dean of Students Welfare, Mr. Ramendra Bhattacharjee, and the university Security Guardsa attacked a group of journalists inside the university campus at Silchar.
A group of agitating students reportedly rescued the injured journalists, namely Mr. Samin Sen Deka of News Time Assam, Mr. Anath Bandhu Nandi of DY 365, Mr. Paplu Das and Mr. Anupam Mandal of Frontier TV News and Mr. Bibhuti Majumdar of NE TV. Among the injured scribes, Mr. Samin was sent to the Silchar Medical College and Hospital (SMCH) due to the serious nature of his injury and four others were treated at the primary health centre inside the university campus.
It is reported that the hostel inmates of the university were striking and resorted to a blockade at the main gate of the university campus demanding immediate uninterrupted water supply at the hostel. Mr. Ratan Das, General Secretary of Assam University Students' Council alleged that the drinking water crisis at the hostel was acute for a long time including the scarcity of toilets. And students had been demanding for a permanent solution for this. But the university authorities have reportedly paid no attention to the students' demands.
The journalists were covering the student agitation that ensued. At about noon the proctor of the university and the Dean of Social Welfare arrived in the campus while the scribes were reporting news using their laptops. The proctor started hurling abuse at the journalists and demanded them to stop sending the footages. The journalists tried to talk to the proctor but the proctor reportedly lost his temper and started assaulting them. The security guards accompanying the proctor and the Dean joined in assaulting the journalists thereby damaging their laptops, camera and other communication equipments.
One of the injured journalist, Mr. Anath Bandhu Nandi, alleges that Mr. Choudhury first kicked at a laptop and then the guards jumped on them. At the behest of the proctor and the Dean, the security guards kicked, punched and assaulted the journalists with sticks. Thereafter, they snatched laptops, cameras and other equipments and damaged them.
It is reported that the journalists have filed a complaint at Silchar Sadar Police Station, which is registered as Silchar PS Case No. 285/11. The accused Mr. Choudhury refused to make any comment regarding the assault while contacted for his version. Mr. Choudhury said "I am not authorised to say anything, let the scribes say whatever they wanted to".
It is also reported that the university authorities subsequently prevented the distribution and reading of the Dainik Samayik Prasanga , a local daily, inside the university campus. Students and journalists claim that the conduct of the university authorities is, to say the least, authoritarian and undemocratic.
The students' protest was reportedly peaceful and the demonstration for adequate sanitation, drinking water and other basic amenities not only reasonable, but the demand very urgent. The state government must take all necessary steps to guarantee the freedom of opinion and expression of the students and the journalists and also ensure their personal safety. The police must immediately record the statements of the victims and other witnesses in the incident without further delay, a legal requirement that they have not undertaken so far. Should there be any request from the victims for protection against further threat, the police must provide the same.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
The information reveals a prima facie case of offences of 'voluntarily causing grievous hurt', 'theft of equipments' and 'criminal intimidation'. This constitutes offenses under Sections 351, 378, 425, 503, 506 read with Sections 34 and 35 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please write letters to the authorities listed below asking them to intervene in the case immediately.
The AHRC is also writing a separate letter to the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression seeking an intervention in the case.
To support this appeal, please click here
SAMPLE LETTER:
Dear __________,
INDIA: The assault upon journalists by the Assam University staff must be investigated
Name of victim(s):
1. Mr. Samin Sen Deka, aged about 40 years, Silchar News Burea of News Time Assam residing at the Jail Road near Normal School, Silchar, Assam
2. Mr. Bibhuti Mazumdar of NE TV, Silchar Correspondent residing at Khatal Road, Silchar, Assam
3. Mr. Anath Bandhu Nandi, cameraman of Dy 365 resident of Radamadau Road, Silchar, Assam
4. Mr. Paplu Das, Silchar News Burea of Frontier TV News, a resident of Nikunja Bhavan, opposite Durgasankar Patsala, Ambicapatty, Silchar, Assam
5. Mr. Anupam Mandal, Cameraman of Frontier TV News, a resident of Nataji Sarani, Batartal, Meherpur, Silchar, Assam
Names of alleged perpetrators:
1. Mr. Manabendra Dutta Choudhury, Proctor, Assam University, Silchar, Dargakona, Cachar, Assam
2. Mr. Ramendra Bhattacharjee, Dean, Students' Welfare, Assam University, Silchar, Dargakona, Cachar, Assam
3. Security guards of Assam University, Silchar, Dargakona, Cachar, Assam
Date of incident: 25 February 2011
Place of incident: Assam University Campus, Silchar, Assam state
I am writing to voice my concern regarding the assault upon journalists on 25 February 2011 in Assam state. This incident occurred at the Assam University campus in Silchar. It is reported that the Proctor of the university, Mr. Manabendra Dutta Choudhury, Dean of Students' Welfare, Mr. Ramendra Bhattacharjee, and the university security guards are responsible for the incident.
I am informed that the students were staging peaceful protest and demonstration demanding adequate sanitary facilities, regular supply of drinking water and other basic amenities at the university premises. Mr. Ratan Das, General Secretary of the Assam University Students' Council alleged that the drinking water crisis in the hostel is acute since a long time including the scarcity of toilets. And students had been demanding immediate uninterrupted water supply at the hostel for several months now.
The journalists were reporting news concerning the protest at the time they were attached. I am informed that at about half past noon the proctor of the University and the Dean of Social Welfare arrived at the campus while the scribes were reporting the news concerning the protest using their laptops and other communication equipments from the campus.
I am informed that the proctor started shouting abuse at the journalists and demanded them to stop reporting about the protest. The journalists reportedly tried to talk to the proctor but the proctor lost his temper and started assaulting them. The security guards accompanying the proctor and dean also joined the proctor in the assault. It is reported that they destroyed laptops, cameras and other communication equipments of the journalists.
I am informed that a group of agitating students rescued the injured journalists, namely Mr. Samin Sen Deka of News Time Assam, Mr. Anath Bandhu Nandi of DY 365, Mr. Paplu Das and Mr. Anupam Mandal of Frontier TV News
and Mr. Bibhuti Majumdar of NE TV. Amongst the injured scribes, Mr. Samin was sent to the Silchar Medical College and Hospital (SMCH) due to the serious nature of his injury and four others were treated at the primary health centre inside the university campus.
One of the injured journalists, Mr. Anath Bandhu Nandi, alleged that Mr. Choudhury first kicked at a laptop and then the guards jumped on them. At the behest of the proctor and the Dean, the security guards kicked, punched and beat the journalists with sticks. Thereafter, they snatched laptops and cameras and other equipments from the journalists and destroyed them.
It is reported that the journalists have filed a complaint at Silchar Sadar Police Station, which is registered as Silchar PS Case No. 285/11. I am informed that the accused Mr. Choudhury refused to make any comment regarding the assault of the media-persons while contacted for his version.
It is also reported that the university authorities did not allow the distribution and reading of the Dainik Samayik Prasanga, a local daily, inside the university campus since the incident. It seems that the university authorities are behaving as if they are law unto themselves. The students' protest was reportedly peaceful and the demonstration for adequate sanitation, drinking water and other basic amenities are not only reasonable, but the demand very urgent. The state government must take all necessary steps to guarantee the freedom of opinion and expression of the students and the journalists and also ensure their personal safety. The police must immediately record the statements of the victims and other witnesses in the incident without further delay, a legal requirement that they have not undertaken so far. Should there be any request from the victims for protection against further threat, the police must provide the same.
I am informed that the incident amounts to crimes of various natures like 'voluntarily causing grievous hurt', 'theft of equipments' and 'criminal intimidation'. This constitutes offenses under Sections 351, 378, 425, 503, 506 read with Sections 34 and 35 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
I therefore request you to intervene in this case to ensure the following:
1. The police must immediately record the statement of the victims;
2. The state government takes all necessary steps to guarantee the freedom of opinion and expression within the state and guarantee the personal safety of the journalists involved in the incident;
3. That the police investigate the case without any further delay;
4. The statements of other witnesses to the incident recorded by the police without any further delay.
Yours sincerely,
—————-
PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS TO :
1. Mr. Tarun Gogoi
Chief Minister of Assam
Assam Secretariat, Dispur
Guwahati-6, Assam
INDIA
Fax: +91 361 2262069
2. Ms. Ambika Soni
Minister of Information and Broadcasting
Room No 560, A Wing Shastri Bhawan
Dr Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi-110001
INDIA
Fax: +91 11 2379 5053
Email: mib.inb@gmail.com
3. Director General of Police
Assam, Ulubari
Guwahati-7, Assam
INDIA
4. Chief Secretary
Assam Secretariat, Dispur
Guwahati-6, Assam
INDIA
Fax: +91 361 2260900
Email: psccy_it@assam.nic.in
Thank you.
Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission (ua@ahrc.asia )
Source: http://bhrpc.wordpress.com/2011/03/31/university/
--W A Laskar
Freelance Reporter and Human Rights Defender
with Barak Human Rights Protection Committee,
http://bhrpc.wordpress.com
15, Panjabari Road, Darandha, Six Mile,
Guwahati-781037, Assam, India
Cell: +919401942234
Visit my blog at www.rightspeaks.blogspot.com
Skype: rights.defender
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Re: 07 - Re: [HumJanenge] DoPT concedes on RTI Rules
is this an April fools joke???? --- On Fri, 4/1/11, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
|
Re: [HumJanenge] DoPT concedes on RTI Rules
File No. 2/7/2006-IR
Summary of proceedings held with Civil Society Organisations on 31.03.2010 under Chairmanship Secy/CIC
".. It may be helpful to look into the possibility of penalising frivolous applicants at the level of the Information Commission .."
Summary of proceedings held with Civil Society Organisations on 31.03.2010 under Chairmanship Secy/CIC
".. It may be helpful to look into the possibility of penalising frivolous applicants at the level of the Information Commission .."
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 11:14 AM, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Scanned copies of replies from DoPT may clear the confusion.
From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>Date: Friday, 1 April, 2011, 11:03 AM
Dear Umapathy
In reply to your observation that I have no credible source. Let me counter by saying that it is public knowledge on the most credible source (ie RTI section 4 disclosure of concerned public authority ) that Civil Society Organisations at the behest of CIC recently implored DoPT to consider imposing penalties on frivolous applicants by the CIC while hearing appeals. It is also public knowledge that these civil society organisations present included a) Ms. Aruna Roy b) Mr Shekar Singh c) Mr Nikhil Dey etc. and they did not raise even a whimper to oppose it,
Sarbajit
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 10:50 AM, umapathy subramanyam <umapathi.s.rti@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Gupta Sir, I Feel what Mr. Roy is posting has no credible source.We are wasting our time and resource by replying to these messages. dont' forget, Mr. Roy is an "entertainer" as Mr. Wajhajat once rightly pointed out in our earlier postings.
Further,Mr. Roy is defending these changes ( whether real or imaginary) by stating that "Govt has powers to set fees and recover costs for enabling RTI provisions". everyone knows whether such charging of fees really enables or disables provision of RTI Act but Roy's View is quite opposite as usual.
regards.
umapathi.s
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 9:41 AM, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
The RTI Act has been enacted after it was passed by the Parliament, consent given by the Hon'ble President and after that it was duly notified. Some rules like forwarding cost under 6(3) will change the basic structure of the Act. The provision has been given in view of the large population residing in remote or far flung areas to submit the application in the designated post offices which they forward the same u.s. 6(3) of the Act while working as APIO. With the introduction of this provision, maintaining the RTI fee at Rs. 10/- is meaningless in such cases as the total cost will be Rs. 60, in place of 10/-. Already, some states like Haryana are charging Rs. 50 as RTI fee. Will the DoPT prevail upon such states to reduce the fee?
There is no justification of Appeal fee, appeal is filed upon the act of omission of the PIO/ FAA and for their fault; applicant or complainant should not be penalized.
What is the justification for charging the fee for issuing the notice to the third party? Govt. intends to recover the postage charges + some expenses / profit from the RTI applicants.
After the DoPT has reportedly dragged its feet on one subject, applications soliciting information on more than one subject may be termed as vexatious by misusing this provision.
Who will have the power to decide whether an application is vexatious?
When the DoPT has given the information, on what ground the appellant is planning to knock the door of CIC. I think that these rules can only be challenged in the High or Supreme Court, after they are enacted.
In fact, this is the back door route to get rid of RTI or at least blunt it. Govt. is already in the dock over the scams surfacing frequently and is peeved over on the frequent adverse remarks from the resurgent active judiciary in 2G, Has an Ali and other cases.
--- On Fri, 1/4/11, Manoj Pai <manojpai@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Manoj Pai <manojpai@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] DoPT concedes on RTI Rules
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Friday, 1 April, 2011, 6:46 AM
> 2) Forwarding Cost u/s 6(3) is fixed at Rs.50 per transfer
> 3) Cost of issuing Third Party notice u/s 11 is fixed at
> Rs. 50 per notice.
This would be a wonderful tool for CPIO to delay / deny every legitimate information. Every voucher, bill, claim or file noting would be treated as third party.
> FINES:
> The CIC is being given powers to levy fines upto Rs. 10,000
> on /
> vexatious appellants as part of appeal procedure. It is not
> clear
> which provision / section of RTI Act the DoPT intends to
> use to
> justify this. We are planning to file 2nd appeal to CIC.
>
Before the year is out, these fines imposed on appellants, would outnumber the total penalties imposed on the CPIOs for last five years.
Mera Bharat Mahan
Manoj
Re: [HumJanenge] DoPT concedes on RTI Rules
| Scanned copies of replies from DoPT may clear the confusion. --- On Fri, 1/4/11, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
|
Re: [HumJanenge] DoPT concedes on RTI Rules
Dear Umapathy
In reply to your observation that I have no credible source. Let me counter by saying that it is public knowledge on the most credible source (ie RTI section 4 disclosure of concerned public authority ) that Civil Society Organisations at the behest of CIC recently implored DoPT to consider imposing penalties on frivolous applicants by the CIC while hearing appeals. It is also public knowledge that these civil society organisations present included a) Ms. Aruna Roy b) Mr Shekar Singh c) Mr Nikhil Dey etc. and they did not raise even a whimper to oppose it,
Sarbajit
In reply to your observation that I have no credible source. Let me counter by saying that it is public knowledge on the most credible source (ie RTI section 4 disclosure of concerned public authority ) that Civil Society Organisations at the behest of CIC recently implored DoPT to consider imposing penalties on frivolous applicants by the CIC while hearing appeals. It is also public knowledge that these civil society organisations present included a) Ms. Aruna Roy b) Mr Shekar Singh c) Mr Nikhil Dey etc. and they did not raise even a whimper to oppose it,
Sarbajit
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 10:50 AM, umapathy subramanyam <umapathi.s.rti@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Gupta Sir, I Feel what Mr. Roy is posting has no credible source.We are wasting our time and resource by replying to these messages. dont' forget, Mr. Roy is an "entertainer" as Mr. Wajhajat once rightly pointed out in our earlier postings.
Further,Mr. Roy is defending these changes ( whether real or imaginary) by stating that "Govt has powers to set fees and recover costs for enabling RTI provisions". everyone knows whether such charging of fees really enables or disables provision of RTI Act but Roy's View is quite opposite as usual.
regards.
umapathi.sOn Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 9:41 AM, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
The RTI Act has been enacted after it was passed by the Parliament, consent given by the Hon'ble President and after that it was duly notified. Some rules like forwarding cost under 6(3) will change the basic structure of the Act. The provision has been given in view of the large population residing in remote or far flung areas to submit the application in the designated post offices which they forward the same u.s. 6(3) of the Act while working as APIO. With the introduction of this provision, maintaining the RTI fee at Rs. 10/- is meaningless in such cases as the total cost will be Rs. 60, in place of 10/-. Already, some states like Haryana are charging Rs. 50 as RTI fee. Will the DoPT prevail upon such states to reduce the fee?
There is no justification of Appeal fee, appeal is filed upon the act of omission of the PIO/ FAA and for their fault; applicant or complainant should not be penalized.
What is the justification for charging the fee for issuing the notice to the third party? Govt. intends to recover the postage charges + some expenses / profit from the RTI applicants.
After the DoPT has reportedly dragged its feet on one subject, applications soliciting information on more than one subject may be termed as vexatious by misusing this provision.
Who will have the power to decide whether an application is vexatious?
When the DoPT has given the information, on what ground the appellant is planning to knock the door of CIC. I think that these rules can only be challenged in the High or Supreme Court, after they are enacted.
In fact, this is the back door route to get rid of RTI or at least blunt it. Govt. is already in the dock over the scams surfacing frequently and is peeved over on the frequent adverse remarks from the resurgent active judiciary in 2G, Has an Ali and other cases.
--- On Fri, 1/4/11, Manoj Pai <manojpai@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Manoj Pai <manojpai@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] DoPT concedes on RTI Rules
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Friday, 1 April, 2011, 6:46 AM
> 2) Forwarding Cost u/s 6(3) is fixed at Rs.50 per transfer
> 3) Cost of issuing Third Party notice u/s 11 is fixed at
> Rs. 50 per notice.
This would be a wonderful tool for CPIO to delay / deny every legitimate information. Every voucher, bill, claim or file noting would be treated as third party.
> FINES:
> The CIC is being given powers to levy fines upto Rs. 10,000
> on /
> vexatious appellants as part of appeal procedure. It is not
> clear
> which provision / section of RTI Act the DoPT intends to
> use to
> justify this. We are planning to file 2nd appeal to CIC.
>
Before the year is out, these fines imposed on appellants, would outnumber the total penalties imposed on the CPIOs for last five years.
Mera Bharat Mahan
Manoj
Re: [HumJanenge] DoPT concedes on RTI Rules
| It is better to discuss all such serious issues tomorrow on 2nd onwards. If v discuss all this, all our energy may go in smoke if the apprehension of Mr. Jam is correct. --- On Fri, 1/4/11, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
|
Re: [HumJanenge] DoPT concedes on RTI Rules
Dear Gupta Sir, I Feel what Mr. Roy is posting has no credible source.We are wasting our time and resource by replying to these messages. dont' forget, Mr. Roy is an "entertainer" as Mr. Wajhajat once rightly pointed out in our earlier postings.
Further,Mr. Roy is defending these changes ( whether real or imaginary) by stating that "Govt has powers to set fees and recover costs for enabling RTI provisions". everyone knows whether such charging of fees really enables or disables provision of RTI Act but Roy's View is quite opposite as usual.
regards.
umapathi.s
Further,Mr. Roy is defending these changes ( whether real or imaginary) by stating that "Govt has powers to set fees and recover costs for enabling RTI provisions". everyone knows whether such charging of fees really enables or disables provision of RTI Act but Roy's View is quite opposite as usual.
regards.
umapathi.s
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 9:41 AM, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
The RTI Act has been enacted after it was passed by the Parliament, consent given by the Hon'ble President and after that it was duly notified. Some rules like forwarding cost under 6(3) will change the basic structure of the Act. The provision has been given in view of the large population residing in remote or far flung areas to submit the application in the designated post offices which they forward the same u.s. 6(3) of the Act while working as APIO. With the introduction of this provision, maintaining the RTI fee at Rs. 10/- is meaningless in such cases as the total cost will be Rs. 60, in place of 10/-. Already, some states like Haryana are charging Rs. 50 as RTI fee. Will the DoPT prevail upon such states to reduce the fee?
There is no justification of Appeal fee, appeal is filed upon the act of omission of the PIO/ FAA and for their fault; applicant or complainant should not be penalized.
What is the justification for charging the fee for issuing the notice to the third party? Govt. intends to recover the postage charges + some expenses / profit from the RTI applicants.
After the DoPT has reportedly dragged its feet on one subject, applications soliciting information on more than one subject may be termed as vexatious by misusing this provision.
Who will have the power to decide whether an application is vexatious?
When the DoPT has given the information, on what ground the appellant is planning to knock the door of CIC. I think that these rules can only be challenged in the High or Supreme Court, after they are enacted.
In fact, this is the back door route to get rid of RTI or at least blunt it. Govt. is already in the dock over the scams surfacing frequently and is peeved over on the frequent adverse remarks from the resurgent active judiciary in 2G, Has an Ali and other cases.
--- On Fri, 1/4/11, Manoj Pai <manojpai@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Manoj Pai <manojpai@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] DoPT concedes on RTI Rules
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Friday, 1 April, 2011, 6:46 AM
> 2) Forwarding Cost u/s 6(3) is fixed at Rs.50 per transfer
> 3) Cost of issuing Third Party notice u/s 11 is fixed at
> Rs. 50 per notice.
This would be a wonderful tool for CPIO to delay / deny every legitimate information. Every voucher, bill, claim or file noting would be treated as third party.
> FINES:
> The CIC is being given powers to levy fines upto Rs. 10,000
> on /
> vexatious appellants as part of appeal procedure. It is not
> clear
> which provision / section of RTI Act the DoPT intends to
> use to
> justify this. We are planning to file 2nd appeal to CIC.
>
Before the year is out, these fines imposed on appellants, would outnumber the total penalties imposed on the CPIOs for last five years.
Mera Bharat Mahan
Manoj
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)