Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Cabinet note not secret: Info panel

Dear Surendra

The practical definition of "expert" is anyone who knows a LITTLE more than the AVERAGE IDIOT.

I am glad that you agree with me that Complaints are discretionary.

I disagree with you that the Complaint must be "well drafted" to achieve results. What is more important is that the Complainant must know and confine himself to the specific grounds under which a Complaint must be filed, and approach the Commission without laches (delay). Thereafter the Complainant is left to the vagaries of the Commissions and their individual styles of functioning.

Your calculation of time allowed to file a 2nd appeal (90 days after FA gives decision) is completely off the mark. As per me the prospective appellant must file his 2nd appeal within 90 days of the date the CPIO gives his decision (or should have given his decision). [19(1) r/w 19(3)]

Sarbajit

On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Surendera M. Bhanot <surendera@avissoftware.com> wrote:

The experts find a way from the narrow band too. So the matter that Complaints is discretionary is no longer a myth. If one cannot file a proper complaint, he cannot expect the desired results. The CIC/SIC has to inquire into on receipt of a well drafted complaint. The calculations of days are broadly correct and a knowledgable person will reckon the exact days, when required. Act does not specify any time limit for filing the complaint. However, courts had decided that the CIC/SIC has to decide the same as expeditiously as possible.

On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 3:48 PM, sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:

You have not calculated the dates / period for filing 2nd appeal
correctly
You have also not appreciated that complaint process is extremely
narrow
in scope and confined to a few technical grounds. Complaint process is
also a time-bound process for citizens to approach the CIC in..

Sarbajit

On May 7, 12:23 pm, "Surendera M. Bhanot" <surend...@avissoftware.com>
wrote:

> In fact there is difference between the "Appeal" and "Complaint".
>
> *Appeal - *you file it when you find that the process of law has been
> followed but the information has not been given. You file an appeal to get
> the information. you have to go through the process as per Section 19 of the
> Act.You have 30 days to file first appeal and 90 days thereafter (after the
> expiry of the 30 days of the first appeal) for second appeal. PIO has no
> right to appeal, but PA has.
>
> *Complaint - * You file it under Section 18 of the Act where the process of
> law has been abused in any manner. It is independent of Section 19. There is
> no time limit and complaint can be filed any time on any issue of
> infringement of law and your rights. Neither PIO nor PA can complain. Rather
> the onus of proof rest on the PIO.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 5:38 AM, sandeep kumar <drsandgu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > what i have done is that i filed complaint against the refusal of
> > information (as the pio did not give any grounds to refuse
> > information). after some days, I filed first appeal with AA. Now as
> > the first appeal has not been replied, i intend to filed second
> > appeal. can i do so?
> > I mean to ask as to whether commission can reject the complaint (for
> > filing it along with use of first appeal) or reject the appeal (for
> > filing a complaint and thus approaching the commission earlier also)
>

> > On 5/6/11, Sarbajit Roy <sroy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 1) If the RTI request has been duly received with the fee and there is
> > proof
> > > of this, we always advise our members to file first appeal before
> > (wrongly)
> > > approaching the SIC/CIC (in complaint jurisdiction) or (rightly) in 2nd
> > > appeal jurisdiction thereafter.
> > > The reason for this is that
> > > a) first Appeal is a statutory time-bound process, whereas
> > > b) Complaint is a discretionary and open-ended process.
> > > c) Second appeal is a statutory but open-ended process
>
> > > So the answer to your query no.1 is that it is NOT mandatory to approach
> > FAA
> > > prior to approaching SIC/CIC, ... BUT First Appeal is TECHNICALLY the
> > BEST
> > > option in terms of RISK MANAGEMENT.
>
> > > 2) Your 2nd query is badly framed and factually incorrect. The CIC CANNOT
> > > entertain a 2nd appeal when no  first apeal has been filed.
>
> > > Sarbajit
>

> > > On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Baritlum Ama <baritlum...@gmail.com>

> > wrote:
>
> > >> I NEED THE ANSWER FROM YOU ALL PLEASE.
>
> > >> 1) IS IT MANDATORY TO APPROACH THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY OR SENIOR IN
> > >> RANK TO THE CPIO OR SPIO PRIOR TO APPROACHING CIC OR SIC?
>
> > >> 2)AND IF THE CIC OR SIC ENTERTAINS THE APPELLANT BY BYPASSING THE
> > >> SENIOR OFFICER I.E 2ND APPELLATE AUTHORITY AS PER CLUASE-19(1),THEN IS
> > >> THE ACTION OF CIC OR SIC IN VIOLATION OF THE RTI ACT.
>
> > >> WHERE THE CLUASE WHEREIN THE CIC OR SIC OR APPELLANT DEFEND THEMSELVES.
>
> > >> Thanks
>
> > --
> > Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
> > 989, Sector 15-A, Opposite bishnoi Colony, Hisar-125001, INDIA

> > Phone:91-99929-31181begin_of_the_skype_highlighting            91-99929-31181      end_of_the_skype_highlighting
>
> --
> *"Our biggest competition is never with the others.

> Instead, it is always within ourselves.
> It doesn't matter if where we end up - first or at last.
> If we do our best to do better than before, we've won"
> **
> Warm Regards**
>
> Surendera M. Bhanot*

> *- President, RTI Help <http://www.rtihelp.in> & Assistance Forum Chandigarh
>
> - Youth for Human Rights International YHRI <http://yhrisouthasia.ning.com/>-
> South Asia
> - CEO, Avis Software <http://www.avissoftware.com>, Chandigarh

> - Convener & Life Member, Consumers Association Chandigarh
> - Jt. Secretary, Amateur Judo Association of Chandigarh

> - Member, SPACE <http://www.thespace.org.in>- Society for Promotion and

> Conservation of Environment, Chandigarh
> - Member, RTI Activist Federation, Punjab, Chandigarh*
> *No. 3758, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh-160022

> Mob:+91-9888-810-811begin_of_the_skype_highlighting            +91-9888-810-811      end_of_the_skype_highlighting
> PHONE:+91-172-2780838begin_of_the_skype_highlighting            +91-172-2780838      end_of_the_skype_highlighting
> FAX: 0871 266 8523  ***
> Mail Me <surend...@avissoftware.com>
>
> *DISCLAIMER*: You have received this email because you any one time

> contacted me through mail or otherwise gave your mail-id. This e-mail is
> intended to be sent to the persons on my regular mail-list. In case you
> think this mail infringes your privacy or otherwise you do not want to
> receive this mail anymore, please reply with the word* 'UNSUBSCRIBE"* in the
> body of the mail. *Please do not** disturb the Subject line*. I am sorry to
> see you go. But please mention the reason why you want to go. It will help
> me improve my services in future. Thanks

--

"Our biggest competition is never with the others.
Instead, it is always within ourselves.
It doesn't matter if where we end up - first or at last.
If we do our best to do better than before, we've won"

Warm Regards

Surendera M. Bhanot

- President, RTI Help & Assistance Forum Chandigarh
- Youth for Human Rights International YHRI - South Asia
- CEO, Avis Software, Chandigarh 

- Convener & Life Member, Consumers Association Chandigarh
- Jt. Secretary, Amateur Judo Association of Chandigarh

- Member, SPACE - Society for Promotion and Conservation of Environment, Chandigarh

- Member, RTI Activist Federation, Punjab, Chandigarh

No. 3758, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh-160022

Mob: +91-9888-810-811
PHONE: +91-172-2780838

FAX: 0871 266 8523 
Mail Me

DISCLAIMER: You have received this email because you any one time contacted me through mail or otherwise gave your mail-id. This e-mail is intended to be sent to the persons on my regular mail-list. In case you think this mail infringes your privacy or otherwise you do not want to receive this mail anymore, please reply with the word 'UNSUBSCRIBE" in the body of the mail. Please do not disturb the Subject line. I am sorry to see you go. But please mention the reason why you want to go. It will help me improve my services in future. Thanks

RE: [HumJanenge] Cabinet note not secret: Info panel

With All dissussions From All eminent and learned freinds , I Have Read And with Me an Gujarath High Court order which Reads As " Power under Sec 18 is Limited to Hold enquiry into Complaint and If Necessary to Impose Penalty -- Information Commission has no Jursidiction to Pass order directing authority to part with information"
In Such an Situation when One Has approached the Second Appeal Mechanism which is an Higher statutory Authority for One Relief can an Lower Authorirty be Approached For another relief . If so Can Lower Authority can it decvline On That grounds stating as The Case is already is pending Adjudication at an higher body , They will not intervene . then The Person seeking information will loose His /her right to Information . therefore IN KIC They are allowing both section 18 and sec 19.3 simoultaneosly
N vikramsimha , KRIA Katte , #12 Sumeru Sir M N Krishna Rao Road , Basvangudi < Bangalore 560004.

--- On Fri, 6/5/11, acfanand@gmail.com <acfanand@gmail.com> wrote:

> From: acfanand@gmail.com <acfanand@gmail.com>
> Subject: RE: [HumJanenge] Cabinet note not secret: Info panel
> To: "humjanenge@googlegroups.com" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
> Date: Friday, 6 May, 2011, 6:39 PM
> That is why in karnataka the
> commission considers all complaints and appeals as petitions
> and dispooses accordingly.
>
> Sent from my Nokia phone
> -----Original Message-----
> From: soumen kr Bhattacharjee
> Sent:  06/05/2011 12:14:12 pm
> Subject:  Re: Re: [HumJanenge] Cabinet note not
> secret: Info panel
>
> Dear Ama ,
>
> I would like to advise you to go through the act. It is not
> lawful to move to a commission before approaching 1st
> appellate authority . It is nalso not legal for commission
> to admit a second appeal when ist appeal was not
> heard/disposed.Hope clarified.
>
>
> On Fri, 06 May 2011 06:01:01 +0530  wrote
> >Dear Ama
>
> The cost  of RTI must be REASONABLE. At these highly
> subsidised prices/fees prescribed in the Central RTI Rules,
> the HONEST citizen who never/rarely uses RTI is SUBSIDISING
> the h****is who professionally misuse RTI on behalf of
> theior foreign spymasters and are handsomely recompensed for
> it.
>
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 8:26 AM, Baritlum Ama  wrote:
>
> Its true that Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia never had
> raised this
>
> issue as it might be  confined to some states only and at
> the same
>
> time citizens were not aware of it.
>
>
>
> Today we find that citizens are aware of it  and try to
> exercise their
>
> fundamental rights.However these are some contraints which
> need to be
>
> addressed and resolved.
>
>
>
> ONE MORE POINTS I NEED THE CLARIFICATION FROM ALL PLEASE.
>
>
>
> 1) IS IT MANDATORY TO APPROACH THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY OR
> SENIOR IN
>
> RANK TO THE CPIO OR SPIO PRIOR TO APPROACHING CIC OR SIC?
>
>
>
> 2)AND IF THE CIC OR SIC ENTERTAINS THE APPELLANT BY
> BYPASSING THE
>
> SENIOR OFFICER I.E 2ND APPELLATE AUTHORITY AS PER
> CLUASE-19(1),THEN IS
>
> THE ACTION OF CIC OR SIC IN VIOLATION OF THE RTI ACT.
>
>
>
> WHERE THE CLUASE WHEREIN THE CIC OR SIC OR APPELLANT DEFEND
> THEMSELVES.
>
>
>
>
>
> On 5/5/11, Sarbajit Roy  wrote:
>
> > Making the fees common across the country is
> UNREASONABLE.and also beyond
>
> > the power of Central Govt to legislate for States ---
> till such time as the
>
> > money collected does not go into the Central
> exchequer. If the money is
>
> > collected by and used by the State Govt to defray its
> costs then only the
>
> > State Govt can prescribe the fees.
>
> > .
>
> > FYI teh Allahabad High Court at one point was charging
> Rs.500 application
>
> > fee and Rs 50 as copying charge per page. Hapless
> applicants were getting
>
> > ZERO information out of the court despite paying such
> fees.
>
> >
>
> > On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 10:35 PM, SHASHI KUMAR.A.R.
> <
>
> > rudreshtechnology@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> The Central government should see that the  fee
> charged per page should be
>
> >> uniform throughout the country including courts ,
> In karnataka Courts are
>
> >> charging Rs.3/- Per Page for A4 Size , But if  a
> person applies under
>
> >> court
>
> >> rules the fee charged is Rs.1/- But in this case
> only litigants pertaining
>
> >> to a case only can obtain by paying Rs.1/- Per
> page , States area making
>
> >> several rules to make rti act useless and to
> discourage the applicants
>
> >>
>
> >> ARS KUMAR
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 9:53 PM, Sarbajit Roy 
> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> Dear Guptaji
>
> >>>
>
> >>> 1) Haryana Govt charges Rs. 50 possibly
> because Delhi High Court (and
>
> >>> some
>
> >>> other High Courts) also charges Rs. 50 as
> application fee.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> 2) For many years since 2002 under Delhi RTI
> Act the application fee was
>
> >>> Rs.25 and Rs.5 per page was photocopying
> charge. Not a single RTI
>
> >>> activist
>
> >>> like Arvind Kejriwal , Manish Sisiodia etc who
> used DRTI extensively then
>
> >>> ever complained. Today after 9 years surely
>  Rs. 50 and Rs.10
>
> >>> respectively
>
> >>> is justified by inflation even assuming a WPI
> of 6% each year.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Sarbajit
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 8:47 PM, M.K. Gupta
> wrote:
>
> >>>
>
> >>>>    Here, Rs. 10/- per page for a
> photocopy is unreasonable.  Every body
>
> >>>> will agree to this but what remedial steps
> should be taken.   Haryana
>
> >>>> govt.
>
> >>>> takes Rs. 50/- are RTI fee. Some state
> charge fee even for first appeal.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> Apparently, these tacts have been employed
> to discourage the applicants.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> Sarbajit ji, let all of us mull over it
> and find out some way.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> --- On *Wed, 4/5/11, Sarbajit Roy *
> wrote:
>
> >>>> From: Sarbajit Roy
>
> >>>> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Cabinet note not
> secret: Info panel
>
> >>>> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
>
> >>>> Date: Wednesday, 4 May, 2011, 2:02 PM
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>>  States cannot amend the RTI Act - it is
> a Central Act of Parliament.
>
> >>>> The variation in fees for photocopying
> charges is by the provision that
>
> >>>> each State Govt can prescribe these fees.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> The CORE TEST (from the Act) is that these
> fees must be REASONABLE.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> Sarbajit
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 7:39 AM, Baritlum
> Ama
>
> >>>> >>> > wrote:
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> Since each state has got its own
> prerogative to amend the Act,so the
>
> >>>> government has increased the fee of the
> document from Rs,2/= to
>
> >>>> Rs.10/= per page.The exorbhitant increase
> in the price of the fee has
>
> >>>> deterred most of the activists in seeking
> the formation.Please guide
>
> >>>> us how to repeal the Notification of the
> Govt.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> Thanks
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> On 5/3/11, M.K. Gupta
>
> >>>>
>
>
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>> > Cabinet note not secret: Info panel
>
> >>>> > Maha Watchdog Overrules itself.
>
> >>>> >
>
> >>>> > MUMBAI: A cabinet note on the basis
> of which a council of minister
>
> >>>> takes a
>
> >>>> > decision and subsequently passes a
> government
>
> >>>> > resolution is not confidential and
> anyone can have access to a copy of
>
> >>>> it
>
> >>>> > under the RTI Act.
>
> >>>> > The verdict was passed on Friday by a
> full bench of the Maharashtra
>
> >>>> > information commission, presided over
> by chief information
>
> >>>> > commissioner
>
> >>>> > Vilas Patil. The new decree overrules
> Vikas Patil's predecessor Suresh
>
> >>>> > Joshi's ruling in 2006 that said a
> cabinet note was a confidential
>
> >>>> document
>
> >>>> > and a citizen could not get access to
> it by applying under the Right
>
> >>>> > To
>
> >>>> > Information Act.
>
> >>>> > The latest decision was arrived at
> after a much deliberation, with
>
> >>>> Vilas
>
> >>>> > Patil, his Aurungabad counterpart D B
> Deshpande, Amravati information
>
> >>>> > commissioner Bhaskar Patil and Nagpur
> information chief P W Patil
>
> >>>> > maintaining that the note should not
> be kept secret. However, Navi
>
> >>>> Mumbai
>
> >>>> > info chief Navinkumar and his Nashik
> counterpart M H Shah tried to
>
> >>>> argue it
>
> >>>> > should not be made public.
>
> >>>> > The view of the majority prevailed
> and it was decided that an RTI
>
> >>>> applicant
>
> >>>> > is eligible to obtain a copy of the
> cabinet note, an official told TOI
>
> >>>> on
>
> >>>> > Saturday.
>
> >>>> > The issue was raised after a
> resident, Archana Gawda, in 2007, filed a
>
> >>>> query
>
> >>>> > under the RTI Act, seeking a copy of
> the cabinet note of the repeal of
>
> >>>> the
>
> >>>> > Urban Land Ceiling Act and the states
> decision on the proposal. The
>
> >>>> general
>
> >>>> > administration department, however,
> refused to send her a copy saying,
>
> >>>> > according to the rules of business
> and provisions of the RTI Act, a
>
> >>>> cabinet
>
> >>>> > note was confidential and hence out
> of RTI purview.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Cabinet note not secret: Info panel

The experts find a way from the narrow band too. So the matter that Complaints is discretionary is no longer a myth. If one cannot file a proper complaint, he cannot expect the desired results. The CIC/SIC has to inquire into on receipt of a well drafted complaint. The calculations of days are broadly correct and a knowledgable person will reckon the exact days, when required. Act does not specify any time limit for filing the complaint. However, courts had decided that the CIC/SIC has to decide the same as expeditiously as possible.

On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 3:48 PM, sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:

You have not calculated the dates / period for filing 2nd appeal
correctly
You have also not appreciated that complaint process is extremely
narrow
in scope and confined to a few technical grounds. Complaint process is
also a time-bound process for citizens to approach the CIC in..

Sarbajit

On May 7, 12:23 pm, "Surendera M. Bhanot" <surend...@avissoftware.com>
wrote:

> In fact there is difference between the "Appeal" and "Complaint".
>
> *Appeal - *you file it when you find that the process of law has been
> followed but the information has not been given. You file an appeal to get
> the information. you have to go through the process as per Section 19 of the
> Act.You have 30 days to file first appeal and 90 days thereafter (after the
> expiry of the 30 days of the first appeal) for second appeal. PIO has no
> right to appeal, but PA has.
>
> *Complaint - * You file it under Section 18 of the Act where the process of
> law has been abused in any manner. It is independent of Section 19. There is
> no time limit and complaint can be filed any time on any issue of
> infringement of law and your rights. Neither PIO nor PA can complain. Rather
> the onus of proof rest on the PIO.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 5:38 AM, sandeep kumar <drsandgu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > what i have done is that i filed complaint against the refusal of
> > information (as the pio did not give any grounds to refuse
> > information). after some days, I filed first appeal with AA. Now as
> > the first appeal has not been replied, i intend to filed second
> > appeal. can i do so?
> > I mean to ask as to whether commission can reject the complaint (for
> > filing it along with use of first appeal) or reject the appeal (for
> > filing a complaint and thus approaching the commission earlier also)
>

> > On 5/6/11, Sarbajit Roy <sroy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 1) If the RTI request has been duly received with the fee and there is
> > proof
> > > of this, we always advise our members to file first appeal before
> > (wrongly)
> > > approaching the SIC/CIC (in complaint jurisdiction) or (rightly) in 2nd
> > > appeal jurisdiction thereafter.
> > > The reason for this is that
> > > a) first Appeal is a statutory time-bound process, whereas
> > > b) Complaint is a discretionary and open-ended process.
> > > c) Second appeal is a statutory but open-ended process
>
> > > So the answer to your query no.1 is that it is NOT mandatory to approach
> > FAA
> > > prior to approaching SIC/CIC, ... BUT First Appeal is TECHNICALLY the
> > BEST
> > > option in terms of RISK MANAGEMENT.
>
> > > 2) Your 2nd query is badly framed and factually incorrect. The CIC CANNOT
> > > entertain a 2nd appeal when no  first apeal has been filed.
>
> > > Sarbajit
>

> > > On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Baritlum Ama <baritlum...@gmail.com>

> > wrote:
>
> > >> I NEED THE ANSWER FROM YOU ALL PLEASE.
>
> > >> 1) IS IT MANDATORY TO APPROACH THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY OR SENIOR IN
> > >> RANK TO THE CPIO OR SPIO PRIOR TO APPROACHING CIC OR SIC?
>
> > >> 2)AND IF THE CIC OR SIC ENTERTAINS THE APPELLANT BY BYPASSING THE
> > >> SENIOR OFFICER I.E 2ND APPELLATE AUTHORITY AS PER CLUASE-19(1),THEN IS
> > >> THE ACTION OF CIC OR SIC IN VIOLATION OF THE RTI ACT.
>
> > >> WHERE THE CLUASE WHEREIN THE CIC OR SIC OR APPELLANT DEFEND THEMSELVES.
>
> > >> Thanks
>
> > --
> > Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
> > 989, Sector 15-A, Opposite bishnoi Colony, Hisar-125001, INDIA

> > Phone:91-99929-31181begin_of_the_skype_highlighting            91-99929-31181      end_of_the_skype_highlighting
>
> --
> *"Our biggest competition is never with the others.

> Instead, it is always within ourselves.
> It doesn't matter if where we end up - first or at last.
> If we do our best to do better than before, we've won"
> **
> Warm Regards**
>
> Surendera M. Bhanot*

> *- President, RTI Help <http://www.rtihelp.in> & Assistance Forum Chandigarh
>
> - Youth for Human Rights International YHRI <http://yhrisouthasia.ning.com/>-
> South Asia
> - CEO, Avis Software <http://www.avissoftware.com>, Chandigarh

> - Convener & Life Member, Consumers Association Chandigarh
> - Jt. Secretary, Amateur Judo Association of Chandigarh

> - Member, SPACE <http://www.thespace.org.in>- Society for Promotion and

> Conservation of Environment, Chandigarh
> - Member, RTI Activist Federation, Punjab, Chandigarh*
> *No. 3758, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh-160022

> Mob:+91-9888-810-811begin_of_the_skype_highlighting            +91-9888-810-811      end_of_the_skype_highlighting
> PHONE:+91-172-2780838begin_of_the_skype_highlighting            +91-172-2780838      end_of_the_skype_highlighting
> FAX: 0871 266 8523  ***
> Mail Me <surend...@avissoftware.com>
>
> *DISCLAIMER*: You have received this email because you any one time

> contacted me through mail or otherwise gave your mail-id. This e-mail is
> intended to be sent to the persons on my regular mail-list. In case you
> think this mail infringes your privacy or otherwise you do not want to
> receive this mail anymore, please reply with the word* 'UNSUBSCRIBE"* in the
> body of the mail. *Please do not** disturb the Subject line*. I am sorry to
> see you go. But please mention the reason why you want to go. It will help
> me improve my services in future. Thanks

--
"Our biggest competition is never with the others.
Instead, it is always within ourselves.
It doesn't matter if where we end up - first or at last.
If we do our best to do better than before, we've won"

Warm Regards

Surendera M. Bhanot
- President, RTI Help & Assistance Forum Chandigarh
- Youth for Human Rights International YHRI - South Asia
- CEO, Avis Software, Chandigarh 
- Convener & Life Member, Consumers Association Chandigarh
- Jt. Secretary, Amateur Judo Association of Chandigarh
- Member, SPACE - Society for Promotion and Conservation of Environment, Chandigarh
- Member, RTI Activist Federation, Punjab, Chandigarh
No. 3758, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh-160022
Mob: +91-9888-810-811
PHONE: +91-172-2780838
FAX: 0871 266 8523 
Mail Me


DISCLAIMER: You have received this email because you any one time contacted me through mail or otherwise gave your mail-id. This e-mail is intended to be sent to the persons on my regular mail-list. In case you think this mail infringes your privacy or otherwise you do not want to receive this mail anymore, please reply with the word 'UNSUBSCRIBE" in the body of the mail. Please do not disturb the Subject line. I am sorry to see you go. But please mention the reason why you want to go. It will help me improve my services in future. Thanks

[HumJanenge] Re: Cabinet note not secret: Info panel

You have not calculated the dates / period for filing 2nd appeal
correctly
You have also not appreciated that complaint process is extremely
narrow
in scope and confined to a few technical grounds. Complaint process is
also a time-bound process for citizens to approach the CIC in..

Sarbajit

On May 7, 12:23 pm, "Surendera M. Bhanot" <surend...@avissoftware.com>
wrote:
> In fact there is difference between the "Appeal" and "Complaint".
>
> *Appeal - *you file it when you find that the process of law has been
> followed but the information has not been given. You file an appeal to get
> the information. you have to go through the process as per Section 19 of the
> Act.You have 30 days to file first appeal and 90 days thereafter (after the
> expiry of the 30 days of the first appeal) for second appeal. PIO has no
> right to appeal, but PA has.
>
> *Complaint - * You file it under Section 18 of the Act where the process of
> law has been abused in any manner. It is independent of Section 19. There is
> no time limit and complaint can be filed any time on any issue of
> infringement of law and your rights. Neither PIO nor PA can complain. Rather
> the onus of proof rest on the PIO.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 5:38 AM, sandeep kumar <drsandgu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > what i have done is that i filed complaint against the refusal of
> > information (as the pio did not give any grounds to refuse
> > information). after some days, I filed first appeal with AA. Now as
> > the first appeal has not been replied, i intend to filed second
> > appeal. can i do so?
> > I mean to ask as to whether commission can reject the complaint (for
> > filing it along with use of first appeal) or reject the appeal (for
> > filing a complaint and thus approaching the commission earlier also)
>
> > On 5/6/11, Sarbajit Roy <sroy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 1) If the RTI request has been duly received with the fee and there is
> > proof
> > > of this, we always advise our members to file first appeal before
> > (wrongly)
> > > approaching the SIC/CIC (in complaint jurisdiction) or (rightly) in 2nd
> > > appeal jurisdiction thereafter.
> > > The reason for this is that
> > > a) first Appeal is a statutory time-bound process, whereas
> > > b) Complaint is a discretionary and open-ended process.
> > > c) Second appeal is a statutory but open-ended process
>
> > > So the answer to your query no.1 is that it is NOT mandatory to approach
> > FAA
> > > prior to approaching SIC/CIC, ... BUT First Appeal is TECHNICALLY the
> > BEST
> > > option in terms of RISK MANAGEMENT.
>
> > > 2) Your 2nd query is badly framed and factually incorrect. The CIC CANNOT
> > > entertain a 2nd appeal when no  first apeal has been filed.
>
> > > Sarbajit
>
> > > On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Baritlum Ama <baritlum...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >> I NEED THE ANSWER FROM YOU ALL PLEASE.
>
> > >> 1) IS IT MANDATORY TO APPROACH THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY OR SENIOR IN
> > >> RANK TO THE CPIO OR SPIO PRIOR TO APPROACHING CIC OR SIC?
>
> > >> 2)AND IF THE CIC OR SIC ENTERTAINS THE APPELLANT BY BYPASSING THE
> > >> SENIOR OFFICER I.E 2ND APPELLATE AUTHORITY AS PER CLUASE-19(1),THEN IS
> > >> THE ACTION OF CIC OR SIC IN VIOLATION OF THE RTI ACT.
>
> > >> WHERE THE CLUASE WHEREIN THE CIC OR SIC OR APPELLANT DEFEND THEMSELVES.
>
> > >> Thanks
>
> > --
> > Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
> > 989, Sector 15-A, Opposite bishnoi Colony, Hisar-125001, INDIA
> > Phone:91-99929-31181begin_of_the_skype_highlighting            91-99929-31181      end_of_the_skype_highlighting
>
> --
> *"Our biggest competition is never with the others.
> Instead, it is always within ourselves.
> It doesn't matter if where we end up - first or at last.
> If we do our best to do better than before, we've won"
> **
> Warm Regards**
>
> Surendera M. Bhanot*
> *- President, RTI Help <http://www.rtihelp.in> & Assistance Forum Chandigarh
>
> - Youth for Human Rights International YHRI <http://yhrisouthasia.ning.com/>-
> South Asia
> - CEO, Avis Software <http://www.avissoftware.com>, Chandigarh
> - Convener & Life Member, Consumers Association Chandigarh
> - Jt. Secretary, Amateur Judo Association of Chandigarh
> - Member, SPACE <http://www.thespace.org.in>- Society for Promotion and
> Conservation of Environment, Chandigarh
> - Member, RTI Activist Federation, Punjab, Chandigarh*
> *No. 3758, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh-160022
> Mob:+91-9888-810-811begin_of_the_skype_highlighting            +91-9888-810-811      end_of_the_skype_highlighting
> PHONE:+91-172-2780838begin_of_the_skype_highlighting            +91-172-2780838      end_of_the_skype_highlighting
> FAX: 0871 266 8523  ***
> Mail Me <surend...@avissoftware.com>
>
> *DISCLAIMER*: You have received this email because you any one time
> contacted me through mail or otherwise gave your mail-id. This e-mail is
> intended to be sent to the persons on my regular mail-list. In case you
> think this mail infringes your privacy or otherwise you do not want to
> receive this mail anymore, please reply with the word* 'UNSUBSCRIBE"* in the
> body of the mail. *Please do not** disturb the Subject line*. I am sorry to
> see you go. But please mention the reason why you want to go. It will help
> me improve my services in future. Thanks

Re: [HumJanenge] Cabinet note not secret: Info panel

In fact there is difference between the "Appeal" and "Complaint".

Appeal - you file it when you find that the process of law has been followed but the information has not been given. You file an appeal to get the information. you have to go through the process as per Section 19 of the Act.You have 30 days to file first appeal and 90 days thereafter (after the expiry of the 30 days of the first appeal) for second appeal. PIO has no right to appeal, but PA has.

Complaint -  You file it under Section 18 of the Act where the process of law has been abused in any manner. It is independent of Section 19. There is no time limit and complaint can be filed any time on any issue of infringement of law and your rights. Neither PIO nor PA can complain. Rather the onus of proof rest on the PIO.

On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 5:38 AM, sandeep kumar <drsandgupta@gmail.com> wrote:

what i have done is that i filed complaint against the refusal of
information (as the pio did not give any grounds to refuse
information). after some days, I filed first appeal with AA. Now as
the first appeal has not been replied, i intend to filed second
appeal. can i do so?
I mean to ask as to whether commission can reject the complaint (for
filing it along with use of first appeal) or reject the appeal (for
filing a complaint and thus approaching the commission earlier also)

On 5/6/11, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1) If the RTI request has been duly received with the fee and there is proof
> of this, we always advise our members to file first appeal before (wrongly)
> approaching the SIC/CIC (in complaint jurisdiction) or (rightly) in 2nd
> appeal jurisdiction thereafter.
> The reason for this is that
> a) first Appeal is a statutory time-bound process, whereas
> b) Complaint is a discretionary and open-ended process.
> c) Second appeal is a statutory but open-ended process
>
> So the answer to your query no.1 is that it is NOT mandatory to approach FAA
> prior to approaching SIC/CIC, ... BUT First Appeal is TECHNICALLY the BEST
> option in terms of RISK MANAGEMENT.
>
> 2) Your 2nd query is badly framed and factually incorrect. The CIC CANNOT
> entertain a 2nd appeal when no  first apeal has been filed.
>

> Sarbajit
>

> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Baritlum Ama <baritlumama@gmail.com> wrote:
>

>> I NEED THE ANSWER FROM YOU ALL PLEASE.

>>
>> 1) IS IT MANDATORY TO APPROACH THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY OR SENIOR IN
>> RANK TO THE CPIO OR SPIO PRIOR TO APPROACHING CIC OR SIC?
>>
>> 2)AND IF THE CIC OR SIC ENTERTAINS THE APPELLANT BY BYPASSING THE
>> SENIOR OFFICER I.E 2ND APPELLATE AUTHORITY AS PER CLUASE-19(1),THEN IS
>> THE ACTION OF CIC OR SIC IN VIOLATION OF THE RTI ACT.
>>
>> WHERE THE CLUASE WHEREIN THE CIC OR SIC OR APPELLANT DEFEND THEMSELVES.
>>

>> Thanks

>>
>>
>>
>


--
Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
989, Sector 15-A, Opposite bishnoi Colony, Hisar-125001, INDIA
Phone: 91-99929-31181

--
"Our biggest competition is never with the others.
Instead, it is always within ourselves.
It doesn't matter if where we end up - first or at last.
If we do our best to do better than before, we've won"

Warm Regards

Surendera M. Bhanot
- President, RTI Help & Assistance Forum Chandigarh
- Youth for Human Rights International YHRI - South Asia
- CEO, Avis Software, Chandigarh 
- Convener & Life Member, Consumers Association Chandigarh
- Jt. Secretary, Amateur Judo Association of Chandigarh
- Member, SPACE - Society for Promotion and Conservation of Environment, Chandigarh
- Member, RTI Activist Federation, Punjab, Chandigarh
No. 3758, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh-160022
Mob: +91-9888-810-811
PHONE: +91-172-2780838
FAX: 0871 266 8523 
Mail Me


DISCLAIMER: You have received this email because you any one time contacted me through mail or otherwise gave your mail-id. This e-mail is intended to be sent to the persons on my regular mail-list. In case you think this mail infringes your privacy or otherwise you do not want to receive this mail anymore, please reply with the word 'UNSUBSCRIBE" in the body of the mail. Please do not disturb the Subject line. I am sorry to see you go. But please mention the reason why you want to go. It will help me improve my services in future. Thanks

Re: [HumJanenge] Cabinet note not secret: Info panel

what i have done is that i filed complaint against the refusal of
information (as the pio did not give any grounds to refuse
information). after some days, I filed first appeal with AA. Now as
the first appeal has not been replied, i intend to filed second
appeal. can i do so?
I mean to ask as to whether commission can reject the complaint (for
filing it along with use of first appeal) or reject the appeal (for
filing a complaint and thus approaching the commission earlier also)

On 5/6/11, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1) If the RTI request has been duly received with the fee and there is proof
> of this, we always advise our members to file first appeal before (wrongly)
> approaching the SIC/CIC (in complaint jurisdiction) or (rightly) in 2nd
> appeal jurisdiction thereafter.
> The reason for this is that
> a) first Appeal is a statutory time-bound process, whereas
> b) Complaint is a discretionary and open-ended process.
> c) Second appeal is a statutory but open-ended process
>
> So the answer to your query no.1 is that it is NOT mandatory to approach FAA
> prior to approaching SIC/CIC, ... BUT First Appeal is TECHNICALLY the BEST
> option in terms of RISK MANAGEMENT.
>
> 2) Your 2nd query is badly framed and factually incorrect. The CIC CANNOT
> entertain a 2nd appeal when no first apeal has been filed.
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Baritlum Ama <baritlumama@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I NEED THE ANSWER FROM YOU ALL PLEASE.
>>
>> 1) IS IT MANDATORY TO APPROACH THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY OR SENIOR IN
>> RANK TO THE CPIO OR SPIO PRIOR TO APPROACHING CIC OR SIC?
>>
>> 2)AND IF THE CIC OR SIC ENTERTAINS THE APPELLANT BY BYPASSING THE
>> SENIOR OFFICER I.E 2ND APPELLATE AUTHORITY AS PER CLUASE-19(1),THEN IS
>> THE ACTION OF CIC OR SIC IN VIOLATION OF THE RTI ACT.
>>
>> WHERE THE CLUASE WHEREIN THE CIC OR SIC OR APPELLANT DEFEND THEMSELVES.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>>
>

--
Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
989, Sector 15-A, Opposite bishnoi Colony, Hisar-125001, INDIA
Phone: 91-99929-31181

Re: [HumJanenge] Cabinet note not secret: Info panel

I still disagree. If you are not capable enough to draft your complaint in the way it should be, you may find a lack excuses. It is the duty of the CIC or SIC to inquire into the complaint  and where the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to inquire into the matter, it may initiate an inquiry in respect thereof.

So there in no discretion left for CIC/SIC to to hear complaint, of course Subject to the provisions of this Act.

On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 9:23 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:

It was not necessary to skip it, but to skip TO it !!!

"18(1)  Subject to the provisions of this Act, .... " <smile>

This means that 18(1) is SUBJECT TO section 18(2) which comes after it and which confers the discretion to the CIC / SIC to establish its SATISFACTION as to the existence of the grounds mentioned in 18(1) for the OPTIONAL / CONDITIONAL  inquiry.

Sarbajit

On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Surendera M. Bhanot <surendera@avissoftware.com> wrote:

Sarabjit very cleaverly skiped the Section 18(1) which says that:

18. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be the duty of the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, to receive and inquire into a complaint from any person,—
(a) who has been unable to submit a request to a Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, either by reason that no such officer has been appointed under this Act, or because the Central Assistant Public Information Officer or State Assistant Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has refused to accept his or her application for information or appeal under this Act for forwarding the same to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer or senior officer specified in sub-section (1) of section 19 or the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be;
(b) who has been refused access to any information requested under this Act;
(c) who has not been given a response to a request for information or access to information within the time limit specified under this Act;
(d) who has been required to pay an amount of fee which he or she considers unreasonable;
(e) who believes that he or she has been given incomplete, misleading or false information under this Act; and
(f) in respect of any other matter relating to requesting or obtaining access to records under this Act.

A complaint will be filed only if it satisfy the conditions laid down are met with satisfactorily. The operation of Section 18(2) comes after it only.

On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:

"18(2)  Where the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to inquire into the matter, it may initiate an inquiry in respect thereof."

Sarbajit

--
"Our biggest competition is never with the others.
Instead, it is always within ourselves.
It doesn't matter if where we end up - first or at last.
If we do our best to do better than before, we've won"

Warm Regards

Surendera M. Bhanot
- President, RTI Help & Assistance Forum Chandigarh
- Youth for Human Rights International YHRI - South Asia
- CEO, Avis Software, Chandigarh 
- Convener & Life Member, Consumers Association Chandigarh
- Jt. Secretary, Amateur Judo Association of Chandigarh
- Member, SPACE - Society for Promotion and Conservation of Environment, Chandigarh
- Member, RTI Activist Federation, Punjab, Chandigarh
No. 3758, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh-160022
Mob: +91-9888-810-811
PHONE: +91-172-2780838
FAX: 0871 266 8523 
Mail Me


DISCLAIMER: You have received this email because you any one time contacted me through mail or otherwise gave your mail-id. This e-mail is intended to be sent to the persons on my regular mail-list. In case you think this mail infringes your privacy or otherwise you do not want to receive this mail anymore, please reply with the word 'UNSUBSCRIBE" in the body of the mail. Please do not disturb the Subject line. I am sorry to see you go. But please mention the reason why you want to go. It will help me improve my services in future. Thanks

[HumJanenge] Re: PUBLIC GRIEVANCE PETITION : Inre D.O. 372/11/2011-AVD.III dated 5.April.2011

To:
The Department of Personnel and Training, by
a) Ms. Alka Sirohi / Secretary
b) Mr. Rajiv Kapur / JS-AT&A (Nodal PG Officer)

06-May-2011

BY EMAIL

Dear Madam / Sir,

I refer to my Public Grievance Petition dated 23.April.2011 appended below for your ready reference.

I am constrained to say that I have not received the acknowledgment which is supposed to be provided to me immediately or within 3 days in any case. I am thereby caused to suspect some "hanky panky" in the selection of the next Chief Vigilance Commissioner (CVC) and especially since the newspaper "Mail Today" has today published an "expose" of how the DoPT (by Ms. Alka Sirohi) is once again flouting the Supreme Court orders by manipulating out private persons from the selection / appointment process for the CVC.

Kindly therefore acknowledge my grievance petition within the period stipulated by the DARPG's D.O.

With best wishes

Sarbajit Roy

B-59 Defence Colony
New Delhi 110024

Tel : 09311448069

On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 7:26 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:

To:
The Department of Personnel and Training, by
a) Ms. Alka Sirohi / Secretary
b) Mr. Rajiv Kapur / JS-AT&A (Nodal PG Officer)

23-April-2011

BY EMAIL

Dear Madam / Sir,

I refer to the subject D.O of 5.April.2011. In connection therewith I am caused to list out some of my grievances for your kind examination and redressal.

1) That the link to the said D.O is only accessible via a Java based scroller under the header "What's New" on the website of the Department from the homepage. Consequently the DO is only essentially accessible to persons with Java enabled browsers and is thereby in conflict with requirement of sub-section 4(1)(a) of RTI Act 2005 administered by your Department. Had the DoPT cared to designate a competent senior officer as "Transparency Officer", perhaps such niggling irritants would not agitate public spirited citizens like myself against your Department.

2) That by this DO, private citizens like myself who satisfy completely the requirements for appointment as Vigilance Commissioner or Chief Vigilance Commissioner are being manipulated out of the process. In so far as my own case goes, I am demonstrably an eminent person of impeccable integrity and impartiality having expertise and experience in banking and finance, including insurance and banking, law, vigilance and investigations etc. In fact I would go so far as to say, in all modesty, that Government would be hard pressed to find a more suitable candidate than I for such positions. It is another matter entirely that I shun public office to concentrate on social work and religious research in my capacity as spiritual leader of millions of Indian citizens who profess the Adi Dharm way of life.

3) I would therefore request you to remove the extra-statutory requirement of paras 7 and 8 of the impugned DO that names / CVs for persons falling under the second portion of s/s 3(3)(b) of the Act suggested for consideration for appointment as CVC should only be forwarded by the sponsoring department of the administrative Ministry concerned, and would not be directly entertained by the DoPT. Such a provision is patently de-hors the concerned enactment and I would request you to kindly review the said paragraphs in view of my objection. I also protest that it is not clear to me which would be the concerned department if I was to throw my hat in the ring for consideration.

PS: I would also like to remind you that the Department has still not acknowledged my similar public grievance concerning nominations of private persons to the drafting committee for Central Lok Pal legislation which was outsourced to one Mr "Anna" Hazare @ camp New Delhi.

With best wishes

Sarbajit Roy

B-59 Defence Colony
New Delhi 110024

Tel : 09311448069

Re: [HumJanenge] Cabinet note not secret: Info panel

It was not necessary to skip it, but to skip TO it !!!

"18(1)  Subject to the provisions of this Act, .... " <smile>

This means that 18(1) is SUBJECT TO section 18(2) which comes after it and which confers the discretion to the CIC / SIC to establish its SATISFACTION as to the existence of the grounds mentioned in 18(1) for the OPTIONAL / CONDITIONAL  inquiry.

Sarbajit

On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Surendera M. Bhanot <surendera@avissoftware.com> wrote:

Sarabjit very cleaverly skiped the Section 18(1) which says that:

18. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be the duty of the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, to receive and inquire into a complaint from any person,—
(a) who has been unable to submit a request to a Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, either by reason that no such officer has been appointed under this Act, or because the Central Assistant Public Information Officer or State Assistant Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has refused to accept his or her application for information or appeal under this Act for forwarding the same to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer or senior officer specified in sub-section (1) of section 19 or the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be;
(b) who has been refused access to any information requested under this Act;
(c) who has not been given a response to a request for information or access to information within the time limit specified under this Act;
(d) who has been required to pay an amount of fee which he or she considers unreasonable;
(e) who believes that he or she has been given incomplete, misleading or false information under this Act; and
(f) in respect of any other matter relating to requesting or obtaining access to records under this Act.

A complaint will be filed only if it satisfy the conditions laid down are met with satisfactorily. The operation of Section 18(2) comes after it only.

On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:

"18(2)  Where the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to inquire into the matter, it may initiate an inquiry in respect thereof."

Sarbajit

Re: [HumJanenge] Cabinet note not secret: Info panel

Sarabjit very cleaverly skiped the Section 18(1) which says that:

18. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be the duty of the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, to receive and inquire into a complaint from any person,—
(a) who has been unable to submit a request to a Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, either by reason that no such officer has been appointed under this Act, or because the Central Assistant Public Information Officer or State Assistant Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has refused to accept his or her application for information or appeal under this Act for forwarding the same to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer or senior officer specified in sub-section (1) of section 19 or the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be;
(b) who has been refused access to any information requested under this Act;
(c) who has not been given a response to a request for information or access to information within the time limit specified under this Act;
(d) who has been required to pay an amount of fee which he or she considers unreasonable;
(e) who believes that he or she has been given incomplete, misleading or false information under this Act; and
(f) in respect of any other matter relating to requesting or obtaining access to records under this Act.

A complaint will be filed only if it satisfy the conditions laid down are met with satisfactorily. The operation of Section 18(2) comes after it only.

On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:

"18(2)  Where the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to inquire into the matter, it may initiate an inquiry in respect thereof."

Sarbajit

On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Surendera M. Bhanot <surendera@avissoftware.com> wrote:
>
> I disagree as far as you say that the Complaint is a discretionary. At whose Hand - Complainant or Commission?
>
> No it is not discretionary and it is a due process of law under Section 18. and it is independent of Section 19. You need not to go through the process of Section 19 to file a complaint. Complaint has no time limitations while appeals do have. You can file complaint any time you like. The only condition is that you nust have a ground for complaint as stated in Section 18,
>

--
"Our biggest competition is never with the others.
Instead, it is always within ourselves.
It doesn't matter if where we end up - first or at last.
If we do our best to do better than before, we've won"

Warm Regards

Surendera M. Bhanot
- President, RTI Help & Assistance Forum Chandigarh
- Youth for Human Rights International YHRI - South Asia
- CEO, Avis Software, Chandigarh 
- Convener & Life Member, Consumers Association Chandigarh
- Jt. Secretary, Amateur Judo Association of Chandigarh
- Member, SPACE - Society for Promotion and Conservation of Environment, Chandigarh
- Member, RTI Activist Federation, Punjab, Chandigarh
No. 3758, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh-160022
Mob: +91-9888-810-811
PHONE: +91-172-2780838
FAX: 0871 266 8523 
Mail Me


DISCLAIMER: You have received this email because you any one time contacted me through mail or otherwise gave your mail-id. This e-mail is intended to be sent to the persons on my regular mail-list. In case you think this mail infringes your privacy or otherwise you do not want to receive this mail anymore, please reply with the word 'UNSUBSCRIBE" in the body of the mail. Please do not disturb the Subject line. I am sorry to see you go. But please mention the reason why you want to go. It will help me improve my services in future. Thanks

RE: [HumJanenge] Cabinet note not secret: Info panel

That is why in karnataka the commission considers all complaints and appeals as petitions and dispooses accordingly.

Sent from my Nokia phone
-----Original Message-----
From: soumen kr Bhattacharjee
Sent: 06/05/2011 12:14:12 pm
Subject: Re: Re: [HumJanenge] Cabinet note not secret: Info panel

Dear Ama ,

I would like to advise you to go through the act. It is not lawful to move to a commission before approaching 1st appellate authority . It is nalso not legal for commission to admit a second appeal when ist appeal was not heard/disposed.Hope clarified.

On Fri, 06 May 2011 06:01:01 +0530 wrote
>Dear Ama

The cost  of RTI must be REASONABLE. At these highly subsidised prices/fees prescribed in the Central RTI Rules, the HONEST citizen who never/rarely uses RTI is SUBSIDISING the h****is who professionally misuse RTI on behalf of theior foreign spymasters and are handsomely recompensed for it.

Sarbajit

On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 8:26 AM, Baritlum Ama wrote:

Its true that Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia never had raised this

issue as it might be  confined to some states only and at the same

time citizens were not aware of it.

Today we find that citizens are aware of it  and try to exercise their

fundamental rights.However these are some contraints which need to be

addressed and resolved.

ONE MORE POINTS I NEED THE CLARIFICATION FROM ALL PLEASE.

1) IS IT MANDATORY TO APPROACH THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY OR SENIOR IN

RANK TO THE CPIO OR SPIO PRIOR TO APPROACHING CIC OR SIC?

2)AND IF THE CIC OR SIC ENTERTAINS THE APPELLANT BY BYPASSING THE

SENIOR OFFICER I.E 2ND APPELLATE AUTHORITY AS PER CLUASE-19(1),THEN IS

THE ACTION OF CIC OR SIC IN VIOLATION OF THE RTI ACT.

WHERE THE CLUASE WHEREIN THE CIC OR SIC OR APPELLANT DEFEND THEMSELVES.

On 5/5/11, Sarbajit Roy wrote:

> Making the fees common across the country is UNREASONABLE.and also beyond

> the power of Central Govt to legislate for States --- till such time as the

> money collected does not go into the Central exchequer. If the money is

> collected by and used by the State Govt to defray its costs then only the

> State Govt can prescribe the fees.

> .

> FYI teh Allahabad High Court at one point was charging Rs.500 application

> fee and Rs 50 as copying charge per page. Hapless applicants were getting

> ZERO information out of the court despite paying such fees.

>

> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 10:35 PM, SHASHI KUMAR.A.R. <

> rudreshtechnology@gmail.com> wrote:

>

>> The Central government should see that the  fee charged per page should be

>> uniform throughout the country including courts , In karnataka Courts are

>> charging Rs.3/- Per Page for A4 Size , But if  a person applies under

>> court

>> rules the fee charged is Rs.1/- But in this case only litigants pertaining

>> to a case only can obtain by paying Rs.1/- Per page , States area making

>> several rules to make rti act useless and to discourage the applicants

>>

>> ARS KUMAR

>>

>>

>> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 9:53 PM, Sarbajit Roy wrote:

>>

>>> Dear Guptaji

>>>

>>> 1) Haryana Govt charges Rs. 50 possibly because Delhi High Court (and

>>> some

>>> other High Courts) also charges Rs. 50 as application fee.

>>>

>>> 2) For many years since 2002 under Delhi RTI Act the application fee was

>>> Rs.25 and Rs.5 per page was photocopying charge. Not a single RTI

>>> activist

>>> like Arvind Kejriwal , Manish Sisiodia etc who used DRTI extensively then

>>> ever complained. Today after 9 years surely  Rs. 50 and Rs.10

>>> respectively

>>> is justified by inflation even assuming a WPI of 6% each year.

>>>

>>> Sarbajit

>>>

>>>

>>> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 8:47 PM, M.K. Gupta wrote:

>>>

>>>>    Here, Rs. 10/- per page for a photocopy is unreasonable.  Every body

>>>> will agree to this but what remedial steps should be taken.   Haryana

>>>> govt.

>>>> takes Rs. 50/- are RTI fee. Some state charge fee even for first appeal.

>>>>

>>>> Apparently, these tacts have been employed to discourage the applicants.

>>>>

>>>> Sarbajit ji, let all of us mull over it and find out some way.

>>>>

>>>> --- On *Wed, 4/5/11, Sarbajit Roy * wrote:

>>>> From: Sarbajit Roy

>>>> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Cabinet note not secret: Info panel

>>>> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com

>>>> Date: Wednesday, 4 May, 2011, 2:02 PM

>>>>

>>>>  States cannot amend the RTI Act - it is a Central Act of Parliament.

>>>> The variation in fees for photocopying charges is by the provision that

>>>> each State Govt can prescribe these fees.

>>>>

>>>> The CORE TEST (from the Act) is that these fees must be REASONABLE.

>>>>

>>>> Sarbajit

>>>>

>>>> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 7:39 AM, Baritlum Ama

>>>> >>> > wrote:

>>>>

>>>> Since each state has got its own prerogative to amend the Act,so the

>>>> government has increased the fee of the document from Rs,2/= to

>>>> Rs.10/= per page.The exorbhitant increase in the price of the fee has

>>>> deterred most of the activists in seeking the formation.Please guide

>>>> us how to repeal the Notification of the Govt.

>>>>

>>>> Thanks

>>>>

>>>> On 5/3/11, M.K. Gupta

>>>>

>>>> wrote:

>>>> > Cabinet note not secret: Info panel

>>>> > Maha Watchdog Overrules itself.

>>>> >

>>>> > MUMBAI: A cabinet note on the basis of which a council of minister

>>>> takes a

>>>> > decision and subsequently passes a government

>>>> > resolution is not confidential and anyone can have access to a copy of

>>>> it

>>>> > under the RTI Act.

>>>> > The verdict was passed on Friday by a full bench of the Maharashtra

>>>> > information commission, presided over by chief information

>>>> > commissioner

>>>> > Vilas Patil. The new decree overrules Vikas Patil's predecessor Suresh

>>>> > Joshi's ruling in 2006 that said a cabinet note was a confidential

>>>> document

>>>> > and a citizen could not get access to it by applying under the Right

>>>> > To

>>>> > Information Act.

>>>> > The latest decision was arrived at after a much deliberation, with

>>>> Vilas

>>>> > Patil, his Aurungabad counterpart D B Deshpande, Amravati information

>>>> > commissioner Bhaskar Patil and Nagpur information chief P W Patil

>>>> > maintaining that the note should not be kept secret. However, Navi

>>>> Mumbai

>>>> > info chief Navinkumar and his Nashik counterpart M H Shah tried to

>>>> argue it

>>>> > should not be made public.

>>>> > The view of the majority prevailed and it was decided that an RTI

>>>> applicant

>>>> > is eligible to obtain a copy of the cabinet note, an official told TOI

>>>> on

>>>> > Saturday.

>>>> > The issue was raised after a resident, Archana Gawda, in 2007, filed a

>>>> query

>>>> > under the RTI Act, seeking a copy of the cabinet note of the repeal of

>>>> the

>>>> > Urban Land Ceiling Act and the states decision on the proposal. The

>>>> general

>>>> > administration department, however, refused to send her a copy saying,

>>>> > according to the rules of business and provisions of the RTI Act, a

>>>> cabinet

>>>> > note was confidential and hence out of RTI purview.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>

>>

>

Re: [HumJanenge] Cabinet note not secret: Info panel

"18(2)  Where the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to inquire into the matter, it may initiate an inquiry in respect thereof."

Sarbajit

On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Surendera M. Bhanot <surendera@avissoftware.com> wrote:
>
> I disagree as far as you say that the Complaint is a discretionary. At whose Hand - Complainant or Commission?
>
> No it is not discretionary and it is a due process of law under Section 18. and it is independent of Section 19. You need not to go through the process of Section 19 to file a complaint. Complaint has no time limitations while appeals do have. You can file complaint any time you like. The only condition is that you nust have a ground for complaint as stated in Section 18,
>

Re: [HumJanenge] Cabinet note not secret: Info panel

I disagree as far as you say that the Complaint is a discretionary. At whose Hand - Complainant or Commission?

No it is not discretionary and it is a due process of law under Section 18. and it is independent of Section 19. You need not to go through the process of Section 19 to file a complaint. Complaint has no time limitations while appeals do have. You can file complaint any time you like. The only condition is that you nust have a ground for complaint as stated in Section 18,

On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 6:53 AM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:

1) If the RTI request has been duly received with the fee and there is proof of this, we always advise our members to file first appeal before (wrongly) approaching the SIC/CIC (in complaint jurisdiction) or (rightly) in 2nd appeal jurisdiction thereafter.
The reason for this is that
a) first Appeal is a statutory time-bound process, whereas
b) Complaint is a discretionary and open-ended process.
c) Second appeal is a statutory but open-ended process

So the answer to your query no.1 is that it is NOT mandatory to approach FAA prior to approaching SIC/CIC, ... BUT First Appeal is TECHNICALLY the BEST option in terms of RISK MANAGEMENT.

2) Your 2nd query is badly framed and factually incorrect. The CIC CANNOT entertain a 2nd appeal when no  first apeal has been filed.

Sarbajit

On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Baritlum Ama <baritlumama@gmail.com> wrote:

I NEED THE ANSWER FROM YOU ALL PLEASE.

1) IS IT MANDATORY TO APPROACH THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY OR SENIOR IN
RANK TO THE CPIO OR SPIO PRIOR TO APPROACHING CIC OR SIC?

2)AND IF THE CIC OR SIC ENTERTAINS THE APPELLANT BY BYPASSING THE
SENIOR OFFICER I.E 2ND APPELLATE AUTHORITY AS PER CLUASE-19(1),THEN IS
THE ACTION OF CIC OR SIC IN VIOLATION OF THE RTI ACT.

WHERE THE CLUASE WHEREIN THE CIC OR SIC OR APPELLANT DEFEND THEMSELVES.

Thanks

--
"Our biggest competition is never with the others.
Instead, it is always within ourselves.
It doesn't matter if where we end up - first or at last.
If we do our best to do better than before, we've won"

Warm Regards

Surendera M. Bhanot
- President, RTI Help & Assistance Forum Chandigarh
- Youth for Human Rights International YHRI - South Asia
- CEO, Avis Software, Chandigarh 
- Convener & Life Member, Consumers Association Chandigarh
- Jt. Secretary, Amateur Judo Association of Chandigarh
- Member, SPACE - Society for Promotion and Conservation of Environment, Chandigarh
- Member, RTI Activist Federation, Punjab, Chandigarh
No. 3758, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh-160022
Mob: +91-9888-810-811
PHONE: +91-172-2780838
FAX: 0871 266 8523 
Mail Me


DISCLAIMER: You have received this email because you any one time contacted me through mail or otherwise gave your mail-id. This e-mail is intended to be sent to the persons on my regular mail-list. In case you think this mail infringes your privacy or otherwise you do not want to receive this mail anymore, please reply with the word 'UNSUBSCRIBE" in the body of the mail. Please do not disturb the Subject line. I am sorry to see you go. But please mention the reason why you want to go. It will help me improve my services in future. Thanks

Re: Re: [HumJanenge] Cabinet note not secret: Info panel

Dear Ama ,

I would like to advise you to go through the act. It is not lawful to move to a commission before approaching 1st appellate authority . It is nalso not legal for commission to admit a second appeal when ist appeal was not heard/disposed.Hope clarified.


On Fri, 06 May 2011 06:01:01 +0530 wrote
>Dear Ama

The cost  of RTI must be REASONABLE. At these highly subsidised prices/fees prescribed in the Central RTI Rules, the HONEST citizen who never/rarely uses RTI is SUBSIDISING the h****is who professionally misuse RTI on behalf of theior foreign spymasters and are handsomely recompensed for it.


Sarbajit

On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 8:26 AM, Baritlum Ama wrote:

Its true that Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia never had raised this

issue as it might be  confined to some states only and at the same

time citizens were not aware of it.



Today we find that citizens are aware of it  and try to exercise their

fundamental rights.However these are some contraints which need to be

addressed and resolved.



ONE MORE POINTS I NEED THE CLARIFICATION FROM ALL PLEASE.



1) IS IT MANDATORY TO APPROACH THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY OR SENIOR IN

RANK TO THE CPIO OR SPIO PRIOR TO APPROACHING CIC OR SIC?



2)AND IF THE CIC OR SIC ENTERTAINS THE APPELLANT BY BYPASSING THE

SENIOR OFFICER I.E 2ND APPELLATE AUTHORITY AS PER CLUASE-19(1),THEN IS

THE ACTION OF CIC OR SIC IN VIOLATION OF THE RTI ACT.



WHERE THE CLUASE WHEREIN THE CIC OR SIC OR APPELLANT DEFEND THEMSELVES.





On 5/5/11, Sarbajit Roy wrote:

> Making the fees common across the country is UNREASONABLE.and also beyond

> the power of Central Govt to legislate for States --- till such time as the

> money collected does not go into the Central exchequer. If the money is

> collected by and used by the State Govt to defray its costs then only the

> State Govt can prescribe the fees.

> .

> FYI teh Allahabad High Court at one point was charging Rs.500 application

> fee and Rs 50 as copying charge per page. Hapless applicants were getting

> ZERO information out of the court despite paying such fees.

>

> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 10:35 PM, SHASHI KUMAR.A.R. <

> rudreshtechnology@gmail.com> wrote:

>

>> The Central government should see that the  fee charged per page should be

>> uniform throughout the country including courts , In karnataka Courts are

>> charging Rs.3/- Per Page for A4 Size , But if  a person applies under

>> court

>> rules the fee charged is Rs.1/- But in this case only litigants pertaining

>> to a case only can obtain by paying Rs.1/- Per page , States area making

>> several rules to make rti act useless and to discourage the applicants

>>

>> ARS KUMAR

>>

>>

>> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 9:53 PM, Sarbajit Roy wrote:

>>

>>> Dear Guptaji

>>>

>>> 1) Haryana Govt charges Rs. 50 possibly because Delhi High Court (and

>>> some

>>> other High Courts) also charges Rs. 50 as application fee.

>>>

>>> 2) For many years since 2002 under Delhi RTI Act the application fee was

>>> Rs.25 and Rs.5 per page was photocopying charge. Not a single RTI

>>> activist

>>> like Arvind Kejriwal , Manish Sisiodia etc who used DRTI extensively then

>>> ever complained. Today after 9 years surely  Rs. 50 and Rs.10

>>> respectively

>>> is justified by inflation even assuming a WPI of 6% each year.

>>>

>>> Sarbajit

>>>

>>>

>>> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 8:47 PM, M.K. Gupta wrote:

>>>

>>>>    Here, Rs. 10/- per page for a photocopy is unreasonable.  Every body

>>>> will agree to this but what remedial steps should be taken.   Haryana

>>>> govt.

>>>> takes Rs. 50/- are RTI fee. Some state charge fee even for first appeal.

>>>>

>>>> Apparently, these tacts have been employed to discourage the applicants.

>>>>

>>>> Sarbajit ji, let all of us mull over it and find out some way.

>>>>

>>>> --- On *Wed, 4/5/11, Sarbajit Roy * wrote:

>>>> From: Sarbajit Roy

>>>> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Cabinet note not secret: Info panel

>>>> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com

>>>> Date: Wednesday, 4 May, 2011, 2:02 PM

>>>>

>>>>  States cannot amend the RTI Act - it is a Central Act of Parliament.

>>>> The variation in fees for photocopying charges is by the provision that

>>>> each State Govt can prescribe these fees.

>>>>

>>>> The CORE TEST (from the Act) is that these fees must be REASONABLE.

>>>>

>>>> Sarbajit

>>>>

>>>> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 7:39 AM, Baritlum Ama

>>>>


>>>> > wrote:

>>>>

>>>> Since each state has got its own prerogative to amend the Act,so the

>>>> government has increased the fee of the document from Rs,2/= to

>>>> Rs.10/= per page.The exorbhitant increase in the price of the fee has

>>>> deterred most of the activists in seeking the formation.Please guide

>>>> us how to repeal the Notification of the Govt.

>>>>

>>>> Thanks

>>>>

>>>> On 5/3/11, M.K. Gupta

>>>> >


>>>> wrote:

>>>> > Cabinet note not secret: Info panel

>>>> > Maha Watchdog Overrules itself.

>>>> >

>>>> > MUMBAI: A cabinet note on the basis of which a council of minister

>>>> takes a

>>>> > decision and subsequently passes a government

>>>> > resolution is not confidential and anyone can have access to a copy of

>>>> it

>>>> > under the RTI Act.

>>>> > The verdict was passed on Friday by a full bench of the Maharashtra

>>>> > information commission, presided over by chief information

>>>> > commissioner

>>>> > Vilas Patil. The new decree overrules Vikas Patil's predecessor Suresh

>>>> > Joshi's ruling in 2006 that said a cabinet note was a confidential

>>>> document

>>>> > and a citizen could not get access to it by applying under the Right

>>>> > To

>>>> > Information Act.

>>>> > The latest decision was arrived at after a much deliberation, with

>>>> Vilas

>>>> > Patil, his Aurungabad counterpart D B Deshpande, Amravati information

>>>> > commissioner Bhaskar Patil and Nagpur information chief P W Patil

>>>> > maintaining that the note should not be kept secret. However, Navi

>>>> Mumbai

>>>> > info chief Navinkumar and his Nashik counterpart M H Shah tried to

>>>> argue it

>>>> > should not be made public.

>>>> > The view of the majority prevailed and it was decided that an RTI

>>>> applicant

>>>> > is eligible to obtain a copy of the cabinet note, an official told TOI

>>>> on

>>>> > Saturday.

>>>> > The issue was raised after a resident, Archana Gawda, in 2007, filed a

>>>> query

>>>> > under the RTI Act, seeking a copy of the cabinet note of the repeal of

>>>> the

>>>> > Urban Land Ceiling Act and the states decision on the proposal. The

>>>> general

>>>> > administration department, however, refused to send her a copy saying,

>>>> > according to the rules of business and provisions of the RTI Act, a

>>>> cabinet

>>>> > note was confidential and hence out of RTI purview.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>

>>

>





Treat yourself at a restaurant, spa, resort and much more with Rediff Deal ho jaye!