please note Mr. A.N. Tiwari was Central information commissioner in Central information commission and as chief info commissioner he would have referred appeal to larger bench why he has not referred why i was given opportunity of hearing in my complaint against bombay High court viadya --- On Sat, 21/5/11, Abhijit Mehta <abhijit@abhijitmehta.com> wrote:
|
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Re: [HumJanenge] SC cannot deny information under RTI Act: CIC
Re: [HumJanenge] protection to corrupt the Register of company acting against RTI act.
mca secretary phone number, address etc is on MCA website.
make a complaint to him about first appeal ate authority not making appeal decisions.
From: Dipak Shah <djshah1944@yahoo.com>
To: "humjanenge@googlegroups.com" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sat, 21 May, 2011 6:25:47 AM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] protection to corrupt the Register of company acting against RTI act.
Sirji,
My application is available on web of MCA?
How?
How?
C A Shah D J
USA
USA
From: RAKESH GUPTA <snehcs@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, 20 May 2011 8:50 PM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] protection to corrupt the Register of company acting against RTI act.
down load the detail from website www.mca.gov.in/ -
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 2:27 AM, Dipak Shah <djshah1944@yahoo.com> wrote:
Thanks.I do not have all details in USA?
C A Shah D J
USA
From: RAKESH GUPTA <snehcs@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 19 May 2011 10:05 AM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] protection to corrupt the Register of company acting against RTI act.
kindly sent a reminder cum complaint to MCA secretaryrakesh guptaOn Thu, May 19, 2011 at 6:03 AM, Dipak Shah <djshah1944@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear Shri Rakeshji,I had filed an appeal to RTI Order( For Information) with Registrar of Companies. But no order!!!C A Shah D J
USA
From: RAKESH GUPTA <snehcs2@yahoo.co.in>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, 14 May 2011 11:22 PM
Subject: [HumJanenge] protection to corrupt the Register of company acting against RTI act.
it is deliberate wrong orders of CIC to protect corruption.This type of orders means , other law will override in the request of RTI under RTI Act, 2005. And they provide new type of exemption.rakesh gupta
From: M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, 14 May, 2011 10:43:45 AM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] the Register of company acting against RTI act.
Does it mean that RTI Act is not applicable to RoC though it is not exempt u.s.24 of the Act. Section 22 of the Act says that RTI Act it will have overriding effect. Such decisions should be read carefully and if need be, shld be challenged in the Court of Law.
--- On Sat, 14/5/11, Sankar Pani <sankarprasadpani@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Sankar Pani <sankarprasadpani@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] the Register of company acting against RTI act.
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Saturday, 14 May, 2011, 10:04 AM
similar is my case where two applications rejected and even the CIC given the decision in same line citing a case.
The order copy of CIC in Appeal No 21/IC(A)/2006 dated 29th March 2006 in the matter of Arun Verma Vs Department of Company Affairs, Govt. of India that the CPIO has sent reads as follows "There is already provison for seeking information under the companies act. The appellant may accordingly approach the registrar of the companies, as advised by the appellate authority, to obtain the relevant information. There is no question of denial of information to him
regards
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 11:29 PM, Dipak Shah <djshah1944@yahoo.com> wrote:
DEAR ALL,THIS IS MOST CORRUPTED ORGANIZATION IN INDIA UNDER THE GUISE OF MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS. IF YOU MAKE A COMPLAINT TO THEM NOTHING WILL HAPPEN FOR YEARS ...THERE IS ONE CASE WHERE ALL OUT RIGHT DISTORTATION OF ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES, AUDITING PRINCIPLES, PROVISIONS OF LAW AND O N THEIR RECORD THIS FACT IS AVAILABLE , NOT DOING ANY THING FOR LAST 17 YEARS! MY RTI APPLICATION IS ALSO REJECTED SEVERAL TIMES APPEAL ALSO???THEY TAKE SHELTER OF SOME IRRELEVANT CASES ???C A Shah D J
USA
From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, 13 May 2011 2:19 AM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] the Register of company acting against RTI act.
You may please read CIC decision in "CIC/AT/A/2007/00112" "K.Lall versus RoC/MCA"
Sarbajit
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 6:33 PM, gopala krishnan <gopalakrishnanvelu@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
sir,
i requested copies of balance sheet and IT returns of D3D tech,
chennai to Register of companies, chennai under rti act 2005. Public
information officer not supplied copy and asked me see in his
website (MCA21). i searched in website but asking pay rs.50/- to view
the document. I made appeal to first appellate authority to furnish
the copy in the form i sought and supply the copies free of cost as
per sec 7(6) of the RTI act. The appeallate authority informed me, for
supplying the copies i have to pay Rs.25/- per page. as per RTI act
for supplying the copies A4 rs2 per page. the Register of company
acting against RTI act.
--
Sankar Prasad Pani
A-70, Sahidnagar, Bhubaneswar, Orissa
India
PIN-751007
Cell- 9437279278
http://environmentalrights-sankar.blogspot.com/
Friday, May 20, 2011
Re: [HumJanenge] PIO’s RESPOBSIBILITY AFTER RETIREMENT - ADVICE SOUGHT FROM EXPERTS
The work carried out by the IC is public activity so no question of
section 8(1)(j). The advice given by the legal expert is not done in
fiduciary capacity. It is based on payment received from public
authority and is very much public information.
section 8(1)(j). The advice given by the legal expert is not done in
fiduciary capacity. It is based on payment received from public
authority and is very much public information.
On 5/20/11, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
>
> PIO's RESPOBSIBILITY AFTER RETIREMENT -
>
> I requested a copy of the legal advice given to the Information Commissioner
> from the PIO, CIC about the action that can be legally taken against the
> retired CPIO under section 18 and 19 of the RTI Act.
>
> Shri G. Subramanian, CPIO denied the information citing section 18(1) (e)
> (Fiduciary Relationship) and Section 8(1) (j) (no relationship to any public
> activity or would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the
> individual). The issue is of immense importance.
>
> My first appeal against the above decision is listed for hearing on 25th
> May, 2011. I request for forwarding the additional grounds for the
> hearing.
>
> In the first appeal, I have made following points:
>
> 1. That Section 18 (1)(e) states that it is the duty of the
> Information Commission to receive and inquire into a complaint from any
> person who believes that he has been given incomplete, misleading or false
> information under the RTI Act. Thus, this nowhere bars the PIO to disclose
> the aforesaid information.
> 2. That if the advice is disclosed and disseminated, it will
> help the Central and State Information Commissioners in the discharge of
> their duties viz in taking decision in the cases where the PIO has retired.
> 3. That the disclosure will also assist the Public
> Authorities and PIOs by guiding and assisting them in the discharge of their
> duties.
> 4. That the disclosure will also help the RTI applicants as
> they will know the scope to the RTI Act in cases where PIOs have retired and
> will thus reduce the number of complaints and appeals.
> 5. That the disclosure will end the vagueness in the matter
> and every stake will have the clarity in such circumstance and will not act
> in dark.
> 6. That the section 8(1) (j) bars personal information which
> has no relationship to any public activity or interest or which would cause
> unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the PIO is
> satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such
> information. This section also states that the information which cannot be
> denied to the Parliament shall not be denied to any person.
> 7. That the onus is on the PIO to substantiate as to how the
> legal advice on the accountability of a retired PIO has no relationship to
> any public activity, would cause unwarranted invasion on the privacy of the
> individual (PIO) and is not in the larger public interest.
> 8. That again the onus is on the PIO to justify as to how
> the clarification obtained on the legal provisions/ service rules can be
> denied to the Parliament.
> 9. That retirement of PIOs and government servants is an
> on-going process and every month hundreds PIOs retire and the retirement of
> the PIO in the aforesaid case is not a stand alone case.
> 10. That by disclosure of information will enable the PIOs to
> know in advance, before retirement, about the action that can or cannot be
> or cannot be taken against them for the act of Commission and Omission while
> discharging their official duties.
> 11. That the RTI appellants/ complainants should also know
> about the feasible action so that they can make a follow-up of their cases
> in the right direction for taking their cases to the logical conclusion
> without leaving them half way or do not drag the case unnecessary.
> ON FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP
>
> 12. That the advice has been taken by one Constitutional
> Authority from the other Constitutional or Government Authority in the
> discharge of official duties assigned to them. There are many decisions
> that in the above circumstances, the information cannot be treated in
> fiduciary relationship and its disclosure is in warranted under the RTI Act.
> M K Gupta
>
--
Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
989, Sector 15-A, Opposite bishnoi Colony, Hisar-125001, INDIA
Phone: 91-99929-31181
Re: [HumJanenge] SC cannot deny information under RTI Act: CIC
Dear Sarbajit
Thank you.
Regards
Abhijit Mehta
The Best Is Yet To Come
God Bless
On 21-May-2011, at 6:28 AM, Sarbajit Roy wrote:
Hi Abhijit
This is just to clarify that the 2 points you made in your email are independent of each other, since Mr Tiwari was a Central Information Commissioner along with Mr Habibullah in the first CIC.
Sarbajit.
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Abhijit Mehta <abhijit@abhijitmehta.com> wrote:Mr Prasad VaidyaMr Wajahat Habibullah could not have taken any action against A.N.Tiwari.The Central Information Commission and the state information commission are independent of each other. Only the Governor of Maharashtra Can take action against the State Information Commission.Regards
Abhijit Mehta
The Best Is Yet To ComeGod BlessOn 20-May-2011, at 10:47 AM, prasad vaidya wrote:
Mr. Sarbajit roy , respected sir forward my grievances to Mr. Habibullah if you respct rights of common man like me.
Mr. Wajahat Habibullah has adopted double when he was in office as a Chief Information Commission. I wrote to him regrding one judgment related to incometax appellate tribunal and requested him reconsider his decision but he never took cognizance of my letter which includes amany constitutional apsects.
I wrote to him about behaviour of information Commssioner Shri. A.N. Tiwari who dispoed my appeal against Bombay High Court and during hearing he had passed order in which he has assured me to allow file inspection but in the printed order the sentences were ommitted and even he took decision without reading my written notes of arguments but Mr. Habibullah has not taken action on my complaint against Mr. A.N. Tiwari also my reqquest for hearing of Appeal against before Full Bench was acccepted and even Mr. Habibullah never informed whether my request is accpeted if not why the same is rejected.Remember as section 4(1)(d) CIC and c\hief information Commissioner was bound to inform me reasons even my complaint against bombay high court was decided without giving any opprtunity of hearing which in turn against the provisions of Article 14 includes principles of natural justice Mr. Habibullah was considering requests of those who were represented by big lawyers and and paries who were big industrials Mr. Habibullah has nothing to do with common man like he partial fellow and also the information commissioners and also Maharashtra infor Commssion and Bombay High Court also
Prasad B Vaidya
mo.08149558468
viadya
--- On Wed, 18/5/11, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] SC cannot deny information under RTI Act: CIC
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Wednesday, 18 May, 2011, 7:57 AM
Sir
Whereas I freely admit that there are some of your decisions in my cases which were not drafted by me at all, I stick to my stand that 2 of them (fairly lengthy ones) were substantially drafted by me, to the extent that in one of them I had even taken the trouble to provide it in electronic form (a Floppy disk since the CIC PCs didn't have a CD option in those days) so that it could reach your computer to polish up in your inimitable style.
PS: My comments which you incorporated were already placed by me in the public domain using this group and other "blogs"
Sarbajit
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 9:22 PM, wajahat <whabibullah@nic.in> wrote:
Yes, Singhi was indeed brought in by me, but only as legal advisor, not as a drfatsman for decision writing! And because I might have incoprportaed your comments in my decisions, it hardly means that the draft decision was yours. And ofcourse all my decisions are still on my computer.Good old Er Srabajit-ever the endearing court jester!Date: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 8:49 pm
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] SC cannot deny information under RTI Act: CIC
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> Sir,
>
> 1) It was a typo - it should be read as Mr L. C. Singhi who was also the Registrar of the CIC and is probably well known to you from LBSA days if not earlier.
>
> 2) The statement that all your decisions were drafted by yourself is not true, because at least 2 decisions issued under your signature in my RTI cases were actually substantially drafted by me.
>
> 3) I have never shirked from admitting that you are / were a vastly superior Commissioner than the likes of Mr Shailesh Gandhi.
>
> With best wishes
>
> Sarbajit
>
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 4:18 PM, wajahat <whabibullah@nic.in> wrote:
> Excuse me! All my decisions were drafted by myself, and there never was anybody by the name of Singhvi in the position of JS or anything else in the Commission. But thanks for the very rare compliment-which would never have come were I still CCIC!> Wajahat> Date: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 1:29 pm
> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] SC cannot deny information under RTI Act: CIC
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
>
> > Dear Mr Varma (and also Mr MK Gupta)
> >
> > It seems that you gentleman (like Mr Gandhi) are not aware of the facts concerning RTI process in the Supreme Court, and you would be well advised to read again Mr Habibullahs order in Adv Manish Khanna versus Supreme Court which is exceedingly well crafted considering the ground realities alluded to therein. It is another entirely that the decision in Adv Khanna's case was drafted by Mr LCSinghvi (the then JS-Law/CIC) and not by Mr Habibullah. The case number is CIC/WB/A/2006/00940
> >
> > Sarbajit
> >
> > On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Narayan Varma <narayanvarma2011@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It is no bunking. It is taking different view if one is convinced that view earlier taken by IC/CIC is incorrect. If One is to follow always what is decided earlier, there will be no development of law or progress of law or understanding different view in any matter. I believe view now expressed by IC SG is the correct view, In fact sometime before on this sight strong objection was taken in context of registrar of companies matter and decision was debunked by many members.
> > Narayan Varma> > --> >
> >
> > On 16 May 2011 23:51, Shailesh Kumar Shukla <shailesh183@yahoo.co.in> wrote:> >
> > Thanks for the updates..> > Please keep it up..> > Regards....
> >
> > From: Sidharth Misra <sidharthbbsr@gmail.com>
> > To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> > Sent: Mon, 16 May, 2011 4:55:19 PM
> > Subject: [HumJanenge] SC cannot deny information under RTI Act: CIC
> >
> > IF IC Gandhi debunks his old boss Wajahat this way, does it mean that
> > the prior decisions of CIC/SIC has no precedential value ?
> >
> >
> > http://goo.gl/umpW6
> >
> >
> > Narayan Varma
> > 56B Mittal Tower,
> > 210 Nariman Point
> > Mumbai 400 021
> > RTI PCGT helpline 09322882288
> > my cell 09821096052
> >
>
Re: [HumJanenge] SC cannot deny information under RTI Act: CIC
Hi Abhijit
This is just to clarify that the 2 points you made in your email are independent of each other, since Mr Tiwari was a Central Information Commissioner along with Mr Habibullah in the first CIC.
Sarbajit.
This is just to clarify that the 2 points you made in your email are independent of each other, since Mr Tiwari was a Central Information Commissioner along with Mr Habibullah in the first CIC.
Sarbajit.
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Abhijit Mehta <abhijit@abhijitmehta.com> wrote:
Mr Prasad VaidyaMr Wajahat Habibullah could not have taken any action against A.N.Tiwari.The Central Information Commission and the state information commission are independent of each other. Only the Governor of Maharashtra Can take action against the State Information Commission.Regards
Abhijit Mehta
The Best Is Yet To ComeGod BlessOn 20-May-2011, at 10:47 AM, prasad vaidya wrote:
Mr. Sarbajit roy , respected sir forward my grievances to Mr. Habibullah if you respct rights of common man like me.
Mr. Wajahat Habibullah has adopted double when he was in office as a Chief Information Commission. I wrote to him regrding one judgment related to incometax appellate tribunal and requested him reconsider his decision but he never took cognizance of my letter which includes amany constitutional apsects.
I wrote to him about behaviour of information Commssioner Shri. A.N. Tiwari who dispoed my appeal against Bombay High Court and during hearing he had passed order in which he has assured me to allow file inspection but in the printed order the sentences were ommitted and even he took decision without reading my written notes of arguments but Mr. Habibullah has not taken action on my complaint against Mr. A.N. Tiwari also my reqquest for hearing of Appeal against before Full Bench was acccepted and even Mr. Habibullah never informed whether my request is accpeted if not why the same is rejected.Remember as section 4(1)(d) CIC and c\hief information Commissioner was bound to inform me reasons even my complaint against bombay high court was decided without giving any opprtunity of hearing which in turn against the provisions of Article 14 includes principles of natural justice Mr. Habibullah was considering requests of those who were represented by big lawyers and and paries who were big industrials Mr. Habibullah has nothing to do with common man like he partial fellow and also the information commissioners and also Maharashtra infor Commssion and Bombay High Court also
Prasad B Vaidya
mo.08149558468
viadya
--- On Wed, 18/5/11, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] SC cannot deny information under RTI Act: CIC
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Wednesday, 18 May, 2011, 7:57 AM
Sir
Whereas I freely admit that there are some of your decisions in my cases which were not drafted by me at all, I stick to my stand that 2 of them (fairly lengthy ones) were substantially drafted by me, to the extent that in one of them I had even taken the trouble to provide it in electronic form (a Floppy disk since the CIC PCs didn't have a CD option in those days) so that it could reach your computer to polish up in your inimitable style.
PS: My comments which you incorporated were already placed by me in the public domain using this group and other "blogs"
Sarbajit
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 9:22 PM, wajahat <whabibullah@nic.in> wrote:
Yes, Singhi was indeed brought in by me, but only as legal advisor, not as a drfatsman for decision writing! And because I might have incoprportaed your comments in my decisions, it hardly means that the draft decision was yours. And ofcourse all my decisions are still on my computer.Good old Er Srabajit-ever the endearing court jester!Date: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 8:49 pm
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] SC cannot deny information under RTI Act: CIC
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> Sir,
>
> 1) It was a typo - it should be read as Mr L. C. Singhi who was also the Registrar of the CIC and is probably well known to you from LBSA days if not earlier.
>
> 2) The statement that all your decisions were drafted by yourself is not true, because at least 2 decisions issued under your signature in my RTI cases were actually substantially drafted by me.
>
> 3) I have never shirked from admitting that you are / were a vastly superior Commissioner than the likes of Mr Shailesh Gandhi.
>
> With best wishes
>
> Sarbajit
>
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 4:18 PM, wajahat <whabibullah@nic.in> wrote:
> Excuse me! All my decisions were drafted by myself, and there never was anybody by the name of Singhvi in the position of JS or anything else in the Commission. But thanks for the very rare compliment-which would never have come were I still CCIC!> Wajahat> Date: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 1:29 pm
> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] SC cannot deny information under RTI Act: CIC
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
>
> > Dear Mr Varma (and also Mr MK Gupta)
> >
> > It seems that you gentleman (like Mr Gandhi) are not aware of the facts concerning RTI process in the Supreme Court, and you would be well advised to read again Mr Habibullahs order in Adv Manish Khanna versus Supreme Court which is exceedingly well crafted considering the ground realities alluded to therein. It is another entirely that the decision in Adv Khanna's case was drafted by Mr LCSinghvi (the then JS-Law/CIC) and not by Mr Habibullah. The case number is CIC/WB/A/2006/00940
> >
> > Sarbajit
> >
> > On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Narayan Varma <narayanvarma2011@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It is no bunking. It is taking different view if one is convinced that view earlier taken by IC/CIC is incorrect. If One is to follow always what is decided earlier, there will be no development of law or progress of law or understanding different view in any matter. I believe view now expressed by IC SG is the correct view, In fact sometime before on this sight strong objection was taken in context of registrar of companies matter and decision was debunked by many members.
> > Narayan Varma> > --> >
> >
> > On 16 May 2011 23:51, Shailesh Kumar Shukla <shailesh183@yahoo.co.in> wrote:> >
> > Thanks for the updates..> > Please keep it up..> > Regards....
> >
> > From: Sidharth Misra <sidharthbbsr@gmail.com>
> > To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> > Sent: Mon, 16 May, 2011 4:55:19 PM
> > Subject: [HumJanenge] SC cannot deny information under RTI Act: CIC
> >
> > IF IC Gandhi debunks his old boss Wajahat this way, does it mean that
> > the prior decisions of CIC/SIC has no precedential value ?
> >
> >
> > http://goo.gl/umpW6
> >
> >
> > Narayan Varma
> > 56B Mittal Tower,
> > 210 Nariman Point
> > Mumbai 400 021
> > RTI PCGT helpline 09322882288
> > my cell 09821096052
> >
>
Re: [HumJanenge] protection to corrupt the Register of company acting against RTI act.
Sirji,
My application is available on web of MCA?
How?
How?
C A Shah D J
USA
USA
From: RAKESH GUPTA <snehcs@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, 20 May 2011 8:50 PM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] protection to corrupt the Register of company acting against RTI act.
down load the detail from website www.mca.gov.in/ -
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 2:27 AM, Dipak Shah <djshah1944@yahoo.com> wrote:
Thanks.I do not have all details in USA?
C A Shah D J
USA
From: RAKESH GUPTA <snehcs@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 19 May 2011 10:05 AM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] protection to corrupt the Register of company acting against RTI act.
kindly sent a reminder cum complaint to MCA secretaryrakesh guptaOn Thu, May 19, 2011 at 6:03 AM, Dipak Shah <djshah1944@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear Shri Rakeshji,I had filed an appeal to RTI Order( For Information) with Registrar of Companies. But no order!!!C A Shah D J
USA
From: RAKESH GUPTA <snehcs2@yahoo.co.in>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, 14 May 2011 11:22 PM
Subject: [HumJanenge] protection to corrupt the Register of company acting against RTI act.
it is deliberate wrong orders of CIC to protect corruption.This type of orders means , other law will override in the request of RTI under RTI Act, 2005. And they provide new type of exemption.rakesh gupta
From: M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, 14 May, 2011 10:43:45 AM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] the Register of company acting against RTI act.
Does it mean that RTI Act is not applicable to RoC though it is not exempt u.s.24 of the Act. Section 22 of the Act says that RTI Act it will have overriding effect. Such decisions should be read carefully and if need be, shld be challenged in the Court of Law.
--- On Sat, 14/5/11, Sankar Pani <sankarprasadpani@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Sankar Pani <sankarprasadpani@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] the Register of company acting against RTI act.
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Saturday, 14 May, 2011, 10:04 AM
similar is my case where two applications rejected and even the CIC given the decision in same line citing a case.
The order copy of CIC in Appeal No 21/IC(A)/2006 dated 29th March 2006 in the matter of Arun Verma Vs Department of Company Affairs, Govt. of India that the CPIO has sent reads as follows "There is already provison for seeking information under the companies act. The appellant may accordingly approach the registrar of the companies, as advised by the appellate authority, to obtain the relevant information. There is no question of denial of information to him
regards
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 11:29 PM, Dipak Shah <djshah1944@yahoo.com> wrote:
DEAR ALL,THIS IS MOST CORRUPTED ORGANIZATION IN INDIA UNDER THE GUISE OF MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS. IF YOU MAKE A COMPLAINT TO THEM NOTHING WILL HAPPEN FOR YEARS ...THERE IS ONE CASE WHERE ALL OUT RIGHT DISTORTATION OF ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES, AUDITING PRINCIPLES, PROVISIONS OF LAW AND O N THEIR RECORD THIS FACT IS AVAILABLE , NOT DOING ANY THING FOR LAST 17 YEARS! MY RTI APPLICATION IS ALSO REJECTED SEVERAL TIMES APPEAL ALSO???THEY TAKE SHELTER OF SOME IRRELEVANT CASES ???C A Shah D J
USA
From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, 13 May 2011 2:19 AM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] the Register of company acting against RTI act.
You may please read CIC decision in "CIC/AT/A/2007/00112" "K.Lall versus RoC/MCA"
Sarbajit
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 6:33 PM, gopala krishnan <gopalakrishnanvelu@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
sir,
i requested copies of balance sheet and IT returns of D3D tech,
chennai to Register of companies, chennai under rti act 2005. Public
information officer not supplied copy and asked me see in his
website (MCA21). i searched in website but asking pay rs.50/- to view
the document. I made appeal to first appellate authority to furnish
the copy in the form i sought and supply the copies free of cost as
per sec 7(6) of the RTI act. The appeallate authority informed me, for
supplying the copies i have to pay Rs.25/- per page. as per RTI act
for supplying the copies A4 rs2 per page. the Register of company
acting against RTI act.
--
Sankar Prasad Pani
A-70, Sahidnagar, Bhubaneswar, Orissa
India
PIN-751007
Cell- 9437279278
http://environmentalrights-sankar.blogspot.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)