| If what ever u say is true why govt is not taking any action against him for being a foreign agent etc.U mean that govt is also a party to it n they both r fooling the nation all the way or u r fooling the nation by spreading such rumours? --- On Sat, 3/9/11, Subhash Shanbhag <sshanbhag_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
|
Saturday, September 3, 2011
Re: [HumJanenge] Arvind Kejriwal - IT Notice
[HumJanenge] Re: Arvind Kejriwal - IT Notice
Dear Agniswesh
1) I was NOT instrumental in bringing RTI. I played a very small role,
and I want no credit for it. If credit has to be given, I (from a
worm's eye view) would give it to Mr. A.N.Tiwari and his DoPT team ( a
group of honest and practical people) who wanted a STRONG RTI ACT to
bring about a STRONG BUREAUCRACY which is the best way to stop HIGH
LEVEL CORRUPTION by Ministers and Politicians.
2) If you want a LokPal Bill, even the Govt version is more than
sufficient for people who can use it well. Its weak people like ":Team
Anna" who need "strong" laws. Strong people can get by with "weak":
laws.
3) I have got more information using the weak and toothless Delhi RTI
Act than I ever got out of RTI Act 2005 (with all its notional
penalties) which Aruna Roy emasculated.
4) Today if you face a corrupt officer, just slap him or finish him
off - and be prepared to face the consequences. (I have slapped many
officers ... )
Sarbajit
On Sep 4, 7:45 am, "Agniwesh Thakur" <agniw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Good Work Sarabjit. As par your note, you were instrumental in bringing RTI.
>
> Congratulations Man.
>
> Now please move on. Step up and get Jan Lokpal, an institution which will work for the young generations.
>
> Also work for the Electoral Reforms Act, which would be a game changer.
>
> Please step up and stop mud slinging Team Anna... You are alone sufficient to bring the parliament down, with your choicest verbal use/abuses without being apologetic and sheer confidence.
>
> We are with you. Hum Jaanenge aur Hum Jaan na chaahte hain..
>
> Rgds
> Agniwesh Thakur
> Change Management Consulting
> Human Resources
> Infosys Ltd, Hyderabad
> Excuse Typos.Sent from my BlackBerry®
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy...@gmail.com>
>
> Sender: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2011 08:08:11
> To: <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
> Reply-To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Arvind Kejriwal - IT Notice
>
> Dear Mr Devasahayam
>
> I am confining myself to the Central RTI Act 2005. The facts are as follows
>
> 1) There were serious flaws in the FOI Act 2002 which rendered it weak and
> unimplementable.
>
> 2) Consequently the Rules for the said Act were not put in place to bring it
> into effect.
>
> 3) Immediately since 2003 a series of drafting exercises to amend / replace
> the FOI Act took place within DoPT. This exercise was carried out internally
> within DoPT (at which stage I and some other concerned private persons
> literally went over the drafts clause by clause to shoot down bizarre
> suggestions originating from NCPRI people and NAC interference and make
> valid suggestions). The DoPT had a core team ultimately under Mr Tiwari and
> he took a very keen interest in what was going on - literally he was the
> draftsman of this Act.
>
> 4) Finally when the Bill went to Parliament at the Committee stage the NCPRI
> and CHRI persisted with their nonsensical suggestions (like bring private
> companies within RTI etc), this did not work but about 30 modifications were
> made by Committee which watered down the Act. Finally when the Bill was put
> up in Parliament it was diluted even further (BJP had walked out) and the
> biggest prolem was that they added State Governments to RTI at last moiment
> which has caused many gray areas in the Act ("appropriate Govt" ??). I had
> no role to play while the Bill was in the Parliamentary process - since it
> was an all out war between DoPT babus and the NAC / NCPRI brigade.
>
> 5) Arvind Kejriwal had hardly anything to do / say in the formulation of RTI
> Act 2005 considering his seniors (!!!) in NCPRI.
>
> 6) The sitaution is analogous to the RTI Draft Rules contoversy of last
> year. NAC/NCPRI submitted aboiut 12 pages of text. The war is between DoPT
> and NAC/NCPRI. All my comments are in public domain (running into about 273
> pages). My own "lobbying" can be inspected in DoPT. When the Rules finally
> come out (???) who will get the credit in the media - the foreign finaced
> haramis like Aruna Roy OR members of this hold-out group ?
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 10:59 PM, Devasahayam MG <m...@airtelmail.in> wrote:
>
> > This debate is turning bizare. Can some one enlighten us as to the true
> > story behind the RTI Act and its real heroes and heroines?
>
> > M.G.Devasahayam
> > ____________________________________________________________
Re: [HumJanenge] Arvind Kejriwal - IT Notice
Good Work Sarabjit. As par your note, you were instrumental in bringing RTI.
Congratulations Man.
Now please move on. Step up and get Jan Lokpal, an institution which will work for the young generations.
Also work for the Electoral Reforms Act, which would be a game changer.
Please step up and stop mud slinging Team Anna... You are alone sufficient to bring the parliament down, with your choicest verbal use/abuses without being apologetic and sheer confidence.
We are with you. Hum Jaanenge aur Hum Jaan na chaahte hain..
Rgds
Agniwesh Thakur
Change Management Consulting
Human Resources
Infosys Ltd, Hyderabad
Dear Mr Devasahayam
I am confining myself to the Central RTI Act 2005. The facts are as follows
1) There were serious flaws in the FOI Act 2002 which rendered it weak and unimplementable.
2) Consequently the Rules for the said Act were not put in place to bring it into effect.
3) Immediately since 2003 a series of drafting exercises to amend / replace the FOI Act took place within DoPT. This exercise was carried out internally within DoPT (at which stage I and some other concerned private persons literally went over the drafts clause by clause to shoot down bizarre suggestions originating from NCPRI people and NAC interference and make valid suggestions). The DoPT had a core team ultimately under Mr Tiwari and he took a very keen interest in what was going on - literally he was the draftsman of this Act.
4) Finally when the Bill went to Parliament at the Committee stage the NCPRI and CHRI persisted with their nonsensical suggestions (like bring private companies within RTI etc), this did not work but about 30 modifications were made by Committee which watered down the Act. Finally when the Bill was put up in Parliament it was diluted even further (BJP had walked out) and the biggest prolem was that they added State Governments to RTI at last moiment which has caused many gray areas in the Act ("appropriate Govt" ??). I had no role to play while the Bill was in the Parliamentary process - since it was an all out war between DoPT babus and the NAC / NCPRI brigade.
5) Arvind Kejriwal had hardly anything to do / say in the formulation of RTI Act 2005 considering his seniors (!!!) in NCPRI.
6) The sitaution is analogous to the RTI Draft Rules contoversy of last year. NAC/NCPRI submitted aboiut 12 pages of text. The war is between DoPT and NAC/NCPRI. All my comments are in public domain (running into about 273 pages). My own "lobbying" can be inspected in DoPT. When the Rules finally come out (???) who will get the credit in the media - the foreign finaced haramis like Aruna Roy OR members of this hold-out group ?
Sarbajit
Congratulations Man.
Now please move on. Step up and get Jan Lokpal, an institution which will work for the young generations.
Also work for the Electoral Reforms Act, which would be a game changer.
Please step up and stop mud slinging Team Anna... You are alone sufficient to bring the parliament down, with your choicest verbal use/abuses without being apologetic and sheer confidence.
We are with you. Hum Jaanenge aur Hum Jaan na chaahte hain..
Rgds
Agniwesh Thakur
Change Management Consulting
Human Resources
Infosys Ltd, Hyderabad
Excuse Typos.Sent from my BlackBerry®
From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
Sender: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2011 08:08:11 +0530
To: <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
ReplyTo: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Arvind Kejriwal - IT Notice
I am confining myself to the Central RTI Act 2005. The facts are as follows
1) There were serious flaws in the FOI Act 2002 which rendered it weak and unimplementable.
2) Consequently the Rules for the said Act were not put in place to bring it into effect.
3) Immediately since 2003 a series of drafting exercises to amend / replace the FOI Act took place within DoPT. This exercise was carried out internally within DoPT (at which stage I and some other concerned private persons literally went over the drafts clause by clause to shoot down bizarre suggestions originating from NCPRI people and NAC interference and make valid suggestions). The DoPT had a core team ultimately under Mr Tiwari and he took a very keen interest in what was going on - literally he was the draftsman of this Act.
4) Finally when the Bill went to Parliament at the Committee stage the NCPRI and CHRI persisted with their nonsensical suggestions (like bring private companies within RTI etc), this did not work but about 30 modifications were made by Committee which watered down the Act. Finally when the Bill was put up in Parliament it was diluted even further (BJP had walked out) and the biggest prolem was that they added State Governments to RTI at last moiment which has caused many gray areas in the Act ("appropriate Govt" ??). I had no role to play while the Bill was in the Parliamentary process - since it was an all out war between DoPT babus and the NAC / NCPRI brigade.
5) Arvind Kejriwal had hardly anything to do / say in the formulation of RTI Act 2005 considering his seniors (!!!) in NCPRI.
6) The sitaution is analogous to the RTI Draft Rules contoversy of last year. NAC/NCPRI submitted aboiut 12 pages of text. The war is between DoPT and NAC/NCPRI. All my comments are in public domain (running into about 273 pages). My own "lobbying" can be inspected in DoPT. When the Rules finally come out (???) who will get the credit in the media - the foreign finaced haramis like Aruna Roy OR members of this hold-out group ?
Sarbajit
On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 10:59 PM, Devasahayam MG <mgd@airtelmail.in> wrote:
This debate is turning bizare. Can some one enlighten us as to the true story behind the RTI Act and its real heroes and heroines?
M.G.Devasahayam
____________________________________________________________
Re: [HumJanenge] Re: DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL ROHINI IS A PUBLIC AUTHORITY, CIC DECIDES
Dear Guptaji
CIC is NOT a Civil Court.
During Complaint process u/s 18 the CIC enjoys some limited POWERS of a civil court under CPC for receiving evidence.
Your real remedy for false evidence submitted on affidavit lies under Indian Penal Code and not CPC. The Superior courts are littered with false affidavits submitted by civil servents on behalf of their department. No court takes any cognisance of the "perjury" they contain. It is all part of the game, unless the untruths are palpably outrgeous / beyond all limits to lying.
Sarbajit
CIC is NOT a Civil Court.
During Complaint process u/s 18 the CIC enjoys some limited POWERS of a civil court under CPC for receiving evidence.
Your real remedy for false evidence submitted on affidavit lies under Indian Penal Code and not CPC. The Superior courts are littered with false affidavits submitted by civil servents on behalf of their department. No court takes any cognisance of the "perjury" they contain. It is all part of the game, unless the untruths are palpably outrgeous / beyond all limits to lying.
Sarbajit
On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 11:08 PM, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
As stated, sharing as copy of my proposed letter to Hon'ble CCIC, Shri Satyananda Mishra,
SPEED POST
Shri Satyananada Mishra,
Chief Information Commission
New Delhi.
Date: 3.9.2011.
Sub: Outright rejection of my application for taking action against the PIO, NSD, AIR for submitting false affidavits before Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner in the hearing of my complaint.
Ref: Case No. CIC/AD/A/2010/000144.
Hon'ble Sir,
Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Hon'ble Information Commissioner has rejected my application for making a complaint to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction out rightly stating that the Commission does not have the jurisdiction to deal with criminal jurisprudence. The application was submitted to make a complaint u.s. 340 of CrPC for the perjury committed by Shri D. K. Das, the CPIO by submitting false evidence in the form of three false affidavits. I am enclosing herewith a self-attested copies of my application dated 3.5.2011 and the IC's decision dated 25th August, 2011 rejecting my request for your ready reference.
2. The application has been rejected stating, "Commission does not have the jurisdiction to deal with criminal jurisprudence". According to section 340 CrPC, a Civil Court has jurisdiction to make a complaint as regards an abetment of any offence referred to in s. 195(1)(b). [please see enclosed page 522 of The Code of Criminal Procedure (15th Edition, 1997) by Justice Y V Chandrachud, former CJ, SC]. Under section 18 (3) of RTI Act, CIC has the same powers as are vested in a civil court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure while receiving evidence on affidavit. Para 2 of the CrPC, (page 522) states, "Any Civil Court can proceed under this section and hold preliminary inquiry". It should than record a finding, should itself make a complaint in writing and forward it to the first class Magistrate having jurisdiction. Last two lines of para 3 on page 523 state, "An affidavit which is false is also covered in this section." I am enclosing copies of page 521 to 523 for your ready reference.
3. That the reason recorded in the decision itself is an error of law and fact and the Commission itself was not required to deal with the criminal jurisprudence but to make a complaint in writing to the First Class Magistrate after recording finding and send it to the Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction in accordance with the Section 340 of CrPC.
4. That non-action by the CIC against the production of false affidavits or other false evidences will open the floodgates of submitting the false evidences by the PIO's etc. as they will not have any fear of any action against them.
5. Thus, the Hon'ble IC, Mrs. Annapurna Dixit has given erroneous decision by turning down my application to take action u.s. 340 of the CrPC. I, therefore, request you to revisit the decision and to make a complaint to the First Class Magistrate for the perjury committed by the CPIO so that the same is not repeated in future.
(Mahendra Kumar Gupta)
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL ROHINI IS A PUBLIC AUTHORITY, CIC DECIDES
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Saturday, 3 September, 2011, 3:15 PM
We are grateful to Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Hon'ble Information Commission for her well reasoned, speaking and logical order of far reaching consequences.
Mohit Goyal also deserves Kudos for doing his home work well and citing around ten cases in support of his demand. During the hearing, I noted that the IC has given the desired time and heard both the parties with ample patience and gave fair opportunity to plead.
This does not mean that all the decisions of IC, Mrs. Dixit's are of the satisfaction of the appellants. If the appellants are not challenging these decisions in the High Court that is due to long, cumbersome and expensive route. For an ordinary man, it is difficult to take recourse of this.
I have list of some questionable decisions passed by the IC, Mrs. Dixit. In the latest decision in the case No. CIC/AD/C/2010/000144, IC refused to make a complaint u.s. 340 of CrPC to the Ist class magistrate against the perjury committed by Shri D K Das, PIO, NSD, AIR by submitting three false affidavits before her during the hearings. Non-action by the CIC against the production of false affidavits will open the floodgate of submitting the false evidences by the PIO's and other govt. officials as they will not have fear of any for the same.
I shall share copy of my proposed letter to Shri Satyanand Mishra, Chief IC in the case by tomorrow.
Thus, every IC has some good and some sulking decisions in his/her kitty.
I propose that we should have a penal of some public spirited lawyers ready to take up such cases on a reasonable fee.
--- On Sat, 3/9/11, sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
From: sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
Subject: [HumJanenge] Re: DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL ROHINI IS A PUBLIC AUTHORITY, CIC DECIDES
To: "HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005" <HumJanenge@googlegroups.com>
Date: Saturday, 3 September, 2011, 1:29 PMDear Mohit
Your post confirms that IC(SG) is completely arbitrary in his orders.
He finds Queen Mary School (minority school) not to be a PA in a 1
page order but holds Guru Harkishan School (equally minority) to be PA
in a 10 page order similar to yours. This shows what is an open secret
- that CIC decisions are nor written by the concerned ICs. <wink>.
Sarbajit
On Sep 3, 10:12 am, Mohit Goel <mr_moh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dear Mr Sarbajit/Mr Gupta
>
> what i can read out from my interaction with IC (SG) regarding schools is that he adamant not to allow RTI in private schools... even to the extent that he can ignore vital facts of cases. As did in my case.. on seeing a strong fundamental arguments along with high court decisions he could not have any way out on the matter so case was adjourned indefinitely. Thankfully Chief IC allowed for transfer of case when i complained. In another case of mine reg section 2(f) applicability on school IC SG changed the definition of this clause to again ensure that parents cant access information from school using section 2(f)... !!!!!
>
> There is another interesting case of Sh. U. S. Singhal vs Sachedeva Public CIC/SG/C/2009/001451/9027 , where Mr Singhal submitted that land to school was given on concessional rate , income tax benefit etc but all those arguments were set aside and case was heard in favor of school ... interesting judgement for everyone to see... .. i
>
> Ill suggest that some one should complaint to CIC for review of decisions on Sachedeva School/ Queens Mary schools etc under the light of various High court judgement on section 2(h).. all courts agree that " substantial " should not be confused with " major or minority" , even an iota of govt funding along with controls is sufficient grounds for challenging private nature of any organisation
>
> regards
> Mohit
>
> ________________________________
> From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy...@gmail.com>
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Friday, 2 September 2011 10:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL ROHINI IS A PUBLIC AUTHORITY, CIC DECIDES
>
> Dear Mr Gupta
>
> I am sorry to say that your great hero Mr Shailesh Gandhi evidently "respectfully disagrees" with every other "commission".
>
> On the one hand you praise IC(SG) for his super fast decisions and high disposal rate, on the other hand he passes chop-suey decisions like this which are completely contraryhttp://rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SG_C_2011_000488_13840_M_64...
>
> Now please take your choice. Fast decisions without hearing appellants or (superficially) reasoned decisions like IC(AD) passed in Mohit's case ??? I look forward to your reply..
>
> Sarbajit
>
> read more »
Re: [HumJanenge] Arvind Kejriwal - IT Notice
Dear Mr Devasahayam
I am confining myself to the Central RTI Act 2005. The facts are as follows
1) There were serious flaws in the FOI Act 2002 which rendered it weak and unimplementable.
2) Consequently the Rules for the said Act were not put in place to bring it into effect.
3) Immediately since 2003 a series of drafting exercises to amend / replace the FOI Act took place within DoPT. This exercise was carried out internally within DoPT (at which stage I and some other concerned private persons literally went over the drafts clause by clause to shoot down bizarre suggestions originating from NCPRI people and NAC interference and make valid suggestions). The DoPT had a core team ultimately under Mr Tiwari and he took a very keen interest in what was going on - literally he was the draftsman of this Act.
4) Finally when the Bill went to Parliament at the Committee stage the NCPRI and CHRI persisted with their nonsensical suggestions (like bring private companies within RTI etc), this did not work but about 30 modifications were made by Committee which watered down the Act. Finally when the Bill was put up in Parliament it was diluted even further (BJP had walked out) and the biggest prolem was that they added State Governments to RTI at last moiment which has caused many gray areas in the Act ("appropriate Govt" ??). I had no role to play while the Bill was in the Parliamentary process - since it was an all out war between DoPT babus and the NAC / NCPRI brigade.
5) Arvind Kejriwal had hardly anything to do / say in the formulation of RTI Act 2005 considering his seniors (!!!) in NCPRI.
6) The sitaution is analogous to the RTI Draft Rules contoversy of last year. NAC/NCPRI submitted aboiut 12 pages of text. The war is between DoPT and NAC/NCPRI. All my comments are in public domain (running into about 273 pages). My own "lobbying" can be inspected in DoPT. When the Rules finally come out (???) who will get the credit in the media - the foreign finaced haramis like Aruna Roy OR members of this hold-out group ?
Sarbajit
I am confining myself to the Central RTI Act 2005. The facts are as follows
1) There were serious flaws in the FOI Act 2002 which rendered it weak and unimplementable.
2) Consequently the Rules for the said Act were not put in place to bring it into effect.
3) Immediately since 2003 a series of drafting exercises to amend / replace the FOI Act took place within DoPT. This exercise was carried out internally within DoPT (at which stage I and some other concerned private persons literally went over the drafts clause by clause to shoot down bizarre suggestions originating from NCPRI people and NAC interference and make valid suggestions). The DoPT had a core team ultimately under Mr Tiwari and he took a very keen interest in what was going on - literally he was the draftsman of this Act.
4) Finally when the Bill went to Parliament at the Committee stage the NCPRI and CHRI persisted with their nonsensical suggestions (like bring private companies within RTI etc), this did not work but about 30 modifications were made by Committee which watered down the Act. Finally when the Bill was put up in Parliament it was diluted even further (BJP had walked out) and the biggest prolem was that they added State Governments to RTI at last moiment which has caused many gray areas in the Act ("appropriate Govt" ??). I had no role to play while the Bill was in the Parliamentary process - since it was an all out war between DoPT babus and the NAC / NCPRI brigade.
5) Arvind Kejriwal had hardly anything to do / say in the formulation of RTI Act 2005 considering his seniors (!!!) in NCPRI.
6) The sitaution is analogous to the RTI Draft Rules contoversy of last year. NAC/NCPRI submitted aboiut 12 pages of text. The war is between DoPT and NAC/NCPRI. All my comments are in public domain (running into about 273 pages). My own "lobbying" can be inspected in DoPT. When the Rules finally come out (???) who will get the credit in the media - the foreign finaced haramis like Aruna Roy OR members of this hold-out group ?
Sarbajit
On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 10:59 PM, Devasahayam MG <mgd@airtelmail.in> wrote:
This debate is turning bizare. Can some one enlighten us as to the true story behind the RTI Act and its real heroes and heroines?
M.G.Devasahayam
____________________________________________________________
Re: [HumJanenge] Re: DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL ROHINI IS A PUBLIC AUTHORITY, CIC DECIDES
| As stated, sharing as copy of my proposed letter to Hon'ble CCIC, Shri Satyananda Mishra, SPEED POST
Shri Satyananada Mishra, Chief Information Commission New Delhi. Date: 3.9.2011.
Sub: Outright rejection of my application for taking action against the PIO, NSD, AIR for submitting false affidavits before Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner in the hearing of my complaint.
Ref: Case No. CIC/AD/A/2010/000144.
Hon'ble Sir,
Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Hon'ble Information Commissioner has rejected my application for making a complaint to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction out rightly stating that the Commission does not have the jurisdiction to deal with criminal jurisprudence. The application was submitted to make a complaint u.s. 340 of CrPC for the perjury committed by Shri D. K. Das, the CPIO by submitting false evidence in the form of three false affidavits. I am enclosing herewith a self-attested copies of my application dated 3.5.2011 and the IC's decision dated 25th August, 2011 rejecting my request for your ready reference. 2. The application has been rejected stating, "Commission does not have the jurisdiction to deal with criminal jurisprudence". According to section 340 CrPC, a Civil Court has jurisdiction to make a complaint as regards an abetment of any offence referred to in s. 195(1)(b). [please see enclosed page 522 of The Code of Criminal Procedure (15th Edition, 1997) by Justice Y V Chandrachud, former CJ, SC]. Under section 18 (3) of RTI Act, CIC has the same powers as are vested in a civil court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure while receiving evidence on affidavit. Para 2 of the CrPC, (page 522) states, "Any Civil Court can proceed under this section and hold preliminary inquiry". It should than record a finding, should itself make a complaint in writing and forward it to the first class Magistrate having jurisdiction. Last two lines of para 3 on page 523 state, "An affidavit which is false is also covered in this section." I am enclosing copies of page 521 to 523 for your ready reference. 3. That the reason recorded in the decision itself is an error of law and fact and the Commission itself was not required to deal with the criminal jurisprudence but to make a complaint in writing to the First Class Magistrate after recording finding and send it to the Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction in accordance with the Section 340 of CrPC. 4. That non-action by the CIC against the production of false affidavits or other false evidences will open the floodgates of submitting the false evidences by the PIO's etc. as they will not have any fear of any action against them. 5. Thus, the Hon'ble IC, Mrs. Annapurna Dixit has given erroneous decision by turning down my application to take action u.s. 340 of the CrPC. I, therefore, request you to revisit the decision and to make a complaint to the First Class Magistrate for the perjury committed by the CPIO so that the same is not repeated in future.
(Mahendra Kumar Gupta) --- On Sat, 3/9/11, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
|
Re: [HumJanenge] Arvind Kejriwal - IT Notice
This debate is turning bizare. Can some one enlighten us as to the true story behind the RTI Act and its real heroes and heroines?
M.G.Devasahayam
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
M.G.Devasahayam
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 8:48 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
1) Arvind Kejrwal is still an IRS officer. The reasons why his resignation has not been accepted is very well known. Each and every year the govt (IT dept) updates the list of their employees (as required under section 4 of RTI Act). The URL is here and Arvind's name is on it [www.irsofficersonline.gov.in/content/Alphabetical_Index.pdf]
2) My question is what steps has Arvind taken to get his name deleted from this list ? Let him place these facts into the public domain.
3) About his being a foreign financed inteligence agent, there have been many posts on this in the archives of this group and RTI_India where specifics have been given.. The Magsaysay awards are well known to be CIA sponsorship. The Ashoka awards are from MI6.
4) Aruna Roy, Arvindf Kejriwal, Anna Hazare etc had hardly anything to do with RTI Act This is all their self generated media publicity which ill informed idiots like you keep repeating / circulating as the truth. The fact is that the RTI Act 2005 was drafted by Mr A.N. Tiwari and his team at DoPT with quite a bit of input from me and my co-mods like Mr Ashish Kumar - and was also based on the shortcomings of the HD Shourie draft and the FOI Act.
SarbajitOn Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 7:52 PM, USM Bish <usmbish@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:Col Khera is absolutely right out here. There is nothing
> Dear Col Khera
>
> I am truly shocked by your email.
>
written by him which is factually incorrect. Rest are his
views based on facts he stated. Nothing to be shocked about.
Arvind had tendered resignation in 2006. He had gone on study
>
> 1) With all this black money problem in the country, are you
> condoning that IRS officers should go on leave for extended
> periods and thereby block their replacements.
>
leave earlier to that. He has NOT been given/ taken any pay
since then. I do understand, IT is taxes on your physical
income, not perceived incomes by external agencies.
There are no vacancies blocked.
What is the source of this information ? This is not only
>
> 2) Arvind Kejriwal is a foreign financed intelligence
> operative with huge amounts of money at his disposal and
> gives lakhs of rupees as prizes. Why should we contribute to
> pay his IT demands ?
>
misinformation, it is possibly of malafide intent. Please do
not spread FUD on public lists.
Please read up. You are carrying coal to New Castle ! Please
>
> 3) What exactly has Arvind done for the RTI cause which is
> so extraordinary?
>
check up the history of the Delhi RTI Act 2001. Amongst the
principal players for RTI are Aruna Roy (NCPRI), Arvind
Kejriwal (Parivartan) and the Press Council of India who have
been active from the end of last decade. Whereas Hazare led
the way for the Maharashtra RTI Act, the above are responsible
for the Delhi Act. FYI, he was awarded Ramon Magsaysay Award
for Emergent Leadership in 2006, for activating RTI movement
at grassroot levels. The citation is here:
http://www.rmaf.org.ph/Awardees/Citation/CitationKejriwalArv.htm
There are no RSS code words anywhere in the mail written by
>
> PS: Kindly stop using RSS code words on this group - we are
> apolitical here
>
Col Khera, that I could see. What words are you referring to ?
Dr USM Bish
Bangalore
Re: [HumJanenge] Arvind Kejriwal - IT Notice
On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 8:48 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 1) Arvind Kejrwal is still an IRS officer. The reasons why
> his resignation has not been accepted is very well known.
> Each and every year the govt (IT dept) updates the list of
> their employees (as required under section 4 of RTI Act).
> The URL is here and Arvind's name is on it
> [www.irsofficersonline.gov.in/content/Alphabetical_Index.pdf]
>
>
> 1) Arvind Kejrwal is still an IRS officer. The reasons why
> his resignation has not been accepted is very well known.
> Each and every year the govt (IT dept) updates the list of
> their employees (as required under section 4 of RTI Act).
> The URL is here and Arvind's name is on it
> [www.irsofficersonline.gov.in/content/Alphabetical_Index.pdf]
>
There are two issues here:
a) Administrative: If a resignation has been given, and it has
not been accepted for whatever reasons, the issue needs to be
dealt administratively, depending upon prevailing policies of
the Department. What has the IT Deptt doing for the last 5
years ? Why are they raking up this issue now ? And why are
departmental issues being placed as headlines ? Surely there
are some other ulterior motives ...
b) Financial: Tax is applicable if payment has been made. Has
the Govt been paying him regularly for all these years? If
yes, the IT claim is very much in order. But if not, no IT
accrues. There can be no taxes under situations where there is
no income.
Why mix the two things ?
>
> 2) My question is what steps has Arvind taken to get his
> name deleted from this list ? Let him place these facts into
> the public domain.
>
This is departmental administrative issue. Why should the aam-
janta be concerned, beyond what he has already put up in all
major newspapers and his TV interview ?
>
> 3) About his being a foreign financed inteligence agent,
> there have been many posts on this in the archives of this
> group and RTI_India where specifics have been given.. The
> Magsaysay awards are well known to be CIA sponsorship. The
> Ashoka awards are from MI6.
>
I would not make much credence on posts on general public
mailing lists. Magasaysay awards are from Phillipines. All
personal assets of President Ramon Magsaysay are with the
Rockfeller Foundation. The prize was established in April 1957
by the trustees of the Rockefeller Foundation Fund based
in New York City with the concurrence of the Philippine
government. This is official. I do not know any CIA
connections here. The citation I put reference to is from the
wikipedia.
>
> 4) Aruna Roy, Arvindf Kejriwal, Anna Hazare etc had hardly
> anything to do with RTI Act This is all their self generated
> media publicity which ill informed idiots like you keep
> repeating / circulating as the truth. The fact is that the
> RTI Act 2005 was drafted by Mr A.N. Tiwari and his team at
> DoPT with quite a bit of input from me and my co-mods like
> Mr Ashish Kumar - and was also based on the shortcomings of
> the HD Shourie draft and the FOI Act.
>
Please distinguish two things:
a) Public Action : Bringing public awareness/ and building
public pressures on the Govt to act.
b) Paper work : Drafting of the Act.
The contributions of those stated by me are for the former
action only. I can personally confirm the agitations taken by
Anna Hazare at Pune and Mumbai for the Maharashtra RTI Act,
last decade, having physically seen them. This public action
forced the Maharashtra Govt to Act. I would believe, this
action would be more difficult, and more important than
drafting the Act itself. In this regards their contributions
are minimal, restricted to a "wish-list" in layman's terms. I
would place less credits there. To the best of my knowledge,
the RTI Act 2005 is based on the preceding Maharashtra RTI
Act.
On a serious note: Requested, I may please be unsubscribed
from the "HumJanenge" mailing list. The kind of exchanges, and
language contained by some of the participants, (virtually
going onto personal vilification) does not gel with educated
gentry anywhere. I would like to leave.
Dr USM Bish
Bangalore
Re: [HumJanenge] Arvind Kejriwal - IT Notice
http://www.scribd.com/doc/63800112/Arvind-Kejriwal-s-Reply
This explanation is very clear
subhash
This explanation is very clear
subhash
From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, 3 September 2011 5:45 PM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Arvind Kejriwal - IT NoticeDear Col Khera
I am truly shocked by your email.
1) With all this black money problem in the country, are you condoning that IRS officers should go on leave for extended periods and thereby block their replacements.
2) Arvind Kejriwal is a foreign financed intelligence operative with huge amounts of money at his disposal and gives lakhs of rupees as prizes. Why should we contribute to pay his IT demands ?
3) What exactly has Arvind done for the RTI cause which is so extraordinary ?
PS: Kindly stop using RSS code words on this group - we are apolitical here
SarbajitOn Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Mahesh Khera <mkkhera@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear Friends,In another Group, a mail is in circulation that we should contribute to generate money so that Arvind Kejriwal can pay up the money to the IT dept.My view is that let Prashant Bhushan legally fight the case as his entitlements for his two years of leave of absence without pay should be counted towards the pay back in lieu of his resignation after three years of study leave.In the mean while, if Supreme Court accepts the plea, it is a victory for all those who might be affected by the vague Govt orders. If, however, Supreme Court rejects then lets all contribute as is being suggested by Santosh MS and enable him to pay to the Govt as every law abiding citizen must follow the rules and regulations.Arvind Kejriwal has contributed immensely to RTI and now for a strong Lok Pal. Most of India supports him in his tireless and selfless efforts. The contribution is not to help him monetarily but would only be a rebut to the Govt if indeed the state is victimizing him just because he has been digging his heals against them for anti corruption laws. Such a move has a potential for babus to show spine to the political leaders and not accept any wrong orders. This move alone would have a huge impact on the self reforms in babudom much more than all the Lok Pals.By this, I do not mean that Jan Lok Pal would not be necessary.This is a food for thought.Jai Hind and Vande Matram.With warm regards,
Col Mahesh Khera
Re: [rti4empowerment] From WEDS; Good Men & Women who laid down their lives fighting the evil of corruption
All may note that PUBLIC CONCERN for GOVERNANCE TRUST has instituted an Award in her memory being given to Civil Activist.Next awardee is decided but shall be disclosed at a function to e organised in VIGILANCE week to be fixed by Govt and would be sometime in November. Any of you desire to attend the function, Pl send your mail ID..
Narayan Varma, Jt. managing Trustee, PCGT
--
Narayan Varma
56B Mittal Tower,
210 Nariman Point
Mumbai 400 021
RTI PCGT helpline 09322882288
my cell 09821096052
Narayan Varma, Jt. managing Trustee, PCGT
On 27 August 2011 19:01, DSouza Wilberious Evanglist <wilevades@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Dear All,View this URLWEDS
--
Narayan Varma
56B Mittal Tower,
210 Nariman Point
Mumbai 400 021
RTI PCGT helpline 09322882288
my cell 09821096052
Re: [HumJanenge] Arvind Kejriwal - IT Notice
Dear all,
I support Mr Sarabjit in his view that Mr Arvind Kejriwal does not need to be monetarily supported. Though I object to the use of words like idiots and such by Mr Sarabjit for fellow members, I think he is right in his position that Mr Kejriwal has to defend himself in the court of law and his NGO also receives foreign funding (though I dont believe he is an intelligence operative of CIA or any other agency).
It is an accepted fact that the government action is a personal vendetta against him but I think he just needs moral support rather than monetary help. He has definitely done a lot for the RTI (even if not otherwise at least by creating awareness about it and handing out awards to people who are working in the field) but that does not mean he can't default. If he is right in his stand, the court would forego the dues, it's as simple as that.
Regards,
Manu Moudgil
Primary catalyst,
www.goimonitor.com
On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 8:48 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
--
Visit www.goimonitor.com, a non-profit venture on policy analysis, investigations and grassroots news
I support Mr Sarabjit in his view that Mr Arvind Kejriwal does not need to be monetarily supported. Though I object to the use of words like idiots and such by Mr Sarabjit for fellow members, I think he is right in his position that Mr Kejriwal has to defend himself in the court of law and his NGO also receives foreign funding (though I dont believe he is an intelligence operative of CIA or any other agency).
It is an accepted fact that the government action is a personal vendetta against him but I think he just needs moral support rather than monetary help. He has definitely done a lot for the RTI (even if not otherwise at least by creating awareness about it and handing out awards to people who are working in the field) but that does not mean he can't default. If he is right in his stand, the court would forego the dues, it's as simple as that.
Regards,
Manu Moudgil
Primary catalyst,
www.goimonitor.com
On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 8:48 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
1) Arvind Kejrwal is still an IRS officer. The reasons why his resignation has not been accepted is very well known. Each and every year the govt (IT dept) updates the list of their employees (as required under section 4 of RTI Act). The URL is here and Arvind's name is on it [www.irsofficersonline.gov.in/content/Alphabetical_Index.pdf]
2) My question is what steps has Arvind taken to get his name deleted from this list ? Let him place these facts into the public domain.
3) About his being a foreign financed inteligence agent, there have been many posts on this in the archives of this group and RTI_India where specifics have been given.. The Magsaysay awards are well known to be CIA sponsorship. The Ashoka awards are from MI6.
4) Aruna Roy, Arvindf Kejriwal, Anna Hazare etc had hardly anything to do with RTI Act This is all their self generated media publicity which ill informed idiots like you keep repeating / circulating as the truth. The fact is that the RTI Act 2005 was drafted by Mr A.N. Tiwari and his team at DoPT with quite a bit of input from me and my co-mods like Mr Ashish Kumar - and was also based on the shortcomings of the HD Shourie draft and the FOI Act.
SarbajitOn Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 7:52 PM, USM Bish <usmbish@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:Col Khera is absolutely right out here. There is nothing
> Dear Col Khera
>
> I am truly shocked by your email.
>
written by him which is factually incorrect. Rest are his
views based on facts he stated. Nothing to be shocked about.
Arvind had tendered resignation in 2006. He had gone on study
>
> 1) With all this black money problem in the country, are you
> condoning that IRS officers should go on leave for extended
> periods and thereby block their replacements.
>
leave earlier to that. He has NOT been given/ taken any pay
since then. I do understand, IT is taxes on your physical
income, not perceived incomes by external agencies.
There are no vacancies blocked.
What is the source of this information ? This is not only
>
> 2) Arvind Kejriwal is a foreign financed intelligence
> operative with huge amounts of money at his disposal and
> gives lakhs of rupees as prizes. Why should we contribute to
> pay his IT demands ?
>
misinformation, it is possibly of malafide intent. Please do
not spread FUD on public lists.
Please read up. You are carrying coal to New Castle ! Please
>
> 3) What exactly has Arvind done for the RTI cause which is
> so extraordinary?
>
check up the history of the Delhi RTI Act 2001. Amongst the
principal players for RTI are Aruna Roy (NCPRI), Arvind
Kejriwal (Parivartan) and the Press Council of India who have
been active from the end of last decade. Whereas Hazare led
the way for the Maharashtra RTI Act, the above are responsible
for the Delhi Act. FYI, he was awarded Ramon Magsaysay Award
for Emergent Leadership in 2006, for activating RTI movement
at grassroot levels. The citation is here:
http://www.rmaf.org.ph/Awardees/Citation/CitationKejriwalArv.htm
There are no RSS code words anywhere in the mail written by
>
> PS: Kindly stop using RSS code words on this group - we are
> apolitical here
>
Col Khera, that I could see. What words are you referring to ?
Dr USM Bish
Bangalore
--
Visit www.goimonitor.com, a non-profit venture on policy analysis, investigations and grassroots news
Re: [HumJanenge] Arvind Kejriwal - IT Notice
This is only the beginning by PC, LALU, DIGY, SONI, SIBY & Co. Much more is expected from these looters. Even in worse case scenario wiping out the Leaders of IAC. Prepare for a longer and tougher battle.
But we have task of leaving behind a better India before we depart.
AK Mazumder
Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel
-----Original Message-----
From: USM Bish <usmbish@gmail.com>
Sender: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2011 19:52:29
To: <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
Reply-To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Arvind Kejriwal - IT Notice
On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Col Khera
>
> I am truly shocked by your email.
>
Col Khera is absolutely right out here. There is nothing
written by him which is factually incorrect. Rest are his
views based on facts he stated. Nothing to be shocked about.
>
> 1) With all this black money problem in the country, are you
> condoning that IRS officers should go on leave for extended
> periods and thereby block their replacements.
>
Arvind had tendered resignation in 2006. He had gone on study
leave earlier to that. He has NOT been given/ taken any pay
since then. I do understand, IT is taxes on your physical
income, not perceived incomes by external agencies.
There are no vacancies blocked.
>
> 2) Arvind Kejriwal is a foreign financed intelligence
> operative with huge amounts of money at his disposal and
> gives lakhs of rupees as prizes. Why should we contribute to
> pay his IT demands ?
>
What is the source of this information ? This is not only
misinformation, it is possibly of malafide intent. Please do
not spread FUD on public lists.
>
> 3) What exactly has Arvind done for the RTI cause which is
> so extraordinary?
>
Please read up. You are carrying coal to New Castle ! Please
check up the history of the Delhi RTI Act 2001. Amongst the
principal players for RTI are Aruna Roy (NCPRI), Arvind
Kejriwal (Parivartan) and the Press Council of India who have
been active from the end of last decade. Whereas Hazare led
the way for the Maharashtra RTI Act, the above are responsible
for the Delhi Act. FYI, he was awarded Ramon Magsaysay Award
for Emergent Leadership in 2006, for activating RTI movement
at grassroot levels. The citation is here:
http://www.rmaf.org.ph/Awardees/Citation/CitationKejriwalArv.htm
>
> PS: Kindly stop using RSS code words on this group - we are
> apolitical here
>
There are no RSS code words anywhere in the mail written by
Col Khera, that I could see. What words are you referring to ?
Dr USM Bish
Bangalore
But we have task of leaving behind a better India before we depart.
AK Mazumder
Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel
-----Original Message-----
From: USM Bish <usmbish@gmail.com>
Sender: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2011 19:52:29
To: <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
Reply-To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Arvind Kejriwal - IT Notice
On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Col Khera
>
> I am truly shocked by your email.
>
Col Khera is absolutely right out here. There is nothing
written by him which is factually incorrect. Rest are his
views based on facts he stated. Nothing to be shocked about.
>
> 1) With all this black money problem in the country, are you
> condoning that IRS officers should go on leave for extended
> periods and thereby block their replacements.
>
Arvind had tendered resignation in 2006. He had gone on study
leave earlier to that. He has NOT been given/ taken any pay
since then. I do understand, IT is taxes on your physical
income, not perceived incomes by external agencies.
There are no vacancies blocked.
>
> 2) Arvind Kejriwal is a foreign financed intelligence
> operative with huge amounts of money at his disposal and
> gives lakhs of rupees as prizes. Why should we contribute to
> pay his IT demands ?
>
What is the source of this information ? This is not only
misinformation, it is possibly of malafide intent. Please do
not spread FUD on public lists.
>
> 3) What exactly has Arvind done for the RTI cause which is
> so extraordinary?
>
Please read up. You are carrying coal to New Castle ! Please
check up the history of the Delhi RTI Act 2001. Amongst the
principal players for RTI are Aruna Roy (NCPRI), Arvind
Kejriwal (Parivartan) and the Press Council of India who have
been active from the end of last decade. Whereas Hazare led
the way for the Maharashtra RTI Act, the above are responsible
for the Delhi Act. FYI, he was awarded Ramon Magsaysay Award
for Emergent Leadership in 2006, for activating RTI movement
at grassroot levels. The citation is here:
http://www.rmaf.org.ph/Awardees/Citation/CitationKejriwalArv.htm
>
> PS: Kindly stop using RSS code words on this group - we are
> apolitical here
>
There are no RSS code words anywhere in the mail written by
Col Khera, that I could see. What words are you referring to ?
Dr USM Bish
Bangalore
Re: [HumJanenge] Arvind Kejriwal - IT Notice
1) Arvind Kejrwal is still an IRS officer. The reasons why his resignation has not been accepted is very well known. Each and every year the govt (IT dept) updates the list of their employees (as required under section 4 of RTI Act). The URL is here and Arvind's name is on it [www.irsofficersonline.gov.in/content/Alphabetical_Index.pdf]
2) My question is what steps has Arvind taken to get his name deleted from this list ? Let him place these facts into the public domain.
3) About his being a foreign financed inteligence agent, there have been many posts on this in the archives of this group and RTI_India where specifics have been given.. The Magsaysay awards are well known to be CIA sponsorship. The Ashoka awards are from MI6.
4) Aruna Roy, Arvindf Kejriwal, Anna Hazare etc had hardly anything to do with RTI Act This is all their self generated media publicity which ill informed idiots like you keep repeating / circulating as the truth. The fact is that the RTI Act 2005 was drafted by Mr A.N. Tiwari and his team at DoPT with quite a bit of input from me and my co-mods like Mr Ashish Kumar - and was also based on the shortcomings of the HD Shourie draft and the FOI Act.
Sarbajit
2) My question is what steps has Arvind taken to get his name deleted from this list ? Let him place these facts into the public domain.
3) About his being a foreign financed inteligence agent, there have been many posts on this in the archives of this group and RTI_India where specifics have been given.. The Magsaysay awards are well known to be CIA sponsorship. The Ashoka awards are from MI6.
4) Aruna Roy, Arvindf Kejriwal, Anna Hazare etc had hardly anything to do with RTI Act This is all their self generated media publicity which ill informed idiots like you keep repeating / circulating as the truth. The fact is that the RTI Act 2005 was drafted by Mr A.N. Tiwari and his team at DoPT with quite a bit of input from me and my co-mods like Mr Ashish Kumar - and was also based on the shortcomings of the HD Shourie draft and the FOI Act.
Sarbajit
On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 7:52 PM, USM Bish <usmbish@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:Col Khera is absolutely right out here. There is nothing
> Dear Col Khera
>
> I am truly shocked by your email.
>
written by him which is factually incorrect. Rest are his
views based on facts he stated. Nothing to be shocked about.
Arvind had tendered resignation in 2006. He had gone on study
>
> 1) With all this black money problem in the country, are you
> condoning that IRS officers should go on leave for extended
> periods and thereby block their replacements.
>
leave earlier to that. He has NOT been given/ taken any pay
since then. I do understand, IT is taxes on your physical
income, not perceived incomes by external agencies.
There are no vacancies blocked.
What is the source of this information ? This is not only
>
> 2) Arvind Kejriwal is a foreign financed intelligence
> operative with huge amounts of money at his disposal and
> gives lakhs of rupees as prizes. Why should we contribute to
> pay his IT demands ?
>
misinformation, it is possibly of malafide intent. Please do
not spread FUD on public lists.
Please read up. You are carrying coal to New Castle ! Please
>
> 3) What exactly has Arvind done for the RTI cause which is
> so extraordinary?
>
check up the history of the Delhi RTI Act 2001. Amongst the
principal players for RTI are Aruna Roy (NCPRI), Arvind
Kejriwal (Parivartan) and the Press Council of India who have
been active from the end of last decade. Whereas Hazare led
the way for the Maharashtra RTI Act, the above are responsible
for the Delhi Act. FYI, he was awarded Ramon Magsaysay Award
for Emergent Leadership in 2006, for activating RTI movement
at grassroot levels. The citation is here:
http://www.rmaf.org.ph/Awardees/Citation/CitationKejriwalArv.htm
There are no RSS code words anywhere in the mail written by
>
> PS: Kindly stop using RSS code words on this group - we are
> apolitical here
>
Col Khera, that I could see. What words are you referring to ?
Dr USM Bish
Bangalore
Re: [HumJanenge] Arvind Kejriwal - IT Notice
On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Col Khera
>
> I am truly shocked by your email.
>
> Dear Col Khera
>
> I am truly shocked by your email.
>
Col Khera is absolutely right out here. There is nothing
written by him which is factually incorrect. Rest are his
views based on facts he stated. Nothing to be shocked about.
>
> 1) With all this black money problem in the country, are you
> condoning that IRS officers should go on leave for extended
> periods and thereby block their replacements.
>
Arvind had tendered resignation in 2006. He had gone on study
leave earlier to that. He has NOT been given/ taken any pay
since then. I do understand, IT is taxes on your physical
income, not perceived incomes by external agencies.
There are no vacancies blocked.
>
> 2) Arvind Kejriwal is a foreign financed intelligence
> operative with huge amounts of money at his disposal and
> gives lakhs of rupees as prizes. Why should we contribute to
> pay his IT demands ?
>
What is the source of this information ? This is not only
misinformation, it is possibly of malafide intent. Please do
not spread FUD on public lists.
>
> 3) What exactly has Arvind done for the RTI cause which is
> so extraordinary?
>
Please read up. You are carrying coal to New Castle ! Please
check up the history of the Delhi RTI Act 2001. Amongst the
principal players for RTI are Aruna Roy (NCPRI), Arvind
Kejriwal (Parivartan) and the Press Council of India who have
been active from the end of last decade. Whereas Hazare led
the way for the Maharashtra RTI Act, the above are responsible
for the Delhi Act. FYI, he was awarded Ramon Magsaysay Award
for Emergent Leadership in 2006, for activating RTI movement
at grassroot levels. The citation is here:
http://www.rmaf.org.ph/Awardees/Citation/CitationKejriwalArv.htm
>
> PS: Kindly stop using RSS code words on this group - we are
> apolitical here
>
There are no RSS code words anywhere in the mail written by
Col Khera, that I could see. What words are you referring to ?
Dr USM Bish
Bangalore
Re: [HumJanenge] Arvind Kejriwal - IT Notice
Dear Sh Sarbajit,
Just for your kind info, please read the following taken from Wikipedia about Vande Matram, to know the apolitical standing of it in the world :-
"In 2002, BBC World Service conducted an international poll to choose ten most famous songs of all time. Around 7000 songs were selected from all over the world. Vande Mataram, in a version by A. R. Rahman, was ranked second.[22] All India Radio's version, as well as A.R. Rahman's version, are in Desh raga.[23] "
Jai Hind, Vande Matram.
With warm regards,
Col Mahesh Khera
Founder Director, KTMT Consulting, India
India Chief of Strategy and Business Development, Location Labs, US
Premium Partner and Global Leader of Consulting Management Platforms, US
Phone - +91-120-4318375, +91-120-2450197
Mob - +91-9310716167
VOIP - +1 973-551-3246
Skype- mahesh.khera
Mail - mkkhera@yahoo.com and mahesh@locationlabs.com
http://www.locationlabs.com
"As shared wireless access of 3G/4G can never beat fiber/HFC networks in the streaming of multi megabits data, a unique ultra low cost model is poised to turn around the communications services. Many telecom companies are targeting to serve digitalized societies by offering multi play@ of voice, broadband, on demand GDP growth driving apps/TV, mobile and fixed mobile convergence services for their daily business, work, location, social, entertainment, security and governance needs."
@MPVNO, NTOC, JEC and JNS are SMs of KTMT
From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, September 3, 2011 5:45 PM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Arvind Kejriwal - IT Notice
Dear Col Khera
I am truly shocked by your email.
1) With all this black money problem in the country, are you condoning that IRS officers should go on leave for extended periods and thereby block their replacements.
2) Arvind Kejriwal is a foreign financed intelligence operative with huge amounts of money at his disposal and gives lakhs of rupees as prizes. Why should we contribute to pay his IT demands ?
3) What exactly has Arvind done for the RTI cause which is so extraordinary ?
PS: Kindly stop using RSS code words on this group - we are apolitical here
Sarbajit
I am truly shocked by your email.
1) With all this black money problem in the country, are you condoning that IRS officers should go on leave for extended periods and thereby block their replacements.
2) Arvind Kejriwal is a foreign financed intelligence operative with huge amounts of money at his disposal and gives lakhs of rupees as prizes. Why should we contribute to pay his IT demands ?
3) What exactly has Arvind done for the RTI cause which is so extraordinary ?
PS: Kindly stop using RSS code words on this group - we are apolitical here
Sarbajit
On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Mahesh Khera <mkkhera@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear Friends,In another Group, a mail is in circulation that we should contribute to generate money so that Arvind Kejriwal can pay up the money to the IT dept.My view is that let Prashant Bhushan legally fight the case as his entitlements for his two years of leave of absence without pay should be counted towards the pay back in lieu of his resignation after three years of study leave.In the mean while, if Supreme Court accepts the plea, it is a victory for all those who might be affected by the vague Govt orders. If, however, Supreme Court rejects then lets all contribute as is being suggested by Santosh MS and enable him to pay to the Govt as every law abiding citizen must follow the rules and regulations.Arvind Kejriwal has contributed immensely to RTI and now for a strong Lok Pal. Most of India supports him in his tireless and selfless efforts. The contribution is not to help him monetarily but would only be a rebut to the Govt if indeed the state is victimizing him just because he has been digging his heals against them for anti corruption laws. Such a move has a potential for babus to show spine to the political leaders and not accept any wrong orders. This move alone would have a huge impact on the self reforms in babudom much more than all the Lok Pals.By this, I do not mean that Jan Lok Pal would not be necessary.This is a food for thought.Jai Hind and Vande Matram.With warm regards,
Col Mahesh Khera
Re: [HumJanenge] Arvind Kejriwal - IT Notice
| Foreign country has given Magsaysay award to Shri Arvind Kejriwal for his contribution to the Society. Our government has served a notice to give 9.16 from him after five years of his resignation. Govt was not only deep but was in long slumber too. Some one may ask about the day to day movement of his case after Feb. 2006 (when he submitted his resignation) till date. By this, we can know whether the notice is genuine or an act of venditta because of the activism of Shri Arvind. . --- On Sat, 3/9/11, Mahesh Khera <mkkhera@yahoo.com> wrote:
|
Re: [HumJanenge] Arvind Kejriwal - IT Notice
| Col Khera's letter contains too many Ifs and Buts{I don't mean waggling Butts on Ramlila Maidan) So Kejriwal has to come out of the Ifs and Buts before we can accept the Team Anna's defence. Srinivasan --- On Sat, 3/9/11, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
|
Re: [HumJanenge] Arvind Kejriwal - IT Notice
Dear Col Khera
I am truly shocked by your email.
1) With all this black money problem in the country, are you condoning that IRS officers should go on leave for extended periods and thereby block their replacements.
2) Arvind Kejriwal is a foreign financed intelligence operative with huge amounts of money at his disposal and gives lakhs of rupees as prizes. Why should we contribute to pay his IT demands ?
3) What exactly has Arvind done for the RTI cause which is so extraordinary ?
PS: Kindly stop using RSS code words on this group - we are apolitical here
Sarbajit
I am truly shocked by your email.
1) With all this black money problem in the country, are you condoning that IRS officers should go on leave for extended periods and thereby block their replacements.
2) Arvind Kejriwal is a foreign financed intelligence operative with huge amounts of money at his disposal and gives lakhs of rupees as prizes. Why should we contribute to pay his IT demands ?
3) What exactly has Arvind done for the RTI cause which is so extraordinary ?
PS: Kindly stop using RSS code words on this group - we are apolitical here
Sarbajit
On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Mahesh Khera <mkkhera@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear Friends,In another Group, a mail is in circulation that we should contribute to generate money so that Arvind Kejriwal can pay up the money to the IT dept.My view is that let Prashant Bhushan legally fight the case as his entitlements for his two years of leave of absence without pay should be counted towards the pay back in lieu of his resignation after three years of study leave.In the mean while, if Supreme Court accepts the plea, it is a victory for all those who might be affected by the vague Govt orders. If, however, Supreme Court rejects then lets all contribute as is being suggested by Santosh MS and enable him to pay to the Govt as every law abiding citizen must follow the rules and regulations.Arvind Kejriwal has contributed immensely to RTI and now for a strong Lok Pal. Most of India supports him in his tireless and selfless efforts. The contribution is not to help him monetarily but would only be a rebut to the Govt if indeed the state is victimizing him just because he has been digging his heals against them for anti corruption laws. Such a move has a potential for babus to show spine to the political leaders and not accept any wrong orders. This move alone would have a huge impact on the self reforms in babudom much more than all the Lok Pals.By this, I do not mean that Jan Lok Pal would not be necessary.This is a food for thought.Jai Hind and Vande Matram.With warm regards,
Col Mahesh Khera
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)