[HumJanenge] Re: collector office is private property of collector latur

sir ,
in Ratlam Municipal Council Vs vardichand supreme court gave borad
definition of nuisance. Public have right to file complaint U/S 133
with the District Magistrate (although SDM are generally handle such
matters) but if u read provisions of section 133 clearly i can say
that in law no where it has been mentioned that only SDM is empowered
to deal such matter
The decision of SDM or person handling such matters is quasi judicial
only since these authorities cannot be called as civil court.
therefore these authorities must inform reasons to affected persons.
U/s 4 of RTI every public authority must publish information including
officers working with their powers and group of consultation etc since
the office district Magistrate is also covered under RTI Act they have
to publish info u/s 4 which includes powers of District Magistrate ,
Subdivisional magistrate etc

i have right to know what is action taken by authority on my complaint
u/s 133 of crpc and such right is confered by s6 of RTI Act which
isapplicable these authorities since they are under supervisory
jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India and u know case subhash agrawal vs Secretary of supreme court
cic decision
On Mar 8, 8:25 pm, Sarbajit Roy <sroy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As you are studying law (which BTW I never did), you would be better
> able than  I to know how section 4 is to be enforced under RTI Act and
> who is to enforce it, especially in the case when the Public Authority
> has appointed PIO and FAA and the State Govt has also notified an
> Information Commission.
>
> You can read this to see if it helps you. This is the first case about
> section 4 disclosure since 2005 and the matter is now in SLP in SC. So
> good luck.
>
> http://lobis.nic.in/dhc/BDA/judgement/21-05-2010/BDA21052010CW1271420...
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On 3/8/12, prasadbvai...@yahoo.com <prasadbvai...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > collector  of latur district las not published info u/s 4 of RTI Act
> > 2005 appointed pio and appellate authority without prior approval of
> > governor of maharashtra state and also appointed senior clerk as pio
> > and roject officer as appellate authority where as in other districts
> > Deputy collector is pio and collector is appellate authority
> > Bombay High Court issued direction to quasi judicial authorities to
> > dispose all appeals and complaints in 8 weeks but  latur collector has
> > b not followed decision and kept pending for 6 months when i
> > approached him and requested him regarding info under section 4 of rti
> > act and action taken on complaint u/s 133 of criminal procedure code
> > 1973 he ordered to throw me out of collector office can i have right
> > to see infor u/s 4 and visit collector office- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -