Dear Mr. Bunch
I fully agree with you that there is no degree for practicing RTI Act. However, your attention is drawn towards Advocates Act that one need not be a degree holder to appear before a court and defend a prosecution. Anyone can appear especially if he is capable of doing so. As far as my case is concern, the article on which the moderator has relied upon therein I had categorically stated that I do not charge any fees from aggrieved citizens. In fact I have filed several application in public interest. The latest one being on the way Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board which functions under MHADA. My application sent by Speed Post returned with remarks Refused written by the Postman. Then I requested a journalist friend of mine from Times to accompany me. We went to the Chief Officer's office and the reporter sent his card and within seconds we were ushered in. Then I was introduced as a senior journalist (currently not attached to any media organisation - this is for the benefit of the moderator. I had asked the CO why his office was refusing to accept RTI application sent by post. His response was "it is not done. RTI is sacro sanct." Then I handed over the unopened cover and told him to see it himself. Immediately he asked other officer to get the application acknowledged and the same has been transferred to 15 Executive Engineers. The content sought vide this application pertains to inferior quality repair works done from the cess money collected from tenanted cessed building most of which contain Burma Teak which worth gold. The contractor-officer nexus steals these Burma Teak and leaves the buildings in precarious conditions. This is my third attempt in getting the information. In earlier two attempts the officers were scared to have received such an application and some of them complemented me for raising the information queries. However, none preferred to respond. So this time I have also served them with a notice that if they failed in responding to the application I shall move Consumer Forum and shall ask for compensation from all 15 officers for enforcing litigation and not abiding by the statute. I am sure moderator will also find this as a case of blackmailing through RTI. Well I am proud that I have gained experienced which I am sharing with others and some of those, hardly 2% are from business community who cannot rub the shoulders of the authority wrong way so they take my service and some have actually told me that what you have done could not be achieved even by my lawyers. So if they are willing to share happily I charge. But for the moderator I shall still remain a blackmailer who is blackmailing wrong doers.
Jai Hind
Ketan Modi
On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 23:51:57 +0530 wrote
>Fantastic. It proves that India is not only the country of self seekers it has enough children to create and leave a better India before they depart, I have a strong believe they can not fail.
>Jai Hind
>Bharat Mata Ki Jai
>AK MazumderSent from BlackBerry® on AirtelFrom: raja bunch
Sender: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 12:58:18 +0530 (IST)To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com ReplyTo: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Fwd: [.RTI.] [HumJanenge] Mr. Bhaskar Prabhu defends RTI blackmailers
>I wish to add something more. Is the person/question in context is filing RTI in public interest? To become a RTI activist, has the government floated/conferred any diploma/degree like MBBS/CA etc( Recognised) where RTI activist can practice such a profession.I personally have ever charged for guiding any one.Apoligies if anyone is offended,Warm regardsBunch
From: Milind Kotak
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 10 January 2012 9:01 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Fwd: [.RTI.] [HumJanenge] Mr. Bhaskar Prabhu defends RTI blackmailers
Hi :
There is no law in the country that a RTI Professional cannot charge. If the most nobles of Professional like a Doctor can charge, a lawyer can charge then why cannot a RTI Professional charge. This is my opinion and I do not intend to enter into debate. Also I respect the other person's opinion.
Regards
Milind Kotak
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Ketan Modi wrote:
Mr. Roy,
Thanks for the verbal diatribe wherein you have recalled my polyester import scam articles in Indian Express. For your information, there were five articles published in five days. The articles were based on my personal investigations with seven trips to Ahmedabad including one trip to Mumbai- Ahmedabad-Gandhidham-Okha-Mundra-New Delhi and one trip to Mumbai-Gandhidham-New Delhi for which I had incurred expenses to the tune of Rs.60,000=00 all expenses inclusive. Of this amount Express did not allow me expenses to the Tune of Rs.12,000 because the expenses were incurred incognito.
About your observation that no credible newspaper is willing to take me, let me assure you I have served nearly a dozen of them and it was me who had told the boss to run the paper without me. Today I claim that I am a Senior Journalist not attached to any media organisation because I have chosen not to join the bandwagon of the current media tribe (both print and audio visual).
About your respect for ANT, well you are free to have your views and me mine. However, you have preferred not to speak a word about treating transfer of application u/s 6(3) as fresh and seeking fresh fee emanates from your reading of the statute and interpretation thereof. Under which provisions of law did ANT and his colleagues on bench including SG, whom you have described as my old associate, have concluded this? Their approach was aimed at blocking of all the information/s from applicant.
About your observation that I gave a perfect opportunity to screw all RTI blackmailers is nothing but exposing the venereal skin disease on your thighs publicly. Besides, it also exposes your proximity to ANT. And your unilateral conclusion that SG is an old associate is baseless. One does not take old associates by their vital organs publicly and you have conveniently ignored it which was part of my posting.
And yes I am an RTI professional which the news article said. However, in the same article it was mentioned that I do not charge any fee if a citizen comes forward for personal grievances and does not get response. About the BSNL case, I am sure none of the corrupt government officers have stalled your money for six years. In that case a businessman who had supplied the organisation material was being harassed just because he refused to grease palms of these officers. When this businessman approached me I had told him that RTI was a perfect route and he should use it. He asked me whether I can do it and I explained that if I am to represent you I shall not bear the cost and I normally charge a specific amount if it is going to benefit you. Nothing was concealed from the businessman and he had offered that since a substantial amount was stalled for a period of six years, he was losing interest on it and had virtually written it of. But then he said
instead of paying me professional fee he would give me fifty percent. His work was done and he shared the money which hitherto he had written of. Now your observations are close to telling us that every government officer has inherited right to steal money and harass citizens. So if that is blackmailing I am proud to have blackmailed someone who want move his ass till his palms are greased in good measure and that is where Mr. Prabhu is not only right but is doing service to the nation and society both.
Your observation about vexatious and multiple application exhibits how fertile is your imagination. If there are more than one corrupt elements involved in a case of corruption we do not need you to preach us what to do. You may continue with your coloured thinking and let rest be spared of your wisdom. If you think RTI is used only by blackmailers, you too have claimed to be RTI Applicant/Appellant and you are the moderator of this forum. Hence you have assumed that only you are clean and rest of are all "ha....is" which was rightly pointed out by Mr. Prabhu. Your ex-pression of diarrhea express nothing saving your mental state. As for your observation on secular etc please inform the forum whether you had supported the Nandigram massacre and if so no wonder your tribe was thrown out by the most secular people who supported your tribe for nearly a quarter of a century. And those like you non-believers have conveniently ignored that your home state comes
to complete standstill during entire Puja period. So much for the political belief and personal acts of people like yourself. Yes you have used the correct phrase empty vessels make more noise and it appropriately fits you. I had not invited myself to this forum and once again exhort you to block my membership. Let me tell you one thing publicly that you have been emanating more poisonous pollutant gases which suffocates us so plug all those organs which are malfunctioning. I also wish to recall the old filmy song "Choron Ko Saare Nazar Aate Hai Chor." Good luck to your ANT bhakti and spare us from the continuous nonsense that you posting almost on per second basis. I reiterate that Mr. Prabhu has done a great service to the society which through your dark glasses you see as black. If you still feel that we all a blackmailers, the other four fingers are pointed towards you.
Jai Hind
Ketan Modi
On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 18:01:47 +0530 wrote
>Dear Mr Modi
1) Till 04.06.2011 you did not know who I was. In fact you asked Mr.
Karira "Who is this S. Roy and what are his credentials, if you know
about it"
http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/members/karira-with-ketan+modi.html#vmessage3226
2) I OTH have known about you and your motivated articles in the
Indian Express (based mainly on handouts and selective leaks from
interested parties during the "polyester import" scams) for quite some
time.
3) It seems that nowadays no credible newspaper is willing to hire
you, so you describe yourself as "a senior journalist now not
affiliated to any media organisation". I am of course recalling from
memory your Full Bench CIC decision in Ketan Kantilal Modi versus CBEC
where Mr. A.N.Tiwari (ji) made a 'kachumber" of your submissions (and
your old associate Mr. Shailesh Gandhi could do nothing about it).
Knowing Mr. Tiwari's manner of drafting orders - the text of the Full
Bench leaves no doubt that he also considers you to be a egoistic
"corruption fighter / blackmailer" misuing RTI Act by filing vexatious
amd multiple RTI requests deliberately to the wrong PAs who deserves
to be taken down a notch (??) or two. In fact you gave Mr Tiwari-JI
the perfect opportunity to screw all RTI blackmailers like you who
abuse provisions of the RTI Act (such as 6.3)
4) It also seems that nowadays you have elevated yourself to an RTI
PROFESSIONAL" and you charge 50% of money you "recover" for
other.people by misusing RTI Act. Your M.O closely fits that of "RTI
blackmailers" whom Bhaskar had "defended" in that news report. It is
thus clear why "empty vessels make so much noise" and why "birds of a
feather flock together".
5) I also recall a news report quoting you
[http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Need-to-file-an-RTI-expert-help-is-now-at-hand/articleshow/7937646.cms]
as saying
"For example, a client approached me after the Bharat Sanchar Nigam
Ltd (BSNL) failed to pay him for stationery he had supplied it till
2005. The amount was Rs 30,000 and the client offered me a 50% share
if the RTI route helped him get it. As soon as I filed the
application, the BSNL issued a cheque and the amount was split between
me and my client. I have now filed a second appeal seeking
compensation of an equivalent amount which will come to me. Even the
cost of litigation will be paid to me."
This is a real money making approach to RTI by all the banias (aka
"bapus" / Gandhis) etc masquerading as RTI activists, and honest /
secular citizens would have no hesitation in describing such persons
as TOUTS and a BLOT ('kalank' ) to all true RTI activists .
Sarbajit
On 1/8/12, Ketan Modi wrote:
> Dear All,
> In normal course I do not participate in such discussion and continue doing
> my
> work. But Mr. Roy is generally in a habit to engage people by extending and
> enforcing on us, unsuspecting citizens. In my 25 year life as a journo I
> have come
> across many Mr. Roys who likes to throw eggs on others at the slightest
> pretext.
> Now coming to his posting on Mr. Prabhu, I wish to clarify that he is a
> distinguished member of RTI community in Mumbai and Maharashtra. He has done
> a yeoman service when along with three other members he forced the state SIC
> to
> direct the MCGM not to charge for documents at whims and fancies and made
> the
> public authority to follow the rules in letter and spirit. It is because of
> Mr.
> Prabhu that today Mumbaikars pay only Rs.2 per page for obtaining property
> assessment documents for which prior to this order MCGM was charging a
> whopping
> Rs.260 per year.
> Now coming to the words "in defense of blackmailers" which Mr. Roy has
> preferred
> to anoint Mr. Prabhu with. Being a journalist, I had faced the similar music
> of
> being dubbed as a "blackmailer" by none other than Mr. Manmohan Singh, the
> so
> called most honest PM. The issue was that as the FM he had introduced a
> scheme
> called value based advance license which was subsequently deleted due to
> constant
> campaign against it by yours truly. In one of the news piece on a particular
> Joint
> DGFT who had issued Rs.400 crore worth of import license to import
> commodities
> free of customs duty without being authorised. CBI had booked him and he had
> told
> the investigators that he was related to Manmohan. I had inserted this in my
> news
> piece with full knowledge of the background of the case being briefed to my
> immediate superior. I had categorically mentioned that this officer claimed
> to be
> a relative of Manmohan but the latter was not involved in the scam. Next
> morning
> even as the paper hit the stand and delivered to Manmohan, after reading it
> he
> called up my editor and protested that I was blackmailing him. My editor a
> prominent name, shirked in his bed. He called up my resident editor and
> started
> shouting at him. He in turn shouted at my immediate superior whom I had kept
> in
> the loop before filing the story. This gent calls me to say that Manmohan
> has
> termed you as the blackmailer for writing what was published in the day's
> edition.
> On reaching office I went to my resident editor accompanied by my immediate
> boss
> and asked him "do you know the meaning of blackmaling?' He was stunned when
> I told
> him that blackmailing means you have done something wrong of which I learn
> and
> contact you directly or indirectly to ask for some favour in cash or kind.
> Both of
> you know that I had neither contacted Manmohan but had given him a clean
> chit.
> Both my bosses agreed with me that it was not a case of black mailing but
> inferiority complex that Manmohan suffered fearing inculpated in criminal
> cases.
> The scheme introduced by him known as VABAL was deleted because of rampant
> misuse
> by a few thousand importers causing losses to the tune of Rs.1 lakh crore
> and my
> campaign forced him to delete. In that case even Chidambaram had as next FM
> helped
> those who had misused the scheme through ill gotten double benefits by
> usurping
> the power of a central excise superintendent and writing of duty worth
> several
> crores. What is more intriguing is the CAG took notice of my news articles
> and
> concluded that nation lost lakhs of corers but in the next report ractified
> that
> there was no loss to the nation. I have narrated this story mainly for the
> benefit
> of the likes of Mr.Roys who probably genuinely believe that they are
> knowalls and
> they alone have powers to dub others with paints of their choice.
> Let me brief you more case of Mr. Roy's bias. He had terms former CIC ANT as
> one
> of the most honest and competent officers. Let me share my experience with
> all of
> you that ANT had in one of my case referred the second appeal to the full
> bench
> headed by the then CIC WH with SG thrown in. In my written submission I had
> pointed out the errors in ANT's order referring the matter to full bench.
> This
> made them feel black and blue and passed a 35 page order through which they
> changed the game by making transfer under 6(3) to be treated as a fresh
> application for which applicant was made to pay fresh fees. From where on
> earth
> these gentlemen had drawn powers to introduce something which even the
> legislature
> was not aware? And this order was subsequently cited as a preceding case law
> by
> all the ICs. Recently during an public interaction with SG when I had raised
> the
> issue he had no answer. He was also looking black and blue when I raised the
> issue
> of sticking to rules in letter and spirit while dealing with RTI Appellants
> who
> are not trained as professional lawyers. Even the Supreme Court waives
> technical
> lapses when the litigant is not represented by professionally trained
> people. I
> have experienced this even in Mumbai High Court.
> Hence instead of fighting for non-issues and dubbing all of us with choicest
> colours likes of Mr.Roys must concentrate on using the most potent weapon
> that
> this democracy has empowered us with and strengthen the same. By calling Mr.
> Prabhu or citing him being reported as a defender of black mailers, Mr. Roy
> has
> not only undermined the role of Mr. Prabhu but has exhibited his extra
> ordinary
> sense of being a ignorable pest. I reiterate that Mr. Prabhu is a proud
> member of
> our community and deserves to be praised for what he is doing to the society
> and
> Mr. Roys must desist from using his tainted brush which describes ANT whose
> ego
> was hurt when his injudiciousness was pointed out to him.
> Jai Hind
> Ketan Modi
FollowRediff Deal ho jaye!to get exciting offers in your city everyday.
