Dear Vikram
I hope you have read the DHC order carefully before riding off like
Don Quixote to tilt at windmills in the SC.
We all know that Mr. Shailesh Gandhi has crores and crores of rupees
and is agitating other people to fight his battles for him to get
those remarks against him expunged.
Considering the accurate poking he has got from Justice Sanghi, I do
hope that you also don't fall prey to Mr.Gandhi's money power or
accept the offer of free legal services / advocates he will arrange
for you in SC, as it is RTI activists are a very discredited lot
nowadays.
I can also say that it was only a single judge order - which ought to
be challenged in LPA in DHC if at all. As I repeatedly say, Mr
Shailesh Gandhi is one of the ring leaders of that bunch of h****is
known as NCPRI who are out to get RTI movement scuttled at the behest
of their foreign paymasters. I again beseech you not to fall into
their trap BY GETTING THIS JUDGMENT FINALLY CONFIRMED IN SC.
With best wishes
Sarbajit
On 7/26/12, Vikram Simha <vikramsimha54@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> Dear All ,
> An Very Alarming Delhi High court Order on Former CIC Shailesh Gandhi has
> been Conveyed to me . Basically the DHC has ruled that "If a method of
> Getting Information is Available citizens cannot insist on using RTI "
> By this Mecanism or Interpretation Various Bodies can Create such an Thier
> own rules and then RTI will become Irrelavant
> A reading of the Judgement Indicates that such Judicial Interpretations &
> interpretations can do much more Harm to RTI than Ammendements to RTI
> Therefore our Freinds in Mumbai & Delhi and other Places who have formed
> themselves into RTI Regeneration Group have requested that these orders be
> challenged in SC or consider contesting the same in SC in the larger
> interest of RTI
> In this regard a meeting of freinds interested in RTI in and around
> Bangalore a few legal freinds are invited to a meet to discuss pros & cons
> in my house 2nd floor on saturday at 3pm .please come with your freinds
> the meeting will only discuss on this matter and nothing more . The meeting
> will end exactly at 4 pm to make way to yoga classes
> No reminder through SMS Telephone Mobile will be made
> Details of the DHC order will be made at the meet
> Pleae do come in interest of RTI -- your fundamental right
> The Order runs 38 pages
> Details of Order
> WR(c) 11271/2009
> Judgement delivered on 01/06/2012
> Registrar of Companies Vs Dharmendra Garg & another
> Coram : Justice Vipin Shah
> CIC orders contested : 1. CIC/SG/2009/000702
> 2.CIC/SG/2009/000753
>
>
>
> N vikramsimha , KRIA Katte , #12 Sumeru Sir M N Krishna Rao Road ,
> Basvangudi < Bangalore 560004.
>
Saturday, July 28, 2012
[HumJanenge] Re: Clarification in case of Mr. Nitish Bharadwaj (ex-MP)
Dear Girish and other HJ List members
I hope that this clarification from respected CIC S.Mishra-ji suitably
clarifies that there was no "hanky panky" in Nitish Bharadwaj's
hearing schedule and the perceived priority was due to some Registry
error.
Sarbajit
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: satyananda mishra <satyanandamishra@hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 14:58:45 +0000
Subject: RE: REMINDER Re: Clarification in case of Mr. Nitish Bharadwaj (ex-MP)
To: sroy.mb@gmail.com
Dear Mr Roy,
I am sorry for the delayed reply. It was due to the fact
that I was trying to find out how this appeal got ahead of some
others. The Registry sends hearing notice largely on a first come
first served basis except for the following occasional adjustments:
a) on account of the availability of
Video-conferencing facility, and b) hearing of
multiple cases of the same appellant or the same public authority
In the case of Nitish Bhardwaj, however, his case file got
mixed up in the bundle of cases relating to the Cabinet Secretariat
and the hearing notice was sent by the DEO in-charge on the assumption
that it was in the right serial order. It was wrongly fixed and was
taken up ahead of some others. The Registry and the DEO have been
pulled up for this lapse and warned not to make such a mistake in
future. Wherever I decide to take up a case on priority on the
accepted grounds, I give written instruction in the case file. In this
case, I had given no such instruction. Thus, it was a clerical error,
at the most.
The insinuation that the case was taken up presumably
because the wife of the appellant is a Madhya Pradesh Cadre IAS
officer is both unkind and mischievous. I hope this clarifies the
position.
I am grateful to you for bringing this to my notice and
look forward to you for your continued watch over our working in the
CIC. Regards. Satyananda Mishra
From: s.mishra@nic.in
To: satyanandamishra@hotmail.com
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 17:40:09 +0530
Subject: Fwd: REMINDER Re: Clarification in case of Mr. Nitish Bharadwaj (ex-MP)
--Forwarded Message Attachment--
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 08:12:09 +0530
From: sroy.mb@gmail.com
Subject: REMINDER Re: Clarification in case of Mr. Nitish Bharadwaj (ex-MP)
To: s.mishra@nic.in
To:
Shri Satyananda Mishra
Chief Information Commissioner of India
Central Information Commission
24-July-2012
Respected Sir
I refer to my appended request for clarification concerning the
purported "out-of-turn" hearing which was given to Mr. Nitish
Bharadwaj (ex-MP) in a recent appeal decided by you in Case
CIC/SM/A/2012/000231 on 20.July.2012.
As the sequence in which cases are taken up for disposal in the
Commission has considerable public interest especially considering
the very long pendency in high profile Public Authorities you have
retained to yourself, I again request you to kindly clarify if any
"out of turn" favour was indeed given to the appellant in that matter
and the reasons, if any.
yours faithfully
Sarbajit Roy
New Delhi
On 7/24/12, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> To:
> Shri Satyananda Mishra
> Chief Information Commissioner of India
> Central Information Commission
>
> 24-July-2012
>
> Respected Sir
>
> A message has been posted to HUMJANENGE email group concerning the
> alleged "out of turn" hearing granted to Mr. Nitish Bharadwaj (ex-MP)
> recently in a matter before yourself.
>
> As pendency and delay in the Commission is a matter of considerable
> public interest, I would request you to kindly suitably clarify if any
> out-of-turn hearing was in fact granted, and the reasons for this. As
> is very well known, Mr. Bharadwaj's wife is an IAS officer also from
> Madhya Pradesh cadre and her service matters (which are indirectly the
> subject of Mr. Bharadwaj's decided appeal) concerned the DoPT/MoP of
> which you were once the Secretary.
>
> With best wishes
>
> Yours sincerely
>
> Sarbajit Roy
> New Delhi
>
I hope that this clarification from respected CIC S.Mishra-ji suitably
clarifies that there was no "hanky panky" in Nitish Bharadwaj's
hearing schedule and the perceived priority was due to some Registry
error.
Sarbajit
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: satyananda mishra <satyanandamishra@hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 14:58:45 +0000
Subject: RE: REMINDER Re: Clarification in case of Mr. Nitish Bharadwaj (ex-MP)
To: sroy.mb@gmail.com
Dear Mr Roy,
I am sorry for the delayed reply. It was due to the fact
that I was trying to find out how this appeal got ahead of some
others. The Registry sends hearing notice largely on a first come
first served basis except for the following occasional adjustments:
a) on account of the availability of
Video-conferencing facility, and b) hearing of
multiple cases of the same appellant or the same public authority
In the case of Nitish Bhardwaj, however, his case file got
mixed up in the bundle of cases relating to the Cabinet Secretariat
and the hearing notice was sent by the DEO in-charge on the assumption
that it was in the right serial order. It was wrongly fixed and was
taken up ahead of some others. The Registry and the DEO have been
pulled up for this lapse and warned not to make such a mistake in
future. Wherever I decide to take up a case on priority on the
accepted grounds, I give written instruction in the case file. In this
case, I had given no such instruction. Thus, it was a clerical error,
at the most.
The insinuation that the case was taken up presumably
because the wife of the appellant is a Madhya Pradesh Cadre IAS
officer is both unkind and mischievous. I hope this clarifies the
position.
I am grateful to you for bringing this to my notice and
look forward to you for your continued watch over our working in the
CIC. Regards. Satyananda Mishra
From: s.mishra@nic.in
To: satyanandamishra@hotmail.com
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 17:40:09 +0530
Subject: Fwd: REMINDER Re: Clarification in case of Mr. Nitish Bharadwaj (ex-MP)
--Forwarded Message Attachment--
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 08:12:09 +0530
From: sroy.mb@gmail.com
Subject: REMINDER Re: Clarification in case of Mr. Nitish Bharadwaj (ex-MP)
To: s.mishra@nic.in
To:
Shri Satyananda Mishra
Chief Information Commissioner of India
Central Information Commission
24-July-2012
Respected Sir
I refer to my appended request for clarification concerning the
purported "out-of-turn" hearing which was given to Mr. Nitish
Bharadwaj (ex-MP) in a recent appeal decided by you in Case
CIC/SM/A/2012/000231 on 20.July.2012.
As the sequence in which cases are taken up for disposal in the
Commission has considerable public interest especially considering
the very long pendency in high profile Public Authorities you have
retained to yourself, I again request you to kindly clarify if any
"out of turn" favour was indeed given to the appellant in that matter
and the reasons, if any.
yours faithfully
Sarbajit Roy
New Delhi
On 7/24/12, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> To:
> Shri Satyananda Mishra
> Chief Information Commissioner of India
> Central Information Commission
>
> 24-July-2012
>
> Respected Sir
>
> A message has been posted to HUMJANENGE email group concerning the
> alleged "out of turn" hearing granted to Mr. Nitish Bharadwaj (ex-MP)
> recently in a matter before yourself.
>
> As pendency and delay in the Commission is a matter of considerable
> public interest, I would request you to kindly suitably clarify if any
> out-of-turn hearing was in fact granted, and the reasons for this. As
> is very well known, Mr. Bharadwaj's wife is an IAS officer also from
> Madhya Pradesh cadre and her service matters (which are indirectly the
> subject of Mr. Bharadwaj's decided appeal) concerned the DoPT/MoP of
> which you were once the Secretary.
>
> With best wishes
>
> Yours sincerely
>
> Sarbajit Roy
> New Delhi
>
[HumJanenge] RECONSTRUCT MISSING FILE IF ORIGINAL FILE IS MISSED - PROVIDE INFO.
In an order issued last week, information commissioner Sushma Singh observed that it was unfortunate that the relevant file is not traceable and ordered the First Appellate Authority (FAA) to constitute an inquiry committee to fix responsibility on the defaulting officer. The FAA was directed to provide requisite documents to the appellant, B Meghani, within four weeks of receipt of this order.
Meghani had filed the appeal before the CIC against the Inland Waterways Authority of India (IWAI) on July 11 last year for not providing information to his RTI application dated January 22, 2011 .
He had sought information pertaining to the written test conducted for recruitment of LDC at IWAI including copy of complaint lodged with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI ) in the paper leakage and other relevant papers related to internal investigation reports. CBI had closed the case after the inquiry.
The central public information officer (CPIO) and later FAA informed Meghani that no such record/complaint is available.
During the hearing on June 7 this year, Deepak Das, FAA submitted that since the relevant file was not traceable in the office, he was unable to provide requisite information to the appellant and opined that the information, which is not available, cannot be created and hence cannot be provided to applicant.
The appellant, on the other hand, produced a photocopy of the affidavit of assistant secretary, ICWAI, filed at the Allahabad RTI applicant had asked for these documents only.
Friday, July 27, 2012
Re: [HumJanenge] Omita Paul
As we understand the President and its aids can not be even glanced at by the common man.
Long life to the shredders. Actually we still have hope..
Regards.
Long life to the shredders. Actually we still have hope..
Regards.
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 4:51 PM, AK Bhattacharyya <ajitkbhattacharyya@yahoo.com> wrote:
She has been picked up as Secretary to the President of India-a talented one.
With kind regards
A.K.BHATTACHARYYA
F.I.StructE (UK), FIE (India), FIBE, FIRT
H-2A, Hauzkhas, New Delhi -16, Ph:011-26854127
--- On Mon, 2/6/12, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
Subject: [HumJanenge] Omita Paul
To: "humjanenge" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
Date: Monday, February 6, 2012, 10:28 PM
Can anyone locate in the Finance Ministry's RTI disclosure where Omita
Paul is located in their section 4
directory.
Can anyone find out how she came to be REINSTATED after resigning from
CIC.- what is the selection / appointment procedure in these cases.
http://canarytrap.in/2011/06/03/complaint-against-mrs-omita-paul/
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-06-09/news/29638719_1_finance-ministry-bureaucrat-omita-paul
http://www.powerpost.in/2011/09/11/omita-paul-sebi-and-rils-2000-crore-stock-market-scam/
http://www.firstpost.com/business/pranab-pressured-sebi-to-go-easy-on-ril-save-rs-1500-cr-118531.html
http://www.firstpost.com/economy/the-o-factor-in-pranabs-ministry-is-growing-stronger-98887.html
[rti4empowerment] How to render India a True Democracy
Additional observation.
If, after enactment of RTI Act 2005, all well meaning, well intentioned persons who exercised their fundamental right to obtain information, a right which existed right from the inception of the Constitution of India but, neither the Constitution of India nor any enactment by the parliament had any procedure to obtain it & this paucity was remedied by RTI Act 2005, had made any attempt to ensure all public authorities including Prez, PM, Minister, Parliament, CJIs of Supreme Court , High Courts, governors of State, CMs, & Ministures & state legislature, disclose the mandatory information as per section 4 of RTI Act 2005, there was no need for Lokpal agitation etc.
From: DSouza Wilberious Evanglist <wilevades@yahoo.co.uk>
To: "rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com" <rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com>; "annahazare1@gmail.com" <annahazare1@gmail.com>; "annahazare2@gmail.com" <annahazare2@gmail.com>; "annahazare@hotmail.com" <annahazare@hotmail.com>; Arvind kejriwal Parivartan <parivartan_india@rediffmail.com>; "sanjiv@fairfest.com" <sanjiv@fairfest.com>; SHASHIDHAR CHARTERED ENGINEER <rudreshtechnology@gmail.com>; "surendera@avissoftware.com" <surendera@avissoftware.com>; "" Bimal Khemani"" <bimal.khemani@gmail.com>; Jagnarain Sharma <jagnarain.sharma@gmail.com>; Dainik Jagran <rajendrakumar@lko.jagran.com>; M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in>
Sent: Saturday, 28 July 2012, 6:12
Subject:
To: "rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com" <rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com>; "annahazare1@gmail.com" <annahazare1@gmail.com>; "annahazare2@gmail.com" <annahazare2@gmail.com>; "annahazare@hotmail.com" <annahazare@hotmail.com>; Arvind kejriwal Parivartan <parivartan_india@rediffmail.com>; "sanjiv@fairfest.com" <sanjiv@fairfest.com>; SHASHIDHAR CHARTERED ENGINEER <rudreshtechnology@gmail.com>; "surendera@avissoftware.com" <surendera@avissoftware.com>; "" Bimal Khemani"" <bimal.khemani@gmail.com>; Jagnarain Sharma <jagnarain.sharma@gmail.com>; Dainik Jagran <rajendrakumar@lko.jagran.com>; M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in>
Sent: Saturday, 28 July 2012, 6:12
Subject:
To bring a wholesome change, Article 368 of the Constitution of India has to be rewritten withdrawing empowerment to Parliament to abrogate fundamental rights of citizens. All abrogations of fundamental rights by Indira Gandhi during Emergency, By Janata Government in 1978 & by NDA government in 2005 has to be reinstated. Judicial Accountability is essential. Mandataory disclosure as per section 4 of RTI Act 2005 should be done by every public authority including. Prez, PM, Cabinet of Ministers, Parliament- both houses, Governors of States, CMs & Ministers of state including Legislative Assembly & Legislative Council, CJI of Supreme Court of India, High Courts of state including subordinates.
There should punitive & Penaltative punishment for all Constitutional Authorities & Functionaris of State & People should have Right to recall any elected member either to Parliament or State legislature.
Lok Pal exercise will be one of futility. Unless, Lokpal is a Constitutional Authority having a supreme place in the Constitution of India, to be directly elected by people of India with accountability to the people, it shall be a corrupt organisation just as Lokayuktas in state, Central & State information Commissions. It shall be a yet another mega drain on public funds.
Anna Hazare & associates, Ramdev & associates may have a very good cause. However, what they are doing is subversion of democracy. They do not have mandate of people. Hence, what they indulge in become waging a battle against democratically elected government. Demogogy, rehetorie, slogan shouting , placard carrying, procession, abusive stree language will not bring any thing. They should ask their activists to go to every village & obtain signatures of people of India for a Lokpal as Constitutional Supreme Authority directly accountable to people, elected by people.
[rti4empowerment]
To bring a wholesome change, Article 368 of the Constitution of India has to be rewritten withdrawing empowerment to Parliament to abrogate fundamental rights of citizens. All abrogations of fundamental rights by Indira Gandhi during Emergency, By Janata Government in 1978 & by NDA government in 2005 has to be reinstated. Judicial Accountability is essential. Mandataory disclosure as per section 4 of RTI Act 2005 should be done by every public authority including. Prez, PM, Cabinet of Ministers, Parliament- both houses, Governors of States, CMs & Ministers of state including Legislative Assembly & Legislative Council, CJI of Supreme Court of India, High Courts of state including subordinates.
There should punitive & Penaltative punishment for all Constitutional Authorities & Functionaris of State & People should have Right to recall any elected member either to Parliament or State legislature.
Lok Pal exercise will be one of futility. Unless, Lokpal is a Constitutional Authority having a supreme place in the Constitution of India, to be directly elected by people of India with accountability to the people, it shall be a corrupt organisation just as Lokayuktas in state, Central & State information Commissions. It shall be a yet another mega drain on public funds.
Anna Hazare & associates, Ramdev & associates may have a very good cause. However, what they are doing is subversion of democracy. They do not have mandate of people. Hence, what they indulge in become waging a battle against democratically elected government. Demogogy, rehetorie, slogan shouting , placard carrying, procession, abusive stree language will not bring any thing. They should ask their activists to go to every village & obtain signatures of people of India for a Lokpal as Constitutional Supreme Authority directly accountable to people, elected by people.
[HumJanenge] GLORIFYING SUGGESTIONS
I suggest this amendment in law, "henceforth, opposition to corruption will be a crime and the punishment for this crime may even be treated 'sedition'.
Govt. should also bring a bill to legalize corruption.
Madhu Koda, A. Raja, Suresh Kalmadi, Kani Mozi, Daya Nidhi and Kalanighi Maran and all others facing charges of corruption should be given medals after the confirmed of charges. The medal should be according to the size of corruption i.e. the person who is found to siphon off the biggest money from he govt. coffer should be given biggest award. Few suggested names, Padam Vibhushan in corruption and so on.
If some funds are required to meet the cost, corruption tax may be imposed on the citizens.
Another suggested, court cannot declare decision on the corruption charges, if found true, decision will have to be reserved during the life time of the corrupt. After that, no recovery can be effected from the legal heirs of the corrupt.
Govt. should also bring a bill to legalize corruption.
Madhu Koda, A. Raja, Suresh Kalmadi, Kani Mozi, Daya Nidhi and Kalanighi Maran and all others facing charges of corruption should be given medals after the confirmed of charges. The medal should be according to the size of corruption i.e. the person who is found to siphon off the biggest money from he govt. coffer should be given biggest award. Few suggested names, Padam Vibhushan in corruption and so on.
If some funds are required to meet the cost, corruption tax may be imposed on the citizens.
Another suggested, court cannot declare decision on the corruption charges, if found true, decision will have to be reserved during the life time of the corrupt. After that, no recovery can be effected from the legal heirs of the corrupt.
Re: [HumJanenge] Omita Paul
Yeh sab gool maal hai
--
"Be kinder than necessary
because everyone you meet
is fighting some kind of battle."
Regards
NK Johri
044-24491003
09444412644
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 4:51 PM, AK Bhattacharyya <ajitkbhattacharyya@yahoo.com> wrote:
She has been picked up as Secretary to the President of India-a talented one.
With kind regards
A.K.BHATTACHARYYA
F.I.StructE (UK), FIE (India), FIBE, FIRT
H-2A, Hauzkhas, New Delhi -16, Ph:011-26854127
--- On Mon, 2/6/12, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
Subject: [HumJanenge] Omita Paul
To: "humjanenge" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
Date: Monday, February 6, 2012, 10:28 PM
Can anyone locate in the Finance Ministry's RTI disclosure where Omita
Paul is located in their section 4
directory.
Can anyone find out how she came to be REINSTATED after resigning from
CIC.- what is the selection / appointment procedure in these cases.
http://canarytrap.in/2011/06/03/complaint-against-mrs-omita-paul/
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-06-09/news/29638719_1_finance-ministry-bureaucrat-omita-paul
http://www.powerpost.in/2011/09/11/omita-paul-sebi-and-rils-2000-crore-stock-market-scam/
http://www.firstpost.com/business/pranab-pressured-sebi-to-go-easy-on-ril-save-rs-1500-cr-118531.html
http://www.firstpost.com/economy/the-o-factor-in-pranabs-ministry-is-growing-stronger-98887.html
--
"Be kinder than necessary
because everyone you meet
is fighting some kind of battle."
Regards
NK Johri
044-24491003
09444412644
Thursday, July 26, 2012
[HumJanenge] REMINDER Re: Clarification in case of Mr. Nitish Bharadwaj (ex-MP)
To:
Shri Satyananda Mishra
Chief Information Commissioner of India
Central Information Commission
24-July-2012
Respected Sir
I refer to my appended request for clarification concerning the
purported "out-of-turn" hearing which was given to Mr. Nitish
Bharadwaj (ex-MP) in a recent appeal decided by you in Case
CIC/SM/A/2012/000231 on 20.July.2012.
As the sequence in which cases are taken up for disposal in the
Commission has considerable public interest especially considering
the very long pendency in high profile Public Authorities you have
retained to yourself, I again request you to kindly clarify if any
"out of turn" favour was indeed given to the appellant in that matter
and the reasons, if any.
yours faithfully
Sarbajit Roy
New Delhi
On 7/24/12, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> To:
> Shri Satyananda Mishra
> Chief Information Commissioner of India
> Central Information Commission
>
> 24-July-2012
>
> Respected Sir
>
> A message has been posted to HUMJANENGE email group concerning the
> alleged "out of turn" hearing granted to Mr. Nitish Bharadwaj (ex-MP)
> recently in a matter before yourself.
>
> As pendency and delay in the Commission is a matter of considerable
> public interest, I would request you to kindly suitably clarify if any
> out-of-turn hearing was in fact granted, and the reasons for this. As
> is very well known, Mr. Bharadwaj's wife is an IAS officer also from
> Madhya Pradesh cadre and her service matters (which are indirectly the
> subject of Mr. Bharadwaj's decided appeal) concerned the DoPT/MoP of
> which you were once the Secretary.
>
> With best wishes
>
> Yours sincerely
>
> Sarbajit Roy
> New Delhi
>
Shri Satyananda Mishra
Chief Information Commissioner of India
Central Information Commission
24-July-2012
Respected Sir
I refer to my appended request for clarification concerning the
purported "out-of-turn" hearing which was given to Mr. Nitish
Bharadwaj (ex-MP) in a recent appeal decided by you in Case
CIC/SM/A/2012/000231 on 20.July.2012.
As the sequence in which cases are taken up for disposal in the
Commission has considerable public interest especially considering
the very long pendency in high profile Public Authorities you have
retained to yourself, I again request you to kindly clarify if any
"out of turn" favour was indeed given to the appellant in that matter
and the reasons, if any.
yours faithfully
Sarbajit Roy
New Delhi
On 7/24/12, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> To:
> Shri Satyananda Mishra
> Chief Information Commissioner of India
> Central Information Commission
>
> 24-July-2012
>
> Respected Sir
>
> A message has been posted to HUMJANENGE email group concerning the
> alleged "out of turn" hearing granted to Mr. Nitish Bharadwaj (ex-MP)
> recently in a matter before yourself.
>
> As pendency and delay in the Commission is a matter of considerable
> public interest, I would request you to kindly suitably clarify if any
> out-of-turn hearing was in fact granted, and the reasons for this. As
> is very well known, Mr. Bharadwaj's wife is an IAS officer also from
> Madhya Pradesh cadre and her service matters (which are indirectly the
> subject of Mr. Bharadwaj's decided appeal) concerned the DoPT/MoP of
> which you were once the Secretary.
>
> With best wishes
>
> Yours sincerely
>
> Sarbajit Roy
> New Delhi
>
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
[HumJanenge] Re: FUNCTIONING OF ORISSA INFORMATION COMMISSION UNDER HIGH COURT SCANNER
Dear Pradip
I have quickly gone through the WP. Was this the Final version you
filed ?
Also I could not locate where you have set out section 26 of the RTI
Act which is the pivot point of your grievance. Nor had you annexed a
copy of RTI Act in the alternative.
I feel that given time this WP could have been better focused /
drafted to achieve very specific results instead of being drafted in
the form of a PIL by RTI activist. So here's wishing you best of luck.
.
Sarbajit
On Jul 25, 10:30 pm, Pradip Pradhan <pradippradha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear friends
> Please find attached the Copy of writ petition filed in High Court,
> Odisha.
> Regards
> Pradip
>
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 10:23 AM, Pradip Pradhan
> <pradippradha...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
> > *FUNCTIONING OF ORISSA INFORMATION COMMISSION UNDER HIGH COURT SCANNER*
>
> > On a Public Interest Writ Petition *W. P. (C) No.10848/2012*
>
> > moved by Sri Pradip Pradhan, leading RTI activist and Convener of Odisha
> > Soochana Adhikar Abhijan, on 18.7.12, the Orissa High Court has been
> > pleased to issue notices of show-cause to the Chief Secretary, Secretaries
> > of I & PR Deptt., Planning & Coordination Deptt., Finance Deptt.,
> > Information Commission through its Secretary, Chief Information
> > Commissioner, Information Commissioner Mr. Jagadanand, formerly Chief
> > Information Commissioner Mr. D. N. Padhi and formerly Information
> > Commissioner Prof. Radha Mohan.
>
> > The Division Bench comprising Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr. V. Gopala
> > Gowda and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. K. Mishra was moved by the Petitioner
> > through his counsel Mr. Subha Bikash Panda to come down heavily on the very
> > manner of functioning of the Orissa Information Commission, a
> > quasi-judicial autonomous authority as well as the State Executives
> > contrary to the mandates of Section-26 of the RTI, 2005. The Petitioner in
> > his writ petition *inter alia* has alleged that the State Govt. has
> > completely abdicated its power and function in favour of the Commission and
> > the Commission has been indulging itself in activities in the name and
> > style of Information, Education and Communication (IEC), beyond the scope
> > and ambit of the statue. It has further been alleged that such kind of
> > activities carried on by the Commission since its inception till date has
> > resulted in gross misappropriation of public exchequer to the tune of more
> > than rupees five crores over the years, which requires a thorough probe and
> > recovery from the errant Commission and its Commissioners.
>
> > The rule issued by the Court has brought in a sigh of relief among the
> > bona fide RTI activists of the State and the public at large and has given
> > a jolt on the face of the Govt. before it goes for appointment of another
> > Information Commissioner sans a transparent procedure in the matter of such
> > appointment.
>
> > The petition has been posted for hearing of the parties after a month.
>
> > Posted by
>
> > Pradip Pradhan
>
> > M-99378-43482
>
> > Date-25.7.12
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > Groups "KBK O TABLE, citizen's collective for a better and different
> > KBK" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to kbkroundtable@googlegroups.com
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > kbkroundtable+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.co.in/group/kbkroundtable?hl=en-GB
> > website:http://kbkotable.wordpress.com
>
>
>
> highcourtsorderinrtipil_froms_b_pandaadv_.zip
> 3008KViewDownload
>
> RTI PIL filed by Pradip Pradhan.doc
> 1401KViewDownload
I have quickly gone through the WP. Was this the Final version you
filed ?
Also I could not locate where you have set out section 26 of the RTI
Act which is the pivot point of your grievance. Nor had you annexed a
copy of RTI Act in the alternative.
I feel that given time this WP could have been better focused /
drafted to achieve very specific results instead of being drafted in
the form of a PIL by RTI activist. So here's wishing you best of luck.
.
Sarbajit
On Jul 25, 10:30 pm, Pradip Pradhan <pradippradha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear friends
> Please find attached the Copy of writ petition filed in High Court,
> Odisha.
> Regards
> Pradip
>
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 10:23 AM, Pradip Pradhan
> <pradippradha...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
> > *FUNCTIONING OF ORISSA INFORMATION COMMISSION UNDER HIGH COURT SCANNER*
>
> > On a Public Interest Writ Petition *W. P. (C) No.10848/2012*
>
> > moved by Sri Pradip Pradhan, leading RTI activist and Convener of Odisha
> > Soochana Adhikar Abhijan, on 18.7.12, the Orissa High Court has been
> > pleased to issue notices of show-cause to the Chief Secretary, Secretaries
> > of I & PR Deptt., Planning & Coordination Deptt., Finance Deptt.,
> > Information Commission through its Secretary, Chief Information
> > Commissioner, Information Commissioner Mr. Jagadanand, formerly Chief
> > Information Commissioner Mr. D. N. Padhi and formerly Information
> > Commissioner Prof. Radha Mohan.
>
> > The Division Bench comprising Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr. V. Gopala
> > Gowda and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. K. Mishra was moved by the Petitioner
> > through his counsel Mr. Subha Bikash Panda to come down heavily on the very
> > manner of functioning of the Orissa Information Commission, a
> > quasi-judicial autonomous authority as well as the State Executives
> > contrary to the mandates of Section-26 of the RTI, 2005. The Petitioner in
> > his writ petition *inter alia* has alleged that the State Govt. has
> > completely abdicated its power and function in favour of the Commission and
> > the Commission has been indulging itself in activities in the name and
> > style of Information, Education and Communication (IEC), beyond the scope
> > and ambit of the statue. It has further been alleged that such kind of
> > activities carried on by the Commission since its inception till date has
> > resulted in gross misappropriation of public exchequer to the tune of more
> > than rupees five crores over the years, which requires a thorough probe and
> > recovery from the errant Commission and its Commissioners.
>
> > The rule issued by the Court has brought in a sigh of relief among the
> > bona fide RTI activists of the State and the public at large and has given
> > a jolt on the face of the Govt. before it goes for appointment of another
> > Information Commissioner sans a transparent procedure in the matter of such
> > appointment.
>
> > The petition has been posted for hearing of the parties after a month.
>
> > Posted by
>
> > Pradip Pradhan
>
> > M-99378-43482
>
> > Date-25.7.12
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > Groups "KBK O TABLE, citizen's collective for a better and different
> > KBK" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to kbkroundtable@googlegroups.com
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > kbkroundtable+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.co.in/group/kbkroundtable?hl=en-GB
> > website:http://kbkotable.wordpress.com
>
>
>
> highcourtsorderinrtipil_froms_b_pandaadv_.zip
> 3008KViewDownload
>
> RTI PIL filed by Pradip Pradhan.doc
> 1401KViewDownload
[HumJanenge] Re: FUNCTIONING OF ORISSA INFORMATION COMMISSION UNDER HIGH COURT SCANNER
Dear friends
Please find attached the Copy of writ petition filed in High Court, Odisha.
Regards
Pradip
Please find attached the Copy of writ petition filed in High Court, Odisha.
Regards
Pradip
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 10:23 AM, Pradip Pradhan <pradippradhan63@gmail.com> wrote:
FUNCTIONING OF ORISSA INFORMATION COMMISSION UNDER HIGH COURT SCANNER
On a Public Interest Writ Petition W. P. (C) No.10848/2012
moved by Sri Pradip Pradhan, leading RTI activist and Convener of Odisha Soochana Adhikar Abhijan, on 18.7.12, the Orissa High Court has been pleased to issue notices of show-cause to the Chief Secretary, Secretaries of I & PR Deptt., Planning & Coordination Deptt., Finance Deptt., Information Commission through its Secretary, Chief Information Commissioner, Information Commissioner Mr. Jagadanand, formerly Chief Information Commissioner Mr. D. N. Padhi and formerly Information Commissioner Prof. Radha Mohan.
The Division Bench comprising Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr. V. Gopala Gowda and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. K. Mishra was moved by the Petitioner through his counsel Mr. Subha Bikash Panda to come down heavily on the very manner of functioning of the Orissa Information Commission, a quasi-judicial autonomous authority as well as the State Executives contrary to the mandates of Section-26 of the RTI, 2005. The Petitioner in his writ petition inter alia has alleged that the State Govt. has completely abdicated its power and function in favour of the Commission and the Commission has been indulging itself in activities in the name and style of Information, Education and Communication (IEC), beyond the scope and ambit of the statue. It has further been alleged that such kind of activities carried on by the Commission since its inception till date has resulted in gross misappropriation of public exchequer to the tune of more than rupees five crores over the years, which requires a thorough probe and recovery from the errant Commission and its Commissioners.
The rule issued by the Court has brought in a sigh of relief among the bona fide RTI activists of the State and the public at large and has given a jolt on the face of the Govt. before it goes for appointment of another Information Commissioner sans a transparent procedure in the matter of such appointment.
The petition has been posted for hearing of the parties after a month.
Posted by
Pradip Pradhan
M-99378-43482
Date-25.7.12
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "KBK O TABLE, citizen's collective for a better and different
KBK" group.
To post to this group, send email to kbkroundtable@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
kbkroundtable+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.co.in/group/kbkroundtable?hl=en-GB
website: http://kbkotable.wordpress.com
Re: [HumJanenge] FUNCTIONING OF ORISSA INFORMATION COMMISSION UNDER HIGH COURT SCANNER
Dear Pradip
This is merely a rule in the nature of rule nisi which has been issued.
Lets see how the SIC replies to you. Please keep us informed
SDarbajit
On 7/25/12, Pradip Pradhan <pradippradhan63@gmail.com> wrote:
> *FUNCTIONING OF ORISSA INFORMATION COMMISSION UNDER HIGH COURT SCANNER*
>
>
>
> On a Public Interest Writ Petition *W. P. (C) No.10848/2012*
>
> moved by Sri Pradip Pradhan, leading RTI activist and Convener of Odisha
> Soochana Adhikar Abhijan, on 18.7.12, the Orissa High Court has been
> pleased to issue notices of show-cause to the Chief Secretary, Secretaries
> of I & PR Deptt., Planning & Coordination Deptt., Finance Deptt.,
> Information Commission through its Secretary, Chief Information
> Commissioner, Information Commissioner Mr. Jagadanand, formerly Chief
> Information Commissioner Mr. D. N. Padhi and formerly Information
> Commissioner Prof. Radha Mohan.
>
>
>
> The Division Bench comprising Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr. V. Gopala Gowda
> and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. K. Mishra was moved by the Petitioner through
> his counsel Mr. Subha Bikash Panda to come down heavily on the very manner
> of functioning of the Orissa Information Commission, a quasi-judicial
> autonomous authority as well as the State Executives contrary to the
> mandates of Section-26 of the RTI, 2005. The Petitioner in his writ
> petition *inter alia* has alleged that the State Govt. has completely
> abdicated its power and function in favour of the Commission and the
> Commission has been indulging itself in activities in the name and style of
> Information, Education and Communication (IEC), beyond the scope and ambit
> of the statue. It has further been alleged that such kind of activities
> carried on by the Commission since its inception till date has resulted in
> gross misappropriation of public exchequer to the tune of more than rupees
> five crores over the years, which requires a thorough probe and recovery
> from the errant Commission and its Commissioners.
>
> The rule issued by the Court has brought in a sigh of relief among the bona
> fide RTI activists of the State and the public at large and has given a
> jolt on the face of the Govt. before it goes for appointment of another
> Information Commissioner sans a transparent procedure in the matter of such
> appointment.
>
> The petition has been posted for hearing of the parties after a month.
>
>
>
> Posted by
>
> Pradip Pradhan
>
> M-99378-43482
>
> Date-25.7.12
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "KBK O TABLE, citizen's collective for a better and different
> KBK" group.
> To post to this group, send email to kbkroundtable@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> kbkroundtable+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.co.in/group/kbkroundtable?hl=en-GB
> website: http://kbkotable.wordpress.com
>
This is merely a rule in the nature of rule nisi which has been issued.
Lets see how the SIC replies to you. Please keep us informed
SDarbajit
On 7/25/12, Pradip Pradhan <pradippradhan63@gmail.com> wrote:
> *FUNCTIONING OF ORISSA INFORMATION COMMISSION UNDER HIGH COURT SCANNER*
>
>
>
> On a Public Interest Writ Petition *W. P. (C) No.10848/2012*
>
> moved by Sri Pradip Pradhan, leading RTI activist and Convener of Odisha
> Soochana Adhikar Abhijan, on 18.7.12, the Orissa High Court has been
> pleased to issue notices of show-cause to the Chief Secretary, Secretaries
> of I & PR Deptt., Planning & Coordination Deptt., Finance Deptt.,
> Information Commission through its Secretary, Chief Information
> Commissioner, Information Commissioner Mr. Jagadanand, formerly Chief
> Information Commissioner Mr. D. N. Padhi and formerly Information
> Commissioner Prof. Radha Mohan.
>
>
>
> The Division Bench comprising Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr. V. Gopala Gowda
> and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. K. Mishra was moved by the Petitioner through
> his counsel Mr. Subha Bikash Panda to come down heavily on the very manner
> of functioning of the Orissa Information Commission, a quasi-judicial
> autonomous authority as well as the State Executives contrary to the
> mandates of Section-26 of the RTI, 2005. The Petitioner in his writ
> petition *inter alia* has alleged that the State Govt. has completely
> abdicated its power and function in favour of the Commission and the
> Commission has been indulging itself in activities in the name and style of
> Information, Education and Communication (IEC), beyond the scope and ambit
> of the statue. It has further been alleged that such kind of activities
> carried on by the Commission since its inception till date has resulted in
> gross misappropriation of public exchequer to the tune of more than rupees
> five crores over the years, which requires a thorough probe and recovery
> from the errant Commission and its Commissioners.
>
> The rule issued by the Court has brought in a sigh of relief among the bona
> fide RTI activists of the State and the public at large and has given a
> jolt on the face of the Govt. before it goes for appointment of another
> Information Commissioner sans a transparent procedure in the matter of such
> appointment.
>
> The petition has been posted for hearing of the parties after a month.
>
>
>
> Posted by
>
> Pradip Pradhan
>
> M-99378-43482
>
> Date-25.7.12
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "KBK O TABLE, citizen's collective for a better and different
> KBK" group.
> To post to this group, send email to kbkroundtable@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> kbkroundtable+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.co.in/group/kbkroundtable?hl=en-GB
> website: http://kbkotable.wordpress.com
>
Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Another blunder of Anita Gupta
Dear Girish
I must presume that Anita Gupta has faithfully recorded your exact RTI
queries of 21.05.2012 in her Appellate order.
NOW you claim that there are portions (marked in RED COLOUR by you) to
your queries which she has left out from her order.
OTH, if these RED colour portions are figments of YOUR imagination
which you expect a PIO and/or FAA to magically divine from the deeply
fevered recesses of your mind, then even Lord Krisha (aka Mr. Nitish
Bharadwaj ex-MP) cannot help you.
Also, nowhere in her order has she recorded that you are highlighting
case number CIC/SM/A/001791/SG/17637which is in the Moneylife article.
Nowhere is Aakashdeep's case mentioned - did you SPECIFICALLY ask for
it ?
To settle this matter once and for all, we would appreciate that you
mail a copy of your actual RTI request of 21.May.2012 to this group.
Sarbajit
On 7/25/12, Girish Mittal <rtng.mittal@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Sarbjeet,
>
> Perhaps your understanding of law is different from my understanding...and
> thanks for branding me "unfortunate"...But if you had certified me as
> "untouchable", I would have had access to some more facilities from Bharat
> sarkar..Anyways...
>
> My contention is simple..I had highlighted a case published on Moneylife
> http://goo.gl/lX7qm It is registered as CIC/SM/A/001791/SG/17637
>
> Now look at queries in the said RTI:
>
> (a) Kindly provide case file #s in which CIC has issued show cause
> notices to CPIO,CIC for non provision/delayed provision of
> information..Relevant
> case file is quoted above(although there are several other)
>
> (b) Kindly provide copies of response of CPIO, CIC to those show cause
> notices..Relevant case file is quoted above(although there are several
> other)
>
> (c) Kindly provide information with file notings on cases where
> information is pending to be provided inspite of order of CIC on the
> same...Relevant
> case file is quoted above(although there are several other)
>
> (d) Kindly provide information with file notings on cases where CIC has
> decided to engage services of counsel/advocate to defend on show-cause
> notice(s) issued against CPIO, CIC and/or disclosure of information
> directed by CIC. Kindly provide information on the process by which the
> counsel/advocate(s) were hired and remuneration being paid to them with
> copies of bills/vouchers/challans etc.
>
> The case in which Akashdeep has filed petition in HC.(and many more).
>
> (e) Kindly provide copies of submissions made by CPIO, CIC or appointed
> counsel/advocate alongwith in above mentioned cases before the ICs and file
> notings on the same.
>
> The case in which Akashdeep has filed petition in HC.(and many more).
>
> (f) Kindly provide information with file notings on the cases of
> transfer of bench of cases against CPIO, CIC after the case has been listed
> for hearing with a particular bench or after a show cause noting has been
> issued.
>
> CIC/SM/A/2011/001791/SG/17637..
>
>
> As can be seen from above, the case files readily exist in CIC and the
> difference you are trying to point out in beyond comprehension. I can only
> do telephonic hearing as I cannot come to Delhi for every hearing. That
> day, phone was fully functional, but the call for hearing never came. When
> I tried to call, her # was constantly busy. Perhaps they had kept
> the receiver down for half an hour. Probably she did not want the hearing
> to take place for obvious reasons.
>
>
> Regards.
>
>
> Girish Mittal
>
I must presume that Anita Gupta has faithfully recorded your exact RTI
queries of 21.05.2012 in her Appellate order.
NOW you claim that there are portions (marked in RED COLOUR by you) to
your queries which she has left out from her order.
OTH, if these RED colour portions are figments of YOUR imagination
which you expect a PIO and/or FAA to magically divine from the deeply
fevered recesses of your mind, then even Lord Krisha (aka Mr. Nitish
Bharadwaj ex-MP) cannot help you.
Also, nowhere in her order has she recorded that you are highlighting
case number CIC/SM/A/001791/SG/17637which is in the Moneylife article.
Nowhere is Aakashdeep's case mentioned - did you SPECIFICALLY ask for
it ?
To settle this matter once and for all, we would appreciate that you
mail a copy of your actual RTI request of 21.May.2012 to this group.
Sarbajit
On 7/25/12, Girish Mittal <rtng.mittal@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Sarbjeet,
>
> Perhaps your understanding of law is different from my understanding...and
> thanks for branding me "unfortunate"...But if you had certified me as
> "untouchable", I would have had access to some more facilities from Bharat
> sarkar..Anyways...
>
> My contention is simple..I had highlighted a case published on Moneylife
> http://goo.gl/lX7qm It is registered as CIC/SM/A/001791/SG/17637
>
> Now look at queries in the said RTI:
>
> (a) Kindly provide case file #s in which CIC has issued show cause
> notices to CPIO,CIC for non provision/delayed provision of
> information..Relevant
> case file is quoted above(although there are several other)
>
> (b) Kindly provide copies of response of CPIO, CIC to those show cause
> notices..Relevant case file is quoted above(although there are several
> other)
>
> (c) Kindly provide information with file notings on cases where
> information is pending to be provided inspite of order of CIC on the
> same...Relevant
> case file is quoted above(although there are several other)
>
> (d) Kindly provide information with file notings on cases where CIC has
> decided to engage services of counsel/advocate to defend on show-cause
> notice(s) issued against CPIO, CIC and/or disclosure of information
> directed by CIC. Kindly provide information on the process by which the
> counsel/advocate(s) were hired and remuneration being paid to them with
> copies of bills/vouchers/challans etc.
>
> The case in which Akashdeep has filed petition in HC.(and many more).
>
> (e) Kindly provide copies of submissions made by CPIO, CIC or appointed
> counsel/advocate alongwith in above mentioned cases before the ICs and file
> notings on the same.
>
> The case in which Akashdeep has filed petition in HC.(and many more).
>
> (f) Kindly provide information with file notings on the cases of
> transfer of bench of cases against CPIO, CIC after the case has been listed
> for hearing with a particular bench or after a show cause noting has been
> issued.
>
> CIC/SM/A/2011/001791/SG/17637..
>
>
> As can be seen from above, the case files readily exist in CIC and the
> difference you are trying to point out in beyond comprehension. I can only
> do telephonic hearing as I cannot come to Delhi for every hearing. That
> day, phone was fully functional, but the call for hearing never came. When
> I tried to call, her # was constantly busy. Perhaps they had kept
> the receiver down for half an hour. Probably she did not want the hearing
> to take place for obvious reasons.
>
>
> Regards.
>
>
> Girish Mittal
>
Re: [.RTI.] Re: [HumJanenge] WHY WE NEED A HINDU RASHTRA?
| Please do not discuss religion on this board.Its personal. Njoy and practice good --- On Tue, 17/7/12, Azhar Tamboli <ajahar.in@gmail.com> wrote:
|
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
[HumJanenge] FUNCTIONING OF ORISSA INFORMATION COMMISSION UNDER HIGH COURT SCANNER
FUNCTIONING OF ORISSA INFORMATION COMMISSION UNDER HIGH COURT SCANNER
On a Public Interest Writ Petition W. P. (C) No.10848/2012
moved by Sri Pradip Pradhan, leading RTI activist and Convener of Odisha Soochana Adhikar Abhijan, on 18.7.12, the Orissa High Court has been pleased to issue notices of show-cause to the Chief Secretary, Secretaries of I & PR Deptt., Planning & Coordination Deptt., Finance Deptt., Information Commission through its Secretary, Chief Information Commissioner, Information Commissioner Mr. Jagadanand, formerly Chief Information Commissioner Mr. D. N. Padhi and formerly Information Commissioner Prof. Radha Mohan.
The Division Bench comprising Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr. V. Gopala Gowda and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. K. Mishra was moved by the Petitioner through his counsel Mr. Subha Bikash Panda to come down heavily on the very manner of functioning of the Orissa Information Commission, a quasi-judicial autonomous authority as well as the State Executives contrary to the mandates of Section-26 of the RTI, 2005. The Petitioner in his writ petition inter alia has alleged that the State Govt. has completely abdicated its power and function in favour of the Commission and the Commission has been indulging itself in activities in the name and style of Information, Education and Communication (IEC), beyond the scope and ambit of the statue. It has further been alleged that such kind of activities carried on by the Commission since its inception till date has resulted in gross misappropriation of public exchequer to the tune of more than rupees five crores over the years, which requires a thorough probe and recovery from the errant Commission and its Commissioners.
The rule issued by the Court has brought in a sigh of relief among the bona fide RTI activists of the State and the public at large and has given a jolt on the face of the Govt. before it goes for appointment of another Information Commissioner sans a transparent procedure in the matter of such appointment.
The petition has been posted for hearing of the parties after a month.
Posted by
Pradip Pradhan
M-99378-43482
Date-25.7.12
--You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "KBK O TABLE, citizen's collective for a better and different
KBK" group.
To post to this group, send email to kbkroundtable@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
kbkroundtable+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.co.in/group/kbkroundtable?hl=en-GB
website: http://kbkotable.wordpress.com
[HumJanenge] Re: Another blunder of Anita Gupta
Dear Sarbjeet,
Perhaps your understanding of law is different from my understanding...and thanks for branding me "unfortunate"...But if you had certified me as "untouchable", I would have had access to some more facilities from Bharat sarkar..Anyways...
My contention is simple..I had highlighted a case published on Moneylife http://goo.gl/lX7qm It is registered as CIC/SM/A/001791/SG/17637
Now look at queries in the said RTI:
(a) Kindly provide case file #s in which CIC has issued show cause notices to CPIO,CIC for non provision/delayed provision of information..Relevant case file is quoted above(although there are several other)
(b) Kindly provide copies of response of CPIO, CIC to those show cause notices..Relevant case file is quoted above(although there are several other)
(c) Kindly provide information with file notings on cases where information is pending to be provided inspite of order of CIC on the same...Relevant case file is quoted above(although there are several other)
(d) Kindly provide information with file notings on cases where CIC has decided to engage services of counsel/advocate to defend on show-cause notice(s) issued against CPIO, CIC and/or disclosure of information directed by CIC. Kindly provide information on the process by which the counsel/advocate(s) were hired and remuneration being paid to them with copies of bills/vouchers/challans etc.
The case in which Akashdeep has filed petition in HC.(and many more).
(e) Kindly provide copies of submissions made by CPIO, CIC or appointed counsel/advocate alongwith in above mentioned cases before the ICs and file notings on the same.
The case in which Akashdeep has filed petition in HC.(and many more).
(f) Kindly provide information with file notings on the cases of transfer of bench of cases against CPIO, CIC after the case has been listed for hearing with a particular bench or after a show cause noting has been issued.
CIC/SM/A/2011/001791/SG/17637..
As can be seen from above, the case files readily exist in CIC and the difference you are trying to point out in beyond comprehension. I can only do telephonic hearing as I cannot come to Delhi for every hearing. That day, phone was fully functional, but the call for hearing never came. When I tried to call, her # was constantly busy. Perhaps they had kept the receiver down for half an hour. Probably she did not want the hearing to take place for obvious reasons.
Regards.
Girish Mittal
[HumJanenge] IC SS taking on MPs also ?
IC SS seems to be taking on MPs also with
her copy/paste orders .......
http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SS_C_2012_000355_M_87346.pdf
RTIwanted
Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Another blunder of Anita Gupta
Mr Sarbajit / Mr Mittal,
The said decision of Late Mr Balwani is available here:
RTIwanted
From: sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: "HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005" <HumJanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 10:01 AM
Subject: [HumJanenge] Re: Another blunder of Anita Gupta
Also kindly request the CIC to inquire into status of detailed First
Appeal Order of Secretary /CIC Mr Haleem Khan on this very issue in
case of Mr. Ravinder Balwani versus CPIO/CIC in CIC/AA/A/2008/188
dated 19.1.2009 - the copy of which has been mischievously removed
from CIC website.
Sarbajit
[HumJanenge] Clarification in case of Mr. Nitish Bharadwaj (ex-MP)
To:
Shri Satyananda Mishra
Chief Information Commissioner of India
Central Information Commission
24-July-2012
Respected Sir
A message has been posted to HUMJANENGE email group concerning the
alleged "out of turn" hearing granted to Mr. Nitish Bharadwaj (ex-MP)
recently in a matter before yourself.
As pendency and delay in the Commission is a matter of considerable
public interest, I would request you to kindly suitably clarify if any
out-of-turn hearing was in fact granted, and the reasons for this. As
is very well known, Mr. Bharadwaj's wife is an IAS officer also from
Madhya Pradesh cadre and her service matters (which are indirectly the
subject of Mr. Bharadwaj's decided appeal) concerned the DoPT/MoP of
which you were once the Secretary.
With best wishes
Yours sincerely
Sarbajit Roy
New Delhi
Shri Satyananda Mishra
Chief Information Commissioner of India
Central Information Commission
24-July-2012
Respected Sir
A message has been posted to HUMJANENGE email group concerning the
alleged "out of turn" hearing granted to Mr. Nitish Bharadwaj (ex-MP)
recently in a matter before yourself.
As pendency and delay in the Commission is a matter of considerable
public interest, I would request you to kindly suitably clarify if any
out-of-turn hearing was in fact granted, and the reasons for this. As
is very well known, Mr. Bharadwaj's wife is an IAS officer also from
Madhya Pradesh cadre and her service matters (which are indirectly the
subject of Mr. Bharadwaj's decided appeal) concerned the DoPT/MoP of
which you were once the Secretary.
With best wishes
Yours sincerely
Sarbajit Roy
New Delhi
Monday, July 23, 2012
[HumJanenge] Amendments to Central Right to Information Rules. File No. 1/35/2008-IR
To:
1) Shri P.K.Misra, Secretary/DoPT,
2) Shri Manoj Joshi, JS(ATA)/DoPT
BY EMAIL
In File No. 1/35/2008-IR
24-July-2012
Respected Sirs,
I am constrained to bring to your kind notice the following curious
facts concerning certain irregular actions by your Department /
officers, with the expectation that the situation shall be properly
enquired into and resolved.
As I am given to understand that the File No. 1/35/2008-IR is
presently with the Hon'ble Prime Minister who holds charge of the
Department, I request that a copy of the email is forthwith placed on
the concerned file for his information also.
1) As is contained on DoPT's website in the RTI Circulars section, on
21.05.2010 the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in WP(C) 12714/2009 "DDA
versus CIC and Anr." struck down the so-called Central Information
Commission Management Regulations, 2007 promulgated by the Central
information Commission as being bad in law. It is pertinent that I was
the 2nd Respondent in the above cited matter and I supported DDA's
stand that the CIC Management Regulations 2007 were wholly illegal..
2) On 15.09.2010, in a RTI hearing before the Central Information
Commission,. Advocate Rajiv Bansal nominated Counsel for Delhi High
Court, informed Mr. Wajahat Habibullah that in view of the above said
decision the CIC had no authority to constitute Benches to adjudicate
on matters. As recorded in CIC's order in File CIC/WB/C/2010/000030
dated 28.09.2010, the CIC recorded at page 15 therein "steps have been
taken by the nodal Ministry so that Commission can continue to
function in benches".
3) On 10.December 2010, the DoPT published an OM inviting comments by
email before 27.12.2012 on proposed Amendments to Central RTI Rules in
File No. 1/35/2008-IR. The email ID was that of Under Secretary(RTI)
DoPT.
4) That, as an affected party in the pending litigation now before
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I submitted several detailed comments to
the proposed Rule Amendments, which Rule Amendments as are very well
known now were in fact submitted by the Central Information Commission
in coordination with the Centre for Good Governance Hyderabad, by
email well within the time period allowed. All my comments were duly
delivered to the designated email ID.
5) That along with me about 274 other persons, members of HumJanenge
online RTI forum, also responded by email to the said proposed Rule
Amendments, seconding and adding to my own submitted comments. These
were also duly delivered. I am given to understand that even persons
like Ms. Rita Sharma /Secretary NAC personally supported my/our
comments notwithstanding that the NAC's own response/.recommendations
often ran diametrically counter to ours.
6) It appears that due to pressure / extraneous considerations from
certain well known RTI "touts" in the NAC (National Advisory Council)
on/to senior officers of your Department, an administrative decision
was taken not to diarise / properly file the comments submitted by
email to this OM. It was further administratively decided by your
Department that only comments submitted through the NAC or through the
RTI "touts" in the NAC would be placed on the concerned file for
consideration. As an example, comments submitted by one ex-Chief
Justice A.P.Shah sent through the NAC was placed in the concerned file
well after the due date - which is highly unfair and violative of all
principles of natural justice for persons like me who applied through
the front door (instead of through the back door of the NAC) . It is a
matter of deep concern that Justice Shah was provided unofficial
copies of all comments submitted by email and several meetings were
held involving him at NAC sub-group meetings, where officers of DoPT
may have been present, to enable him to submit his / NACs views well
after the due date was over.
7) On or about 27-Jan-2011 I informed Mr. Rajiv Kapoor (former
JS-ATA/DoPT) that our submitted comments had been malafidely destroyed
from the said file. When I met Mr.Kapoor a few days later he told me
that my comments were not on file and were not being considered in
view of the NAC situation. In fact the entire public notice exercise
was only a hollow formality to enable the RTI "touts" / NAC to
manipulate the RTI Rule Amendments.
8) It seems that many other citizens who had submitted comments were
equally aggrieved by the approach of the DoPT concerning Amendment to
RTI Rules. One Cmdr (Retd) Lokesh Batra has been publicising copy of a
DoPT circular dated 25.06.2012 informing that the folder containing
the comments received is misplaced /. untraceable, and which is my
instant CAUSE OF ACTION. It appears that the said folder was
reportedly last with Mr. Rajeev Kapoor or Mr. K.G. Verrma (Director
/RTI) when the fact is that it was illegally taken out of North Block
to show the NAC / Justice Shah and provide informal copies to them.
9) As I was very well aware in advance that such practices regularly
occur in your Department, I had prominently stated in all my comments
that my comments were not to be disclosed to the NAC, or private
persons (like Justice Shah). I was very well aware that NAC has no
power to directly "summon" or requisition records from any Govt
Department, and certainly not documents or comments submitted by
private citizens in response to a public notice.
10) The disappearance of the file/folder containing comments from the
public is not a trivial matter in view of the provisions of the
Official Secrets Act. I am clearly alleging that the disappearance /
"untrace" of these documents was engineered by certain RTI "touts" in
collusion with officers of your Department to harm / cause damage to
affected citizens. As a victim/ affected person I desire that a
thorough enquiry / investigation be conducted into the disappearance
of this file / folder. No harm should ensure to me and the other 274
persons who seconded my comments. In particular I require equal
opportunity of hearing and consideration as was afforded to persons
who had filed their comments through the NAC by your Department. We
are all deeply concerned that "touts" have the free run of your
Department and enjoy extraordinary privileges whereas ordinary
citizens / "aam-aadmi" is made to run around.
11) I also demand that a Police Report / FIR be filed immediately in
connection with this missing file / folder so that the guilty officers
can be identified / prosecuted. I wish to place all facts in my
knowledge before the investigative agencies if this file/folder
continues to remain untraced.
I would appreciate an acknowledgment of this email which contains my
grievances - the substance of which has already been registered as
Public Grievance no. .DOPAT/E/2012/00589 on DARPG portal.
yours faithfully
Sarbajit Roy
B-59 Defence Colony
New Delhi 110024
Tel : 09311448069
1) Shri P.K.Misra, Secretary/DoPT,
2) Shri Manoj Joshi, JS(ATA)/DoPT
BY EMAIL
In File No. 1/35/2008-IR
24-July-2012
Respected Sirs,
I am constrained to bring to your kind notice the following curious
facts concerning certain irregular actions by your Department /
officers, with the expectation that the situation shall be properly
enquired into and resolved.
As I am given to understand that the File No. 1/35/2008-IR is
presently with the Hon'ble Prime Minister who holds charge of the
Department, I request that a copy of the email is forthwith placed on
the concerned file for his information also.
1) As is contained on DoPT's website in the RTI Circulars section, on
21.05.2010 the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in WP(C) 12714/2009 "DDA
versus CIC and Anr." struck down the so-called Central Information
Commission Management Regulations, 2007 promulgated by the Central
information Commission as being bad in law. It is pertinent that I was
the 2nd Respondent in the above cited matter and I supported DDA's
stand that the CIC Management Regulations 2007 were wholly illegal..
2) On 15.09.2010, in a RTI hearing before the Central Information
Commission,. Advocate Rajiv Bansal nominated Counsel for Delhi High
Court, informed Mr. Wajahat Habibullah that in view of the above said
decision the CIC had no authority to constitute Benches to adjudicate
on matters. As recorded in CIC's order in File CIC/WB/C/2010/000030
dated 28.09.2010, the CIC recorded at page 15 therein "steps have been
taken by the nodal Ministry so that Commission can continue to
function in benches".
3) On 10.December 2010, the DoPT published an OM inviting comments by
email before 27.12.2012 on proposed Amendments to Central RTI Rules in
File No. 1/35/2008-IR. The email ID was that of Under Secretary(RTI)
DoPT.
4) That, as an affected party in the pending litigation now before
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I submitted several detailed comments to
the proposed Rule Amendments, which Rule Amendments as are very well
known now were in fact submitted by the Central Information Commission
in coordination with the Centre for Good Governance Hyderabad, by
email well within the time period allowed. All my comments were duly
delivered to the designated email ID.
5) That along with me about 274 other persons, members of HumJanenge
online RTI forum, also responded by email to the said proposed Rule
Amendments, seconding and adding to my own submitted comments. These
were also duly delivered. I am given to understand that even persons
like Ms. Rita Sharma /Secretary NAC personally supported my/our
comments notwithstanding that the NAC's own response/.recommendations
often ran diametrically counter to ours.
6) It appears that due to pressure / extraneous considerations from
certain well known RTI "touts" in the NAC (National Advisory Council)
on/to senior officers of your Department, an administrative decision
was taken not to diarise / properly file the comments submitted by
email to this OM. It was further administratively decided by your
Department that only comments submitted through the NAC or through the
RTI "touts" in the NAC would be placed on the concerned file for
consideration. As an example, comments submitted by one ex-Chief
Justice A.P.Shah sent through the NAC was placed in the concerned file
well after the due date - which is highly unfair and violative of all
principles of natural justice for persons like me who applied through
the front door (instead of through the back door of the NAC) . It is a
matter of deep concern that Justice Shah was provided unofficial
copies of all comments submitted by email and several meetings were
held involving him at NAC sub-group meetings, where officers of DoPT
may have been present, to enable him to submit his / NACs views well
after the due date was over.
7) On or about 27-Jan-2011 I informed Mr. Rajiv Kapoor (former
JS-ATA/DoPT) that our submitted comments had been malafidely destroyed
from the said file. When I met Mr.Kapoor a few days later he told me
that my comments were not on file and were not being considered in
view of the NAC situation. In fact the entire public notice exercise
was only a hollow formality to enable the RTI "touts" / NAC to
manipulate the RTI Rule Amendments.
8) It seems that many other citizens who had submitted comments were
equally aggrieved by the approach of the DoPT concerning Amendment to
RTI Rules. One Cmdr (Retd) Lokesh Batra has been publicising copy of a
DoPT circular dated 25.06.2012 informing that the folder containing
the comments received is misplaced /. untraceable, and which is my
instant CAUSE OF ACTION. It appears that the said folder was
reportedly last with Mr. Rajeev Kapoor or Mr. K.G. Verrma (Director
/RTI) when the fact is that it was illegally taken out of North Block
to show the NAC / Justice Shah and provide informal copies to them.
9) As I was very well aware in advance that such practices regularly
occur in your Department, I had prominently stated in all my comments
that my comments were not to be disclosed to the NAC, or private
persons (like Justice Shah). I was very well aware that NAC has no
power to directly "summon" or requisition records from any Govt
Department, and certainly not documents or comments submitted by
private citizens in response to a public notice.
10) The disappearance of the file/folder containing comments from the
public is not a trivial matter in view of the provisions of the
Official Secrets Act. I am clearly alleging that the disappearance /
"untrace" of these documents was engineered by certain RTI "touts" in
collusion with officers of your Department to harm / cause damage to
affected citizens. As a victim/ affected person I desire that a
thorough enquiry / investigation be conducted into the disappearance
of this file / folder. No harm should ensure to me and the other 274
persons who seconded my comments. In particular I require equal
opportunity of hearing and consideration as was afforded to persons
who had filed their comments through the NAC by your Department. We
are all deeply concerned that "touts" have the free run of your
Department and enjoy extraordinary privileges whereas ordinary
citizens / "aam-aadmi" is made to run around.
11) I also demand that a Police Report / FIR be filed immediately in
connection with this missing file / folder so that the guilty officers
can be identified / prosecuted. I wish to place all facts in my
knowledge before the investigative agencies if this file/folder
continues to remain untraced.
I would appreciate an acknowledgment of this email which contains my
grievances - the substance of which has already been registered as
Public Grievance no. .DOPAT/E/2012/00589 on DARPG portal.
yours faithfully
Sarbajit Roy
B-59 Defence Colony
New Delhi 110024
Tel : 09311448069
RE: [HumJanenge] " Land Acquisition of those who feed and fight for the Nation
Dt.24/07/12
I fully agree with you with land aquisition in Haryana specially in Gurgaon,Manesar,Bawal strip in Haryana and Bhiwadi Nemrana,Bahrod corridor in Rajasthan where I recently travelled. You can see make shift offices put up by builders,developers and the astronomical rates quoted by them as compared to pittance of compensation paid to farmers. Besides land aquired by the Govt. for constructing canals in southern Haryana for irregation. Not a drop of water has been released during the last 25 years. Please keep this land aquisition issue alive. Just a few days back there was agitation by farmers in Rewari area against land aquition. Congree party having lost Punjab is placating Haryana Govt. to keep its hold.
Regds
JKGaur
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 11:25:03 +0530
From: drsushilkumar@yahoo.com
Subject: [HumJanenge] " Land Acquisition of those who feed and fight for the Nation
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
I fully agree with you with land aquisition in Haryana specially in Gurgaon,Manesar,Bawal strip in Haryana and Bhiwadi Nemrana,Bahrod corridor in Rajasthan where I recently travelled. You can see make shift offices put up by builders,developers and the astronomical rates quoted by them as compared to pittance of compensation paid to farmers. Besides land aquired by the Govt. for constructing canals in southern Haryana for irregation. Not a drop of water has been released during the last 25 years. Please keep this land aquisition issue alive. Just a few days back there was agitation by farmers in Rewari area against land aquition. Congree party having lost Punjab is placating Haryana Govt. to keep its hold.
Regds
JKGaur
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 11:25:03 +0530
From: drsushilkumar@yahoo.com
Subject: [HumJanenge] " Land Acquisition of those who feed and fight for the Nation
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
" Land Acquisition of those who feed and fight for the Nation
Rahul Gandhi is sowing whirlwinds with his padyatra in Uttar Pradesh. But in his Congress ruled state of Haryana the land acquisitions of Farmers and Soldiers are unspoken by the Prince of Congress.
From Islampur, Nangal Sodian in Pinjaur to Gurgaon in the state the Haryana government has ruthlessly acquired the lands of soldiers serving in the borderlands and has forced the middle aged generations of farmers to be without their parental lands.
The real estate sharks swim more smoothly in the congress waters of Haryana rather they would in the backwaters of Mayawati. Crying foul at land acquisitions in Greater Noida and turning a blind eye to the land acquisitions in Haryana where not only the farmers are affected but many of the Soldiers and senior citizens is sure to dent the credibility of the suave General Secretary.
Haryana has unleashed untold tyranny upon the servicemen and ex servicemen with onslaughts of Land Acquisition to actually help the real estate players.
Besides farmers for whom Rahul Gandhi is batting for many of the soldiers guarding country's borders and those returning home after serving have lost their residential slots to the conspiracy reached between DLF and the State ruled by the Congress party in the pseudo model state.
In gross violation of laws intended to protect the property of military and para military personnel from poachers, tenants and the like Haryana government has acquired the land and property of the serving and retired soldiers without even any notice to them- notices are not sent to the borders in trenches.
Returning back from borders, coming home to settle after their retirements many of the soldiers have found their pieces of land in Islampur and Nangal Sodian in Haryana already taken over by HUDA of Haryana.
The soldiers and farmers are homeless in their own land.
Where would they go when their acquired land, handed over to real estate bigwigs, is being sold at Rs 40,000/- per square yard? There is no Rahul Gandhi for them.
It's a common knowledge that the real estate owners and the State mandarins have already dealt a deal with the saying . "If you serve the motherland you are motherless in Haryana".
Whereas under protection of property of servicemen there are punitive measures against those who occupy servicemen's property but who will evict HUDA, an instrumentality of Haryana state.
"Under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 the Lands of the Soldiers and farmers of 1857 was acquired under the garb of Public purpose so as to punish them and their kith and kin .
Haryana has used Land Acquisition Act more viciously than Uttar Pradesh has done. Haryana has been acquiring land for reportedly filling the coffers of the Party funds .
Has Rahul Gandhi forgotten Lal Bahadur Shashtri's Jai Jawan, Jai Kissan? Will the Parties begin to care those who feed and fight for nation and undo the acquisitions made in Haryana."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)