Friday, August 3, 2012

Re: [HumJanenge] RTI Respondents can seek deposit of legal fees

Mr Sarbajit,

But in April 2012, the J&K SIC declared J&K Bank a PA under the
J&K RTI Act:


RTIwanted


From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 4, 2012 10:23 AM
Subject: [HumJanenge] RTI Respondents can seek deposit of legal fees

In a recent decision of Delhi High Court (in yet another of Shailesh
Gandhi's bakwaas orders) has directed the Write Petitioner to deposit
Rs. 10,000 as litigation expenses for Respondent.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P.(C) 2844/2012 and C.M. No. 6148/2012 (for stay)

THE JAMMU AND KASHMIR BANK LTD AND ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Vijay Hansaria, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. G. M. Kawoosa, Adv.
versus
THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
AND ANR ..... Respondents

  O R D E R

  14.05.2012

  At the outset, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, on
  instructions, states that respondent no.1 may be deleted from the array
  of respondents. The said prayer is accepted. Let an amended memo of
  parties be filed within a week.

  The submission of learned senior counsel for the petitioner firstly
  is that the Right to Information Act does not extend to the State of
  Jammu and Kashmir. The petitioner bank has its registered office in
  Jammu and Kashmir and branch offices outside the said State. However,
  the direction issued by the CIC is that the petitioner bank should
  appoint PIOs for all its branches. The next submission of the learned
  senior counsel is that the Jammu and Kashmir High Court has taken a view
  in SWP Nos. 960-a/1992, 1137/1994 and 2133/2000, by its decision dated
  03.04.2006 that the Jammu and Kashmir Bank i.e., the petitioner is not
  amenable to writ jurisdiction on the ground that the State does not have
  financial or administrative control over the said Bank.

  The aforesaid submissions require consideration.

  Issue notice to the surviving respondent, returnable on 16.10.2012.

  Till the next date, the operation of the impugned order shall
  remain stayed subject to the petitioner depositing an amount of
  Rs. 10,000/- in the Registry of this Court towards litigation expenses of
  the respondent within a week.

  VIPIN SANGHI, J

  MAY 14, 2012


[HumJanenge] RTI Respondents can seek deposit of legal fees

In a recent decision of Delhi High Court (in yet another of Shailesh
Gandhi's bakwaas orders) has directed the Write Petitioner to deposit
Rs. 10,000 as litigation expenses for Respondent.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P.(C) 2844/2012 and C.M. No. 6148/2012 (for stay)

THE JAMMU AND KASHMIR BANK LTD AND ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Vijay Hansaria, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. G. M. Kawoosa, Adv.
versus
THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
AND ANR ..... Respondents

O R D E R

14.05.2012

At the outset, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, on
instructions, states that respondent no.1 may be deleted from the array
of respondents. The said prayer is accepted. Let an amended memo of
parties be filed within a week.

The submission of learned senior counsel for the petitioner firstly
is that the Right to Information Act does not extend to the State of
Jammu and Kashmir. The petitioner bank has its registered office in
Jammu and Kashmir and branch offices outside the said State. However,
the direction issued by the CIC is that the petitioner bank should
appoint PIOs for all its branches. The next submission of the learned
senior counsel is that the Jammu and Kashmir High Court has taken a view
in SWP Nos. 960-a/1992, 1137/1994 and 2133/2000, by its decision dated
03.04.2006 that the Jammu and Kashmir Bank i.e., the petitioner is not
amenable to writ jurisdiction on the ground that the State does not have
financial or administrative control over the said Bank.

The aforesaid submissions require consideration.

Issue notice to the surviving respondent, returnable on 16.10.2012.

Till the next date, the operation of the impugned order shall
remain stayed subject to the petitioner depositing an amount of
Rs. 10,000/- in the Registry of this Court towards litigation expenses of
the respondent within a week.

VIPIN SANGHI, J

MAY 14, 2012

[HumJanenge] Re: Mr. Shailesh Gandhi.

Dear HumJanenge Friends

For many years now (ie. from very soon after Mr. Shailesh Gandhi
became an IC) I have been PUBLICLY highlighting Shailesh Gandhi's
CORRUPT / UNREASONED / CYCLO-STYLED decisions especially involving RTI
"activists" and "RTI blackmailers" and various dubious NGOs.

The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has yet again upheld my observations
concerning Mr. Shailesh Gandhi's "Wholly unreasoned and Mechanically
Directed" orders".

All that is left now is for a similar observation concerning his
CORRUPTION which I am sure will come out of our still functioning
legal systems eventually.


IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P.(C) 459/2012 and C.M. No. 969/2012 (for stay)
ZOOM ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK LIMITED ..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. K. Datta and Mr.Atul Singh,
Advs.
versus
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION and ORS ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Neeraj Chaudhari, CGSC with

Mr. Akshay Chandra and Mr.Ravjyot

Singh, Advs. for UOI.

Mr.Sanjiv K. Jha, respondent no.1 in

person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

O R D E R

08.05.2012

The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India to assail the order dated
29.12.2011 passed by the Central Information Commission in complaint No.
CIC/SG/C/2011/000846, whereby the learned CIC has allowed the aforesaid
complaint/appeal preferred by respondent no.1 and directed the disclosure
of information sought by respondent no.1. The queries were made under
three different categories i.e., (A), (B) and (C). While the queries
under category (A) and (B) were of general nature and pertained to the
operating TV channels, and applications pending in the Ministry of
Information and Broadcasting of those who are seeking permission for
uplinking and downlinking, the querries under category (C) pertained
specifically to the petitioner. The respondent-querist had sought, in
relation to the petitioner ?photocopies of all the pages of file/files
along with all documents, correspondence etc. and file noting of the
Television channel named as ?MOVIES NOW? Telecasting movies.? The
querist had also sought information with regard to the ?date on which the
application for permission to telecast was received from ?MOVIES NOW? and
the date on which the permission was granted?.

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. K. Datta
is that a perusal of the impugned order would show that the same is
wholly unreasoned. The CIC has mechanically directed the provision of
the information sought by the applicant under all the three categories
without even examining whether the same would breach the confidentiality
or trade secrets of the entities to whom the information related under
Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, even though the PIO had denied the
application made by the querist by placing reliance on Section 8(1(d) of
the Act.

The petitioner has set out in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the writ
petition the nature of the information contained in the respondent?s file
pertaining to the petitioner?s application to seek permission for
uplinking/downlinking and, according to the petitioner, the information
contained in the said file is of the following nature:

?9. It is submitted that while making an application for g rant of a
license to operate a television channel, the Petitioner was required to
provide intimate and extremely sensitive personal data pertaining to its
Directors, including their PAN card number, passport details, residential
addresses, personal telephone number, educational qualifications etc. The
entire file pertaining to any Television channel with the Respondent No.3
contains several details and confidential personal information about
directors of the company applying for permission to telecast.

10. Furthermore, the Petitioner had also disclosed its net worth, share
holding pattern, cross-holding details, balance sheets, and profit and
loss accounts of closely held companies. All the information submitted to
Respondent No. 3 by Petitioner is in the nature of commercial confidence
and trade secrets, being financial data, profit and loss statements,
balance sheet, annual plans, business plans, distribution network,
satellite contracts, shareholding pattern of Petitioner Company as well

its holding Company, BCCL. The information by its very nature is
such that it is bound to give and edge to the competitors of
Petitioner and
harm its competitive position in an extremely competitive media industry.
It is pertinent to note that the Petitioner and its holding Company, BCCL
are unlisted Companies and the details of its shareholding pattern or net
worth is not in public domain and therefore is even more confidential and
sensitive.?

The further submission of Mr. Datta is that the CIC did not even
adhere to the procedure prescribed in Section 11 of the Act, even though
the information pertained to a third party i.e., the petitioner. Before
issuing direction to grant information to the querist, notice ought to
have been issued to the petitioner and consent/objections invited from
the petitioner, which was not done. Mr. Datta submits that the impugned
order being in gross violation of principles of natural justice is null
and void.

On 20.01.2012 when the writ petition was entertained for the first
time and notice was issued, it was directed that respondent no.2 (who has
been renumbered as respondent no.1 upon deletion of CIC as a party
respondent) shall not part with the information, or exploit the
information sought by him and provided to him in response to query (C),
in so far as it pertains to the financial transactions, shareholding
pattern, distribution network, satellite plan of the petitioner.

Respondent no.1 who appears in person has submitted that he does
not wish to file a counter affidavit and, therefore, he has argued the
matter by making oral submissions. He submits that the reasoning adopted
by the CIC can be found in its order at running Page 21 of the record. He
submits that the CIC has observed that the said information is liable to
be disclosed under Section 4 of the Act by the concerned department.

I have perused the impugned order and heard learned counsels
for the parties. I am of the view that the impugned order cannot be
sustained, and is liable to be set aside as it has been passed without
recording any reasons whatsoever, and is clearly in breach of the
petitioner?s rights under Section 11 of the Act. The impugned order
having been passed in breach of the principles of natural justice, is
null and void.

A perusal of the impugned order shows that no reasons whatsoever
have been recorded while directing disclosure of the information sought
by the querist. The defence of the PIO that the information could not be
provided as it could be hit by Section 8(i)(d) has not been addressed at
all. Even though information sought in category ?C? querries was
specifically in relation to the petitioner, the petitioner was not
noticed.

The argument of the querist, that the reasoning adopted by the CIC
is that the information should be made available by the public authority
suo moto under Section 4 of the Act is not correct. A perusal of the

relevant paragraph of the impugned order shows that the CIC has
merely recorded the submission of the querist founded upon Section 4
of the Act.
There is no finding returned by the CIC, based on any discussion, that
the information sought by the querist indeed is liable to be disclosable
under Section 4 of the Act.

In any event, since the information sought by the respondent
querist pertained, inter alia, to the petitioner specifically, the
petitioner ought to have been noticed under Section 11 of the Act.

Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is
remanded back to the CIC to reconsider the matter and pass a fresh
reasoned order after granting hearing to the petitioner. Consequently,
the respondent querist is directed to return the entire information
received by him in terms of the impugned order of the CIC to the PIO of
respondent no.3 without retaining any copy thereof.

The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

VIPIN SANGHI, J

MAY 08, 2012

[HumJanenge] RTI blackmailers

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P.(C) 3057/2012
MR. BRIJ LAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Moni Cinmoy, Adv.
versus
THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION AND ORS
..... Respondents


O R D E R

21.05.2012

C.M. No. 6593/2012 (exemption)


Allowed subject to just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

W.P. (C) 3057/2012



The petitioner by this writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India assails the order dated 01.07.2011 passed by the
Central Information Commissioner in Appeal No. CIC/DS/A/2010/002004.

The petitioner moved a RTI application to the Commissioner of
Income Tax, ITO, Aayakar Bhawan, Sanjay Place, Agra on 03.02.2010. In
this application the petitioner stated that he had moved a Tax Evasion
Petition (TEP), and sought the conduct of an enquiry on the known sources
of income of one Shri M. P. Singh. He stated that despite passage of
seven months, he had not received any response. Therefore, under the
Right to Information Act, he sought information with regard to the action
taken on the said complaint.


This query was responded to on 09.03.2010 by the Assistant
Commissioner of Income Tax/CPIO, Agra. The CPIO declined the
application
of the petitioner seeking direct information with regard to the sources
of income of Shri M. P. Singh by placing reliance on Section 8(1)(j) on
the ground that it related to a third party and disclosure of the said
information was not in public interest. It appears that before disposing
of the application, the CPIO also issued notice to Shri M. P. Singh and
Shri M. P. Singh objected to disclosure of the information.

The petitioner then preferred an appeal before the first appellate
authority. The first appellate authority rejected the appeal on
29/30.04.2010, again placing reliance on Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. The
petitioner then preferred a further appeal to the CIC, which has been
disposed of by the impugned order.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Joint
Commissioner of Income Tax Range-5, Forozabad has declined to act on the
tax revision petition of the petitioner on the ground that the
information desired by the petitioner is six years old and is barred by
limitation as per the provisions of Income Tax Act. It is stated that
the information is not in custody of the CPIO. He also observed that Shri
M. P. Singh, against whom the complaint was lodged by the petitioner, is
presently assessed with ITO 3(iv), Mathura and the jurisdiction does not
lie with the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-5, Firozabad. He
held that since no larger public interest is involved in the matter, the
petitioner?s appeal is disposed of.

The submission of counsel for the petitioner is that since the TEP
of the petitioner has not been actioned on account of the same being
barred by limitation, effectively, the information sought by the
petitioner has not been provided.

Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the decision
of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 3114/2007 in support of his submission that
the respondent was neither provided information with regard to the
sources of income of Shri M. P. Singh nor conducted an
enquiry/investigation on the TEP of the petitioner.

A perusal of the decision in Bhagat Singh vs. Chief Information
Commissioner and Ors. W.P.(C) No. 3114/2007 decided on 03.12.2007 shows
that in that case on the TEP action was taken, but the TEP investigation
report was not provided under the Right to Information Act. All that the
Court held was that the queriest was entitled to receive a copy of the
said TEP investigation report. In the present case, the Joint
Commissioner of Income Tax has held that the said TEP cannot be actioned
as it is barred by limitation. That, in my view, is sufficient
disclosure so far as the action taken on the TEP is concerned.

So far as the petitioner?s grievance with regard to non supply of
information with regard to sources of income of Shri M. P. Singh is
concerned, in my view, the CPIO correctly relied upon Section 8(1)(j) of
the Act to deny information to the petitioner. Section 8(1)(j) reads as
follows:-

?8(1)(j)

information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which
has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would
cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the
Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information
Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that
the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:?



The information sought by the petitioner in relation to the sources
of income of Shri M. P. Singh is undoubtedly personal information,
disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public
interest of, or in relation to, Shri M. P. Singh. I, therefore, find no
merit in this petition. The same is dismissed.


VIPIN SANGHI, J

MAY 21, 2012

mb

[HumJanenge] Re: Mr. Shailesh Gandhi.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P.(C) 1976/2012 and C.M. No. 4266/2012 (for stay)
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.T.R.Andhyarujina, Sr.Advocate
with Mr.Kuldeep S.Parihar, Mr.H.S. Parihar and Mr.Soumik Ghosal, Advs.
versus
ASHWINI DIXIT ..... Respondent

O R D E R
10.04.2012

The CIC has rejected the submission on the ground that no reasons have
been advanced by this Court while granting stay and, therefore, it is
not possible for the commission to ascertain the same. This
observation of the CIC cannot be appreciated in as much as while
granting an ex-parte stay this Court is not obliged to record its
reasons or give justification for the same in every such case. Brief
reason already stand furnished in the initially passed stay orders.
Once a stay order has been passed by the Court all concerned are bound
to obey the same unless it is vacated.

Since various cases involving the same questions are repeatedly
arising on account of passing of similar orders by the learned CIC, I
direct the learned CIC to adjourn hearing in all such like cases which
involve the disclosure of (i) the inspection reports prepared by the
Reserve Bank of India; (ii) the notings in relation to inspection
proceedings conducted by the Reserve Bank of India; (iii) the board
meetings minutes of the Reserve Bank of India as well as concerned
banks,
and correspondence exchanged between the Reserve Bank of India and the
concerned banks."

PS:
Here is the link to SG's original order
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/132922648/

[HumJanenge] Mr. Shailesh Gandhi.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P.(C) 1388/2012 and C.M. No. 3020/2012
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA ..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Kuldeep S. Parihar
and Mr.H.S. Parihar, Advocates.
versus
KISHANLAL MITTAL ..... Respondent

"O R D E R

07.03.2012
The submission of Mr. Nayar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner
is that the impugned order passed by the CIC dated 09.02.2012 is
wholly unreasoned.

Issue notice to the respondent returnable on 28.08.2012. The notice be
taken dasti as well.

Till the next date, the operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed."

[HumJanenge] Re: Missing requests in the CIC

For your future reference.
The way I would have gone about it as follows:

1) Read the "Code for Responsibel RTI-ing" at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rti_india/message/379

2) Researched properly if there is any section 4 disclosure for
who the "concerned public authority" is for SGPC

3) Would have discovered that MHA is the "concerned public authority"
and that they even have a dedicated CPIO just for SGPC queries, one
Mr. Ashok Kumar Director.
www.mha.nic.in/pdfs/CPIOs-290311.pdf

4) Would have filed to MHA's CPIO, and then waited for him to either
a) seek assistance u/s 5(4) from somebody on SGPC or b) got a
statement out of him that SGPC is a P/A in its own right (perhaps with
a
section 6(3) transfer).

5) That would have enabled you to automatically implead MHA from the
outset. When the matter reached to High Court it would be MHA versus
SGPC instead of SGPC versus Sandeep Gupta.

Sarbajit

On Aug 3, 9:19 am, Sandeep gupta <drsandgu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Sir,
> Thanks for your well though after advice. I had anticipated all the
> above consequences.
> I have just talked to my lawyer about impleading MHA as party and
> other matters as suggested by you.
> I assure that I will not let the citizens of this country down as I
> have sufficient grounds in the matter.
>
> On 8/2/12, Sarbajit Roy <sroy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Dear Sandeep
>
> > Now that you are a respondent in the High Court, you must stand and
> > fight it out there.
>
> > If you do not fight it out properly, you will simply give a walk-over
> > to the SGPC who will marshal all their resources against you, in the
> > process you will be doing a great disservice to the citizens of India
> > (especially the Sikh community) if you lose this case in PHC.
>
> > I really must ask you if you had anticipated the consequences of your
> > seeking information about this Trust. Surely you would have
> > anticipated that the matter would end up in the High Court.
>
> > I would suggest that you immediately move an application in PHC asking
> > for impleadment of MHA as necessary party. Under Part III of SG Act
> > 1925 MHA is now the Central Govt for purposes of that part. You must
> > also stress that the Trust can have a maximum of 11 Trustees of which
> > 9 are nominated by the SGPC.
>
> > Lastly, I would strongly suggest that you explore the possibility of
> > challenging the SG Act 1925 as UnConstitutional and seeking that the
> > Trust (and SGPC) be dissolved if it is not functioning in a
> > transparent manner.
>
> > Sarbajit
>
> > On 8/3/12, Sandeep gupta <drsandgu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> 1. that sic decision in guru ramdas hospital trust was made in my case
> >> (order is enclosed). They have already moved HC (I am also the
> >> respondent in the matter).
> >> 2. I did not ask sgpc anything about any religious matter. I simply
> >> asked about this same trust from CPIO.
> >> 3. Now I will make some more research in the matter and also let an
> >> affected party take up the case.
> >> regards
>
> --
> Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
> 1722, Sector 14, Hisar-125001, INDIA
> Phone: 91-99929-31181

Thursday, August 2, 2012

[HumJanenge] Fwd: Fw: posting and Complaint



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Biswa Mohanty <biswa_keshari@rediffmail.com>
Date: Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 3:37 PM
Subject: Fw: posting and Complaint
To: "pradippradhan63@gmail.com" <pradippradhan63@gmail.com>

 

Pleasesee how Mr. Jagadanand Mohanty, State Information Commissioner is hell-bent toprotect the errant PIO and 1st Appellate Authority- A Case Study

(ComplaintCase No- 2935/2010 disposed on 23.5.2012)

 

Ondated 22.3.2010, I had submitted RTI Application to the PIO, office ofCommunity Health Centre, Chandabali, Bhadrak district  seeking information about  details ofstaff, officers working in the CHC, Monthly Salary received  by them, details of cadre –wise existingvacancies etc.  Finding no information, Ihad approached to the 1st Appellate Authority on 7.5.2010. Gettingno response from 1st Appellate Authority, I made complaint to theCommission 12.6.2010.

 

Mycase was heard  by Mr. Jagadanand  four times. On last  hearing dated 23.5.2012 in the presence of Nihar Ranjan Mishra, PIO, BhagabanChandra Pati, ex-Public Health Extension Officer-cum-PIO, Goura Chandra Jena,ex-1st Appellate Authority, Mr. Jagadanand Mohanty , SIC heardmy  case and  observed  that the information has not been supplied within time  stipulated timeperiod  under RTI Act.  He issued show cause notice to the PIO  and1st Appellate Authority  whypenalty will not be imposed  on PIO  and disciplinary action not be  recommended against the 1st Appellate Authority.  In response to show cause notice, neither thePIO nor 1st Appellate Authority responded properly except citingreasons of ignorance of the law and so-called workload which was resulted in non-supplyof the information. These two reasons are not the ground to be exonerated fromthe penalty.  Mr. Jagadanand remained silenton illegal act of PIO and issued warning to the 1st Appellate Authoritynot to repeat in future. He has not cited any reasons for not imposing penaltyon erring PIO and 1st Appellate Authority in his decision. Both thedefaulting PIO and 1st Appellate Authority is simply exonerated frompenalty.

 

AsI feel, Jagadanand's   desperate actto  protect PIO and 1stAppellate Authority  has  encouraged corrupt PIOs to  ignore RTI Application and  disregard RTI Act itself. As I have heard,this is not a single case of Mr. Jagadanand. He has  repeatedly and deliberately  provided blanket protection to the defaulting PIOs  for his vested interest. I request allcitizens to be careful  to Mr.Jagadanand. Please find below my Complaint to Governor, Odisha  to takeaction against him under section 17 of the RTI Act.

 

Thanks

 

Biswa Keshari Mohanty

Chandabali

Bhadrak

 

Ifyou have any doubt, please contact me 9776637957  

 

 

 

 

To

The Hon'bleGovernor                                                                                                                                  Date-26.7.12

Raj Bhawan

Bhubaneswar

 

Sub- Complaint  against Mr.Jagadanand Mohanty, State Information Commissioner for his nefarious act ofprotecting corrupt PIOs  under section 17of the RTI Act   (Complaint Case No-2935/2010 disposed on 23.5.2012)

 

Sir

Ibeg to bring to your kind notice the following complaint against Mr. Jagadanand,state Information Commissioner   seeking  your urgent intervention and necessary action.

 

That,on dated 22.3.2010, I had submitted RTI Application to the PIO, office ofCommunity Health Centre, Chandabali, Bhadrak district  seeking information about  details ofstaff, officers working in the CHC, Monthly Salary received  by them, details of cadre –wise existingvacancies etc.  Finding no information, Ihad approached to the 1st Appellate Authority on 7.5.2010. Gettingno response from 1st Appellate Authority, I made complaint to theCommission 12.6.2010.

 

Mycase was heard  by Mr. Jagadanand  four times. On last  hearing dated 23.5.2012,  in the presenceof Nihar Ranjan Mishra, PIO, Bhagaban Chandra Pati, ex-Public Health ExtensionOfficer-cum-PIO, Goura Chandra Jena, ex-1st Appellate Authority, Mr.Jagadanand Mohanty , SIC heard my case  and  observed that  the information has not beensupplied  within time  stipulated time period  under RTI Act.  He issued show cause notice to the PIO  and1st Appellate Authority  whypenalty will not be imposed  on PIO  and disciplinary action not be  recommended against the 1st Appellate Authority.  In response to show cause notice, neither thePIO nor 1st Appellate Authority responded properly except citingreasons of ignorance of the law and so-called workload which was resulted innon-supply of the information. These two reasons are not the ground to beexonerated from the penalty.  Mr.Jagadanand remained silent on illegal act of PIO and issued warning to the 1stAppellate Authority not to repeat in future. He has not cited any reasons fornot imposing penalty on erring PIO and 1st Appellate Authority inhis decision. Both the defaulting PIO and 1st Appellate Authority issimply exonerated from penalty.

 

AsI feel, Mr. Jagadanand is  having nexuswith corrupt bureaucracy and    desperate  to protect PIO and 1st Appellate Authority  by hook or by crook. This act of theCommission  has  encouraged corrupt PIOs to  ignore RTI Application and  disregard RTI Act itself in the state

 

Inthis context, I request you  to enquireinto the matter  and take appropriateaction against him  under the Act.

 

Thankingyou

Yourssincerely

 

Biswa Keshari Mohanty

At-Kulhi, Post-Goladia, PS-Chandabali

Dist-Bhadrak, Odisha  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Follow Rediff Deal ho jaye! to get exciting offers in your city everyday.

Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Missing requests in the CIC

Dear Sir,
Thanks for your well though after advice. I had anticipated all the
above consequences.
I have just talked to my lawyer about impleading MHA as party and
other matters as suggested by you.
I assure that I will not let the citizens of this country down as I
have sufficient grounds in the matter.

On 8/2/12, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Sandeep
>
> Now that you are a respondent in the High Court, you must stand and
> fight it out there.
>
> If you do not fight it out properly, you will simply give a walk-over
> to the SGPC who will marshal all their resources against you, in the
> process you will be doing a great disservice to the citizens of India
> (especially the Sikh community) if you lose this case in PHC.
>
> I really must ask you if you had anticipated the consequences of your
> seeking information about this Trust. Surely you would have
> anticipated that the matter would end up in the High Court.
>
> I would suggest that you immediately move an application in PHC asking
> for impleadment of MHA as necessary party. Under Part III of SG Act
> 1925 MHA is now the Central Govt for purposes of that part. You must
> also stress that the Trust can have a maximum of 11 Trustees of which
> 9 are nominated by the SGPC.
>
> Lastly, I would strongly suggest that you explore the possibility of
> challenging the SG Act 1925 as UnConstitutional and seeking that the
> Trust (and SGPC) be dissolved if it is not functioning in a
> transparent manner.
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On 8/3/12, Sandeep gupta <drsandgupta@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 1. that sic decision in guru ramdas hospital trust was made in my case
>> (order is enclosed). They have already moved HC (I am also the
>> respondent in the matter).
>> 2. I did not ask sgpc anything about any religious matter. I simply
>> asked about this same trust from CPIO.
>> 3. Now I will make some more research in the matter and also let an
>> affected party take up the case.
>> regards
>>
>


--
Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
1722, Sector 14, Hisar-125001, INDIA
Phone: 91-99929-31181

Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Missing requests in the CIC

Dear Sandeep

Now that you are a respondent in the High Court, you must stand and
fight it out there.

If you do not fight it out properly, you will simply give a walk-over
to the SGPC who will marshal all their resources against you, in the
process you will be doing a great disservice to the citizens of India
(especially the Sikh community) if you lose this case in PHC.

I really must ask you if you had anticipated the consequences of your
seeking information about this Trust. Surely you would have
anticipated that the matter would end up in the High Court.

I would suggest that you immediately move an application in PHC asking
for impleadment of MHA as necessary party. Under Part III of SG Act
1925 MHA is now the Central Govt for purposes of that part. You must
also stress that the Trust can have a maximum of 11 Trustees of which
9 are nominated by the SGPC.

Lastly, I would strongly suggest that you explore the possibility of
challenging the SG Act 1925 as UnConstitutional and seeking that the
Trust (and SGPC) be dissolved if it is not functioning in a
transparent manner.

Sarbajit

On 8/3/12, Sandeep gupta <drsandgupta@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1. that sic decision in guru ramdas hospital trust was made in my case
> (order is enclosed). They have already moved HC (I am also the
> respondent in the matter).
> 2. I did not ask sgpc anything about any religious matter. I simply
> asked about this same trust from CPIO.
> 3. Now I will make some more research in the matter and also let an
> affected party take up the case.
> regards
>

Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Missing requests in the CIC

1. that sic decision in guru ramdas hospital trust was made in my case
(order is enclosed). They have already moved HC (I am also the
respondent in the matter).
2. I did not ask sgpc anything about any religious matter. I simply
asked about this same trust from CPIO.
3. Now I will make some more research in the matter and also let an
affected party take up the case.
regards

On 8/2/12, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am unable to find anywhere on the internet (ie. section 4
> disclosure) who the SGPC's PIO(s) is.
> In fact sometime in June 2012, Mr. Makkar again said SGPC would be
> approaching High Court against SIC-Punjab's decision in Guru Ramdas
> Hospital Trust case.
> http://punjabnewslinenetwork.com/index.php/religion-community/3300-why-should-sgpc-not-come-under-right-to-information-act
>
> It seems there is complete confusion if SGPC is a Central or State P/A.
>
> BTW, if SGPC gave info to appellant in MLS's order does not mean they
> have appointed CPIO. In one of my own matters (Delhi DISCOMs) they
> gave me information but thereafter went to Court and obtained stay
> (still pending).
>
> So I would suggest that you research this matter properly before
> pursuing it before the competent forum. In any case it would be better
> that the affected section of society (ie. Sikhs) pursue this case
> rather than habitual RTI activists who interfere after reading about
> it in the newspapers.
>
> PS: So I am right in assuming that you simply sent your RTI by post
> addressed to CPIO/SGPC ??
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On 8/2/12, Sandeep gupta <drsandgupta@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Mr. Makkar is lying when he says that SGPC has not appointed any CPIOs
>> The SGPC has appointed CPIO on CIC's order of 28 March 2011 and has
>> also provided the demanded information
>> I did not write the name of CPIO on the application. I simply wrote CPIO,
>> SGPC
>> Keeping in view the above background I feel that I have not made any
>> false statement
>> to CIC
>>
>>
>> On 8/2/12, sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Dear Sandeep
>>>
>>> 1) Is Mr. Makkar lying when he says that SGPC has not appointed any
>>> CPIOs ?
>>>
>>> 2) What is the action, if any, the SGPC has taken on CIC's order of
>>> 28 March 2011 in "Kuldeep Singh Khaira" where IC(MLS) has found /
>>> declared SGPC to be a P/A ?
>>>
>>> 3) How did you FILE your RTI if SGPC has not appointed any PIOs ? In
>>> fact IC(MLS) gave SGPC Amritsar 6 weeks time to do so, ie by 13 May
>>> 2011. Your RTI request was allegedly filed on 26 May 2011. So can you
>>> name the CPIO you filed with ?
>>>
>>> 4) In background of point 3 above , Have you given a false statement
>>> to CIC that you have FILED your RTI request to CPIO of SGPC ?
>>>
>>> Please clarify specifically and dont confuse these points with other
>>> issues (which we can discuss separately).
>>>
>>> THE ISSUE HERE IS OF ORDERS OF CIC (to appoint CPIO + FAA) NOT BEING
>>> COMPLIED WITH.
>>>
>>> Sarbajit
>>>
>


--
Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
1722, Sector 14, Hisar-125001, INDIA
Phone: 91-99929-31181

Re: [HumJanenge] CIC Satyananda Mishra visits J&K

He was training J&K Governor on how to deal with RTI requests
addressed to his office.

On 8/2/12, C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://ibnlive.in.com/generalnewsfeed/news/chief-info-commissioner-meets-jk-governor/1033581.html
>
>
> Srinagar, Aug 1 (PTI) Chief Information Commissioner Satyananda Mishra today
> met Jammu and Kashmir Governor N N Vohra here and discussed the importance
> of Right to Information Act in ensuring good governance and reducing
> corruption in the state. Mishra called on Vohra at the Raj Bhavan this
> evening and had an hour-long meeting, an official spokesman said. They
> discussed a wide range of issues relating to enlarging awareness among
> people about their rights and privileges under the RTI Act and its
> importance in ensuring good governance and reducing corruption, the
> spokesman said.
>
>
> Posters Note:
>
> Why is CIC SM visiting J&K when he does not even have jurisdiction over it ?
>
> RTIwanted

Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Missing requests in the CIC

I am unable to find anywhere on the internet (ie. section 4
disclosure) who the SGPC's PIO(s) is.
In fact sometime in June 2012, Mr. Makkar again said SGPC would be
approaching High Court against SIC-Punjab's decision in Guru Ramdas
Hospital Trust case.
http://punjabnewslinenetwork.com/index.php/religion-community/3300-why-should-sgpc-not-come-under-right-to-information-act

It seems there is complete confusion if SGPC is a Central or State P/A.

BTW, if SGPC gave info to appellant in MLS's order does not mean they
have appointed CPIO. In one of my own matters (Delhi DISCOMs) they
gave me information but thereafter went to Court and obtained stay
(still pending).

So I would suggest that you research this matter properly before
pursuing it before the competent forum. In any case it would be better
that the affected section of society (ie. Sikhs) pursue this case
rather than habitual RTI activists who interfere after reading about
it in the newspapers.

PS: So I am right in assuming that you simply sent your RTI by post
addressed to CPIO/SGPC ??

Sarbajit

On 8/2/12, Sandeep gupta <drsandgupta@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mr. Makkar is lying when he says that SGPC has not appointed any CPIOs
> The SGPC has appointed CPIO on CIC's order of 28 March 2011 and has
> also provided the demanded information
> I did not write the name of CPIO on the application. I simply wrote CPIO,
> SGPC
> Keeping in view the above background I feel that I have not made any
> false statement
> to CIC
>
>
> On 8/2/12, sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dear Sandeep
>>
>> 1) Is Mr. Makkar lying when he says that SGPC has not appointed any
>> CPIOs ?
>>
>> 2) What is the action, if any, the SGPC has taken on CIC's order of
>> 28 March 2011 in "Kuldeep Singh Khaira" where IC(MLS) has found /
>> declared SGPC to be a P/A ?
>>
>> 3) How did you FILE your RTI if SGPC has not appointed any PIOs ? In
>> fact IC(MLS) gave SGPC Amritsar 6 weeks time to do so, ie by 13 May
>> 2011. Your RTI request was allegedly filed on 26 May 2011. So can you
>> name the CPIO you filed with ?
>>
>> 4) In background of point 3 above , Have you given a false statement
>> to CIC that you have FILED your RTI request to CPIO of SGPC ?
>>
>> Please clarify specifically and dont confuse these points with other
>> issues (which we can discuss separately).
>>
>> THE ISSUE HERE IS OF ORDERS OF CIC (to appoint CPIO + FAA) NOT BEING
>> COMPLIED WITH.
>>
>> Sarbajit
>>

[HumJanenge] A comment from another website....

Reproducing a comment made on another website:


At least 50% members of CIC must be from legal background

22 Jul, 2012
I've very closely seen the functioning of CIC as its Legal Consultant and I do feel that at least 50% members of CIC must be from legal background. Without legal background, the ICs have to look towards legal experts like Joint Secretary Law, who exploits the position to his wrong advantage.-Pardeep Kumar Rapria

So, Mr Akash Deep is "exploiting" the situation.
Is he backed by other vested interests ?

RTIwanted

[HumJanenge] CIC Satyananda Mishra visits J&K

http://ibnlive.in.com/generalnewsfeed/news/chief-info-commissioner-meets-jk-governor/1033581.html

Srinagar, Aug 1 (PTI) Chief Information Commissioner Satyananda Mishra today met Jammu and Kashmir Governor N N Vohra here and discussed the importance of Right to Information Act in ensuring good governance and reducing corruption in the state. Mishra called on Vohra at the Raj Bhavan this evening and had an hour-long meeting, an official spokesman said. They discussed a wide range of issues relating to enlarging awareness among people about their rights and privileges under the RTI Act and its importance in ensuring good governance and reducing corruption, the spokesman said. 

Posters Note:

Why is CIC SM visiting J&K when he does not even have jurisdiction over it ?

RTIwanted

Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Missing requests in the CIC

Mr. Makkar is lying when he says that SGPC has not appointed any CPIOs
The SGPC has appointed CPIO on CIC's order of 28 March 2011 and has
also provided the demanded information
I did not write the name of CPIO on the application. I simply wrote CPIO, SGPC
Keeping in view the above background I feel that I have not made any
false statement
to CIC


On 8/2/12, sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Sandeep
>
> 1) Is Mr. Makkar lying when he says that SGPC has not appointed any
> CPIOs ?
>
> 2) What is the action, if any, the SGPC has taken on CIC's order of
> 28 March 2011 in "Kuldeep Singh Khaira" where IC(MLS) has found /
> declared SGPC to be a P/A ?
>
> 3) How did you FILE your RTI if SGPC has not appointed any PIOs ? In
> fact IC(MLS) gave SGPC Amritsar 6 weeks time to do so, ie by 13 May
> 2011. Your RTI request was allegedly filed on 26 May 2011. So can you
> name the CPIO you filed with ?
>
> 4) In background of point 3 above , Have you given a false statement
> to CIC that you have FILED your RTI request to CPIO of SGPC ?
>
> Please clarify specifically and dont confuse these points with other
> issues (which we can discuss separately).
>
> THE ISSUE HERE IS OF ORDERS OF CIC (to appoint CPIO + FAA) NOT BEING
> COMPLIED WITH.
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On Aug 2, 5:23 am, Sandeep gupta <drsandgu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Sir,
>> makkar sahib is telling lies. He knows that if they started divulging
>> information, a large number of bigwigs of his political party will
>> face music.
>> I did not make any statement to the cic. I simply made a complaint cum
>> appeal for no reply to applications sent to the cpio.
>> I had asked for accounts of one guru ram das medical hospital trust
>> (under sgpc). simultaneously a different rti was filed with spio of
>> the trust. the commission held that trust is a p/a. Now the matter is
>> pending in High court and the hearing is scheduled in last week of
>> august. in the high court, the trust has stated that it is not
>> receiving any funding from sgpc or any government (though it has
>> received 80 crore rupees and free land from panchayats and income tax
>> exemption)
>>
>> On 8/1/12, Sarbajit Roy <sroy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Dear Sandeep
>>
>> > 1) HOW did you file your RTI with the SGPC's PIO ??? FYI, teh
>> > President of SGPC some Mr. Makkar.says they are not under RTI and have
>> > not taken any steps to appoint a PIO.
>>
>> >http://worldsikhnews.com/new%20stories/Is%20SGPC%20covered%20under%20...
>>
>> > I assume you must have simply sent an IPO or DD for Rs. 10 with your
>> > application by post ???
>>
>> > If so, you have made a wrong statement to the CIC - instead you should
>> > have asked for a PIO to be appointed. Also, since the SIC (Punjab) (as
>> > per media reports) has already held SGPC to be a P/A, why are you
>> > approaching CIC ?
>>
>> >http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/should-religious-trusts-be-within...
>>
>> > Sarbajit
>>
>> > On 8/1/12, Sandeep gupta <drsandgu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> sir, Please tell me whether last line as suggested can be written in
>> >> first appeal. or you have written in lighter vein?
>>
>> >> On 7/31/12, Sarbajit Roy <sroy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> Dear Bimal
>>
>> >>> Anna Hazare has already apologised to the people of India for the
>> >>> irresponsible statement that PM MMS was a Shikhandi made by his team
>> >>> member Prashant Bhushan.
>> >>>http://ibnlive.in.com/news/we-apologise-for-shikhandi-remark-team-ann...
>>
>> >>> OTH, Prashant Bhushan denies making that remark to the same channel
>> >>>http://ibnlive.in.com/news/prashant-bhushan-denies-calling-pm-a-shikh...
>>
>> >>> So AT LEAST one of them is a liar.
>>
>> >>> Sarbajit
>>
>> >>> On 7/31/12, Trap Rti <rtit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>> The corrupt babus has over powered the system in our contry
>> >>>> and some of our friends plays SHIKHANDI
>>
>> >>>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 9:12 AM, C K Jam <rtiwan...@yahoo.com>
>> >>>> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>> Mr Sarbajit,
>>
>> >>>>> There is no systemic error in the CICs centralised receipts section
>> >>>>> and the rest of the administrative set up.
>> >>>>> It is a complete breakdown and a hijacking of the system by a few
>> >>>>> vested interests in the CIC !
>>
>> >>>>> RTIwanted
>>
>> >>>>>   ------------------------------
>> >>>>> *From:* sarbajit roy <sroy...@gmail.com>
>> >>>>> *To:* "HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005"
>> >>>>> <
>> >>>>> HumJanenge@googlegroups.com>
>> >>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, July 29, 2012 8:33 PM
>> >>>>> *Subject:* [HumJanenge] Re: Missing requests in the CIC
>>
>> >>>>> Dear Sandeep
>>
>> >>>>>  It also points to some systemic error in the CIC's
>> >>>>> Centralised dak and registry systems.
>> >>>>> .
>> >>>>> Sarbajit
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
>> >> 1722, Sector 14, Hisar-125001, INDIA
>> >> Phone: 91-99929-31181
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
>> 1722, Sector 14, Hisar-125001, INDIA
>> Phone: 91-99929-31181
>


--
Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
1722, Sector 14, Hisar-125001, INDIA
Phone: 91-99929-31181

Wednesday, August 1, 2012

[HumJanenge] Re: Missing requests in the CIC

Dear Sandeep

1) Is Mr. Makkar lying when he says that SGPC has not appointed any
CPIOs ?

2) What is the action, if any, the SGPC has taken on CIC's order of
28 March 2011 in "Kuldeep Singh Khaira" where IC(MLS) has found /
declared SGPC to be a P/A ?

3) How did you FILE your RTI if SGPC has not appointed any PIOs ? In
fact IC(MLS) gave SGPC Amritsar 6 weeks time to do so, ie by 13 May
2011. Your RTI request was allegedly filed on 26 May 2011. So can you
name the CPIO you filed with ?

4) In background of point 3 above , Have you given a false statement
to CIC that you have FILED your RTI request to CPIO of SGPC ?

Please clarify specifically and dont confuse these points with other
issues (which we can discuss separately).

THE ISSUE HERE IS OF ORDERS OF CIC (to appoint CPIO + FAA) NOT BEING
COMPLIED WITH.

Sarbajit

On Aug 2, 5:23 am, Sandeep gupta <drsandgu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sir,
> makkar sahib is telling lies. He knows that if they started divulging
> information, a large number of bigwigs of his political party will
> face music.
> I did not make any statement to the cic. I simply made a complaint cum
> appeal for no reply to applications sent to the cpio.
> I had asked for accounts of one guru ram das medical hospital trust
> (under sgpc). simultaneously a different rti was filed with spio of
> the trust. the commission held that trust is a p/a. Now the matter is
> pending in High court and the hearing is scheduled in last week of
> august. in the high court, the trust has stated that it is not
> receiving any funding from sgpc or any government (though it has
> received 80 crore rupees and free land from panchayats and income tax
> exemption)
>
> On 8/1/12, Sarbajit Roy <sroy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Dear Sandeep
>
> > 1) HOW did you file your RTI with the SGPC's PIO ??? FYI, teh
> > President of SGPC some Mr. Makkar.says they are not under RTI and have
> > not taken any steps to appoint a PIO.
>
> >http://worldsikhnews.com/new%20stories/Is%20SGPC%20covered%20under%20...
>
> > I assume you must have simply sent an IPO or DD for Rs. 10 with your
> > application by post ???
>
> > If so, you have made a wrong statement to the CIC - instead you should
> > have asked for a PIO to be appointed. Also, since the SIC (Punjab) (as
> > per media reports) has already held SGPC to be a P/A, why are you
> > approaching CIC ?
>
> >http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/should-religious-trusts-be-within...
>
> > Sarbajit
>
> > On 8/1/12, Sandeep gupta <drsandgu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> sir, Please tell me whether last line as suggested can be written in
> >> first appeal. or you have written in lighter vein?
>
> >> On 7/31/12, Sarbajit Roy <sroy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Dear Bimal
>
> >>> Anna Hazare has already apologised to the people of India for the
> >>> irresponsible statement that PM MMS was a Shikhandi made by his team
> >>> member Prashant Bhushan.
> >>>http://ibnlive.in.com/news/we-apologise-for-shikhandi-remark-team-ann...
>
> >>> OTH, Prashant Bhushan denies making that remark to the same channel
> >>>http://ibnlive.in.com/news/prashant-bhushan-denies-calling-pm-a-shikh...
>
> >>> So AT LEAST one of them is a liar.
>
> >>> Sarbajit
>
> >>> On 7/31/12, Trap Rti <rtit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> The corrupt babus has over powered the system in our contry
> >>>> and some of our friends plays SHIKHANDI
>
> >>>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 9:12 AM, C K Jam <rtiwan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Mr Sarbajit,
>
> >>>>> There is no systemic error in the CICs centralised receipts section
> >>>>> and the rest of the administrative set up.
> >>>>> It is a complete breakdown and a hijacking of the system by a few
> >>>>> vested interests in the CIC !
>
> >>>>> RTIwanted
>
> >>>>>   ------------------------------
> >>>>> *From:* sarbajit roy <sroy...@gmail.com>
> >>>>> *To:* "HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005" <
> >>>>> HumJanenge@googlegroups.com>
> >>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, July 29, 2012 8:33 PM
> >>>>> *Subject:* [HumJanenge] Re: Missing requests in the CIC
>
> >>>>> Dear Sandeep
>
> >>>>>  It also points to some systemic error in the CIC's
> >>>>> Centralised dak and registry systems.
> >>>>> .
> >>>>> Sarbajit
>
> >> --
> >> Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
> >> 1722, Sector 14, Hisar-125001, INDIA
> >> Phone: 91-99929-31181
>
> --
> Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
> 1722, Sector 14, Hisar-125001, INDIA
> Phone: 91-99929-31181

Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Missing requests in the CIC

Sir,
makkar sahib is telling lies. He knows that if they started divulging
information, a large number of bigwigs of his political party will
face music.
I did not make any statement to the cic. I simply made a complaint cum
appeal for no reply to applications sent to the cpio.
I had asked for accounts of one guru ram das medical hospital trust
(under sgpc). simultaneously a different rti was filed with spio of
the trust. the commission held that trust is a p/a. Now the matter is
pending in High court and the hearing is scheduled in last week of
august. in the high court, the trust has stated that it is not
receiving any funding from sgpc or any government (though it has
received 80 crore rupees and free land from panchayats and income tax
exemption)


On 8/1/12, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Sandeep
>
> 1) HOW did you file your RTI with the SGPC's PIO ??? FYI, teh
> President of SGPC some Mr. Makkar.says they are not under RTI and have
> not taken any steps to appoint a PIO.
>
> http://worldsikhnews.com/new%20stories/Is%20SGPC%20covered%20under%20the%20RTI%20Legal%20eagles%20say%20yes.htm
>
> I assume you must have simply sent an IPO or DD for Rs. 10 with your
> application by post ???
>
> If so, you have made a wrong statement to the CIC - instead you should
> have asked for a PIO to be appointed. Also, since the SIC (Punjab) (as
> per media reports) has already held SGPC to be a P/A, why are you
> approaching CIC ?
>
> http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/should-religious-trusts-be-within-purview-rti-act-1674
>
> Sarbajit
>
>
>
>
> On 8/1/12, Sandeep gupta <drsandgupta@gmail.com> wrote:
>> sir, Please tell me whether last line as suggested can be written in
>> first appeal. or you have written in lighter vein?
>>
>> On 7/31/12, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Dear Bimal
>>>
>>> Anna Hazare has already apologised to the people of India for the
>>> irresponsible statement that PM MMS was a Shikhandi made by his team
>>> member Prashant Bhushan.
>>> http://ibnlive.in.com/news/we-apologise-for-shikhandi-remark-team-anna/262948-37-64.html
>>>
>>> OTH, Prashant Bhushan denies making that remark to the same channel
>>> http://ibnlive.in.com/news/prashant-bhushan-denies-calling-pm-a-shikhandi/262571-37-64.html
>>>
>>> So AT LEAST one of them is a liar.
>>>
>>> Sarbajit
>>>
>>> On 7/31/12, Trap Rti <rtitrap@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> The corrupt babus has over powered the system in our contry
>>>> and some of our friends plays SHIKHANDI
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 9:12 AM, C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Mr Sarbajit,
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no systemic error in the CICs centralised receipts section
>>>>> and the rest of the administrative set up.
>>>>> It is a complete breakdown and a hijacking of the system by a few
>>>>> vested interests in the CIC !
>>>>>
>>>>> RTIwanted
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>> *From:* sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
>>>>> *To:* "HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005" <
>>>>> HumJanenge@googlegroups.com>
>>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, July 29, 2012 8:33 PM
>>>>> *Subject:* [HumJanenge] Re: Missing requests in the CIC
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Sandeep
>>>>>
>>>>> It also points to some systemic error in the CIC's
>>>>> Centralised dak and registry systems.
>>>>> .
>>>>> Sarbajit
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
>> 1722, Sector 14, Hisar-125001, INDIA
>> Phone: 91-99929-31181
>>
>


--
Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
1722, Sector 14, Hisar-125001, INDIA
Phone: 91-99929-31181

[HumJanenge] Fwd: Latest as on 26.7.12 - Fi(n)ancé Minister Mukherjee's Pauline legacy?????]

Dear RTIwanted

Now we know why Rastrapathi Bhawan has 357 bedrooms. One for every day
of the year (excluding the 9 days .. and nights .. India's First
Couple will spend near you at their official Hyderabad residence).

Sarbajit

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: C J Karira <cjkarira@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 19:34:31 +0530
Subject: Latest as on 26.7.12 - Fi(n)ancé Minister Mukherjee's Pauline
legacy?????]
To: C J Karira <cjkarira@gmail.com>

For those who are interested.
Ms Omita Paul was also appointed as an IC in 2009
and functioned for a period of 36 days.

**

NOTICEBLE LEGACY OF PRANAB MUKHERJI.. PL..READ.

As per todays news

Omita Paul, 63, a close aide of Prnab and retired IIs official has been
elevated to the rank of Secretary to the President in a break from
tradition, where the post was held by IAS
Fi(n)ancé Minister Mukherjee's Pauline legacy??????

*Before Pranab Mukherjee who was notoriously known as Only Vimal Pranab
when he was closely associated with the late Dhirubhai Ambani not very long
ago, even files nomination for election to the post of President, the news
have been splashed all arouthe Finance Ministry to the Rashtrapati Bhawan.
Along with resignation of Pranab Dada, Mrs. Paul also submitted her
resignation. This is an interesting tango.*
Mrs. Paul has been in news for all wrong reasons. She has been recently
alleged for trying to promote her brother, Jitesh Khosla as next UTI Chief
at an emolument of Rs. 4 crore per annum and in the process even keeping
the UTI without any head for a year. She has been alleged to be
instrumental in promoting her candidate, U K Sinha to the post of Chairman
of SEBI to derive benefits for companies like Reliance and Sahara. Earlier
also, she was in news for favouring her husband K.K.Paul who was elevated
as Member of the UPSC after his stint as Delhi Police Commissioner.

An amendment in the Section 10 (45) of the IT Act in the year 2011 was made
to extend retrospective tax exemption to UPSC members from 2007-8.
This covered the entire tenure of her husband as member, UPSC. There have
been written complaints against her role in promoting corruption and
deriving benefits by some senior bureaucrats like K.Abraham, an IAS officer
now working as Principal Secretary, HRD, State Government of Kerala, while
he was in the SEBI Board.

Inspite of so many complaints, she remain glued to Pranab Dada like chewing
gum as ever and this chemistry will continue to ferment in President House
if Dada gets elected through manipulations of electoral college members.

Mrs.Omita Paul is an Indian Information Service Officer with no proven case
of competence. Her rise can be ascribed to acquaintance with Pranab Dada in
1983 when she was posted as Director( publicity) in M/o Finance while
Pranab Mukherjee was the Cabinet Minister. She was 35 years old while Dada
was 46 years. Since then, the chemistry between two hasbeen exemplary.
Herein is a tabular analysis about their stint in the government:
*Pranab Mukherjee*
*Omita Paul*
Jan. 1982-Dec.1984
Union Cabinet Minister, Finance with additional charge of Ministry of
Commerce and Supply
Jan. 1983- June, 1984
Director (Public Relations)
Ministry of Finance
June 1991-May1996
Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission
June 1991-May 1996
Officer on Special Duty Planning Commission
Jan. 1993-Feb.1995
Union Cabinet Minister, Commerce
May 1992- Jan 1995
OSD to the Commerce Minister
Feb.1995-May1996
Union Cabinet Minister, External Affairs
Jan 1995- May 1996
OSD to External Affairs
Minister Ministry of External Affairs
23 May 2004 - 26 June,2012
Union Cabinet Minister, Defence, External Affairs, Finance Minister
Nov 2004 -26 June,2012
OSD to Defence Minister,External Affairs , Finance Minister
,
So, wherever Dada works, he is duly supported by Mrs. Paul. Dada is known
as an encyclopedia himself. But, he cannot work without Mrs. Paul. Thus,
Mrs. Paul is the indispensable adviser to Dada. May be she is India's Paul,
the Octopus who has gripped Dada with her extraordinary gift of spin
doctoring the corrupt practices and misconducts. Many puts the analogy of
their chemistry with that of chewing gum. No doubt there was *chewinggumgate
scandal* in the North Block when it was discovered that Dada and Mrs.
Paul's office were being bugged at 17 points. Interestingly, if Dada gets
to work in dual capacity in the government, Mrs. Paul gets elevated in dual
capacity. One can see the parallel graph when Dada was Deputy Chairman of
Planning Commission as well as Commerce Minister, Mrs. Paul was OSD,
Planning Commission as well as OSD to the Commerce Minister. Howsoever
brilliant and gifted she might be, other political leaders or the
government have failed to identify the extraordinary talent of Mrs. Paul.

The great German scientist Wolfgang Pauli changed the course of physics by
his apt intervention in quantum theory with his concept of spin. Many
mandarins in North Block are heard mentioning that Pauline chemistry of
spinning rules , regulations ,emoluments and favouritism in North Block
will now wane. Mrs Paul is also a post-graduate in Chemistry and that
helped her to have a durable polymer chemistry with Dada Though, Pranab
Mukherjee is rated as disaster as Finance Minister, some Parliamentarians
are heard quipping that he performed as an excellent *Fiancé Minister*. Let
us bid adieu to Pauline chemistry in *Fiancé Ministry* of Pranab Mukherjee
and pray God that Rashtrapati Bhawan does not get reduced into ( )-Pati
Bhawan!
*
ANNEXURE C of thee Reply to Pranab Mukherjee's Letter by Team Anna exposes
Ms Paul *
*Allegation of Illegitimate interference of Ms. Omita Paul*
https://www.box.com/s/dd8f2578483cdfa02bb6






--

Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Missing requests in the CIC

Dear Sandeep

1) HOW did you file your RTI with the SGPC's PIO ??? FYI, teh
President of SGPC some Mr. Makkar.says they are not under RTI and have
not taken any steps to appoint a PIO.

http://worldsikhnews.com/new%20stories/Is%20SGPC%20covered%20under%20the%20RTI%20Legal%20eagles%20say%20yes.htm

I assume you must have simply sent an IPO or DD for Rs. 10 with your
application by post ???

If so, you have made a wrong statement to the CIC - instead you should
have asked for a PIO to be appointed. Also, since the SIC (Punjab) (as
per media reports) has already held SGPC to be a P/A, why are you
approaching CIC ?

http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/should-religious-trusts-be-within-purview-rti-act-1674

Sarbajit




On 8/1/12, Sandeep gupta <drsandgupta@gmail.com> wrote:
> sir, Please tell me whether last line as suggested can be written in
> first appeal. or you have written in lighter vein?
>
> On 7/31/12, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dear Bimal
>>
>> Anna Hazare has already apologised to the people of India for the
>> irresponsible statement that PM MMS was a Shikhandi made by his team
>> member Prashant Bhushan.
>> http://ibnlive.in.com/news/we-apologise-for-shikhandi-remark-team-anna/262948-37-64.html
>>
>> OTH, Prashant Bhushan denies making that remark to the same channel
>> http://ibnlive.in.com/news/prashant-bhushan-denies-calling-pm-a-shikhandi/262571-37-64.html
>>
>> So AT LEAST one of them is a liar.
>>
>> Sarbajit
>>
>> On 7/31/12, Trap Rti <rtitrap@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The corrupt babus has over powered the system in our contry
>>> and some of our friends plays SHIKHANDI
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 9:12 AM, C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mr Sarbajit,
>>>>
>>>> There is no systemic error in the CICs centralised receipts section
>>>> and the rest of the administrative set up.
>>>> It is a complete breakdown and a hijacking of the system by a few
>>>> vested interests in the CIC !
>>>>
>>>> RTIwanted
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>> *From:* sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
>>>> *To:* "HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005" <
>>>> HumJanenge@googlegroups.com>
>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, July 29, 2012 8:33 PM
>>>> *Subject:* [HumJanenge] Re: Missing requests in the CIC
>>>>
>>>> Dear Sandeep
>>>>
>>>> It also points to some systemic error in the CIC's
>>>> Centralised dak and registry systems.
>>>> .
>>>> Sarbajit
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
> 1722, Sector 14, Hisar-125001, INDIA
> Phone: 91-99929-31181
>

Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Missing requests in the CIC

sir, Please tell me whether last line as suggested can be written in
first appeal. or you have written in lighter vein?

On 7/31/12, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Bimal
>
> Anna Hazare has already apologised to the people of India for the
> irresponsible statement that PM MMS was a Shikhandi made by his team
> member Prashant Bhushan.
> http://ibnlive.in.com/news/we-apologise-for-shikhandi-remark-team-anna/262948-37-64.html
>
> OTH, Prashant Bhushan denies making that remark to the same channel
> http://ibnlive.in.com/news/prashant-bhushan-denies-calling-pm-a-shikhandi/262571-37-64.html
>
> So AT LEAST one of them is a liar.
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On 7/31/12, Trap Rti <rtitrap@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The corrupt babus has over powered the system in our contry
>> and some of our friends plays SHIKHANDI
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 9:12 AM, C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Mr Sarbajit,
>>>
>>> There is no systemic error in the CICs centralised receipts section
>>> and the rest of the administrative set up.
>>> It is a complete breakdown and a hijacking of the system by a few
>>> vested interests in the CIC !
>>>
>>> RTIwanted
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>> *From:* sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
>>> *To:* "HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005" <
>>> HumJanenge@googlegroups.com>
>>> *Sent:* Sunday, July 29, 2012 8:33 PM
>>> *Subject:* [HumJanenge] Re: Missing requests in the CIC
>>>
>>> Dear Sandeep
>>>
>>> It also points to some systemic error in the CIC's
>>> Centralised dak and registry systems.
>>> .
>>> Sarbajit
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>


--
Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
1722, Sector 14, Hisar-125001, INDIA
Phone: 91-99929-31181

Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Missing requests in the CIC

Dear Bimal

Anna Hazare has already apologised to the people of India for the
irresponsible statement that PM MMS was a Shikhandi made by his team
member Prashant Bhushan.
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/we-apologise-for-shikhandi-remark-team-anna/262948-37-64.html

OTH, Prashant Bhushan denies making that remark to the same channel
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/prashant-bhushan-denies-calling-pm-a-shikhandi/262571-37-64.html

So AT LEAST one of them is a liar.

Sarbajit

On 7/31/12, Trap Rti <rtitrap@gmail.com> wrote:
> The corrupt babus has over powered the system in our contry
> and some of our friends plays SHIKHANDI
>
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 9:12 AM, C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Mr Sarbajit,
>>
>> There is no systemic error in the CICs centralised receipts section
>> and the rest of the administrative set up.
>> It is a complete breakdown and a hijacking of the system by a few
>> vested interests in the CIC !
>>
>> RTIwanted
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
>> *To:* "HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005" <
>> HumJanenge@googlegroups.com>
>> *Sent:* Sunday, July 29, 2012 8:33 PM
>> *Subject:* [HumJanenge] Re: Missing requests in the CIC
>>
>> Dear Sandeep
>>
>> It also points to some systemic error in the CIC's
>> Centralised dak and registry systems.
>> .
>> Sarbajit
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

[HumJanenge] Re: Missing requests in the CIC

Plead that
a) CIC is a single public authority.
b) There can be no "jurisdictions" for PIOs within a public authority.
c) That each and every PIO of a P/A is supposed to have access to all
a P/As records over a computer network anywhere in India and be able
to
provide information to RTI applicants.
d) That RTI-dushman Mr. Pankaj Shreyaskar should be sent back to
his home State.

Sarbajit

On Jul 31, 5:52 am, Sandeep gupta <drsandgu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks sir. now what should i plead in the first appeal
>

[rti4empowerment] Re: SOCIAL AUDIT LOCAL TEAM -(SALT)

CIRCULATE

Dear friends,

Mumbai People talk about the pot holes and only complain that repairs of roads/pavement are not good. I have been doing the social audit ever since  the day these guidelines have been published. I have come to the conclusion that if  the road and pavement trench works are done as per the guidelines, the same will be both good in quality and sustainable too. It will also be value for the money spent.

If people really use properly the RTI and Section 4 inspection we all can contribute to  true spirit and intent of the RTI Act and its preamble and my experience shows that even administration participates as we will be forcing the system to work and if system is forced to work then even the non-cooperative or corrupt person has to follow and it will be very difficult for him/her to take recourse to malpractices.

Please note this does not pertain to tender works but work given at ward level and some at central level. A ward issues, on an  average, about 600 to 1000 work orders per year.

I have got the whole work redone many times in F/South, F/North wards and G/South Wards, which I could coordinate.

I generally don't put manuals on board but thought I should circulate this to bring about awareness and also provoke action as the road/pavement situation is deteriorating rapidly now.  Please spend some time to read fully the Guideline and after reading don't use this knowledge just for making  'indiscriminate and impractical' RTI applications, but rather use the guidelines for effective monitoring of the work.

If you or any person whom you know, wishes to participate in working on the Implementation of these Guidelines in their area/ward, I can assist in forming of a  Citizens Area Social Audit Local Team (SALT) and also guide the team onwards. Mahiti Adhikar Manch has started forming such groups in Mumbai and if you are interested please e-mail me at mahitiadhikarmanch@gmail.com. Please note this group formation is for Mumbai only.

For your information, recently some colleagues joined me in conducting the inspection of records maintained for trench repairs. This has convinced me of this urgent need which prompted this mail and sharing. 

Yours in service of RTI

Bhaskar Prabhu
Mahiti Adhikar Manch
9892102424

www.facebook.com/mahitiadhikarmanch











Monday, July 30, 2012

[rti4empowerment] SOCIAL AUDIT LOCAL TEAM -(SALT)


CIRCULATE

Dear friends,

Mumbai People talk about the pot holes and only complain that repairs of roads/pavement are not good. I have been doing the social audit ever since  the day these guidelines have been published. I have come to the conclusion that if  the road and pavement trench works are done as per the guidelines, the same will be both good in quality and sustainable too. It will also be value for the money spent.

If people really use properly the RTI and Section 4 inspection we all can contribute to  true spirit and intent of the RTI Act and its preamble and my experience shows that even administration participates as we will be forcing the system to work and if system is forced to work then even the non-cooperative or corrupt person has to follow and it will be very difficult for him/her to take recourse to malpractices.

Please note this does not pertain to tender works but work given at ward level and some at central level. A ward issues, on an  average, about 600 to 1000 work orders per year.

I have got the whole work redone many times in F/South, F/North wards and G/South Wards, which I could coordinate.

I generally don't put manuals on board but thought I should circulate this to bring about awareness and also provoke action as the road/pavement situation is deteriorating rapidly now.  Please spend some time to read fully the Guideline and after reading don't use this knowledge just for making  'indiscriminate and impractical' RTI applications, but rather use the guidelines for effective monitoring of the work.

If you or any person whom you know, wishes to participate in working on the Implementation of these Guidelines in their area/ward, I can assist in forming of a  Citizens Area Social Audit Local Team (SALT) and also guide the team onwards. Mahiti Adhikar Manch has started forming such groups in Mumbai and if you are interested please e-mail me at mahitiadhikarmanch@gmail.com. Please note this group formation is for Mumbai only.

For your information, recently some colleagues joined me in conducting the inspection of records maintained for trench repairs. This has convinced me of this urgent need which prompted this mail and sharing. 

Yours in service of RTI

Bhaskar Prabhu
Mahiti Adhikar Manch
9892102424

www.facebook.com/mahitiadhikarmanch







Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Missing requests in the CIC

Thanks sir. now what should i plead in the first appeal

On 7/30/12, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thankfully almost all those vested interests have left the Commission
> except for one prominent example who has exceeded his stay.
>
>
> On 7/30/12, C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Mr Sarbajit,
>>
>> There is no systemic error in the CICs centralised receipts section
>> and the rest of the administrative set up.
>> It is a complete breakdown and a hijacking of the system by a few
>> vested interests in the CIC !
>>
>> RTIwanted
>


--
Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
1722, Sector 14, Hisar-125001, INDIA
Phone: 91-99929-31181

Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Missing requests in the CIC

The corrupt babus has over powered the system in our contry
and some of our friends plays SHIKHANDI

On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 9:12 AM, C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> wrote:
Mr Sarbajit,

There is no systemic error in the CICs centralised receipts section 
and the rest of the administrative set up.
It is a complete breakdown and a hijacking of the system by a few 
vested interests in the CIC !

RTIwanted




From: sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: "HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005" <HumJanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2012 8:33 PM
Subject: [HumJanenge] Re: Missing requests in the CIC

Dear Sandeep

 It also points to some systemic error in the CIC's
Centralised dak and registry systems.
.
Sarbajit




[HumJanenge] Fwd: Help in getting security to RTI activist

Copy of an email sent to me with 3 attachments

I shall be communicating to Ms. A.Dixit in this behalf (with copy to
this group and also to Mr. Peer).

Sarbajit

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ashwani Kumar Peer <ashwanikumarpeer@yahoo.co.in>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 16:48:14 +0800 (SGT)
Subject: Help in getting security to RTI activist
To: sroy.mb@gmail.com

Enclosed letters are self explanatory. Looking forward for your
valuable suggestion for doing anything further along with support.
With Regards
Ashwani Kumar