Appeal under section 19(9) of the RTI Act
To
The State Chief Information Commissioner, Odisha
Toshali Bhawan
Satya Nagar, Bhubaneswar
Sub- Appeal for rehearing of Complaint case No. 1772/10 as per section 19(9) of the RTI Act.
Sir
I beg to bring to your kind notice the following matter seeking your judicious action.
That, on dated 30.7.12, while adjudicating my Complaint case, the Commission disallowed my request of Property Statement of Mr. B.B.Dhal, General Manager, District Industries Centre , Ganjam citing section 8(1)(j) and 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.
I object the ground cited by the Commission for denying information about property statement of an officer.
First, Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act is not applicable in this case. To my view, Property statement of B.B.Dhal can not be attributed as personal information. Mr. Dhal is a Govt. employee. His salary and other allowances is provided by the citizens of the country. As per Orissa Civil Service Conduct Rule, it is the routine affairs of every Govt. officer or employees to submit Annual property Statement to the concerned public authority. The citizens has right to know under RTI Act about the movable and immovable property possessed by a Govt. employee. I do quote herewith decision of Shailesh Gandhi, Central Information Commissioner (Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000818/4195, Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000818) in which he has defined Personal as follows
"Words in a law should normally be given the meanings given in common language. In common language we would ascribe the adjective 'personal' to an attribute which applies to an individual and not to an Institution or a Corporate. From this it flows that 'personal' cannot be related to Institutions, organisations or corporates. ( Hence we could state that Section 8 (1) (j) cannot be applied when the information concerns institutions, organisations or corporate.)
Further Mr. Gandhi has stated that the phrase 'disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest' means that the information must have some relationship to a Public activity. Various Public authorities in performing their functions routinely ask for 'personal' information from Citizens, and this is clearly a public activity. When a person applies for a job, or gives information about himself to a Public authority as an employee, or asks for a permission, licence or authorisation, all these are public activities. The information sought in this case by the appellant has certainly been obtained in the pursuit of a public activity." Therefore we can state that disclosure of information such as assets of a Public servant, which is routinely collected by the Public authority and routinely provided by the Public servants, cannot be construed as an invasion on the privacy of an individual. There will only be a few exceptions to this rule which might relate to information which is obtained by a Public authority while using extraordinary powers such as in the case of a raid or phone-tapping.
Secondly, I object applicability of section 8(1)(e) in context of disclosure of property statement. There is no such fiduciary relationship between Govt. and employees. It is routine affairs of an institution to seek property statement of the officers. I refer the word fiduciary defined by Shailesh Gandhi, CIC. "The traditional definition of Fiduciary is a person who occupies a position of trust in relation to someone else, therefore requiring him to act for the latter's benefit within the scope of that relationship. In business or law, we generally mean someone who has specific duties, such as those that attend a particular profession or role, e.g. financial analyst or trustee. The information must be given by the holder of information when there is a choice,- as when a litigant goes to a particular lawyer, or a patient goes to particular doctor. It is also necessary that the principal character of the relationship is the trust placed by the provider of information in the person to whom the information is given. An equally important characteristic for the relationship to qualify as a fiduciary relationship is that the provider of information gives the information for using it for his the benefit of the giver. All relationships usually have an element of trust, but all of them cannot be classified as fiduciary. The information on the assets and properties held by a public servant are provided in the fulfillment of a statutory requirement and there is no element of choice in providing this information."
It has been seen in number of decisions of CIC declaring that Assets declared by public servants can be disclosed under RTI : I do present some findings as stated below:
CIC Bench of A.N. Tiwari & M. L. Sharma In case of Shri P.P. Rajeev Vs. Cochin Port Trust in Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2008/00707 dated 29.05.2008 held in that : Para -32. We, therefore, reiterate that there cannot be an omnibus order about the disclosure of all immovable assets-related information of employees of public authorities. The government or the public authorities may frame rules about disclosure of this class of information held by them as filed by their employees, but till such time as these Rules are framed and, the condition of confidentiality in which such information is handed over to the public authority holds good, the request for their disclosure will have to be considered on a case-by-case basis under the provisions of Sections 8(1)(j) and 11(1) of the Act. Similarly, it shall be open to any public authority or the Government to voluntarily undertake to disclose this variety of information, fully or in part.
Para-33 33. Accordingly, the present case is remitted back to the CPIO, Cochin Port Trust, with the direction that he will consider this matter under the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) and/or Section 11(1) of the RTI Act and then take a view as enjoined by either or both Sections, which shall be communicated to the appellant within 6 weeks from the date of the receipt of this order.
Source: http://rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SG_A_2011_003719_17410_M_76699.pdf
In a case involving Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghathan, CIC , Mr. O P Kejariwal ruled:
"This Bench, however, holds that Annual Property Returns by government employees are in the public domain and hence there seems to be no reason why they should not be freely disclosed. This should also be considered as a step to contain corruption in government offices since such disclosures may reveal instances where property has been acquired which is disproportionate to known sources of income. The Commission, therefore, directs the Respondents to provide copies of property returns asked for by the Appellant"
CCIC Wajah Habibulla held in Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/01593 dated 12.12.2007 on the disclosure of property statements this Commission has taken a decision in File No. CIC/OK/A/2007/01493 & CIC/OK/A/2008/00027 in the case of Shri Roshan Lal vs. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghathan that such property statements are not confidential documents and, therefore disclosable.
As the country is moving towards a transparent regime, the Central Govt. has already publicly disclosed the Annual Property Statement of All India Officers like IAS, IPS, IFS etc. These information has been uploaded in website. The Election Commission of India has publicly exposed property statement of contesting candidates, Ministers, MPs etc. in 2006, Central Information Commissioner has issued direction to Supreme Court to provide property statement of judges under RTI Act. Information Commissioners of Odisha have hosted their property statement in website. When there is no harm in disclosing property statement of big officers , Ministers, judges in the country, Commission's reluctance to order for disclosure of property statement is unwarranted.
I further mention here that Bihar Govt. has publicly webhosted property statement of all officers which is accessable by any citizens across the country. It is matter of great regret that State Govt. has not webhosted property statement of any officers. Is not it colonial secrecy.
I appeal you to hear my case and provide me the complete information.
Thanking you
Yours faithfully
Pradip Pradhan
Appellant
Date-23.8.12
To:
1) Shri P.K.Misra, Secretary/DoPT,
2) Shri Manoj Joshi, JS(ATA)/DoPT
BY EMAIL
Date: 25-August-2012
Dear Sirs,
I refer to reply given to Rajya Sabha by Hon'ble MoS on or about
23.Aug.2012 concerning the subject, as reported by PTI as follows:
http://www.business-standard.com/generalnews/news/file-related-to-suggestionsrti-rules-was-misplaced-govt/47311/
"File related to suggestions on RTI rules was misplaced: Govt
Press Trust of India / New Delhi August 23, 2012, 17:20
The file related to suggestions on framing the Right to Information
rules was misplaced, Rajya Sabha was informed today.
Minister of state for Personnel, Public greivances and Pensions V
Narayanasamy said comments of the stakeholders were invited on the
proposed Right to Information Rules by putting an Office Memorandum on
the official website of Department of Personnel and Training on
December 10, 2010.
"Comments received from stakeholders on the proposed rules were
misplaced. The folder has since been reconstructed," he said in his
reply in the House. "
In this connexion,
I am aggrieved that no copy of FIR reporting the loss / theft has been
provided to me, or even the particulars of the concerned police
station provided to me.
I am especially aggrieved because the Mr Rajeev Kapoor (then JS/A&TA
and also nodal PG Director) failed to register on CPGRAMS my Public
Grievance in this regard sent to him by email on 21.March.2011 with
subject "PUBLIC GRIEVANCE PETITION: Violation of Official Secrets Act
by Officers of DoPT". For ready reference I am reproducing the text of
my email so that PROMPT AND GENUINE ACTION IS TAKEN since I am
concerned that Hon'ble MoS has been misled into giving false
information to Parliament. Specifically I allege that the file/folder
was not misplaced but it was ILLEGALLY taken out of DoPT premises for
private photocopying to provide to foreign intelligence agencies and
was not returned. For reasons best known to DoPT no action was taken
on my confidential information and I wish to provide all the
information in my knowledge to the investigative agencies to whom the
DoPT is duty bound to report the loss / theft..
I would be obliged if my instant PUBLIC GRIEVANCE email is
acknowledged within 3 days as provided for in the Public Grievance
redressal scheme.
With best wishes
Yours faithfully
Sarbajit Roy
B-59 Defence Colony
New Delhi 110024
COPY of Email of 21.03.2011
To:
Jt-Secretary (AT&A)/DoPT,
as Nodal Public Grievance Officer/DoPT
CONFIDENTIAL / NOT TO BE DISCLOSED
BY EMAIL
Date: 21-March-2011
Sir
I am constrained to inform / petition / complain that 2 officers of
your Ministry have committed offences punishable under the Official
Secrets Act and/or Prevention of Corruption Act by corruptly
disclosing information submitted in confidence to your Ministry to
persons acting at the behest of foreigners inimical / opposed to the
Union of India. It is further pertinent that these brazen acts were
committed despite clear warnings and cautions I conveyed to them well
in advance. I therefore request you to kindly inquire into the
following facts and initiate actions for the requisite prosecution of
your junior officers under the applicable laws of India.
FACTS:
1) That on or about 10th December 2010 the DoPT published on its
website an OM inviting comments on draft RTI Rules by email to
US-RTI/DoPT (Shri R.K.Girdhar).
2) That I alongwith other persons known to me duly submitted our
detailed comments by email to Shri Girdhar in confidence, each
communication being clearly marked at the outset as submitted in
Confidence / not to be disclosed. I was especially concerned that my
communications not be conveyed to the "NAC" ie. National Advisory
Council (which as per me is an extra-statutory body, and a nest of
foreign spies and corrupt former public servants eased out of
Government for acting as lobbyists/touts).
3) That on or about 29 December 2010 I came to know that a certain
Commodore (Retd) Lokesh Batra who is closely associated with NAC
member Ms Aruna Roy applied in RTI to Shri R.K Girdhar/CPIO to be
provided access to the comments I had submitted in confidence. I
promptly, ie. on the very same day, emailed Shri R.K.Girdhar informing
him that I was a "third party" opposing disclosure of my
communications which were submitted strictly in confidence to DoPT. I
specifically called on Shri Girdhar to issue me a statutory 3rd party
notice u/s 11 of RTI Act 2005 if he intended to disclose to any person
information which either related to me or was submitted by me in
confidence. I also say that I thereafter spoke to Mr Girdhar
telephonically and reiterated that I was opposed to any disclosure of
my numerous filings to DoPT to any outside person.
4) I was therefore shocked to learn that on 2 February 2011 Shri RK
Girdhar issued a letter to Commodore Batra (File No.12/325/2010-IR)
communicating a time and date where my filed comments would be
disclosed to Commodore Lokesh Batra. I am reliably given to understand
that the inspection took place on afternoon of 18.Feb.2011 in offices
of Shri K./G.Verma and that Commodore Batra was provided xerox copies
on the spot of all my communications without payment of the prescribed
fees, due to a telephone call from Ms Aruna Roy (honorary member NAC)
for this. I am outraged at the blatant subversion of the laws of India
to cause me loss and harm by members of your Department. I am outraged
that Shri Girdhar failed to issue me a 3rd party notice and disclosed
my confidential information to the NAC through Commodore Batra. I am
outraged that Shri K.G Verma/Directior RTI went out of his way
to show all my confidential papers to Commodore Batra in his office
and provided privately a copy set of my papers to Commodore Batra
(without deposit of prescribed fees into Govt Treasury) at the behest
of Ms Aruna Roy who is an influential private lobbyist. I am outraged
that the entire RTI section of your Department has willfully and
corruptly evaded diarising the comments received from the public on
the aforesaid OM of 10.Dec.2010, so as to disclose them to foreign
spies who misuse RTI process. I am outraged that your junior officers
have corruptly disclosed my information to Commodore Batra in breach
of penal provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act in addition to
penal provisions of Official Secrets Act. I am also concerned that
Shri K.G.Verma in particular has been influenced by Ms Aruna Roy to
water down provisions of draft RTI Rules from 250 word application
limit to 500 words whereas I had called for this limit to be further
tightened to 150 words etc. as per other laws.
Accordingly, I call upon you to
A) Kindly acknowledge this Grievance Petition immediately, and
b) Kindly take all requisite actions to resolve my grievances under
advice/reply to me.
Yours faithfully
Sarbajit Roy
B-59 Defence Colony
New Delhi 110024
Tel : 09311448069
| I fully endorse the view. i also had the misfortune of calling 100 with nearly the same reaction. An accident is a money-making opportunity for the polce -wallas !! with warm regards, digvijay --- On Sat, 18/8/12, pavan jain <j_peekay@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
|
Sarbajit
Sandeep gupta wrote:
> Please find enclosed a judgement of kerala high court (para 21). as i
> understand from plain reading of this judgement, any route can be used
> for seeking information. As I may not be sound enough to interpret,
> Sarbajit sir may please go through the same and comment.
> regards
> sandeep
>
> On 8/22/12, sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Applicant wants certified copy of order of Delhi High Court. The
> > orders of CIC (our old friend) allowing dual route have all been
> > stayed. so Judicial records are to be applied for under High Court
> > Rules (not RTI) as these Rules are (allegedly) framed under
> > CONSTITUTIONAL powers of High Courts which over-ride that of a mere
> > Parliamentary legislation like RTI Act 2005.So follow advice of mr V.
> > Bansal
> >
> > Sandeep gupta wrote:
> >> even kerala high court has held like that. i will send the order soon.
> >>
> >> On 8/22/12, capt beniwal <trident142@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> >> > I understand CIC has held that the applicant take a route, either under
> >> > RTI
> >> > or the court rules, he likes to obtain the information. rgds. beniwal
> >> >
> >> > --- On Tue, 21/8/12, vinod.virgo@gmail.com <vinod.virgo@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > From: vinod.virgo@gmail.com <vinod.virgo@gmail.com>
> >> > Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Seeking Advice
> >> > To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> >> > Date: Tuesday, 21 August, 2012, 4:03 PM
> >> >
> >> > विनोद बंसल जी, विनोद पांड्या जी, एम.के.गुप्ता जी और सुरेंद्र जी, आप सभी
> >> > का
> >> > हार्दिक धन्यवाद। विनोद पांड्या जी, ज़रूरत पड़ी तो आपको फ़ोन पर डिस्टर्ब
> >> > करूंगा।
> >> >
> >> > विनोद अग्रहरि
> >> >
> >> > 2012/8/21 Vinod Pandya <vinod_pandya20@yahoo.co.in>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ji apko kort rajisrar ko arji karni hogi aur niklva sakte hai.agar apko
> >> > sp.c.a no. yad hai to net par se bhi le sakte hai.vinod pandya Vinod
> >> > Pandya
> >> >
> >> > 9825551238
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > From: "vinod.virgo@gmail.com" <vinod.virgo@gmail.com>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> >> > Sent: Monday, 20 August 2012 4:14 PM
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Subject: [HumJanenge] Seeking Advice
> >> >
> >> > आदरणीय साथियो,
> >> > - क्या कोर्ट के किसी
> >> > आदेश की प्रति आरटीआई से निकलवाई जा सकती है?- मुझे दिल्ली हाई कोर्ट के
> >> > एक
> >> > आदेश की सर्टिफाइड कॉपी निकलवानी है।- यह आदेश 1 मई 2012 को जारी हुआ था।
> >> > - यदि आदेश की प्रति निकलवाई जा सकती है, तो आरटीआई आवेदन किसे लिखना होगा
> >> > और
> >> > कहां भेजना होगा?
> >> > कृपया मार्गदर्शन करें।
> >> > ईद की शुभकामनाओं के साथविनोद अग्रहरि
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > वैशाली, ग़ाज़ियाबाद
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> 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
On 8/22/12, sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> Applicant wants certified copy of order of Delhi High Court. The
> orders of CIC (our old friend) allowing dual route have all been
> stayed. so Judicial records are to be applied for under High Court
> Rules (not RTI) as these Rules are (allegedly) framed under
> CONSTITUTIONAL powers of High Courts which over-ride that of a mere
> Parliamentary legislation like RTI Act 2005.So follow advice of mr V.
> Bansal
>
> Sandeep gupta wrote:
>> even kerala high court has held like that. i will send the order soon.
>>
>> On 8/22/12, capt beniwal <trident142@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
>> > I understand CIC has held that the applicant take a route, either under
>> > RTI
>> > or the court rules, he likes to obtain the information. rgds. beniwal
>> >
>> > --- On Tue, 21/8/12, vinod.virgo@gmail.com <vinod.virgo@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > From: vinod.virgo@gmail.com <vinod.virgo@gmail.com>
>> > Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Seeking Advice
>> > To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
>> > Date: Tuesday, 21 August, 2012, 4:03 PM
>> >
>> > विनोद बंसल जी, विनोद पांड्या जी, एम.के.गुप्ता जी और सुरेंद्र जी, आप सभी
>> > का
>> > हार्दिक धन्यवाद। विनोद पांड्या जी, ज़रूरत पड़ी तो आपको फ़ोन पर डिस्टर्ब
>> > करूंगा।
>> >
>> > विनोद अग्रहरि
>> >
>> > 2012/8/21 Vinod Pandya <vinod_pandya20@yahoo.co.in>
>> >
>> >
>> > ji apko kort rajisrar ko arji karni hogi aur niklva sakte hai.agar apko
>> > sp.c.a no. yad hai to net par se bhi le sakte hai.vinod pandya Vinod
>> > Pandya
>> >
>> > 9825551238
>> >
>> >
>> > From: "vinod.virgo@gmail.com" <vinod.virgo@gmail.com>
>> >
>> >
>> > To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
>> > Sent: Monday, 20 August 2012 4:14 PM
>> >
>> >
>> > Subject: [HumJanenge] Seeking Advice
>> >
>> > आदरणीय साथियो,
>> > - क्या कोर्ट के किसी
>> > आदेश की प्रति आरटीआई से निकलवाई जा सकती है?- मुझे दिल्ली हाई कोर्ट के
>> > एक
>> > आदेश की सर्टिफाइड कॉपी निकलवानी है।- यह आदेश 1 मई 2012 को जारी हुआ था।
>> > - यदि आदेश की प्रति निकलवाई जा सकती है, तो आरटीआई आवेदन किसे लिखना होगा
>> > और
>> > कहां भेजना होगा?
>> > कृपया मार्गदर्शन करें।
>> > ईद की शुभकामनाओं के साथविनोद अग्रहरि
>> >
>> >
>> > वैशाली, ग़ाज़ियाबाद
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
| another KOSOVA will be carved out of Assam soon, if the congress party continues in power. --- On Tue, 21/8/12, Dipak M Karnik <dipakmkarnik@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
|
Sandeep gupta wrote:
> even kerala high court has held like that. i will send the order soon.
>
> On 8/22/12, capt beniwal <trident142@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> > I understand CIC has held that the applicant take a route, either under RTI
> > or the court rules, he likes to obtain the information. rgds. beniwal
> >
> > --- On Tue, 21/8/12, vinod.virgo@gmail.com <vinod.virgo@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > From: vinod.virgo@gmail.com <vinod.virgo@gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Seeking Advice
> > To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> > Date: Tuesday, 21 August, 2012, 4:03 PM
> >
> > विनोद बंसल जी, विनोद पांड्या जी, एम.के.गुप्ता जी और सुरेंद्र जी, आप सभी का
> > हार्दिक धन्यवाद। विनोद पांड्या जी, ज़रूरत पड़ी तो आपको फ़ोन पर डिस्टर्ब
> > करूंगा।
> >
> > विनोद अग्रहरि
> >
> > 2012/8/21 Vinod Pandya <vinod_pandya20@yahoo.co.in>
> >
> >
> > ji apko kort rajisrar ko arji karni hogi aur niklva sakte hai.agar apko
> > sp.c.a no. yad hai to net par se bhi le sakte hai.vinod pandya Vinod
> > Pandya
> >
> > 9825551238
> >
> >
> > From: "vinod.virgo@gmail.com" <vinod.virgo@gmail.com>
> >
> >
> > To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> > Sent: Monday, 20 August 2012 4:14 PM
> >
> >
> > Subject: [HumJanenge] Seeking Advice
> >
> > आदरणीय साथियो,
> > - क्या कोर्ट के किसी
> > आदेश की प्रति आरटीआई से निकलवाई जा सकती है?- मुझे दिल्ली हाई कोर्ट के एक
> > आदेश की सर्टिफाइड कॉपी निकलवानी है।- यह आदेश 1 मई 2012 को जारी हुआ था।
> > - यदि आदेश की प्रति निकलवाई जा सकती है, तो आरटीआई आवेदन किसे लिखना होगा और
> > कहां भेजना होगा?
> > कृपया मार्गदर्शन करें।
> > ईद की शुभकामनाओं के साथविनोद अग्रहरि
> >
> >
> > वैशाली, ग़ाज़ियाबाद
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
> 1722, Sector 14, Hisar-125001, INDIA
> Phone: 91-99929-31181
On 8/22/12, capt beniwal <trident142@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> I understand CIC has held that the applicant take a route, either under RTI
> or the court rules, he likes to obtain the information. rgds. beniwal
>
> --- On Tue, 21/8/12, vinod.virgo@gmail.com <vinod.virgo@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From: vinod.virgo@gmail.com <vinod.virgo@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Seeking Advice
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> Date: Tuesday, 21 August, 2012, 4:03 PM
>
> विनोद बंसल जी, विनोद पांड्या जी, एम.के.गुप्ता जी और सुरेंद्र जी, आप सभी का
> हार्दिक धन्यवाद। विनोद पांड्या जी, ज़रूरत पड़ी तो आपको फ़ोन पर डिस्टर्ब
> करूंगा।
>
> विनोद अग्रहरि
>
> 2012/8/21 Vinod Pandya <vinod_pandya20@yahoo.co.in>
>
>
> ji apko kort rajisrar ko arji karni hogi aur niklva sakte hai.agar apko
> sp.c.a no. yad hai to net par se bhi le sakte hai.vinod pandya Vinod
> Pandya
>
> 9825551238
>
>
> From: "vinod.virgo@gmail.com" <vinod.virgo@gmail.com>
>
>
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Monday, 20 August 2012 4:14 PM
>
>
> Subject: [HumJanenge] Seeking Advice
>
> आदरणीय साथियो,
> - क्या कोर्ट के किसी
> आदेश की प्रति आरटीआई से निकलवाई जा सकती है?- मुझे दिल्ली हाई कोर्ट के एक
> आदेश की सर्टिफाइड कॉपी निकलवानी है।- यह आदेश 1 मई 2012 को जारी हुआ था।
> - यदि आदेश की प्रति निकलवाई जा सकती है, तो आरटीआई आवेदन किसे लिखना होगा और
> कहां भेजना होगा?
> कृपया मार्गदर्शन करें।
> ईद की शुभकामनाओं के साथविनोद अग्रहरि
>
>
> वैशाली, ग़ाज़ियाबाद
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
1722, Sector 14, Hisar-125001, INDIA
Phone: 91-99929-31181
| To my mind, the rushing back of the Assamese and other tribal citizens to their homes is fraught with ominous possibilities of a big blood bath for expulsion of the non-Indians from Assam and the other neighbouring states. The Chinese may also jump in to the fray with sympathies to the tribles and propogating anti-Indian sentiment, by calling the Tibeto-Burman race as of Chinese origin, though the two are distinctly different. The Govt of India must step in, carry out enumeration of the Indian and non-Indian citizens and expel the Bangladeshi infiltrators even at the cost of straining relations with Bangladesh.. Equally important is guarding the International border in the same manner as it is being done in J & K so that infiltration is checked completely.. --- On Tue, 21/8/12, shanti ranjan behera <shanti_ranjan@rediffmail.com> wrote:
|
