Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Re: [HumJanenge] Request for Appointment concerning anti-National activities of Shri Shailesh Gandhi

The point you ought to have made is if Sailesh Gandhi has issued a
"recommendation" to the Government of India u/section 25 of RTI Act.
Alternatively, does Sailesh Gandhi's letter constitute such
recommendation. I suggest you file an RTI to PMO seeking to know the
action taken on Sailesh Gandhi's letter (which is only 1 of 100's he
has been writing) to gauge the PM's respect for the CIC.

Raminder

On 3/29/12, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> To:
> Respected Shri Satyananda Mishra-ji
> Chief Information Commissioner of India
> Central Information Commission
> at New Delhi
>
> BY EMAIL
>
> Date: 29.03.2012
>
> Respected Sir
>
> I refer to the news story published in Times Of India today titled as
> "PM urged to reconsider changes in NSRA bill to safeguard RTI Act". It
> seems that Shri Shailesh Gandhi has sent a letter addressed to the
> Prime Minister of India on the official stationery of the Commission
> and affixed the seal of the Commission thereto. It is not clear if the
> letter was sent in his personal capacity or in some other capacity or
> the views expressed therein are those of the Commission.
>
> The contents of this letter are scandalous and anti-national in
> sentiment and seem impelled by political considerations. A copy of the
> letter is also being circulated openly by friends / associates of Shri
> Shailesh Gandhi to Maoist / Naxalite groups all over the country and
> abroad.
>
> As this unilateral letter shall bring the bring the image of the
> nation and also the Commission into further disrepute and play into
> the hands of anti-National forces, I again urge you to kindly use all
> the means at your disposal to protect the good name of the Commission
> from the actions of this reckless individual. I humbly suggest that
> the good offices of the 2 Information Commissioners who have extensive
> Police background be also utilised to enquire into the circumstances
> of how Mr. Shailesh Gandhi's statutory office is being used by all
> manner of NGOs and private persons for their vested interests/agenda,
> and whether any improper considerations are involved.
>
> If any further inputs are needed from my side, I would be pleased to
> assist the Hon'ble Commission, and an appointment may kindly be
> conveyed to me in advance.
>
> Yours sincerely
>
> Sarbajit Roy
>
> B-59 Defence Colony
> New Delhi 110024
>
> Tel : 9311448069
>

[HumJanenge] Request for Appointment concerning anti-National activities of Shri Shailesh Gandhi

To:
Respected Shri Satyananda Mishra-ji
Chief Information Commissioner of India
Central Information Commission
at New Delhi

BY EMAIL

Date: 29.03.2012

Respected Sir

I refer to the news story published in Times Of India today titled as
"PM urged to reconsider changes in NSRA bill to safeguard RTI Act". It
seems that Shri Shailesh Gandhi has sent a letter addressed to the
Prime Minister of India on the official stationery of the Commission
and affixed the seal of the Commission thereto. It is not clear if the
letter was sent in his personal capacity or in some other capacity or
the views expressed therein are those of the Commission.

The contents of this letter are scandalous and anti-national in
sentiment and seem impelled by political considerations. A copy of the
letter is also being circulated openly by friends / associates of Shri
Shailesh Gandhi to Maoist / Naxalite groups all over the country and
abroad.

As this unilateral letter shall bring the bring the image of the
nation and also the Commission into further disrepute and play into
the hands of anti-National forces, I again urge you to kindly use all
the means at your disposal to protect the good name of the Commission
from the actions of this reckless individual. I humbly suggest that
the good offices of the 2 Information Commissioners who have extensive
Police background be also utilised to enquire into the circumstances
of how Mr. Shailesh Gandhi's statutory office is being used by all
manner of NGOs and private persons for their vested interests/agenda,
and whether any improper considerations are involved.

If any further inputs are needed from my side, I would be pleased to
assist the Hon'ble Commission, and an appointment may kindly be
conveyed to me in advance.

Yours sincerely

Sarbajit Roy

B-59 Defence Colony
New Delhi 110024

Tel : 9311448069

[HumJanenge] Eminent Citizens Oppose Amendments to the RTI Act through the Nuclear Safety Bill, 2011

Dear Venkatesh

I don't know how your email reached me because I don't subscribe to
any of the egroups (listed below) you posted to. However, please keep
sending me your emails.

I am amused that you list Shailesh Gandhi as an "eminent" citizen on
the same pedestal (if thats the word I'm searching for) as Fali
Nariman. Leaving aside for one moment the issue that both "eminent"
persons were/are professional taxis for hire who will say anything for
anyone for a fee, I seriously question their credibility to speak for
private citizens (who dont pay them) on RTI related issues considering
that they have been employed by Government and can hardfy be
considered to be independent or impartial.

The other issue which arises from your email is the role of CHRI in
the RTI movement and why you people are interfering in what concerns
citizens at large with no locus whatsoever other than your individual
citizenships of India., I will not dignify Veeresh Maliks charges
against CHRI by repeating them there, but you should seriously
introspect if CHRI should be so publicly agitating on matters of
national security, and assisting charge sheeted "enemies of the state"
etc. without disclosure of your own funding (or CHRI can appoint a
PIO)

Cheers

Sarbajit

"To: HumJanenge@yahoogroups.co.in, jharkhand@yahoogroups.co.in,
rti4ngo@yahoogroups.com, childrensrighttofood@googlegroups.com,
loksatta_initiative@yahoogroups.com,
ncpriworkingcommittee@yahoogroups.com,
urja-delhi-rwas@googlegroups.com, pwap@yahoogroups.com,
ncprimailinglist@yahoogroups.com, antibriberycampaign@yahoogroups.com,
development_communication_in_Orissa-owner@yahoogroups.com,
rtf-updates+owners@googlegroups.com,
stop-corruption-worldwide@google.groups.com,
the-moderates@googlegroups.com "

On 3/28/12, venkatesh nayak <venkatesh@humanrightsinitiative.org> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Readers may remember receiving email alerts about the Central Government's
> attempts to the amend the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) through
> the Nuclear Safety Regulatory Authority Bill, 2011 (NSRA Bill). For our
> previous email alerts and resource materials on this subject please click on
> or copy this URL into the address box of your browser:
> http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/index.php?option=com_content
> <http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=arti
> cle&catid=34%3Aright-to-information&id=655%3Apossible-amendment-of-rti-act-2
> 005-email-alerts&Itemid=84>
> &view=article&catid=34%3Aright-to-information&id=655%3Apossible-amendment-of
> -rti-act-2005-email-alerts&Itemid=84
>
>
>
> I had circulated an action alert requesting people to write to the Hon'ble
> Prime Minister of India against the move to amend the RTI Act. Several of
> you have responded positively and written to the PM and the MoS. I thank you
> all for supporting this cause.
>
>
>
> I have attached two such letters endorsing the demand not to amend the RTI
> Act. The first is from Mr. Shailesh Gandhi, Information Commissioner,
> Central Information Commission. The second is from Mr. Fali Nariman,
> distinguished jurist, senior advocate of the Supreme Court of India and
> former member of the Rajya Sabha. He has copied his letter to several
> Members of Parliament.
>
>
>
> I thank both Mr. Gandhi and Mr. Nariman for lending their voice and support
> to this cause. Two Members of Parliament have already expressed their
> dissent to the Government's proposal in the report on the NSRA Bill prepared
> by the Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science,
> Technology, Environment and Forests. A copy of this report is attached.
>
>
>
> If you have not written to the PM and the Minister of State yet, you can
> still do it.
>
>
>
> You may like to use the following message or adapt it to suit your thoughts
> to urge the Prime Minister and the Minister of State in his office to
> withdraw amendments to the RTI Act:
>
>
>
> "We the people of India who have been actively using RTI to promote
> transparency and accountability in government are distressed to note that
> your Government has proposed amendments to the Right to Information Act,
> 2005 through The Nuclear Safety Regulatory Authority Bill, 2011. These
> amendments are unnecessary in view of the adequate protection for all
> legitimate interests provided under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The
> exclusion of special nuclear regulatory authorities referred to in Clause 25
> even before they are established by the Government is against the letter and
> spirit of Section 24 of the RTI Act. We urge you to recommend deletion of
> all clauses that seek to amend the RTI Act. Greater transparency can ensure
> greater safety and accountability.
>
> No Amendments Through the Backdoor : Save Our RTI Act"
>
> Pls send your emails/postcards to:
>
>
>
> Dr. Manmohan Singh (manmohan@sansad.nic.in)
>
>
> Prime Minister of India
>
>
> South Block
>
>
> Raisina Hill,
>
>
> New Delhi- 110 001
>
>
>
>
> and
>
>
>
> Shri V Narayanasamy (mos-pp@nic.in)
>
> Minister of State
>
> Prime Minister's Office
>
> South Block, Raisina Hill
>
> New Delhi- 110 001
>
>
>
> Kindly copy your emails to my address as well. Please do not ignore or delay
> this matter. It is our safety that I am talking about - "yours and mine"
>
>
>
> In order to access our previous email alerts on RTI and related issues
> please click on:
> http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/index.php?option=com_content
> <blocked::blocked::blocked::blocked::blocked::blocked::blocked::blocked::htt
> p://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&
> id=65&Itemid=84> &view=article&id=65&Itemid=84 You will find the links at
> the top of this web page. If you do not wish to receive these email alerts
> please send an email to this address indicating your refusal.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Venkatesh Nayak
>
> Programme Coordinator
>
> Access to Information Programme
>
> Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative
>
> B-117, First Floor, Sarvodaya Enclave
>
> New Delhi- 110 017
>
> Tel: +91-11-43180215/ 43180201
>
> Fax: +91-26864688
>
> Skype: <mailto:venkatesh.nayak@skype.com> venkatesh.nayak@skype.com
>
> Alternate Email: <mailto:nayak.venkatesh@gmail.com>
> nayak.venkatesh@gmail.com
>
> Website: <http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org>
> www.humanrightsinitiative.org
>
>

[HumJanenge] Re: MoneyLife : RTI action makes 105 branches of leading banks become “customer-sensitive”

A well known tale from Aesop's fables about the "fly on the wheel"

"Look, what a lot of dust I raise," says the fly on the axle of the chariot."

Moral: Its the chariot which raises the dust and not the fly.

On 3/28/12, lokesh batra <batra_lokesh@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://www.moneylife.in/article/rti-action-makes-105-branches-of-leading-banks-become-customer-sensitive/24571.html
>
> RTI action makes 105 branches of leading banks become "customer-sensitive"
>
> March 28, 2012 12:10 PM
>
>
> RTI activist Commodore Lokesh Batra uses RTI to make RBI act in public
> interest when a Supreme Court order asked 105 branches of leading banks in
> Noida to shift out from the residential zones they have ``illegally''
> occupied, setting off a panic among several lakh citizens
>
>
>
> Imagine the bank which is in your neighbourhood suddenly decides to move to
> another location? Obviously, you would panic, particularly if you have a
> locker where you keep your precious jewellery and other stuff. This is
> exactly what happened when in December 2011, the Supreme Court ordered that
> 104 branches of 21 major banks which since decades, had 'illegally' occupied
> residential areas in Noida, shift out. The court ordered the Noida Authority
> to seal the branches of these banks if they failed to comply with the order.
>
>
> Nervousness set in amongst customers who number nearly 10 lakh, resulting in
> panic emptying of lockers and in some cases, protests in front of some
> banks. The writ petition was triggered by a residential property owner, who
> gave his property on lease but it was subsequently rented out to a bank and
> another commercial outfit. At the fag end of this legal intervention came
> the Supreme Court judgment asking all banks in residential areas to vacate
> or have them sealed. The banks appealed for four months' time to build
> strong rooms, etc, but since the Supreme Court did not acknowledge the time
> frame in its order, panic set in. Now, the next hearing is on 30th March.
>
>
> What is interesting is that while the Noida Authority began following the SC
> order promptly to the extent of sealing three banks, no one thought of the
> poor, helpless customers who were at the receiving end; senior citizens
> would have to bear the maximum brunt of this sudden action. Leading RTI
> (Right to Information) activist of Delhi, Commodore Lokesh Batra intervened
> with the powerful and people-friendly weapon of RTI. His main concern was
> that peoples' sentiments should be kept in mind before such a mass eviction.
>
>
> 2nd February: Commodore Batra sent an email to VS Das, executive editor,
> Reserve Bank of India (RBI), stating, "I am writing this with urgent plea
> for RBI's intervention to assure safety of assets of customers holding
> accounts and lockers in Noida. You may be aware that about 104 branches of
> various leading banks are operating in Noida from residential areas for
> decades now. In a recent order, the Supreme Court has directed the Noida
> Authority to get these banks' branches vacated from their present location.
> However, the time given is too less for these banks to find alternate sites…
> Starting 1 February 2012, the Noida Authority has started sealing these
> banks. This has triggered panic amongst customers as they are not sure about
> the safety and security of their bank assets and belongings kept in lockers.
> I submit you to issue necessary guidelines/instruction to concerned banks in
> Noida to ensure safety of lockers during their shifting process and other
> interventions to curb panic amongst customers."
>
>
> Predictably, there was silence from the RBI, so in the first week of March
> he invoked the RTI Act, to find out what action the RBI has taken after he
> shot off the letter on 2nd February. He also filed a RTI application to the
> ministry of finance to find out what action was taken of a similar letter
> written to it on 8th February.
>
>
> Following were the revelations under RTI:
>
>
> On 16 March 2012, information under RTI by the RBI revealed that "a copy of
> the email dated 2nd February 2012, had been forwarded to our Department of
> Banking Supervision (DBS), Lucknow, as the branches in Noida are under its
> jurisdiction. Copies of the said email had also been forwarded to Regional
> Director, New Delhi and Regional Director, Kanpur."
>
>
> The copy of the email forwarded by Deepak Singhal, Regional Director, Kanpur
> on 2nd February itself stated, "Please look into the trailing mail (Comm
> Batra's). In co-ordination with the Lucknow office you may like to call a
> meeting of bankers having branches in Noida to see what can be done to allay
> the fears in the mind of customers of Noida branches. They need to be
> assured that their valuable in lockers are safe."
>
>
> Thereafter, RTI documents revealed that the Department of Banking
> Reservation, RBI, Lucknow, indeed held an 'emergency' meeting with the
> controlling heads of the 21 banks, after Commodre Batra's letter and that
> too on the same day—3rd February itself.
>
>
> (Incidentally, an official written by an assistant general manager to the
> chief general manager in charge of the Department of Banking Supervision
> reveals that:
>
>
>
> "These 21 major banks have 211 branches out of a total of 260 branches of 41
> banks in Noida, i.e representating 81% of branches."
>
>
> The internal document of the RBI states, "a meeting with the controlling
> heads was held in RBI, Lucknow on 3rd February… The issue of sealing of
> banks… was discussed at length."
>
>
> "Considering the panic in the public following the newspaper reports on the
> issue, the house resolved as under:
>
>
> "The customers will be advised by the banks through email, SMS, notce
> displayed at the branches and personnel posted at the branches regarding the
> alternate arrangements made for the conduct of smooth banking functions
> including locker operations up to 5 March 2012 (now extended to 30th March),
> the next date of hearing/time given by the Supreme Court…"
>
>
> The branches of banks affected by the Supreme Court order are: Allahabad
> Bank (6 branches); Axis Bank (5); Bank of Baroda (5); Bank of Maharashtra
> (3); Bank of India (9); Canara Bank (11); Central Bank of India (5);
> Corporation Bank (7); Dena Bank (2); HDFC Bank (18); ICICI Bank (6); Indian
> Overseas Bank (10); Oriental Bank of Commerce (25); Punjab National Bank
> (26); State Bank of India (35); Syndicate Bank (20); UCD Bank (2); Union
> Bank of India (6); IDBI Bank (3); Vijaya Bank (4); Union Bank of India (3).
>
>
> On 8th February, Comm Batra also filed a RTI application to the ministry of
> finance, Department of Financial Services asking what action was taken on
> his letter in which he sought the government's intervention in reducing the
> panic of the customers and in helping banks to get more time to shift their
> premises.
>
>
> On 1st March, the ministry of finance sent a letter to the Public
> Information Officer, Reserve Bank of India, stating, "We request Reserve
> Bank of India to examine the matter and take appropriate action in this
> regard."
>
>
> Thanks to Comm Batra, the banks, since February, have been holding regular
> press meets/sending press releases assuring the customers that there would
> be no knee-jerk reaction and they would be amply informed through SMS and
> emails of the situation of their eviction and transfer to new 'legal'
> premises.
>
> Hail RTI !
>

Monday, March 26, 2012

Re: [.RTI.] Re: [HumJanenge] Need Help

Dear All,

Thank you for your kind advices.

Thanks&Regards
Bala

>
> On 25 March 2012 18:20, arunagiri thasari <tsa1940@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hey'
>> Meet the Thasildar, of the Dist and then the Svy Depat under him and
>> they will ask you to pay some money for the surveying the area, of
>> your plot. You must keep constant touch with them. then after survey
>> apply for the Pata, then No one on earth can play fool with you.
>> Giri
>>
>> On 3/25/12, BALA <balanaidu.akkana@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Dears, Can you pls anyone give me the advice for the below issue. We
>> > have bought the site 6 yrs ago.(we are the 5th person. This site has
>> > been alloted some one in 1983 by govt). Half of the site got
>> > registered and half of the site got only sale agreement. Now we are
>> > built the house in whole site and got approval for half of the
>> > building which got registered. We have a border issue with adjacent
>> > site owner. Thats what we have applied for surveying the site to
>> > revenue dept and got surveyed. Next day opposite owner removed the
>> > marked stones. And then we had given complaint in police station as
>> > well as revenue dept. When we asked revenue dept for the action, no
>> > response and they told need to complaint in police station only. When
>> > we consult police dept(writer) for filling the case, they told case
>> > will registered only when getting complaint from revenue dept. Finaly
>> > we had consult lawyer, they told case can file only we have detail
>> > survey reports. We dont have survey reports bcoz surver had given only
>> > notice. For this we have applied through RTI but in vain. After we
>> > applied for 1st level appel to RDO. Now we have plan to apply to
>> > SIC.(We have checked in revenue dept unafficially that surveyer didnt
>> > submit detail report). So how we need to proceed?. Either legally or
>> > lokayuktha or appel to governor. Pls let me know any problem for my
>> > construction if we proceed legally?.
>> >
>> > --
>> > *Thanks & Regards
>> > Bala *
>> >
>>
>


--
*Thanks & Regards
Bala Akkana*

[rti4empowerment] RTI Act in Maharashtra pushed into a coma

Shailesh Gandhi, India's feisty Central Information Commissioner and an early crusader for the Right To Information (RTI) Act, believes that the RTI Act in Maharashtra is being pushed into a coma from where it may not be able to recover.

The post of Chief Information Commissioner lies vacant in Maharashtra, as do several other posts in the state information commission. Mumbai, Konkan and Pune do not have information commissioners. As of November, the pendency of cases in the state was over 22,000.

"There has been no replacement for Dr Suresh Joshi (six months), Ramanand Tiwari (over nine months), Naveen Kumar (six months) and Vijay Kuvalekar (over one month)," said Gandhi.

He believes that citizens across the country need to fight to ensure that this fundamental right is not put to sleep in Maharashtra.

"We were able to block the central government's attempts to weaken the Act. If we do not act now, Maharashtra will have shown the way to all governments to make the RTI Act history," Gandhi said.

He believes that the appeals and communication from RTI applicants is probably not even looked at by the headless Maharashtra Information Commission.

A few months ago, Gandhi wrote to Maharashtra CM Prithviraj Chavan asking him to look into the issue, to which Chavan replied that he would keep the matter in mind.

In addition to vacancies in the Maharashtra state information commission, Gandhi feels that the high pendency of cases has also to do with the fact that information commissioners are not delivering at an adequate pace to meet requirements. While Gandhi himself clears 5000 cases a year, he believes that most commissioners are adjudicating less than 50% of this.

Times View

The RTI Act is among the most empowering legislations of recent times. It is, therefore, extremely worrying that the RTI system has got logjammed in a major state like Maharashtra within a few years of the law coming into effect. Clearly, unfilled posts of information commissioners would have had a role to play in this situation being created. Filling up those vacancies would help to that extent. However, there is also a need to review whether information officers who have stonewalled RTI queries have been dealt with too leniently. Stricter action including stiffer fines in such cases might reduce the burden on the appeals process. Perhaps reducing the dominance of ex-bureaucrats among information commissioners will help in this aspect.
 

Sunday, March 25, 2012

Re: [HumJanenge] Need Help

Hey'
Meet the Thasildar, of the Dist and then the Svy Depat under him and
they will ask you to pay some money for the surveying the area, of
your plot. You must keep constant touch with them. then after survey
apply for the Pata, then No one on earth can play fool with you.
Giri

On 3/25/12, BALA <balanaidu.akkana@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dears, Can you pls anyone give me the advice for the below issue. We
> have bought the site 6 yrs ago.(we are the 5th person. This site has
> been alloted some one in 1983 by govt). Half of the site got
> registered and half of the site got only sale agreement. Now we are
> built the house in whole site and got approval for half of the
> building which got registered. We have a border issue with adjacent
> site owner. Thats what we have applied for surveying the site to
> revenue dept and got surveyed. Next day opposite owner removed the
> marked stones. And then we had given complaint in police station as
> well as revenue dept. When we asked revenue dept for the action, no
> response and they told need to complaint in police station only. When
> we consult police dept(writer) for filling the case, they told case
> will registered only when getting complaint from revenue dept. Finaly
> we had consult lawyer, they told case can file only we have detail
> survey reports. We dont have survey reports bcoz surver had given only
> notice. For this we have applied through RTI but in vain. After we
> applied for 1st level appel to RDO. Now we have plan to apply to
> SIC.(We have checked in revenue dept unafficially that surveyer didnt
> submit detail report). So how we need to proceed?. Either legally or
> lokayuktha or appel to governor. Pls let me know any problem for my
> construction if we proceed legally?.
>
> --
> *Thanks & Regards
> Bala *
>