| Dear Shri Sharama, I appalaud your strong action. Such action by more applicants are desired. For a long time, the charge of golden key to open the cup board of justice are being levelled by some activists. I shall some questionable action and decisons in my case by Mrs. Dixit, IC shortly. They belong to her decision about pass port office and All India Radio Please do not circulate this pre-maturely. On Thu, 28/7/11, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
|
Thursday, July 28, 2011
[HumJanenge] HEARING IN CIC/SM/A/2011/000106:THROUGH AUDIO CONFERENCING BY MRS. A. DIXIT, IC
Re: [HumJanenge] Fwd: HEARING IN CIC/SM/A/2011/000106:THROUGH AUDIO CONFERENCING
There is something rotten in IC ADs registry. I have received 3 separate complaints within a period of 15 days that hearings are offered via AC - even when appellants/complainants have not requested the same. In all the 3 cases, the appellants/complainants claim that calls never came. When they called back IC ADs registry, they were told that calls were made but there was no response and that matters were decided based on available records.
Immediately afterwards, I was also offered AC for a second appeal where I had clearly mentioned in capital letters / bold font / big point size - that hearing only in person or through VC.
Now 4 instances in 15 days is bit too much of a coincidence !
And then this.
PS: Has anyone tried to seek permission from any IC in the CIC or SIC to record the audio or video of the hearing ? If yes, what was the response ?
RTIwanted
From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 9:00 PM
Subject: [HumJanenge] Fwd: HEARING IN CIC/SM/A/2011/000106:THROUGH AUDIO CONFERENCING
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mani Ram Sharma <maniramsharma@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 6:50 PM
Subject: HEARING IN CIC/SM/A/2011/000106:THROUGH AUDIO CONFERENCING
To: CIC Ad <adixit@nic.in>
From: Mani Ram Sharma <maniramsharma@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 6:50 PM
Subject: HEARING IN CIC/SM/A/2011/000106:THROUGH AUDIO CONFERENCING
To: CIC Ad <adixit@nic.in>
Mani Ram Sharma,
ADVOCATE
Nakul Niwas, Behind Roadways Depot,
Sardarshahar -331 403-7
District: Churu ( Raj)
Email: maniramsharma@gmail.com
Dated: 28th Jul, 2011
Smt. Annapurna Dixit,
Information Commissioner,
Central Information Commission,
New Delhi
Madam,
HEARING IN CIC/SM/A/2011/000106:THROUGH AUDIO CONFERENCING
With reference to your revised notice dated 13.07.11 in the said cause I wish to request you that I have waited for the proposed hearing till 4.40 PM but no call has been received from your end. The matter was posted for hearing on 13.07.11 earlier and then adjourned for 28.07.11 at 4.00PM. It was advised that you have overstayed in the earlier hearing in Full Bench. I think there might be some powerful party involved in the said full bench case and more than sufficient opportunity had been afforded to that powerful party.
After all a call was received at about 6.10 PM for the purpose and the same was disconnected by you after a short hearing of 4 minutes. You were found patient less in the frontline of defence of the respondent PIO Delhi High Court .While trying to call you from my cellphone the same was not attended by you. Though I have already submitted my submission per email.
Please recapitulate that my three cases against PIO Supreme Court were scheduled for hearing on 18.07.11 and a time of 15 minutes (total 45 minutes) was allotted (transcript of audio is enclosed for your ready reference and recapitulation) for each of the case but you were in very hurry to hear the cases and allowed only total time of 17 minutes to all the cases. All this gives message to the citizens that lock of the wardrobe of justice in Central Information Commission can be opened with a golden key only. This unearths the dualistic and masqueraded role of Commission.
Yours truly
(Mani Ram Sharma)
Re: [HumJanenge]
| Sir, You just dont need to worry about anything, its the other party who has not fulfilled the conditions of the Agreement to Sell, so his advance stands forfeited and you are free to enter into a new Agreement to sell with anybody. He should be running after you rather than you contacting him. So, Just relax and be free to start the Sale process with some other party at your will and conditions. --- On Thu, 28/7/11, Bala A <balanaidu.akkana@gmail.com> wrote:
|
Re: [HumJanenge] Application and help Required
Pl Refer to mail from Mr MK Gupta Jul 27, 2011.
In as much as I agree in principal that, all RTIs must be filed by the individual concerned rather by a "Mass of Junta"; unless it involves issues of National interest or of Local residents interest and specifically where the Responding Authority blatantly neglects to answer.
To quote an example - Sometimes in 2007 or 2008, the Hon'ble Adjutant Gen.'s Br., Army HQ, after the expiry of initial 5 years of experimental running the scheme, held an open house meeting to gain opinion of the house for making a renewal and continuation application to the GOI - the "ECHS scheme". The meeting was attended by about 100 serving Officers in Uniform and I was one out of about four Ex-serviceman (except some Oi/c of neighboring polyclinics) present. In this meeting one of the senior & important speaker (an office bearer of ECHS) categorically stated that, "We have surveyed and found that, 95% beneficiaries are satisfied with services provided by ECHS in its present format .. ...". At the end of his address, I raised an objection and questioned,"Referring to your statement regarding level of satisfaction, it is incorrect to say that, 95% beneficiaries are satisfied, whereas with my personal experience as a beneficiary of ECHS, it may not be very incorrect to say that only about 5% beneficiaries could be satisfied leaving about 95% beneficiaries who are dissatisfied." Very promptly, I was supported by one of the Retired Maj Gen, who was also an invitee. Subsequently I put an RTI on all ECHS authoritiess (including AG, Army HQ) asking for a list with names and addresses of all ex-servicemen enrolled as members of ECHS, intention being to gain a physical census from all beneficiaries and prove the statement of AG's Office - wrong! The information was denied by stating that, this will jeopardise individual's security interest; knowing fully well the reason for which I had sought the information. The issue died its own death as no other beneficiary supported me ass not many know about the way the matter was manipulated.
The point in issue is that, Govt Depts. including Defence Forces are very selective on method of conduct of any survey and not objective in involving the beneficiaries. My intention was to ask AG's Br to include more beneficiaries in the survey than the serving Officers ONLY.
Now, such issues may require more number of beneficiaries demanding the data to collect the required information and not any issue which may have smaller application.
Comments are still welcome.
With best regards,
Sqn Ldr SD MITROO (Retd.)
kmitroo@gmaill.com
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 10:13 PM, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
In as much as I agree in principal that, all RTIs must be filed by the individual concerned rather by a "Mass of Junta"; unless it involves issues of National interest or of Local residents interest and specifically where the Responding Authority blatantly neglects to answer.
To quote an example - Sometimes in 2007 or 2008, the Hon'ble Adjutant Gen.'s Br., Army HQ, after the expiry of initial 5 years of experimental running the scheme, held an open house meeting to gain opinion of the house for making a renewal and continuation application to the GOI - the "ECHS scheme". The meeting was attended by about 100 serving Officers in Uniform and I was one out of about four Ex-serviceman (except some Oi/c of neighboring polyclinics) present. In this meeting one of the senior & important speaker (an office bearer of ECHS) categorically stated that, "We have surveyed and found that, 95% beneficiaries are satisfied with services provided by ECHS in its present format .. ...". At the end of his address, I raised an objection and questioned,"Referring to your statement regarding level of satisfaction, it is incorrect to say that, 95% beneficiaries are satisfied, whereas with my personal experience as a beneficiary of ECHS, it may not be very incorrect to say that only about 5% beneficiaries could be satisfied leaving about 95% beneficiaries who are dissatisfied." Very promptly, I was supported by one of the Retired Maj Gen, who was also an invitee. Subsequently I put an RTI on all ECHS authoritiess (including AG, Army HQ) asking for a list with names and addresses of all ex-servicemen enrolled as members of ECHS, intention being to gain a physical census from all beneficiaries and prove the statement of AG's Office - wrong! The information was denied by stating that, this will jeopardise individual's security interest; knowing fully well the reason for which I had sought the information. The issue died its own death as no other beneficiary supported me ass not many know about the way the matter was manipulated.
The point in issue is that, Govt Depts. including Defence Forces are very selective on method of conduct of any survey and not objective in involving the beneficiaries. My intention was to ask AG's Br to include more beneficiaries in the survey than the serving Officers ONLY.
Now, such issues may require more number of beneficiaries demanding the data to collect the required information and not any issue which may have smaller application.
Comments are still welcome.
With best regards,
Sqn Ldr SD MITROO (Retd.)
kmitroo@gmaill.com
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 10:13 PM, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
It is a wrong practice to ask some body else to file RTI appliation on othres behalf as this practice will give a handle to the govt. to beat the RTI. We should have courage to file ourselves. Moreover, after filing application, most of the time, follow-up up to CIC and sometimes up to High/ Supreme Court is required.
--- On Wed, 27/7/11, Col thakur singh kaundal <thakursinghk@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Col thakur singh kaundal <thakursinghk@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Application and help Required
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Wednesday, 27 July, 2011, 8:15 PMHi,I am at Delhi, will do the needful for setting things right.regardsCol thakur singhOn Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Mr. Hemant Kshirsagar <hemantkshirsagar01@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All,
I required RTI activists who will file on my/some ones behalf with some governments agencies in Delhi and Mumbai.
The help/guidance will certainly be acknowledged by suitable means.
Please unicast me if interested.
Regards,
Mr. Hemant Kshirsagar
Re: [HumJanenge]
1) Issue a legal notice through advocate IMMEDIATELY.
2) Your remedy presumably lies via demanding SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE of the sale agreement.
2) Your remedy presumably lies via demanding SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE of the sale agreement.
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 7:50 PM, Bala A <balanaidu.akkana@gmail.com> wrote:
Dears, i need legal advice for the below issue. I wanted to sale a
land and got advance then wrote sale agreement, in that mentioned if
we dropped, we need pay the advance. If opposite person dropped, he
has to loose his advance. Now agreement date got over, opposite side
not coming for registration. They knows date over due(2 weeks). How to
follow from my side.we have tried to inform thru mediator, but no
respose.
--
*Thanks & Regards
Bala *
[HumJanenge] Fwd: HEARING IN CIC/SM/A/2011/000106:THROUGH AUDIO CONFERENCING
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mani Ram Sharma <maniramsharma@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 6:50 PM
Subject: HEARING IN CIC/SM/A/2011/000106:THROUGH AUDIO CONFERENCING
To: CIC Ad <adixit@nic.in>
From: Mani Ram Sharma <maniramsharma@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 6:50 PM
Subject: HEARING IN CIC/SM/A/2011/000106:THROUGH AUDIO CONFERENCING
To: CIC Ad <adixit@nic.in>
Mani Ram Sharma,
ADVOCATE
Nakul Niwas, Behind Roadways Depot,
Sardarshahar -331 403-7
District: Churu ( Raj)
Email: maniramsharma@gmail.com
Dated: 28th Jul, 2011
Smt. Annapurna Dixit,
Information Commissioner,
Central Information Commission,
New Delhi
Madam,
HEARING IN CIC/SM/A/2011/000106:THROUGH AUDIO CONFERENCING
With reference to your revised notice dated 13.07.11 in the said cause I wish to request you that I have waited for the proposed hearing till 4.40 PM but no call has been received from your end. The matter was posted for hearing on 13.07.11 earlier and then adjourned for 28.07.11 at 4.00PM. It was advised that you have overstayed in the earlier hearing in Full Bench. I think there might be some powerful party involved in the said full bench case and more than sufficient opportunity had been afforded to that powerful party.
After all a call was received at about 6.10 PM for the purpose and the same was disconnected by you after a short hearing of 4 minutes. You were found patient less in the frontline of defence of the respondent PIO Delhi High Court .While trying to call you from my cellphone the same was not attended by you. Though I have already submitted my submission per email.
Please recapitulate that my three cases against PIO Supreme Court were scheduled for hearing on 18.07.11 and a time of 15 minutes (total 45 minutes) was allotted (transcript of audio is enclosed for your ready reference and recapitulation) for each of the case but you were in very hurry to hear the cases and allowed only total time of 17 minutes to all the cases. All this gives message to the citizens that lock of the wardrobe of justice in Central Information Commission can be opened with a golden key only. This unearths the dualistic and masqueraded role of Commission.
Yours truly
(Mani Ram Sharma)
[HumJanenge]
Dears, i need legal advice for the below issue. I wanted to sale a
land and got advance then wrote sale agreement, in that mentioned if
we dropped, we need pay the advance. If opposite person dropped, he
has to loose his advance. Now agreement date got over, opposite side
not coming for registration. They knows date over due(2 weeks). How to
follow from my side.we have tried to inform thru mediator, but no
respose.
--
*Thanks & Regards
Bala *
land and got advance then wrote sale agreement, in that mentioned if
we dropped, we need pay the advance. If opposite person dropped, he
has to loose his advance. Now agreement date got over, opposite side
not coming for registration. They knows date over due(2 weeks). How to
follow from my side.we have tried to inform thru mediator, but no
respose.
--
*Thanks & Regards
Bala *
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)