Re: Reply: [rti4empowerment] Re: Poll results for rti4empowerment

Dear All,

I fully agree with you Dr Sharma.

I have not received draft rules of RTI by Ravi. I request him to send it again. Judicial Accountability bill is  need to be passed. KGB's letter has already been sent by me after scanning it yesterday

 

Regards,

WEDS

---

From: Dr. Jagnarain Sharma <dr.jagnarainsharma@gmail.com>
To: rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com
Cc: sroy1947@gmail.com; wilevades@yahoo.co.uk; majorravi@gmail.com; prof.leorebello@gmail.com; leorebello@hathway.com
Sent: Wed, 15 December, 2010 8:38:58
Subject: Re: Reply: [rti4empowerment] Re: Poll results for rti4empowerment

Yes Dear Ravi, Weds & Sarabjit
        There should not be adverse comment on any of the member of the group.
        As Ravi wrote, I fully agree with him. Those who know what is
wrong with Judiciary and corruption in Judiciary should join the
debate. Even Moily sahab wrote some where that the draft bill has also
been shown to KGB, which is a clear cut case of Collusion of Judiciary
and the political parties.
        Now gist of the matter is this, that RTI Rules draft as
circulated by Ravi, need to be seen and comments  of Ravi be accepted
and let all member offer their nod to it or any comments are required,
can  be offered by any member.

        KGB's letter contents we know but it would be good if  Mr WEDS
bring to the knowledge of all members.
        I hope Ravi, Weds & Sarabjit are  participating Judicial
Reform Meet at Mumbai on 22-1-11 & 23-1-11,
        I also plan to be there to attend it.

        This nexus of political parties( including the Ruling party)
with Judiciary must be  made known to entire nation.
        Regards
          Dr JN Sharma


On 12/14/10, DSouza Wilberious Evanglist <wilevades@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Paranoia- Imagined Xenophobia
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: sroy 1947 <sroy1947@gmail.com>
> To: Ravindran Major <majorravi@gmail.com>; rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Tue, 14 December, 2010 10:49:33
> Subject: Re: Reply: [rti4empowerment] Re: Poll results for rti4empowerment
>
> If WEDS, Dr J.N. Sharma etc want to confine themselves to RTI
> discussion there is no problem. But when they start dragging in
> irrelevant issues (their dual/triple loyalties are now coming out
> slowly) then the only solution is for the list owners to intervene and
> restore order.
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On 12/13/10, Ravindran Major <majorravi@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Having gone through the series of mail, Mr DSouza has done a great job
>> getting KGB's letter to PM on exclusion of judges from RTI Act's purview.
>> But he has erred in applying to Mr Moily instead of the PIO of the office
>> of
>> the law minister and following the ue process (FAA in the office of the
>> law
>> minister and CIC!) Again he is right in having NO faith in the CIC. (I
>> also
>> take this opportunity to request Mr DSouza to post the letter to this
>> group.)
>>
>> Having said that Mr Roy should not have used the terms to condemn Mr
>> DSouza's efforts. We all know how much sincerely and diligently we are all
>> pursuing our aim of bringing in transparency and accountability in govt
>> and
>> we are also aware of the nature of the road blocks. Let us not fight
>> amoung
>> oursleves and have our adversaries have the last laugh!
>>
>> regards n bw
>>
>> ravi
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 4:40 AM, DSouza Wilberious Evanglist <
>> wilevades@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>  Dear Sarabjit Roy,
>>>
>>> Please re-read.  With the erudition you claim to have, you know  why I
>>> did
>>> so & I have conviction in what I did.
>>>
>>> I have been doing so ever since I began using RTI Act 2005 for my
>>> survival
>>> since 2006 where I seek certain classified information & I am certain who
>>> possesses the information I seek.
>>>
>>> Even PM Manmohan Singh has replied, albeit via PIO of PMO on former CJI
>>> KGB's letter to PM to include Judges in section 8 of RTI Act 2005. I have
>>> obtained copies of KGB's letter to PM, PM's letter to LM Veerappa Moily
>>> but
>>> only Veerappa Moily denied information on course of action on PM's letter
>>> to
>>> him.
>>>
>>> In another case of under valuation of land I addressed similar
>>> applications
>>> to CMN CBDT, CVC, PM & FM Pranab Mukherji. Only the last one did not
>>> reply.
>>> I have been able to set the process in motion.
>>>
>>> Is sroy1947 <sroy1947@gmail.com> also your e-mail ID?
>>> If that is the case & if my assupmtion is correct you must have been born
>>> in the year 1947.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> WEDS
>>>  ------------------------------
>>> *From:* sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
>>> *To:* INDIA RTI for empowerment <rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com>
>>> *Sent:* Mon, 13 December, 2010 22:33:59
>>> *Subject:* Re: Reply: [rti4empowerment] Re: Poll results for
>>> rti4empowerment
>>>
>>> Dear Mr WEDS
>>>
>>> 1) On what basis did you apply directly in RTI to Mr Veerappa Moily ?.
>>> 2) On what basis did you file a FA to PM ?
>>>
>>> It is people like you who don't even possess a copy of RTI Act
>>> (5.4/5.5) or have the brains to understand it to apply it who are
>>> screwing up the scene for genuine citizen applicants.
>>>
>>> Contaminants like you should be removed from responsible RTI groups as
>>> soon as possible. List owner kindly take action under RUP.
>>>
>>> Sarbajit
>>>
>>> DSouza Wilberious Evanglist wrote:
>>> > Dear Dr Sharma,
>>> >
>>> > About the dilution of RTI, you will soon come to know.
>>> >
>>> > If you have specific information do let me know. If it was about former
>>> CJI KG
>>> > Balakrishnan's recommendations to include judges in section 8 of RTI, I
>>> obtained
>>> > copies of those letters & wrote to PM that KGB' s decision is repugnant
>>> to the
>>> > Constitution of india & Judges cannot be preferentially treated as they
>>> are
>>> > Public Servants. Independence of Judiciary  does not connote immunity
>>> > to
>>> judges.
>>> > It only connotes that the process of adjudication does not become
>>> influenced.
>>> >
>>> > However, my RTI application addressed to Veerappa Moily (Section
>>> > 5(4&5))
>>> did not
>>> > elicit any reply. Appealed PM as FAA - no disposal. PM did not reply in
>>> another
>>> > issue- appealed to Prez- no reply.
>>> >
>>> > I did not have time to pursue further as approach to Central
>>> > Information
>>> > Commission or any other Information Commission is futile.
>>> >
>>> > Regards,
>>> > WEDS
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>