Saturday, December 25, 2010

Re: [HumJanenge] Objections regarding changes in RTI rules

great. u r absolutely right


From: bimal khemani <bimal.khemani@yahoo.co.in>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, 25 December, 2010 5:33:43 AM
Subject: RE: [HumJanenge] Objections regarding changes in RTI rules

 
 
                                                                                             The 22 nd December,2010.
To,
The Secretary RTI
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions
Department of Personnel Training
North Block,
NEW DELHI

                      SUBJECT:    Submissions related to "Amendment to RTI Rules
                      Reference    File No. 1/35/2008-IR
 Sir,
 
 Kindly refer to your public notice vide File No. 1/35/2008-IR dated 10.12.2010   on the subject mentioned above, which reads as follows:
 
G.S.R…..- In exercise of the powers conferred by section 27 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (22 of 2005) and in supersession of the Central Information
Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2005 and the Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005 except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Central Government hereby makes the following rules, namely:-
Now , we quote below the Section 27 of of the Right to Information Act, 2005
 
Section 27
 (1) The appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules to carry out the provisions of this Act.
(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:—
(a) the cost of the medium or print cost price of the materials to be disseminated under sub-section (4) of section 4;
(b) the fee payable under sub-section (1) of section 6;
(c) the fee payable under sub-sections (1) and (5) of section 7;
(d) the salaries and allowances payable to and the terms and conditions of service of the officers and other employees under sub-section (6) of section 13 and sub-section (6) of section 16;
(e) the procedure to be adopted by the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, in deciding the appeals under sub-section (10) of section 19; and
(f) any other matter which is required to be, or may be, prescribed.
 
In this connection, We  have to submit that  we  oppose some of the  proposed changes for the following reasons:- RULE-4   The proposal to limit the RTI Application to (i) one subject matter and (ii) to 250 words are not only against the letter and spirit of the RTI Act, 2005, but are ill-timed also. The RTI has completed its 5 years and all the Public Authority failed to implement the  section 4 (1)(a) and 4 (1)(b) and in place of fulfilling this mandatory obligation, inserting the above lines  may prove a death nail to the RTI Act,2005..
 More over,  please inform the citizens as to what shall be mechanism for counting of the words and can a genuine application be rejected on the ground of it being of 251 words for example? Other questions that may arise are why only 250, why not 300 or 200 or 1000 …
 This is very much against the section 27 of the RTI Act. We therefore express our strong disagreement with the said provision and oppose any such proposal to limit the scope of the citizens' right to information
 
 RULE-5  When we talk about the actual price in 5(b) than it will be appropriate to make the similar provision for 5 (a). Since the photocopy charge for A-4 size is Rs.0.50 P. in the open market.
RULE-5  (g) This is very much against the section 27 of the RTI Act.  The proposal to charge the actual amount spent by public authority on hiring a machine or any other equipment, if any, to supply information is ill-advised, and intends to scuttle the RTI Act itself, as the Government is supposed to possess entire infra-structure for the purpose The CPIO may demand the cost of  Photo copying  machine also, if he wants to harass the applicant or may come up with some other unusual demands . This leads to absurdity; tomorrow an officer would propose why not to charge the salary of the concerned employees/Information Commissioner from the RTI Applicant;
 
Are there some rules prescribed for hiring of such machines or equipments and if not is it left open for the PIO to decide who will benefit from such hiring by the PIO?
Are we opening a gateway to a new form of corruption by including such charges in the proposed rules?
Can the supply of information be delayed on ground of the time taken for carrying out the process of hiring of machine and equipments?
 
RULE-5  (h) This is very much against the section 27 of the RTI Act.  This provision clearly   gives some discretionary power to CPIO for not supplying the information. An ordinary post costs Rs.5/- and another Rs. 3/- for Under certificate of Posting, which is easily manageable by in body.
 
RULE- 7. Appeal to the first Appellate Authority: This is very much against the section 27 of the RTI Act. The format for the first appellate Authority will  lead to lot of confusion amongst the general public and especially rural masses 
RULE  15. Presentation by the Public Authority: The public authority may authorize any representative or any of its officers to present its case.
In Uttar Pradesh most of the Public Authority deputes their junior clerks for hearing before the commission. If this is inserted , non of the senior officers, CPIO or FAA will appear before the commission and in their absence no any decision can be taken. This may cause further litigations by the Public Authority
 
This leads to absurdity. This proposal is also against the section 4(1)(a) of the RTI act which puts the onus on the public authorities to maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and the form which facilitates the right to information under this Act and ensure that all records that are appropriate to be computerized are computerized and connected through a network all over the country on different systems so that access to such records is facilitated. It is not understood as to why the citizen should be made to pay if the concerned public authority has not fulfilled its obligations of proper maintenance and cataloguing of the records.
 
Kindly drop these amendments and oblige.
 
Yours Sincerely,
 
 
 
VIKRAM SINGH
Chairman
TRAP group of RTI activists
18 G, Royal Kaveri Apartment,
Swarna Jayanti Nagar,
ALIGARH-202001
Phone: 0571 2742625

Bimal Khemani
RTI activist
ALIGARH-202001
INDIA
Mob:935-972-4625


--- On Fri, 24/12/10, Dr. NC JAIN <j_nc@hotmail.com> wrote:

From: Dr. NC JAIN <j_nc@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: [HumJanenge] Objections regarding changes in RTI rules
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Friday, 24 December, 2010, 6:19 PM

In my view, propsed amendment is right. It is due to the fact, that application should be  precise and to the point. Under RTI, you are getting information and not fighting a judicial case.
DR N C Jain
23-12-10
 
> Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 05:41:44 -0800
> Subject: [HumJanenge] Objections regarding changes in RTI rules
> From: rmadhok_pgm@bsnl.in
> To: HumJanenge@googlegroups.com
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: rajneesh madhok
> To: usrtidovt@nic.in
> Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 6:50 PM
> Subject: Objections regarding changes in RTI rules.
>
>
> Sir,
> 1. The proposed amendment to the limitation of 250 words and
> limitation to only one topic is against the purview of Right to
> information Act for the general public.
> 2. In other words we can say that such amendment will defeat the very
> purpose of enacting the landmark legislation for the benefit of
> general public.
> 3. The proposed amendment made by DOPT would take away the benefits
> provided to the general public as it is called the tools to seeks
> information by the villagers as well.
> 4. The charges proposed to be levied on RTI Applicants for money spent
> by Public authority on hiring a machine or any other equipment to
> supply information is against the facilities provided to the common
> citizens of India. The present modification in the rules of Fee and
> Cost is against the common citizen.
> 5. The comments have been invited by E-mail at usrtidovt@nic.in till
> December 27 is the step not in favour of common citizen as every
> citizen has not having access to internet.
> 6. The time period of two weeks to submit one's observations is very
> less.
> 7. The semi literate and illiterate people how can submit their views
> regarding amendments though they are the main users of RTI Act.
> 8. How illiterate people will precise its writing to the specific
> words. Whether they have to seek experts services for the law framed
> for the general public.
> 9. If the law had been framed then the PIO will reject most of the
> applications submitted to them.
> 10. The Govt. in one side promise to provide infrastructure for the
> common people and on the other hand creating hurdles for the general
> public.
> 11. I request department not to introduce the changes in the
> legislation as this act has been framed for the general public.
> 12. The department should provide adequate training to the staff and
> most of the information should be uploaded on the websites of the
> departments to avoid the use of unnecessary flow of applications
> regarding general informations.
> Regards,
> Rajneesh Madhok,
> B-xxx/63, Nehru Nagar,
> St. No. 2, Railway Road,
> Phagwara-144401 (Pb)
> Ph: 01824-262569 (O), 268210 (R), 094173-06415
> Tele-fax: 01824-262569, E-mail: rajneesh_madhok@yahoo.com;
> rmadhok_pgm@bsnl.in


Re: [HumJanenge] "Right to service" legislature in bihar by nitish kumar

Dear Shri K N Jagadesh Kumar

Our compliments to Bihar Chief Minister, Mr. Nitish Kumar for the initiative of a new legislature in Bihar that is " Right To Service", abolition of MLAs LADF, and Forfeiture of Illegally Acquired Property. Now, there is a need to replicate these steps by all the Central and State Governments.

In this context, I would like to mention about steps like RTS by Delhi Govt (page 2 of TOI December 25) and the MP ACt to guarantee Public Service Delivery.  Hence, there is a need to replicate these initiatives, along with the FIVE steps, (including the constitution of an effective LOKPAL pending for the last 42 years) listed recently by Mrs Sonia Gandhi.

The Gandhian Satyagraha Brigade is proposing to start a Satyagraha from Jan 1, 2011 at Jantar Mantar in Delhi. Their demands include -
1.Appointment of an effective Lokpal, pending for the last 42 years despite repeated promises, with the least possible delay;

2.Disqualification of Candidates as recommended by three former Chief Election Commissioners;

 3.Confiscation of illegally acquired property – It has already been enacted by the Bihar Govt.       
Hence, we request all to do collectively to force the Government for improving the current sdtatus of governance in order to remove corrupt system.
WISHING A VERY HAPPY AND PROSPEROUS COUNTRY.
Thanks & regards
S K Agarwal
On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 2:00 PM, K N Jagadesh kumar <jkgroup999@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Friends & Humjanenge
 
The New chief Minister of Bihar , Mr. Nitish Kumar has propsed for a new legislature in Bihar that is " Right To service".
If this bill becomes law , bihar will be the first state to introduce a new law "Right to Service" which can make the "RTI act 2005"  more stronger .
let the year 2011 be more peoples friendly and bihar people will the first to utilize such service in the country.
i feel the Union governmnet & all state governmnet should enact " Right to service" .
Thank u
 

--
K N Jagadesh Kumar
9845500932
jkgroup999@gmail.com


Re: [HumJanenge] "Right to service" legislature in bihar by nitish kumar

dear friends 

madhya pradesh govt has already introduced this kind of law in oct 2010 which is known as mp public service gurantee act 2010.

thanks
ajay dubey
09893094043
bhopal mp

On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 2:00 PM, K N Jagadesh kumar <jkgroup999@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Friends & Humjanenge
 
The New chief Minister of Bihar , Mr. Nitish Kumar has propsed for a new legislature in Bihar that is " Right To service".
If this bill becomes law , bihar will be the first state to introduce a new law "Right to Service" which can make the "RTI act 2005"  more stronger .
let the year 2011 be more peoples friendly and bihar people will the first to utilize such service in the country.
i feel the Union governmnet & all state governmnet should enact " Right to service" .
Thank u
 

--
K N Jagadesh Kumar
9845500932
jkgroup999@gmail.com


[HumJanenge] COMMENTS / OBJECTIONS / SUGGESTIONS : ref:PN/DoPT/OM/2010/RTI/AAA-0000-019

To:
The Government of India, by
Shri R.K.Girdhar
Under-Secretary/RTI
Department of Personnel and Training, North Block
New Delhi 110011

1) CONFIDENTIAL,
2) SECRET,
3) My Intellectual property,
4) Not to be disclosed to any unauthorised person,
5) Not to be disclosed to any private person whatsoever,
6) Not to be disclosed to Prime Minister or his office,
7) Not to be disclosed to National Advisory Council,
8) Not to be disclosed under Right to Information except to myself,

BY EMAIL:


Date:  25-December-2010
Your Ref: OM dated 10.12.2010 in File No.1/35/2008-IR (draft RTI Rules)
Our Ref:  PN/DoPT/OM/2010/RTI/AAA-0000-019
Subject
Objections and/or Suggestions to the amendments proposed

Sir,

I refer to the above citations and your subject OM. I am caused to submit the following objection(s) and/or suggestion(s) to the same.
This is separate, distinct and without prejudice to other objections I may submit from time to time within the period allowed..

http://persmin.gov.in/WriteReadData/RTI/RTI_rules_01122010-1.pdf

I COMMENT on the power to frame Rules conferred on Central Govt by section 27 of the RTI Act as follows:-

1) The said section (27) comprises of 2 parts, a general power to prescribe Rules to carry out the provisions of the Act, and instances of special areas of focus where the Govt may be required to apply priority when it comes to framing rules to give effect to the Act.

2) That it is open to the Govt to frame rules or not, and the Act would in any case be operational even in the absence of Rules;

3) In the present OM dt 10.12.2010 the Central Government has quite evidently gone beyond the instances specified vide section 27(2) and invoked the generality of its powers in s/s 27(1) as the enabling source for these draft Rules.

4) In this context I wish to say that the general powers appear to have been invoked in an arbitrary and opaque fashion. They do not seem to have considered the following provisions of the Act for which Rules would be beneficial. NB: These are only a few instances by way of illustration.

A) To prescribe the tests to determine the "eminence" of persons being appointed as Information Commissioners. It is noteworthy that determination of "eminence" is otherwise a purely subjective and arbitrary criteria which confers tremendous discretionary power to the politicians to appoint otherwise completely unsuitable persons like Mr Shailesh Gandhi who blackmailed his way into the post or Ms Omita Paul who "laboured under" Mr Pranab Mukherjee's "staff" or Ms Annapurna Dixit whose eminence apparently was that she sold pharmaceuticals for many years to voluntary organisations and thereby qualified to be classified as a social worker etc.

B) To prescribe the time period within which the Commission would dispose of the appeals filed to it, and which incidentally is also covered under the specified instances of 27(2).

C)  To prescribe the format/s in which complaints against Information Commissioners for moral turpitude may be filed to the competent authority by citizens as provided for in the Act.

5) I shall rely upon judgments such as the following in support of my position.
"528 D-El King Emperor v. Sibnath Banerjee and Ors."
"Shiv Kirpal Singh v. V.V. Giri [1971] 2 S.C.R. 197,"
"Om Prakash and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., [1970] 3 S.C.C. 942" etc.
which is to whit, that where a statute illustrates specific instances of a general power to prescribe rules, the specific instances are to be focussed upon, and invocation of a general power arbitrarily may be challenged as excessive delegation of powers to the Executive or not comprehended by the Legislature or otherwise.

I therefore SUGGEST that a review is carried out on the apparently arbitrary exercise of the general rules making powers to facilitate the Central Information Commission.

NB:  As the legal questions involved for these Rules are complex, I am formally requesting an opportunity of personal hearing for this before the competent authority. I am also  formally requesting that the opinion of the Law Department/Ministry be obtained on my various objections / suggestions.

Submitted in my individual capacity by

Er. Sarbajit Roy
B-59 Defence Colony
New Delhi 110024
Tel : 09311448069
email ID: "sroy.mb@gmail.com"

Chief Patron: "HumJanenge RTI group" mailing list of over 2,500 RTI stakeholders
Website: http://humjanenge.org.in
Mailing List : http://groups.google.com/group/humjanenge/
News Network : http://humjanenge.org.in/news/

CC: to: (for suitable action and direction)
presidentofindia@rb.nic.in
mos-pp@nic.in
secy_mop@nic.in
sarkardk@nic.in
jsata@nic.in
dirrti-dopt@nic.in
diradmn@nic.in
osdrti-dopt@nic.in
usrti-dopt@nic.in
sroy1947@gmail.com

Re: [HumJanenge] "Right to service" legislature in bihar by nitish kumar

This is a good move.  Nithsh ji is a mass leader, working for the mass unlike................


From: K N Jagadesh kumar <jkgroup999@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, 25 December, 2010 2:00:36 PM
Subject: [HumJanenge] "Right to service" legislature in bihar by nitish kumar

Dear Friends & Humjanenge
 
The New chief Minister of Bihar , Mr. Nitish Kumar has propsed for a new legislature in Bihar that is " Right To service".
If this bill becomes law , bihar will be the first state to introduce a new law "Right to Service" which can make the "RTI act 2005"  more stronger .
let the year 2011 be more peoples friendly and bihar people will the first to utilize such service in the country.
i feel the Union governmnet & all state governmnet should enact " Right to service" .
Thank u
 

--
K N Jagadesh Kumar
9845500932
jkgroup999@gmail.com


[HumJanenge] FYI : Suggestion-cum-Public-Grievance on proposed amendment to RTI by DoPT : Ref - http://persmin.gov.in/WriteReadData/RTI/RTI_rules_01122010-1.pdf


--- On Sat, 12/25/10, Babubhai Vaghela <vaghelabd@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Babubhai Vaghela <vaghelabd@yahoo.com>
Subject: Suggestion-cum-Public-Grievance on proposed amendment to RTI by DoPT : Ref - http://persmin.gov.in/WriteReadData/RTI/RTI_rules_01122010-1.pdf
To: "US RTI DoPT" <usrti-dopt@nic.in>
Cc: "A N Tiwari" <an.tiwari@nic.in>, humjanenge@googlegroups.com, rti_india@yahoogroups.com, "right-to-information-act-2005" <Right-to-Information-Act-2005@googlegroups.com>, "Cabinet Secretary to Government of India" <cabinetsy@nic.in>, mos-pp@nic.in, secy_mop@nic.in, sarkardk@nic.in, jsata@nic.in, dirrti-dopt@nic.in, diradmn@nic.in, osdrti-dopt@nic.in, "Help Gujarat High Court" <rg-hc-guj@nic.in>, "Delhi High Court" <delhihighcourt@nic.in>, "Help Supreme Court" <supremecourt@nic.in>, "Meira Kumar Speaker Lok Sabha Parliament" <speakerloksabha@sansad.nic.in>, "Smt Pratibha Patil President of India" <presidentofindia@rb.nic.in>
Date: Saturday, December 25, 2010, 5:24 PM

Mr R K Girdhar,
US, RTI,
DoPT, GOI,
New Delhi

Dear Sir,

With reference to the subject matter, kindly be informed that:

Vide DoPT Notice dated 10th December 2010 (http://persmin.gov.in/WriteReadData/RTI/RTI_rules_01122010-1.pdf)  you have given awfully insufficient time of only 17 days to the citizens for furnishing comments on the proposed RTI Amendments and that too by email without  giving due publicity.

This is certainly not in order as there is no emergency and no pressing need of tearing hurry for the proposed amendments. This is against principle of natural justice, highly objectionable being undemocratic.

As already requested to Prime Minister on 16th December 2010,
(http://groups.google.com/group/right-to-information-act-2005/browse_thread/thread/8188b514d85e2ebe(http://tiny.cc/xn11rkindly give wide & prominent publicity in national / regional daily newspapers, through electronic media to reach out to the entire population of India to enable them to furnish their comments not only by email but also through snail mail as not everyone in the country is on email.

Citizens must get a reasonable period of about three months to convey their considered openion to DoPT.

Please confirm per return action taken on my suggestion -cum-public-grievance filed in larger public interest.   

Regards,

-- 
(Babubhai Vaghela)
C 202, Shrinandnagar V, Makarba Road Vejalpur, Ahmedabad - 380051
M -  94276 08632
http://twitter.com/BabubhaiVaghela
About me in Annexure at - http://bit.ly/9xsHFj
http://www.youtube.com/user/vaghelabd
(Administrator - Google Group - Right to Information Act 2005)
http://groups.google.com/group/Right-to-Information-Act-2005/about?hl=en


Re: Reply: [rti4empowerment] REQUEST TO USE RTI POWER TO INITIATE CONFISCATION OF CORRUPT POLITICIANS AGRICULTURAL LANDS UNDER KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT

Dear All,
 
Let avow to achieve that. First & foremost is ensure disclosure in all public authorities as per section 4 of RTI Act 2005 which should include, especially, The following:
 

First of all, all of us have to discipline ourselves to refrain from person acrimony & remember that our goal is to render RTI fool proof, potent & effective. Apart from the varied information that all of us seek foremost is to pressurise public authorities to disclose the following unfailingly as per section 4 of RTI Act unfailingly.

 

(b)

publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,—

 

(i)

 the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties;

 

(ii)

 the powers and duties of its officers and employees;

 

(iii)

the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability;

 

(iv)

the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions;

 

(v)

the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions;

 

(vi)

a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control;

 

(vii)

the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof;

 

(viii)

a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public;

 

(ix)

a directory of its officers and employees;

 

Under accountability, the following information should be available.

 

A.    In the information about their accountability for acts & omissions by them in discharge of their duties as functionaries of (name public authority), should contain the following information too which is concomitant of the term accountability :

 

1.     The hierarchical functionary/ies who is/are empowered to initiate disciplinary action as per the departmental disciplinary procedure, in case of these functionaries are accused of,

 

a.     Violating the Fundamental & Human Rights of Citizens of India e.g. showing disrespect to, use of abusive language, signs of disrespect, discourteous behavior, use of physical force, derision, mockery, innuendos behaving in an accentuated manner e.g. show of anger, contempt, speaking in an inflected voice, demeaning, snide remarks etc.

 

b.     Acting ultra vires (beyond allowed empowerment limits) in discharge of their functions & exercise of powers vested with them.

 

c.     For selective application of rule, exception in application of rules, disparate application of rules, abuse of authority to favour one to the detriment of another, transgression of authority, trespassing the powers vested with a hierarchical functionary, failure to implement laws rules, favouritism, nepotism in application of laws etc.,

 

 

This should first & foremost be insisted from Central & State Information Commissions. Appointment of Information Commissioners falls under section 4 (c) & (d) of RTI Act 2005 as follows:

 

(c)

 publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies or announcing the decisions which affect public;

(d)

provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.

 

Section 8(i), ultimate line reads as follows:

 

Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.

 

Information commissioners should fulfill the criteria under section 12(5) & 15(5) of RTI Act 2005.

 

The Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners shall be persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media or administration and governance.

 

The State Chief Information Commissioner and the State Information Commissioners shall be persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media or administration and governance.

Appointment of Information Commissioners falls within the purview of Section 4(c & d) of RTI Act 2005

 

Regards, WEDS

 

 


From: M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in>
To: rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, 25 December, 2010 12:52:13
Subject: Re: Reply: [rti4empowerment] REQUEST TO USE RTI POWER TO INITIATE CONFISCATION OF CORRUPT POLITICIANS AGRICULTURAL LANDS UNDER KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT

Till now and at current time also, public servants are master of public.  RTI will make them to serve the public in real terms instead serving themselves.


From: DSouza Wilberious Evanglist <wilevades@yahoo.co.uk>
To: Dr. Jagnarain Sharma <dr.jagnarainsharma@gmail.com>; rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com; legaldocumentations@yahoo.co.in; humjanenge@googlegroups.com; rtiyashada@gmail.co; thekirti@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, 25 December, 2010 12:32:15 PM
Subject: Reply: [rti4empowerment] REQUEST TO USE RTI POWER TO INITIATE CONFISCATION OF CORRUPT POLITICIANS AGRICULTURAL LANDS UNDER KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT

Dear Dr.Sharma,
 
Despite all that, let us not be pessimistic but, optimistic. It is complicated but not an unsermountable one. If we manifest solidarity among ourselves all over India, Public servants, now only in name will; definitely be Public Servants in deed.
 
A VERY HAPPY NEW YEAR WITH RIGHT TO INFORMATION BOLSTERED
 
Regards,
WEDS


From: Dr. Jagnarain Sharma <dr.jagnarainsharma@gmail.com>
To: rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com
Cc: legaldocumentations@yahoo.co.in; humjanenge@googlegroups.com; rtiyashada@gmail.co; thekirti@yahoogroups.com; wilevades@yahoo.co.uk
Sent: Sat, 25 December, 2010 8:14:44
Subject: Re: Reply: [rti4empowerment] REQUEST TO USE RTI POWER TO INITIATE CONFISCATION OF CORRUPT POLITICIANS AGRICULTURAL LANDS UNDER KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT

Dear Weds Sri dhara & all
        On the front is corruption on the back is corruption in the
middle corruption every where there is only corruption.
          Thanks for enlightment
          Pl. Keep it up
          Regards
          Dr JN Sharma
          ADVOCATE/ HUMANRIGHTS ACTIVIST

On 12/25/10, DSouza Wilberious Evanglist <wilevades@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Dear Sridhara Babu,
>
> It was an absorbing conversation with you yesterday.
>
> The following is an e-mail  that I  sent  The New Indian Express who
> demurred to
> deliver it to Lokayukta or publish it,  about the corruption,
> maladministration
> in Karnataka Lokayukta despite rehetorie of Justice K Santhosh Hegde in
> press.
>
> I have attached the following files which please read at your lesuire. They
> are
> cent percent scientific & logical.
>
> The file Power of RTI is being edited & I shall send it to you later.
>
> 1. Wisdom by Scientific Facts.
> 2. RTI Act 2005 - how information Commissioners Should Function.
> 3. Blind Beliefd- Does God Exist!!!????
>
> Dear Sir,
>
> Accidentally I read at page 6 of The New Indian Express Friday, August 29,
> 2009
> Bangalore, a report titled There is Corruption at all Levels& also at page 6
> of
> The New Indian Express Saturday, August 30, 2009 Bangalore, another report
> titled Voice of People will help Lokayukta
>
> I was amused whether in both the statements wherein The Lokayukta, Hon'ble
> Justice K Santhosh Hegde stated so, to include The Karnataka Lokayuktatoo?
>
> It stands to reason to assume that these statements excluded The Lokayukta &
> The
> Karnataka Lokayukta. However, paradoxically & in fact they apply to both.
>
> Let me narrate my experience with The Karnataka Lokayukta.
>
> I addressed an application under RTI Act 2005 dated 23 03 2009 using the
> premise
> of deemed PIO as elucidated under section 5 (4 & 5) read with section 6
> (1&3),
> 22, 23 & 24 of RTI Act 2005 to The Lokayukta, Hon'ble Justice K. Santhosh
> Hegde
> by his proper name & sent it by professional courier Udupi on 26 03 2008 way
> bill nd.4688524.
>
> It was delivered to the addressee but, neither did I receive an
> acknowledgement
> nor the information sought. I talked to Registrar Moosa Kunhi, Dy. Registrar
> B.
> M. Mallikarjunaiah, & office of Asst. Registrar 8 (ARE 8) S. D. Parmaj to a
> lady
> who demurred to disclose her name despite being a public servant.
>
> Only after I sent a copy of that application again on 3rd July 2009, I
> received
> a reply dated. 27 07 2009.
>
>
> Does it not tantamount to disobedience of law as per section 166 of IPC 1860
> by
> the Lokayukta Hon'ble Justice K Santhosh Hegde?
>
> The information was sought on case COMPT/LOK/MYS191/2008 dated 19 12 2008
> which
> was recommended for closure by S.D. Parmaj, ARE 8 without even sending a
> letter
> enquiry against the respondent, the current Dy. Commissioner Udupi, P.
> Hemalatha
> IAS, recommending to The Lokayukta that it is a case against not providing
> information sought under RTI Act 2005 & is outside the purview of Lokayukta.
> The
> Lokayukta, Hon'ble Justice K. Santhosh Hegde, just as if he is a bureaucrat
> blindly endorsed the note by ARE 8, without even ever bothering to know what
> the
> complaint was about.
>
> My complaint was lucidly documented with unassailable & conclusive proof
> against
> Dy. Commissioner Udupi, P. Hemalatha I.A.S for abusing authority, acting
> ultra
> vires, violation of human right, transgressing her powers, disobedience of
> law
> making her liable under section 166 of IPC 1860. However, ARE 8 who is
> district
> & Sessions Judge (retd.), could not even display ordinary prudence &
> judgement
> to find a valid case in my complaint. An eloquent testimony to, absence of
> transparency, abuse of authority to favour one & harm another &
> maladministration in Karnataka Lokayukta logically leading to the conclusion
> of
> existence of corruption in The Karnataka Lokayukta itself.
>
>
> The same complaint against Dy. Commissioner Udupi, P.Hemalatha IAS on the
> same
> issue was filed with NHRC New Delhi for violation of my Human Rights has
> been
> adjudged as having a prima facie case by N.H.R.C & is under enquiry. Only
> the
> Lokayukta chose to exonerate her in my complaint without even an enquiry.
>
> Another complaint nd. COMPT/LOK/MYS193/2008 dated 19 12 2008 against former
> Dy.
> Commissioner Udupi, V. Ponnuraj I.A.S for abusing authority, disobeying law,
> acting arbitrarily filed with The Karnataka Lokayukta, also assigned to ARE
> 8,
> S.D. Parmaj, is yet to adjudicated.
>
>
> A complaint for human right violation has also been filed with NHRC New
> Delhi
> for violation of my Human Rights against former Dy. Commissioner Udupi, V.
> Ponnuraj I.A.S, has been adjudged as having a prima facie case by N.H.R.C &
> is
> under enquiry!
>
> I had sought status of both of my complaints as well as the course of action
> that would initiated by the Lokayukta to deliver justice to me, if not the
> reasons therefor, by an application under RTI Act 2005 section 6(1) at the
> time
> of filing complaint itself but, the information is yet to be received
> despite 7
> months! An eloquent testimony to lethargy & blatant disobedience of law,
> tantamount to maladministration in  Lokayukta which was established to
> oversee
> good governance! What a paradox! I am reminded of the vernacular saying
> "Baeli
> yeddu hola maidante?" {Fence that is designed to protect field from cattle,
> if
> by itself grazes the field?}
>
> I shall send a complaint against S.D. Parmaj, ARE 8, Karnataka Lokayukta, to
> Lokayukta. I shall observe how this shall be dealt with by Lokayukta. As a
> citizen & one of the governed, I have a right to demand transparency in
> functioning of every Public Authority. The Government & its
> instrumentalities
> are to be accountable to the governed after implementation of RTI Act 2005.
> We
> are a democratic nation where the GOVERNMENT IS BY A PEOPLE; OF THE PEOPLE &
> FOR
> THE PEOPLE!
>
> In another instance Udupi Town Police station ASI refused to accept my
> complaint
> under sections 268,269,270,339,425 & 426 of IPC 1860, disobedience of duty
> enjoined by Article 51A of Constitution with offence relevant to
>
> (a)  Offences against the State.
> (b)  Offences against the public tranquility.
> (d)  Offences affecting life.
> (i)  Offences of mischief against property.
>
> Every public office has this displayed on a board:
>
> In case of under delay or harassment caused by an official or public servant
> in
> attending to official work the same may be brought to the notice of under:
>
> Registrar Karnata Lokayukta, M. S. Building, Dr. Ambedkar Veethi, Bangalore
> 56001.
>
> Encouraged by this, I called Lokayukta to complain to Registrar Karnata
> Lokayukta. Registrar Moosa Kunhi was not at his desk. The lady in his office
> did
> not know where he was. When I narrated why I called, the lady said "We do
> not do
> anything, you have to contact the local Lokayukta Office" When I asked why
> the
> board should be displayed as stating above, there was no answer. Lady did
> not
> disclose her name. I had contacted the Circle Police Inspector Udupi, Ganesh
> Hegde & narrated him the incident. As he was at Mangalore undergoing
> training, I
> requested him to advice Town Police Station Udupi & re-approached ASI
> informing
> him my talk with CIP, who accepted it.
>
>
> In the meantime I had talked to Dy. SP Lokayukta Udupi, Prabhudev Bimane to
> persuade police to initiate action.
>
> This is the state of affaires of The Karnataka Lokayukta claiming overseeing
> of
> good governance! Probably the dictum is "DO WHAT I SAY BUT, DON'T DO AS I
> DO"
>
> Will The New Indian Express be intrepid to deliver this to Lolayukta Hon'ble
> Justice K Santhosh Hegde?
>
> Regards,
> WEDS
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: sridhara babu <legaldocumentations@yahoo.co.in>
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com; rtiyashada@gmail.co; Karnataka Intiative
> RTI
> <thekirti@yahoogroups.com>; rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Fri, 24 December, 2010 11:42:36
> Subject: [rti4empowerment] REQUEST TO USE RTI POWER TO INITIATE CONFISCATION
> OF
> CORRUPT POLITICIANS AGRICULTURAL LANDS UNDER KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT
>
>
>
> DEAR
>
> RTI ACTIVISTS OF KARNATAKA
>
> KINDLY READ THE ANNEXED ARTICLE IT GIVES YOU IDEA TO  INITIATE CONFISCATION
> PROCEEDINGS BEFORE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONERS AGAINST  CORRUPT POLITICIANS
> AGRICULTURAL LANDS UNDER KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT.
>
>
> SRIDHARA BABU N
> ADVOCATE
> FOUNDER PRESIDENT: HUMAN RIGHTS AND ANTI-CORRUPTION FOUNDATION (R)
> EXECUTIVE PRESIDENT OF TUMKUR DISTRICT: ALL INDIA LAWYERS UNION (AILU)
> LEGAL DOCUMENTATIONS
> G.K.ROAD, K.R.EXTENSION
> TUMKUR, KARNATAKA, INDIA
> PH:9880339764
> http://sridharababu.blogspot.com
>
>
>