Hum Janenge

Sunday, May 15, 2011

Re: [HumJanenge] HumJanenge Group's Regulations

Very good, frankly, numbers still need to be reduced to enable members to properly see the mailsand react if required.
Narayan Varma

On 14 May 2011 09:21, PMK1504 <humjanenge.owner@gmail.com> wrote:

GROUP REGULATIONS
Please read the following group regulations carefully, these regulations are enforced strictly and without discrimination

1) MESSAGE POSTS

a) Message posts to be directly relevant to RTI / Right to Information. The focus is on RTI in general and not on specific instances affecting an individual member. The prime focus is on discussion of gray areas of the RTI Act 2005.
b) No abusive language to be used in message posts
c) No "Cross-Posting" (multiple copies of the same message from / to other egroups)

d) All posts in English language only (or with accurate translation)
e) No communal, sexist, racial, casteist etc message posts

f) Fostering brotherly feeling among RTI activists all over India and organizing concerted action through message posts.
g) Posting of "news" reports on RTI by simply copy-pasting is banned. This is also a copyright violation issue which we (and googlegroups) take seriously. If a news report is important, post your views / concerns with the LINK to the article.
h) Posts to be kept short and focussed. Long scholarly arguments are strongly discouraged.
i) Posts in reply to be trimmed (by deleting the previous post so that only relevant portions which are at issue to be retained).

j) Self publicity or publicity for NGOs (and their programs) is strictly prohibited.
k) Address message posts to the group (and not to individual members)

l) SPAM (spammers, and spam harvesters) is not tolerated.
2) FREQUENCY OF POSTING

a) This group shall strive to limit itself to 300 messages per month. The list owner is empowered to take all steps necessary to achieve this.
b) Of these 150 message are reserved to the list owner and about 10 "guru" members who shall be invited to assist the list owner. The list of "guru" members shall be widely publicised and updated from time to time
c) Other members are allowed to post upto 3 messages per day (24 hours approx) and 10 messages per month.
d) Members are requested to limit / control the frequency of their posts to this list and avoid personality based squabbles on this group.
e) Please try to combine reply posts, and avoid the temptation of replying to posts immediately.

PMK
List Owner

--
Narayan Varma
56B Mittal Tower,
210 Nariman Point
Mumbai 400 021
RTI PCGT helpline 09322882288
my cell 09821096052

Re: [HumJanenge] protection to corrupt the Register of company acting against RTI act.

Dear Gupta-ji

I am sorry to correct you, but the framer of the RTI Act was Mr. A.N.Tiwari along with about 4 other babus (incl. Mr Ashish Kr) and the law was then passed by Parliament (with the BJP boycotting this Bill)..

Sarbajit

On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 2:11 PM, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

Agreed. Who is or Who are going to bell the cat?

Now, RTI Act is being taken at ones whims and fancies. It is receivng onslaught from many quarters. CIC decisin is erroneous and against the section 22 of the RTI Act. The framer of the Act, I mean Ms. Aruna Roy and others, should also take note of this for suitable action.

--- On Sun, 15/5/11, RAKESH GUPTA <snehcs2@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

From: RAKESH GUPTA <snehcs2@yahoo.co.in>
Subject: [HumJanenge] protection to corrupt the Register of company acting against RTI act.
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Sunday, 15 May, 2011, 8:52 AM

it is deliberate wrong orders of CIC to protect corruption.

This type of orders means , other law will override in the request of RTI under RTI Act, 2005. And they provide new type of exemption.

rakesh gupta

Re: [HumJanenge] Need help/suggestions please

Dear Dr Jain

Under which new regulation can I only ask 1 question at a time in RTI ?

Sarbajit

On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Dr. NC JAIN <j_nc@hotmail.com> wrote:

Dear sir
As mentioned by you, the letter recd by you from AICTE /cc letter from RTI in Nov 2010 should clarify your position. In case you are not satisfied then, first ppeal will elaborate on it. Please note, according to new regulation, you can ask for only one question at a time in RTI and not 17 questions as requested by you.
DR N C Jain
15-5-11

Date: Sat, 14 May 2011 08:44:56 +0200
Subject: [HumJanenge] Need help/suggestions please
From: kpalanikannan@gmail.com
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com

Hi Everyone,

I am MS(By Research) graduate from anna university after my B.Tech studies. I did MS(By Research) in the faculty of technology. Eventhought my MS(By Research) degree is in the faculty of Technology (Eligible to teach in undergraduate Technology courses Eg. B.Tech) in affiliated engineering colleges in tamilnadu and accrediated by AICTE. Those colleges had rejected my qualification because, "MS(By Research)" as a degree keyword is not included in AICTE eligibility regulations. But, my bachelors and masters degree are in the faculty of technology. Colleges are blindly considering the degree name (MS By Research).

I applied to RTI to get information about eligibility and authorized persons who can authorize the course from AICTE. I asked around 10-14 questions in my request which respects to the authorized person/AICTE responsbility in this issue/University responsbility in this issue etc.

I applied to RTI May 2010. I moved to germany in August 2010 ni the connection to my job. I got two CC letters from RTI in November 2010 about the "requestion letter towards AICTE and Technical education" in my permanent address in tamilnadu. Still date, I didn't get positive response from RTI. As, I am out of country now, I am unable to contact them. Kindly help/tell/suggest me to move this issue in positive direction to get the fruitful information through RTI.

--

With Regards,

Palani Kannan. K,
Doctoral Researcher,
Microbiology Department,
German Collection Center for Microorganisms and Cell Cultures,
Helmholtz-HZI Infectious diseases Research Campus,
38124, Braunschweig,
Germany.

Re: [HumJanenge] HumJanenge Group's Regulations

Dear Hari-ji

It is a moot point if Mr Vishal is the moderator of this HumJanenge group or not.
You may rest assured however that all moderators of this group (including myself) fully intend to strengthen RTI Act and RTI movement and fight all attempts to render it weak and toothless.

Hum Janenge - google groups IS very much a FIGHTING group for RTI. This is reinforced by the amount of fighting we indulge in between ourselves here.

Sarbajit

On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Hari Goyal <haridgoyal@hotmail.com> wrote:

Dear Mr. Vishal,

It is a good message for RTI activists. Some members' language and their conduct has failed this group/Forum to gain strength it deserves. Let it emerge a
fighting group against those want to make RTI Act and movement very weak one.

Would you please bring out the list of Delhi advocates - honest professionals (not making themselves saleable commodities; as I have bitter experience of deception in the hands of two advocates who after taking full fee suddenly refused to appear in the court and also refused to give me back my files) ) and experts on RTI matters as I want to file two cases in DELHI HIGH Court? This will be service in the cause of RTI Act.

Thanks in advance,

Hari Goyal
011-25082239

Date: Sat, 14 May 2011 09:21:46 +0530
Subject: [HumJanenge] HumJanenge Group's Regulations
From: humjanenge.owner@gmail.com
To: HumJanenge@googlegroups.com

GROUP REGULATIONS
Please read the following group regulations carefully, these regulations are enforced strictly and without discrimination

1) MESSAGE POSTS

a) Message posts to be directly relevant to RTI / Right to Information. The focus is on RTI in general and not on specific instances affecting an individual member. The prime focus is on discussion of gray areas of the RTI Act 2005.

b) No abusive language to be used in message posts

c) No "Cross-Posting" (multiple copies of the same message from / to other egroups)

d) All posts in English language only (or with accurate translation)

e) No communal, sexist, racial, casteist etc message posts

f) Fostering brotherly feeling among RTI activists all over India and organizing concerted action through message posts.

g) Posting of "news" reports on RTI by simply copy-pasting is banned. This is also a copyright violation issue which we (and googlegroups) take seriously. If a news report is important, post your views / concerns with the LINK to the article.

h) Posts to be kept short and focussed. Long scholarly arguments are strongly discouraged.

i) Posts in reply to be trimmed (by deleting the previous post so that only relevant portions which are at issue to be retained).

j) Self publicity or publicity for NGOs (and their programs) is strictly prohibited.

k) Address message posts to the group (and not to individual members)

l) SPAM (spammers, and spam harvesters) is not tolerated.

2) FREQUENCY OF POSTING

a) This group shall strive to limit itself to 300 messages per month. The list owner is empowered to take all steps necessary to achieve this.

b) Of these 150 message are reserved to the list owner and about 10 "guru" members who shall be invited to assist the list owner. The list of "guru" members shall be widely publicised and updated from time to time

c) Other members are allowed to post upto 3 messages per day (24 hours approx) and 10 messages per month.

d) Members are requested to limit / control the frequency of their posts to this list and avoid personality based squabbles on this group.

e) Please try to combine reply posts, and avoid the temptation of replying to posts immediately.

PMK
List Owner

Re: [HumJanenge] protection to corrupt the Register of company acting against RTI act.

Agreed. Who is or Who are going to bell the cat?

Now, RTI Act is being taken at ones whims and fancies. It is receivng onslaught from many quarters. CIC decisin is erroneous and against the section 22 of the RTI Act. The framer of the Act, I mean Ms. Aruna Roy and others, should also take note of this for suitable action.

--- On Sun, 15/5/11, RAKESH GUPTA <snehcs2@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

From: RAKESH GUPTA <snehcs2@yahoo.co.in>
Subject: [HumJanenge] protection to corrupt the Register of company acting against RTI act.
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Sunday, 15 May, 2011, 8:52 AM

it is deliberate wrong orders of CIC to protect corruption.

This type of orders means , other law will override in the request of RTI under RTI Act, 2005. And they provide new type of exemption.

rakesh gupta

From: M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, 14 May, 2011 10:43:45 AM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] the Register of company acting against RTI act.

Does it mean that RTI Act is not applicable to RoC though it is not exempt u.s.24 of the Act. Section 22 of the Act says that RTI Act it will have overriding effect. Such decisions should be read carefully and if need be, shld be challenged in the Court of Law.

--- On Sat, 14/5/11, Sankar Pani <sankarprasadpani@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Sankar Pani <sankarprasadpani@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] the Register of company acting against RTI act.
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Saturday, 14 May, 2011, 10:04 AM

similar is my case where two applications rejected and even the CIC given the decision in same line citing a case.
The order copy of CIC in Appeal No 21/IC(A)/2006 dated 29^th March 2006 in the matter of Arun Verma Vs Department of Company Affairs, Govt. of India that the CPIO has sent reads as follows "There is already provison for seeking information under the companies act. The appellant may accordingly approach the registrar of the companies, as advised by the appellate authority, to obtain the relevant information. There is no question of denial of information to him

regards

On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 11:29 PM, Dipak Shah <djshah1944@yahoo.com> wrote:

DEAR ALL,

THIS IS MOST CORRUPTED ORGANIZATION IN INDIA UNDER THE GUISE OF MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS. IF YOU MAKE A COMPLAINT TO THEM NOTHING WILL HAPPEN FOR YEARS ...

THERE IS ONE CASE WHERE ALL OUT RIGHT DISTORTATION OF ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES, AUDITING PRINCIPLES, PROVISIONS OF LAW AND O N THEIR RECORD THIS FACT IS AVAILABLE , NOT DOING ANY THING FOR LAST 17 YEARS! MY RTI APPLICATION IS ALSO REJECTED SEVERAL TIMES APPEAL ALSO???

THEY TAKE SHELTER OF SOME IRRELEVANT CASES ???

C A Shah D J
USA

From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, 13 May 2011 2:19 AM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] the Register of company acting against RTI act.

You may please read CIC decision in "CIC/AT/A/2007/00112" "K.Lall versus RoC/MCA"
Sarbajit

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 6:33 PM, gopala krishnan <gopalakrishnanvelu@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

sir,
i requested copies of balance sheet and IT returns of D3D tech,
chennai to Register of companies, chennai under rti act 2005. Public
information officer not supplied copy and asked me see in his
website (MCA21). i searched in website but asking pay rs.50/- to view
the document. I made appeal to first appellate authority to furnish
the copy in the form i sought and supply the copies free of cost as
per sec 7(6) of the RTI act. The appeallate authority informed me, for
supplying the copies i have to pay Rs.25/- per page. as per RTI act
for supplying the copies A4 rs2 per page. the Register of company
acting against RTI act.

--
Sankar Prasad Pani
A-70, Sahidnagar, Bhubaneswar, Orissa
India
PIN-751007
Cell- 9437279278
http://environmentalrights-sankar.blogspot.com/

RE: [HumJanenge] HumJanenge Group's Regulations

Dear Mr. Vishal,

It is a good message for RTI activists. Some members' language and their conduct has failed this group/Forum to gain strength it deserves. Let it emerge a
fighting group against those want to make RTI Act and movement very weak one.

Would you please bring out the list of Delhi advocates - honest professionals (not making themselves saleable commodities; as I have bitter experience of deception in the hands of two advocates who after taking full fee suddenly refused to appear in the court and also refused to give me back my files) ) and experts on RTI matters as I want to file two cases in DELHI HIGH Court? This will be service in the cause of RTI Act.

Thanks in advance,

Hari Goyal
011-25082239

Date: Sat, 14 May 2011 09:21:46 +0530
Subject: [HumJanenge] HumJanenge Group's Regulations
From: humjanenge.owner@gmail.com
To: HumJanenge@googlegroups.com

GROUP REGULATIONS
Please read the following group regulations carefully, these regulations are enforced strictly and without discrimination

1) MESSAGE POSTS

a) Message posts to be directly relevant to RTI / Right to Information. The focus is on RTI in general and not on specific instances affecting an individual member. The prime focus is on discussion of gray areas of the RTI Act 2005.
b) No abusive language to be used in message posts
c) No "Cross-Posting" (multiple copies of the same message from / to other egroups)
d) All posts in English language only (or with accurate translation)
e) No communal, sexist, racial, casteist etc message posts
f) Fostering brotherly feeling among RTI activists all over India and organizing concerted action through message posts.
g) Posting of "news" reports on RTI by simply copy-pasting is banned. This is also a copyright violation issue which we (and googlegroups) take seriously. If a news report is important, post your views / concerns with the LINK to the article.
h) Posts to be kept short and focussed. Long scholarly arguments are strongly discouraged.
i) Posts in reply to be trimmed (by deleting the previous post so that only relevant portions which are at issue to be retained).
j) Self publicity or publicity for NGOs (and their programs) is strictly prohibited.
k) Address message posts to the group (and not to individual members)
l) SPAM (spammers, and spam harvesters) is not tolerated.

2) FREQUENCY OF POSTING

a) This group shall strive to limit itself to 300 messages per month. The list owner is empowered to take all steps necessary to achieve this.
b) Of these 150 message are reserved to the list owner and about 10 "guru" members who shall be invited to assist the list owner. The list of "guru" members shall be widely publicised and updated from time to time
c) Other members are allowed to post upto 3 messages per day (24 hours approx) and 10 messages per month.
d) Members are requested to limit / control the frequency of their posts to this list and avoid personality based squabbles on this group.
e) Please try to combine reply posts, and avoid the temptation of replying to posts immediately.

PMK
List Owner

Re: [HumJanenge] Cabinet note not secret: Info panel

Dear Dr Niraj Kumar,
After the High Court Judgment, what steps we need to take,
please advise.
Regards
Dr JN Sharma

On 5/13/11, Dr. Jagnarain Sharma <dr.jagnarainsharma@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Dr Niraj Kumar
> Dr JN Sharma
>
> On 5/11/11, NIRAJ <nirajklko@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> You can find the whole text of the refered judgement in the Journal
>> "INFORMATION DECISIONS" Pulished by Shreeram Law House, Chandigarh or in
>> the
>> book "TREATISE ON RTI ACT, 2005" Published by Bharat Law House, New
>> Delhi,
>> THIRD Edition, written by me. Not only this Judgement but many other
>> Judgements, Whole Text with Citation you will find in this book on a C.D.
>>
>>
>> Dr. NIRAJ KUMAR
>> C-4/8, RIVER BANK COLONY
>> LUCKNOW - 226018
>> INDIA
>> Mob.: +91+9415787095
>> Dopt Certified "A" Grade
>>
>> From: SHASHI KUMAR.A.R. <rudreshtechnology@gmail.com>
>> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
>> Sent: Tuesday, 10 May 2011 7:47 PM
>> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Cabinet note not secret: Info panel
>>
>> In karnataka it is the general practice that if a Public information
>> officer
>> produces a copy of postal acknowledgment before the information
>> commission
>> saying that information sought by the rti applicant is provided then the
>> commission is not verifying whether the information sought by the rti
>> applicants is correctly and complete information is provided , in most of
>> the cases the commission is not alliowing to submit before the commission
>> regarding incomplete and irrelevant information , false information
>> provided
>> ARS KUMAR , Swamy Vivekananda RTI Jana Jagruthi Mission , Karntaka
>> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 12:20 PM, R. Dua <r.dua1234@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This is to appreciate the above discussion and details given by the
>> members.
>> These interactions make us aware of laws.
>>>On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 12:38 AM, Vikram Simha
>>> <vikramsimha54@yahoo.co.in>
>>> wrote:
>>>Sir ,
>>>>Can ihave the Citation So that i can read the AHC Order
>>>>N vikramsimha , KRIA Katte , #12 Sumeru Sir M N Krishna Rao Road ,
>>>> Basvangudi < Bangalore 560004.--- On Mon, 9/5/11, C K Jam
>>>> <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>From: C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com>
>>>>>Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Cabinet note not secret: Info panel
>>>>>To: "humjanenge@googlegroups.com" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
>>>>>Date: Monday, 9 May, 2011, 7:35 AM
>>>>>Vikram,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>There is another judgment of the Allahabad High Court (related to
>>>>> beneficiaries of CMs discretionary fund) in which it "respectfully"
>>>>> disagreed with this part of the judgment of the Gujarat High Court
>>>>> which
>>>>> you referred to.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>In common language, the Allahabad HC ripped apart this part of the
>>>>> Gujarat HC order.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The whole purpose of the RTI Act will be lost if a Commission does not
>>>>> decide (and direct) on whether information has to be disclosed or not
>>>>> disclosed, while dealing with Complaints under Sec 18.
>>>>>RTIwanted
>>>>>From: Vikram Simha <vikramsimha54@yahoo.co.in>
>>>>>To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
>>>>>Sent: Saturday, May 7, 2011 11:56 PM
>>>>>Subject: RE: [HumJanenge] Cabinet note not secret: Info panel
>>>>>With All dissussions From All eminent and learned freinds , I Have Read
>>>>> And with Me an Gujarath High Court order which Reads As " Power under
>>>>> Sec 18 is Limited to Hold enquiry into Complaint and If Necessary to
>>>>> Impose Penalty -- Information Commission has no Jursidiction to Pass
>>>>> order directing authority to part with information"
>