Dear Girish
Thanks for placing these 2 letters before us.
1) SG comes across (at least to me) in his letter as a hysterical old
woman protesting that her modesty has been compromised. SM on the
other hand comes across as PROMPT, to the point, factual and most
importantly as MATURE.
2) We can see that CIC's official letterhead as his hotmail email ID -
so the other reply (ex-MP) may be deemed to be official.
3) Please consider if asking rhetorical questions is useful. Answers
may be given which would embarrass you / SG. For instance there are
many complaints by me (acting as watchdog over CIC) concerning SG
which were invariably forwarded to SG and he refrained from repeating
his corrupt actions thereafter.
Sarbajit
On 7/30/12, Girish Mittal <rtng.mittal@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Friends,
>
> Attached is the correspondence exchanged between Mr. Mishra & Mr. Shailesh
> Gandhi reg. the case which Mr. Akashdeep has filed in DHC. I must hasten to
> add that these files were procured using RTI Act, 2005.
>
> Mr. Mishra says that the nature of information sought hardly matters for
> the case to be taken to such an extent..An official of commission seemingly
> trying to place papers in file backdated, and strangely, Mr.
> Mishra doesn't find any wrong it!!! Besides, what was ordered was just an
> inquiry-if there was no malafide, the officials need not worry...But...
>
> Mr. Mishra also claims that he has not come across any case in which
> directions of Mr. Gandhi have not been implemented in CIC...I have come
> across the cases in which directions of even CIC himself have not been
> implemented..Besides, as I have pointed to you all in the case
> CIC/SM/A/2011/001791, the orders of SG have not been implemented. This has
> been pointed to Mr. Mishra several times also, but he has failed to act on
> the same...
>
> We live in a strange world....
>
> Regards.
>
> Girish Mittal
>
Monday, July 30, 2012
[HumJanenge] Re: REMINDER Re: Clarification in case of Mr. Nitish Bharadwaj (ex-MP)
Dear Girish
I hope that you will at least freely admit the following
1) That your original message to this group concerning Nitish Bhardwaj
(ex-MP) was posted/circulated to this group - as it is.
2) That as Moderator of this group, I forwarded the substance of your
grievance very promptly to Mr. Mishra. Before doing so, I had taken
the precaution of verifying the details you provided and also a
PROBABLE reason for his action (which you seem to have missed out).
3) That I followed it up, and managed to get a reply from Mr. Mishra
addressing the "meat" of the problem.
4) That throughout my dialogue with Mr. Mishra I was extremely
polite / respectful and civilised.
5) I think we can safely assume that such incidents may not again come
to light IN THE NEAR FUTURE in CIC(SMS)'s registry.
6) As all my actions were done openly and cc'ed to this group, there
is no reason why other citizens / members could not have done the
same. I can truthfully say that I have got no special favours from
CIC(SM) - and in fact I have not spoken to him in last 2 years.
In conclusion I maintain that if every citizen is alert and exercises
his democratic rights properly (ie. by using right channels in a
decent manner) the system can and will respond.
When the system does not respond (and I will post examples of how I
tackle this) to decent approach then the pressure must be "ratcheted"
up. (PS: For instance I have slapped at least 2 senior public servants
publicly - without any comebacks. I have got a prominent Minister to
resign, I have got MLAs who crossed paths with me replaced and so on),
so if you still think I am stupid and naive - more power to your
elbow.
Sarbajit
On Jul 30, 9:42 am, Girish Mittal <rtng.mit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Sarbajit,
>
> As you see Mr. Mishra seems to have replied from his hotmail account. I
> don't know if we can treat his response as official response!!!
>
> Even if we consider as official response, if you believe what Mishraji is
> saying, you are either naive or stupid or both or are feigning naivete,
> stupidity or both. Consider the following:
>
> (a) Mr. Mishra does not hears cases from files, he does it exclusively on
> his computer. So the opportunity of files getting mixed by DEOs are
> virtually non existent. Besides files of 2011 and 2012 do not get mixed.
> Even the cases of senior citizens of 2012 are heard when the cases of 2012
> being hearing.
> (b) Why did this so-called mix-up happen only to an ex-MP and not to
> ordinary citizen like Mr. Karira or Mr. Mittal? Ask Mr. Karira how his
> files were "misplaced" by CIC?
> (c) It is not wrongly taken up before some others, it is wrongly taken over
> by many others. Mr. Mishra is still hearing 2011 cases and this case is of
> 2012, did it not ring alarm bells to him?
> (d) I do not know about the MP/IAS connection, so I will not comment on the
> same...
>
> Regards.
>
> Girish Mittal
>
> [image: More message actions]
> Jul 28 (1 day ago)
> Dear Girish and other HJ List members
>
> I hope that this clarification from respected CIC S.Mishra-ji suitably
> clarifies that there was no "hanky panky" in Nitish Bharadwaj's
> hearing schedule and the perceived priority was due to some Registry
> error.
>
> Sarbajit
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: satyananda mishra <satyanandamis...@hotmail.com>
> Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 14:58:45 +0000
> Subject: RE: REMINDER Re: Clarification in case of Mr. Nitish Bharadwaj
>
> (ex-MP)
> To: sroy...@gmail.com
>
> Dear Mr Roy,
> I am sorry for the delayed reply. It was due to the fact
> that I was trying to find out how this appeal got ahead of some
> others. The Registry sends hearing notice largely on a first come
> first served basis except for the following occasional adjustments:
> a) on account of the availability of
> Video-conferencing facility, and b) hearing of
> multiple cases of the same appellant or the same public authority
> In the case of Nitish Bhardwaj, however, his case file got
> mixed up in the bundle of cases relating to the Cabinet Secretariat
> and the hearing notice was sent by the DEO in-charge on the assumption
> that it was in the right serial order. It was wrongly fixed and was
> taken up ahead of some others. The Registry and the DEO have been
> pulled up for this lapse and warned not to make such a mistake in
> future. Wherever I decide to take up a case on priority on the
> accepted grounds, I give written instruction in the case file. In this
> case, I had given no such instruction. Thus, it was a clerical error,
> at the most.
> The insinuation that the case was taken up presumably
> because the wife of the appellant is a Madhya Pradesh Cadre IAS
> officer is both unkind and mischievous. I hope this clarifies the
> position.
> I am grateful to you for bringing this to my notice and
> look forward to you for your continued watch over our working in the
> CIC. Regards. Satyananda Mishra
>
> From: s.mis...@nic.in
> To: satyanandamis...@hotmail.com
> Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 17:40:09 +0530
> Subject: Fwd: REMINDER Re: Clarification in case of Mr. Nitish Bharadwaj
> (ex-MP)
>
> --Forwarded Message Attachment--
> Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 08:12:09 +0530
> From: sroy...@gmail.com
> Subject: REMINDER Re: Clarification in case of Mr. Nitish Bharadwaj (ex-MP)
> To: s.mis...@nic.in
>
> To:
> Shri Satyananda Mishra
> Chief Information Commissioner of India
> Central Information Commission
>
> 24-July-2012
>
> Respected Sir
>
> I refer to my appended request for clarification concerning the
> purported "out-of-turn" hearing which was given to Mr. Nitish
> Bharadwaj (ex-MP) in a recent appeal decided by you in Case
> CIC/SM/A/2012/000231 on 20.July.2012.
>
> As the sequence in which cases are taken up for disposal in the
> Commission has considerable public interest especially considering
> the very long pendency in high profile Public Authorities you have
> retained to yourself, I again request you to kindly clarify if any
> "out of turn" favour was indeed given to the appellant in that matter
> and the reasons, if any.
>
> yours faithfully
>
> Sarbajit Roy
> New Delhi
I hope that you will at least freely admit the following
1) That your original message to this group concerning Nitish Bhardwaj
(ex-MP) was posted/circulated to this group - as it is.
2) That as Moderator of this group, I forwarded the substance of your
grievance very promptly to Mr. Mishra. Before doing so, I had taken
the precaution of verifying the details you provided and also a
PROBABLE reason for his action (which you seem to have missed out).
3) That I followed it up, and managed to get a reply from Mr. Mishra
addressing the "meat" of the problem.
4) That throughout my dialogue with Mr. Mishra I was extremely
polite / respectful and civilised.
5) I think we can safely assume that such incidents may not again come
to light IN THE NEAR FUTURE in CIC(SMS)'s registry.
6) As all my actions were done openly and cc'ed to this group, there
is no reason why other citizens / members could not have done the
same. I can truthfully say that I have got no special favours from
CIC(SM) - and in fact I have not spoken to him in last 2 years.
In conclusion I maintain that if every citizen is alert and exercises
his democratic rights properly (ie. by using right channels in a
decent manner) the system can and will respond.
When the system does not respond (and I will post examples of how I
tackle this) to decent approach then the pressure must be "ratcheted"
up. (PS: For instance I have slapped at least 2 senior public servants
publicly - without any comebacks. I have got a prominent Minister to
resign, I have got MLAs who crossed paths with me replaced and so on),
so if you still think I am stupid and naive - more power to your
elbow.
Sarbajit
On Jul 30, 9:42 am, Girish Mittal <rtng.mit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Sarbajit,
>
> As you see Mr. Mishra seems to have replied from his hotmail account. I
> don't know if we can treat his response as official response!!!
>
> Even if we consider as official response, if you believe what Mishraji is
> saying, you are either naive or stupid or both or are feigning naivete,
> stupidity or both. Consider the following:
>
> (a) Mr. Mishra does not hears cases from files, he does it exclusively on
> his computer. So the opportunity of files getting mixed by DEOs are
> virtually non existent. Besides files of 2011 and 2012 do not get mixed.
> Even the cases of senior citizens of 2012 are heard when the cases of 2012
> being hearing.
> (b) Why did this so-called mix-up happen only to an ex-MP and not to
> ordinary citizen like Mr. Karira or Mr. Mittal? Ask Mr. Karira how his
> files were "misplaced" by CIC?
> (c) It is not wrongly taken up before some others, it is wrongly taken over
> by many others. Mr. Mishra is still hearing 2011 cases and this case is of
> 2012, did it not ring alarm bells to him?
> (d) I do not know about the MP/IAS connection, so I will not comment on the
> same...
>
> Regards.
>
> Girish Mittal
>
> [image: More message actions]
> Jul 28 (1 day ago)
> Dear Girish and other HJ List members
>
> I hope that this clarification from respected CIC S.Mishra-ji suitably
> clarifies that there was no "hanky panky" in Nitish Bharadwaj's
> hearing schedule and the perceived priority was due to some Registry
> error.
>
> Sarbajit
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: satyananda mishra <satyanandamis...@hotmail.com>
> Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 14:58:45 +0000
> Subject: RE: REMINDER Re: Clarification in case of Mr. Nitish Bharadwaj
>
> (ex-MP)
> To: sroy...@gmail.com
>
> Dear Mr Roy,
> I am sorry for the delayed reply. It was due to the fact
> that I was trying to find out how this appeal got ahead of some
> others. The Registry sends hearing notice largely on a first come
> first served basis except for the following occasional adjustments:
> a) on account of the availability of
> Video-conferencing facility, and b) hearing of
> multiple cases of the same appellant or the same public authority
> In the case of Nitish Bhardwaj, however, his case file got
> mixed up in the bundle of cases relating to the Cabinet Secretariat
> and the hearing notice was sent by the DEO in-charge on the assumption
> that it was in the right serial order. It was wrongly fixed and was
> taken up ahead of some others. The Registry and the DEO have been
> pulled up for this lapse and warned not to make such a mistake in
> future. Wherever I decide to take up a case on priority on the
> accepted grounds, I give written instruction in the case file. In this
> case, I had given no such instruction. Thus, it was a clerical error,
> at the most.
> The insinuation that the case was taken up presumably
> because the wife of the appellant is a Madhya Pradesh Cadre IAS
> officer is both unkind and mischievous. I hope this clarifies the
> position.
> I am grateful to you for bringing this to my notice and
> look forward to you for your continued watch over our working in the
> CIC. Regards. Satyananda Mishra
>
> From: s.mis...@nic.in
> To: satyanandamis...@hotmail.com
> Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 17:40:09 +0530
> Subject: Fwd: REMINDER Re: Clarification in case of Mr. Nitish Bharadwaj
> (ex-MP)
>
> --Forwarded Message Attachment--
> Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 08:12:09 +0530
> From: sroy...@gmail.com
> Subject: REMINDER Re: Clarification in case of Mr. Nitish Bharadwaj (ex-MP)
> To: s.mis...@nic.in
>
> To:
> Shri Satyananda Mishra
> Chief Information Commissioner of India
> Central Information Commission
>
> 24-July-2012
>
> Respected Sir
>
> I refer to my appended request for clarification concerning the
> purported "out-of-turn" hearing which was given to Mr. Nitish
> Bharadwaj (ex-MP) in a recent appeal decided by you in Case
> CIC/SM/A/2012/000231 on 20.July.2012.
>
> As the sequence in which cases are taken up for disposal in the
> Commission has considerable public interest especially considering
> the very long pendency in high profile Public Authorities you have
> retained to yourself, I again request you to kindly clarify if any
> "out of turn" favour was indeed given to the appellant in that matter
> and the reasons, if any.
>
> yours faithfully
>
> Sarbajit Roy
> New Delhi
Sunday, July 29, 2012
[HumJanenge] Interesting exchange of correspondence between SG and CIC
Dear Friends,
Attached is the correspondence exchanged between Mr. Mishra & Mr. Shailesh Gandhi reg. the case which Mr. Akashdeep has filed in DHC. I must hasten to add that these files were procured using RTI Act, 2005.
Mr. Mishra says that the nature of information sought hardly matters for the case to be taken to such an extent..An official of commission seemingly trying to place papers in file backdated, and strangely, Mr. Mishra doesn't find any wrong it!!! Besides, what was ordered was just an inquiry-if there was no malafide, the officials need not worry...But...
Mr. Mishra also claims that he has not come across any case in which directions of Mr. Gandhi have not been implemented in CIC...I have come across the cases in which directions of even CIC himself have not been implemented..Besides, as I have pointed to you all in the case CIC/SM/A/2011/001791, the orders of SG have not been implemented. This has been pointed to Mr. Mishra several times also, but he has failed to act on the same...
We live in a strange world....
Regards.
Girish Mittal
[HumJanenge] RE: REMINDER Re: Clarification in case of Mr. Nitish Bharadwaj (ex-MP)
Dear Sarbajit,
As you see Mr. Mishra seems to have replied from his hotmail account. I don't know if we can treat his response as official response!!!
Even if we consider as official response, if you believe what Mishraji is saying, you are either naive or stupid or both or are feigning naivete, stupidity or both. Consider the following:
(a) Mr. Mishra does not hears cases from files, he does it exclusively on his computer. So the opportunity of files getting mixed by DEOs are virtually non existent. Besides files of 2011 and 2012 do not get mixed. Even the cases of senior citizens of 2012 are heard when the cases of 2012 being hearing.
(b) Why did this so-called mix-up happen only to an ex-MP and not to ordinary citizen like Mr. Karira or Mr. Mittal? Ask Mr. Karira how his files were "misplaced" by CIC?
(c) It is not wrongly taken up before some others, it is wrongly taken over by many others. Mr. Mishra is still hearing 2011 cases and this case is of 2012, did it not ring alarm bells to him?
(d) I do not know about the MP/IAS connection, so I will not comment on the same...
Regards.
Girish Mittal
 |
Dear Girish and other HJ List members
I hope that this clarification from respected CIC S.Mishra-ji suitably
clarifies that there was no "hanky panky" in Nitish Bharadwaj's
hearing schedule and the perceived priority was due to some Registry
error.
Sarbajit
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: satyananda mishra <satyanandamishra@hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 14:58:45 +0000
Subject: RE: REMINDER Re: Clarification in case of Mr. Nitish Bharadwaj (ex-MP)
To: sroy.mb@gmail.com
Dear Mr Roy,
I am sorry for the delayed reply. It was due to the fact
that I was trying to find out how this appeal got ahead of some
others. The Registry sends hearing notice largely on a first come
first served basis except for the following occasional adjustments:
a) on account of the availability of
Video-conferencing facility, and b) hearing of
multiple cases of the same appellant or the same public authority
In the case of Nitish Bhardwaj, however, his case file got
mixed up in the bundle of cases relating to the Cabinet Secretariat
and the hearing notice was sent by the DEO in-charge on the assumption
that it was in the right serial order. It was wrongly fixed and was
taken up ahead of some others. The Registry and the DEO have been
pulled up for this lapse and warned not to make such a mistake in
future. Wherever I decide to take up a case on priority on the
accepted grounds, I give written instruction in the case file. In this
case, I had given no such instruction. Thus, it was a clerical error,
at the most.
The insinuation that the case was taken up presumably
because the wife of the appellant is a Madhya Pradesh Cadre IAS
officer is both unkind and mischievous. I hope this clarifies the
position.
I am grateful to you for bringing this to my notice and
look forward to you for your continued watch over our working in the
CIC. Regards. Satyananda Mishra
From: s.mishra@nic.in
To: satyanandamishra@hotmail.com
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 17:40:09 +0530
Subject: Fwd: REMINDER Re: Clarification in case of Mr. Nitish Bharadwaj (ex-MP)
--Forwarded Message Attachment--
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 08:12:09 +0530
From: sroy.mb@gmail.com
Subject: REMINDER Re: Clarification in case of Mr. Nitish Bharadwaj (ex-MP)
To: s.mishra@nic.in
To:
Shri Satyananda Mishra
Chief Information Commissioner of India
Central Information Commission
24-July-2012
Respected Sir
I refer to my appended request for clarification concerning the
purported "out-of-turn" hearing which was given to Mr. Nitish
Bharadwaj (ex-MP) in a recent appeal decided by you in Case
CIC/SM/A/2012/000231 on 20.July.2012.
As the sequence in which cases are taken up for disposal in the
Commission has considerable public interest especially considering
the very long pendency in high profile Public Authorities you have
retained to yourself, I again request you to kindly clarify if any
"out of turn" favour was indeed given to the appellant in that matter
and the reasons, if any.
yours faithfully
Sarbajit Roy
New Delhi
I hope that this clarification from respected CIC S.Mishra-ji suitably
clarifies that there was no "hanky panky" in Nitish Bharadwaj's
hearing schedule and the perceived priority was due to some Registry
error.
Sarbajit
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: satyananda mishra <satyanandamishra@hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 14:58:45 +0000
Subject: RE: REMINDER Re: Clarification in case of Mr. Nitish Bharadwaj (ex-MP)
To: sroy.mb@gmail.com
Dear Mr Roy,
I am sorry for the delayed reply. It was due to the fact
that I was trying to find out how this appeal got ahead of some
others. The Registry sends hearing notice largely on a first come
first served basis except for the following occasional adjustments:
a) on account of the availability of
Video-conferencing facility, and b) hearing of
multiple cases of the same appellant or the same public authority
In the case of Nitish Bhardwaj, however, his case file got
mixed up in the bundle of cases relating to the Cabinet Secretariat
and the hearing notice was sent by the DEO in-charge on the assumption
that it was in the right serial order. It was wrongly fixed and was
taken up ahead of some others. The Registry and the DEO have been
pulled up for this lapse and warned not to make such a mistake in
future. Wherever I decide to take up a case on priority on the
accepted grounds, I give written instruction in the case file. In this
case, I had given no such instruction. Thus, it was a clerical error,
at the most.
The insinuation that the case was taken up presumably
because the wife of the appellant is a Madhya Pradesh Cadre IAS
officer is both unkind and mischievous. I hope this clarifies the
position.
I am grateful to you for bringing this to my notice and
look forward to you for your continued watch over our working in the
CIC. Regards. Satyananda Mishra
From: s.mishra@nic.in
To: satyanandamishra@hotmail.com
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 17:40:09 +0530
Subject: Fwd: REMINDER Re: Clarification in case of Mr. Nitish Bharadwaj (ex-MP)
--Forwarded Message Attachment--
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 08:12:09 +0530
From: sroy.mb@gmail.com
Subject: REMINDER Re: Clarification in case of Mr. Nitish Bharadwaj (ex-MP)
To: s.mishra@nic.in
To:
Shri Satyananda Mishra
Chief Information Commissioner of India
Central Information Commission
24-July-2012
Respected Sir
purported "out-of-turn" hearing which was given to Mr. Nitish
Bharadwaj (ex-MP) in a recent appeal decided by you in Case
CIC/SM/A/2012/000231 on 20.July.2012.
As the sequence in which cases are taken up for disposal in the
Commission has considerable public interest especially considering
the very long pendency in high profile Public Authorities you have
retained to yourself, I again request you to kindly clarify if any
"out of turn" favour was indeed given to the appellant in that matter
and the reasons, if any.
yours faithfully
Sarbajit Roy
New Delhi
Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Missing requests in the CIC
Mr Sarbajit,
There is no systemic error in the CICs centralised receipts section
and the rest of the administrative set up.
It is a complete breakdown and a hijacking of the system by a few
vested interests in the CIC !
RTIwanted
From: sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: "HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005" <HumJanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2012 8:33 PM
Subject: [HumJanenge] Re: Missing requests in the CIC
Dear Sandeep
It also points to some systemic error in the CIC's
Centralised dak and registry systems.
.
Sarbajit
[HumJanenge] Re: Missing requests in the CIC
Dear Sandeep
Please read the CPIO's reply carefully.
They have not said that your 2 letters were not received in the CIC.
What the PIO of IC(BS)'s Registry says is the file is not with him
(presumably because the file has not been transferred to them from
CIC(SM)'s registry.
Th FA should stress that CIC is a single public authority and that the
nodal PIO should be penalised for not locating the information in
CIC(SM)'s registry. It also points to some systemic error in the CIC's
Centralised dak and registry systems.
.
Sarbajit
Sandeep gupta wrote:
> Dear All,
> I need an urgent help. The enclosed order of the commission was passed
> in October 2011. On not getting any reply, I sent two letters (in
> november 2011 and then in april 2012) by speed post to the commission
> to do the needful.
> I then filed form a in the CIC. I am surprised to know that they are
> saying that my letters were not received.
> Please suggest what to do.
> regards
> sandeep
> --
> Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
> 1722, Sector 14, Hisar-125001, INDIA
> Phone: 91-99929-31181
Please read the CPIO's reply carefully.
They have not said that your 2 letters were not received in the CIC.
What the PIO of IC(BS)'s Registry says is the file is not with him
(presumably because the file has not been transferred to them from
CIC(SM)'s registry.
Th FA should stress that CIC is a single public authority and that the
nodal PIO should be penalised for not locating the information in
CIC(SM)'s registry. It also points to some systemic error in the CIC's
Centralised dak and registry systems.
.
Sarbajit
Sandeep gupta wrote:
> Dear All,
> I need an urgent help. The enclosed order of the commission was passed
> in October 2011. On not getting any reply, I sent two letters (in
> november 2011 and then in april 2012) by speed post to the commission
> to do the needful.
> I then filed form a in the CIC. I am surprised to know that they are
> saying that my letters were not received.
> Please suggest what to do.
> regards
> sandeep
> --
> Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
> 1722, Sector 14, Hisar-125001, INDIA
> Phone: 91-99929-31181
[HumJanenge] Missing requests in the CIC
Dear All,
I need an urgent help. The enclosed order of the commission was passed
in October 2011. On not getting any reply, I sent two letters (in
november 2011 and then in april 2012) by speed post to the commission
to do the needful.
I then filed form a in the CIC. I am surprised to know that they are
saying that my letters were not received.
Please suggest what to do.
regards
sandeep
--
Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
1722, Sector 14, Hisar-125001, INDIA
Phone: 91-99929-31181
I need an urgent help. The enclosed order of the commission was passed
in October 2011. On not getting any reply, I sent two letters (in
november 2011 and then in april 2012) by speed post to the commission
to do the needful.
I then filed form a in the CIC. I am surprised to know that they are
saying that my letters were not received.
Please suggest what to do.
regards
sandeep
--
Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
1722, Sector 14, Hisar-125001, INDIA
Phone: 91-99929-31181
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)