Re: [HumJanenge] Highest Number of cases is disposed without hearing by Mr. Jagadanand Mohanty, SIC,, Odisha , exposed through RTI

The problem in Odisha (and in Maharashtra) is that there are no proper Appeal procedures prescribed in the RTI Rules.

Hence the ICs get to do what they want - mostly as per their whims and fancies.

The only way is for someone who has not been heard but order passed, to approach the High Court on the grounds that this is against the principles of Natural Justice.

RTIwanted

---

From: Pradip Pradhan <pradippradhan63@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2012 8:16 PM
Subject: [HumJanenge] Highest Number of cases is disposed without hearing by Mr. Jagadanand Mohanty, SIC,, Odisha , exposed through RTI

Highest Number of cases     is disposed without hearing   by Mr. Jagadanand Mohanty, State Information Commissioner, Odisha , exposed  through RTI

Dear friends

On dated  27.6.12, Mr. Sanjeeb Satapathy, RTI Activist of  Kalahandi  district  had submitted RTI Application to the PIO  to get  information about  number of cases  disposed  by  Information Commissioners in the state  without hearing  within the period of  January 2011 to  June'2012. On  dated 25.7.12,  the PIO  provided the  following  information.

 

Name of Information Commissioner	No. of cases disposed without hearing
Mr. Tarun Kanti Mishra, State Chief Information Commissioner	1914
Mr. Jagadanand, State Information Commissioner	1980
Mr. Pramod Kumar Mohanty, State Information Commissioner	820

 Under Sections 18, 19 and 20 of RTI Act, the Information Commission has been empowered  to  receive, hear, enquire and dispose the Complaints  and  Second Appeals and also to impose penalty on defaulting PIOs as and where required.   Needless to say, the hearing of the cases is crucial in the entire process of disposal of a case, simply for the reason that it  gives an opportunity of hearing to the concerned PIO, on whom lies the burden of proof as to whether he acted diligently to provide the requested information to the applicant. It is also important because the complainant/petitioner might raise a slew of critical issues on account of which the RTI users like him were deprived of access to information sought for, and which the Commission as per Section 19(8) should address to for a better administration of RTI regime in the concerned public authority in future. 

 From above information obtained through RTI, it is seen that  Odisha Information Commission has been   unilaterally disposing a large bulk of the cases without holding any hearing on them. Mr. Jagadanand  has scored top among other commissioners   in respect of unilaterally  and arbitrarily disposing the cases.   

   Let us examine how and why the Information Commissioners have adopted such nefarious practice to dispose the cases.  It is seen that  the Information Commissioners are  facing  serious public criticism   for low disposal of cases which  attributes to   their inefficiency  and lack of expertise  to deal the cases.  In order  to show  their efficiency  of  disposing large number  of cases  in public  domain, the Commission has adopted  this  strategy .

   The office of the Commission  has designed an unique system  to quickly dispose the cases at the stoke of pen. The staff of  all three Information Commissioners  have developed  a format  in their  computers . In format, they  make cut and paste of Complaint case number, date and name of the  Public authority  and write   the  text which is very common  in all cases  that "  it  is observed  that the Complainant  did not approach  the  First Appellate Authority  for appropriate decision in the matter. In order to avoid multiple proceedings  under section 18 and 19 of the RTI Act. The Commission decided to treat  this complaint  as a First appeal  and to remand this appeal  to the first appellate authority who is directed  to dispose  of the appeal  of  complainant  within 30 days  from the date of the receipt  of this decision  under intimation  to the Registrar, Odisha Information Commission. If the  Complainant is not satisfied  with the orders of the first appellate authority, he is  free to file a second appeal  before the Commission  under section 19(3) of the RTI Act."  The case is disposed accordingly. The Information Commissioners do not take any pain  to dispose the cases  except putting their signature on the order sheet.  This is the  most simplest  and surest method  ever  invented  by any  Commissioner of the world  to dispose large volume of the cases.  

 What is the devastating outcome ?

   In large number of cases ( such as for instance CC No- 4165/2011 and CC No.- 2/2011) the 1^st Appellate Authorities are neither hearing nor disposing the cases. In fact,  the cases unilaterally disposed by the Commission are old ones which require  immediate hearing  and immediate delivery of information to the complainants and  penalty against the defaulter PIOs.  As the Commission doesn't enforce actual compliance in terms of delivery of information to the complainants   and no penalty is imposed on erring PIOs  for their failure to provide the information,  the net result is widespread discontentment  and anger  created among the deprived citizens. In a situation where the Complainant has at long last been ditched by the Commission, he simply feels hopeless about approaching the Commission again in the manner of filing a complaint or second appeal. There is only a burning anger and frustration left in them.  It has been gathered from the sources close to the complainants that  huge numbers of cases disposed unilaterally  by the Commission  has not resulted in any delivery of information the complainants had asked for but were unduly refused. Though some complainants have filed again the previous  cases to the Commission, the latter is yet to begin deciding them.

  The above procedure adopted by the Commission has encouraged the PIOs to disregard the RTI Act altogether. They are showing a careless attitude to the RTI applications, being overconfident that there  is no fear of penalty  from the Commission. They are under impression that   if the  complaint files   a case in the Commission, it will approximately  come after one year to First Appellate Authority  for disposal.  In the meantime,  the PIO will have ample opportunity  to decide  either   to provide the same   or  destroy it.    So that the  information can be easily denied on  pretext of non-availability of information which the Commissioners speak  of   available and permissible  information in every  hearing.

 Mr. Jagadanand, highest score-winner  may feel a self-congratulatory satisfaction by dishing out the figures of reduced pendency, but in the process he has  made RTI Act a casualty of their arbitrary rule. It would result in growing frustration and hopelessness among the RTI users and further boost to corruption and misfeasance across the state.

 Any Comments from everybody including office of the Commission is most welcome.

 Pradip Pradhan

M-99378-43482

Date- 12.8.12

 

  

Re: [HumJanenge] Highest Number of cases is disposed without hearing by Mr. Jagadanand Mohanty, SIC,, Odisha , exposed through RTI

Dear Pradip

It seems that these cut paste orders are being issued where
the "Complainant" has approached under section 18 without
filing a first appeal u/s 19(1).

Before claiming a great "victory" in exposing the ICs you
ought to have asked how many "2nd Appeals" u/s 19(3)
were disposed off without affording hearing to appellants.

The RTI by Mr. Satapathy was UNSCIENTIFIC because we
have no way of knowing how many such cases were
Complaints and how many Appeals.

Sarbajit

On 8/12/12, Pradip Pradhan <pradippradhan63@gmail.com> wrote:
> *Highest Number of cases is disposed without hearing by Mr.
> Jagadanand Mohanty, State Information Commissioner, Odisha , exposed
> through
> RTI*
>
> **
>
> Dear friends
>
> On dated 27.6.12, Mr. Sanjeeb Satapathy, RTI Activist of Kalahandi
> district
> had submitted RTI Application to the PIO to get information about
> number
> of cases disposed by Information Commissioners in the state without
> hearing within the period of January 2011 to June'2012. On dated
> 25.7.12, the PIO provided the following information.
>
>
>
> *Name of Information Commissioner *
>
> *No. of cases disposed without hearing *
>
> Mr. Tarun Kanti Mishra, State Chief Information Commissioner
>
> 1914
>
> *Mr. Jagadanand, State Information Commissioner*
>
> *1980 *
>
> Mr. Pramod Kumar Mohanty, State Information Commissioner
>
> 820
>
> Under Sections 18, 19 and 20 of RTI Act, the Information Commission has
> been empowered to receive, hear, enquire and dispose the Complaints
> and Second
> Appeals and also to impose penalty on defaulting PIOs as and where
> required.
> Needless to say, the hearing of the cases is crucial in the entire process
> of disposal of a case, simply for the reason that it gives an opportunity
> of hearing to the concerned PIO, on whom lies the burden of proof as to
> whether he acted diligently to provide the requested information to the
> applicant. It is also important because the complainant/petitioner might
> raise a slew of critical issues on account of which the RTI users like him
> were deprived of access to information sought for, and which the Commission
> as per Section 19(8) should address to for a better administration of RTI
> regime in the concerned public authority in future.
>
> From above information obtained through RTI, it is seen that Odisha
> Information Commission has been unilaterally disposing a large bulk of
> the cases without holding any hearing on them. *Mr. Jagadanand has scored
> top among other commissioners in respect of unilaterally and arbitrarily
> disposing the cases. *
>
> * *Let us examine how and why the Information Commissioners have adopted
> such nefarious practice to dispose the cases. * *It is seen that the
> Information Commissioners are facing serious public criticism for low
> disposal of cases which attributes to their inefficiency and lack of
> expertise to deal the cases. In order to show their efficiency of
> disposing
> large number of cases in public domain, the Commission has adopted this
> strategy .
>
> The office of the Commission has designed an unique system to quickly
> dispose the cases at the stoke of pen. The staff of all three Information
> Commissioners have developed a format in their computers . In format,
> they make cut and paste of Complaint case number, date and name of the
> Public
> authority and write the text which is very common in all cases that "
> *it is observed that the Complainant did not approach the First
> Appellate Authority for appropriate decision in the matter. In order to
> avoid multiple proceedings under section 18 and 19 of the RTI Act. The
> Commission decided to treat this complaint as a First appeal and to
> remand this appeal to the first appellate authority who is directed to
> dispose of the appeal of complainant within 30 days from the date of
> the receipt of this decision under intimation to the Registrar, Odisha
> Information Commission. If the Complainant is not satisfied with the
> orders of the first appellate authority, he is free to file a second
> appeal
> before the Commission under section 19(3) of the RTI Act." * The case is
> disposed accordingly. The Information Commissioners do not take any pain
> to
> dispose the cases except putting their signature on the order sheet. This
> is the most simplest and surest method ever invented by any
> Commissioner
> of the world to dispose large volume of the cases.
>
> *What is the devastating outcome ?*
>
> In large number of cases ( such as for instance CC No- 4165/2011 and CC
> No.- 2/2011) the 1st Appellate Authorities are neither hearing nor
> disposing the cases. In fact, the cases unilaterally disposed by the
> Commission are old ones which require immediate hearing and immediate
> delivery of information to the complainants and penalty against the
> defaulter PIOs. As the Commission doesn't enforce actual compliance in
> terms of delivery of information to the complainants and no penalty is
> imposed on erring PIOs for their failure to provide the information, the
> net result is widespread discontentment and anger created among the
> deprived citizens. In a situation where the Complainant has at long last
> been ditched by the Commission, he simply feels hopeless about approaching
> the Commission again in the manner of filing a complaint or second appeal.
> There is only a burning anger and frustration left in them. It has been
> gathered from the sources close to the complainants that huge numbers of
> cases disposed unilaterally by the Commission has not resulted in any
> delivery of information the complainants had asked for but were unduly
> refused. Though some complainants have filed again the previous cases to
> the Commission, the latter is yet to begin deciding them.
>
> The above procedure adopted by the Commission has encouraged the PIOs to
> disregard the RTI Act altogether. They are showing a careless attitude to
> the RTI applications, being overconfident that there is no fear of penalty
> from the Commission. They are under impression that if the complaint
> files a case in the Commission, it will approximately come after one
> year to First Appellate Authority for disposal. In the meantime, the PIO
> will have ample opportunity to decide either to provide the same
> or destroy
> it. So that the information can be easily denied on pretext of
> non-availability of information which the Commissioners speak of
> available
> and permissible information in every hearing.
>
> *Mr. Jagadanand, highest score-winner may feel a self-congratulatory
> satisfaction by dishing out the figures of reduced pendency, but in the
> process he has made RTI Act a casualty of their arbitrary rule. It would
> result in growing frustration and hopelessness among the RTI users and
> further boost to corruption and misfeasance across the state. *
>
> Any Comments from everybody including office of the Commission is most
> welcome.
>
> *Pradip Pradhan*
>
> *M-99378-43482*
>
> *Date- 12.8.12*
>

[HumJanenge] Highest Number of cases is disposed without hearing by Mr. Jagadanand Mohanty, SIC,, Odisha , exposed through RTI

Highest Number of cases     is disposed without hearing   by Mr. Jagadanand Mohanty, State Information Commissioner, Odisha , exposed  through RTI

Dear friends

On dated  27.6.12, Mr. Sanjeeb Satapathy, RTI Activist of  Kalahandi  district  had submitted RTI Application to the PIO  to get  information about  number of cases  disposed  by  Information Commissioners in the state  without hearing  within the period of  January 2011 to  June'2012. On  dated 25.7.12,  the PIO  provided the  following  information.

 

Name of Information Commissioner	No. of cases disposed without hearing
Mr. Tarun Kanti Mishra, State Chief Information Commissioner	1914
Mr. Jagadanand, State Information Commissioner	1980
Mr. Pramod Kumar Mohanty, State Information Commissioner	820

 Under Sections 18, 19 and 20 of RTI Act, the Information Commission has been empowered  to  receive, hear, enquire and dispose the Complaints  and  Second Appeals and also to impose penalty on defaulting PIOs as and where required.   Needless to say, the hearing of the cases is crucial in the entire process of disposal of a case, simply for the reason that it  gives an opportunity of hearing to the concerned PIO, on whom lies the burden of proof as to whether he acted diligently to provide the requested information to the applicant. It is also important because the complainant/petitioner might raise a slew of critical issues on account of which the RTI users like him were deprived of access to information sought for, and which the Commission as per Section 19(8) should address to for a better administration of RTI regime in the concerned public authority in future. 

 From above information obtained through RTI, it is seen that  Odisha Information Commission has been   unilaterally disposing a large bulk of the cases without holding any hearing on them. Mr. Jagadanand  has scored top among other commissioners   in respect of unilaterally  and arbitrarily disposing the cases.   

   Let us examine how and why the Information Commissioners have adopted such nefarious practice to dispose the cases.  It is seen that  the Information Commissioners are  facing  serious public criticism   for low disposal of cases which  attributes to   their inefficiency  and lack of expertise  to deal the cases.  In order  to show  their efficiency  of  disposing large number  of cases  in public  domain, the Commission has adopted  this  strategy .

   The office of the Commission  has designed an unique system  to quickly dispose the cases at the stoke of pen. The staff of  all three Information Commissioners  have developed  a format  in their  computers . In format, they  make cut and paste of Complaint case number, date and name of the  Public authority  and write   the  text which is very common  in all cases  that "  it  is observed  that the Complainant  did not approach  the  First Appellate Authority  for appropriate decision in the matter. In order to avoid multiple proceedings  under section 18 and 19 of the RTI Act. The Commission decided to treat  this complaint  as a First appeal  and to remand this appeal  to the first appellate authority who is directed  to dispose  of the appeal  of  complainant  within 30 days  from the date of the receipt  of this decision  under intimation  to the Registrar, Odisha Information Commission. If the  Complainant is not satisfied  with the orders of the first appellate authority, he is  free to file a second appeal  before the Commission  under section 19(3) of the RTI Act."  The case is disposed accordingly. The Information Commissioners do not take any pain  to dispose the cases  except putting their signature on the order sheet.  This is the  most simplest  and surest method  ever  invented  by any  Commissioner of the world  to dispose large volume of the cases.  

 What is the devastating outcome ?

   In large number of cases ( such as for instance CC No- 4165/2011 and CC No.- 2/2011) the 1^st Appellate Authorities are neither hearing nor disposing the cases. In fact,  the cases unilaterally disposed by the Commission are old ones which require  immediate hearing  and immediate delivery of information to the complainants and  penalty against the defaulter PIOs.  As the Commission doesn't enforce actual compliance in terms of delivery of information to the complainants   and no penalty is imposed on erring PIOs  for their failure to provide the information,  the net result is widespread discontentment  and anger  created among the deprived citizens. In a situation where the Complainant has at long last been ditched by the Commission, he simply feels hopeless about approaching the Commission again in the manner of filing a complaint or second appeal. There is only a burning anger and frustration left in them.  It has been gathered from the sources close to the complainants that  huge numbers of cases disposed unilaterally  by the Commission  has not resulted in any delivery of information the complainants had asked for but were unduly refused. Though some complainants have filed again the previous  cases to the Commission, the latter is yet to begin deciding them.

  The above procedure adopted by the Commission has encouraged the PIOs to disregard the RTI Act altogether. They are showing a careless attitude to the RTI applications, being overconfident that there  is no fear of penalty  from the Commission. They are under impression that   if the  complaint files   a case in the Commission, it will approximately  come after one year to First Appellate Authority  for disposal.  In the meantime,  the PIO will have ample opportunity  to decide  either   to provide the same   or  destroy it.    So that the  information can be easily denied on  pretext of non-availability of information which the Commissioners speak  of   available and permissible  information in every  hearing.

 Mr. Jagadanand, highest score-winner  may feel a self-congratulatory satisfaction by dishing out the figures of reduced pendency, but in the process he has  made RTI Act a casualty of their arbitrary rule. It would result in growing frustration and hopelessness among the RTI users and further boost to corruption and misfeasance across the state.

 Any Comments from everybody including office of the Commission is most welcome.

 Pradip Pradhan

M-99378-43482

Date- 12.8.12

 

  

[HumJanenge] Re: PUBLIC GRIEVANCE: Undisclosed conflict of interest of Dr. N.C.Saxena (member/NAC)

To:
Chairperson
National Advisory Council, ("NAC")

BY EMAIL

Date: 12-August-2012

REMINDER

Dear Sir / Madam,

I refer to my unresolved Public Grievance of 25/03/2011 appended
below. concerning Mr. Naresh Chandra Saxena's private consultancy and
conflict of interest.

I find today from website of The Policy Group (UK) that Mr. Saxena
(member NAC) is still
"employed" by them as a consultant and despite my complaint to you.

Considering that you were kind enough to get the Attorney General of
India to get the Central Bureau of Investigation ("CBI") removed from
ambit of RTI Act so that the files concerning Mr.Quattrochi's
consultancy are not in public domain, May I humbly request you to to
take similar steps so that Mr. Saxena's consultancy for foreigners
affecting India's food security and national interests via NAC are
also not placed in the public domain should any public spirited
citizen care to apply for it..

I would be obliged if this grievance petition reminder is acknowledged promptly.

yours faithfully

Sarbajit Roy
B-59 Defence Colony
New Delhi 110024

Tel : 09311448069

On 3/25/11, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> To:
> Chairperson
> National Advisory Council, ("NAC")
>
> BY EMAIL
>
> Date: 25-March-2011
>
> Dear Sir / Madam,
>
> I am constrained to bring yet another series of my public grievances
> concerning the National Advisory Council to your kind attention.
>
> Firstly, I am aggrieved that my Public Grievance Petitions to NAC
> and/or yourself are never acknowledged - either immediately or within
> 3 days as stipulated under the concerned scheme of Government of
> India. I say that I have emailed your PS Shri Dhiraj Shrivastava
> concerning this but he has not reverted. In the absence of a formal
> acknowledgment reaching me in time, I shall be constrained to lodge my
> grievances on the President of India's helpline at Rashtrapati Bhaawn
> to ensure time bound action by the concerned competent authority for
> the NAC.
>
> Secondly, I am constrained to bring yet another potential conflict of
> interest situation to your attention concerning Dr. Naresh Chandra
> Saxena/member.. It is pertinent that Dr Saxena was apparently
> appointed to the NAC by the Hon'ble Prime Minister in consultation
> with yourself. I wish to inform you that Dr. Saxena is currently
> employed as a "Principal" with a UK based consultancy company/
> organisation as per their website, the particulars of which are as
> below.
>
> The Policy Practice
> 33 Southdown Avenue
> Brighton
> BN1 6EH
> United Kingdom
> Tel: ++44 (0)1273 330 331
> Fax: ++44 (0)870 123 1723
> URL : www.thepolicypractice.com
> email: contact@thepolicypractice.com
>
> I say it is relevant that an important function of the NAC is
> "providing policy inputs" to the Government of India, and I am
> aggrieved that it is clearly opposed to India's national, scientific
> and and economic security, for any employee of a foreign policy
> practice be a member of such an important policy making body as the
> NAC, and it arouses grave suspicion that he serves foreign masters in
> addition, or lobbies on behalf of foreign policy interests in India
> post his retirement from the bureaucracy.
>
> It is pertinent that Dr. Saxena''s bio-data on the NAC website
> curiously avoids all mention of employment with companies such as The
> Policy Practice. For ready reference, I attach 2 PDF files of
> information from this foreign organisations website. The first shows
> Dr Saxena's place in its hierarchy. The second is a very comprehensive
> bio-data of Dr.Saxena for private consumption of this organisation's
> clients which differs very considerably from the sketchy bio-data on
> the NAC website which the NAC has chosen to disclose to the public.
>
> I am caused to bring this absurd situation to your notice only when I
> repeatedly find potential conflicts of interests emanating from
> private associations of the 2 former Secretaries of the Rural
> Development Ministry who are attached to your Council, and which cause
> me to believe that these 2 former officers have deep and long standing
> associations with private interests in the very same priority sectors
> where the NAC is providing policy inputs and legislative support.
>
> I therefore pray that a comprehensive and impartial inquiry be
> conducted into my researches / grievances. I am always ready to assist
> the NAC in this nation building process.
>
> I would be obliged if this grievance petition is acknowledged promptly.
>
> yours faithfully
>
> Sarbajit Roy
> B-59 Defence Colony
> New Delhi 110024
>
> Tel : 09311448069
>

Re: [HumJanenge] Meeting on strategies (including RTI) to combat corruption

Very well said Vinod sir. Hope this sees the light of the day as part of e gov.

Warm regards, Mahesh Khera
Sent from my BlackBerry® on Airtel

---

From: VINOD KHARE <vinodkhare@vsnl.com>

Sender: humjanenge@googlegroups.com

Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:27:26 +0530

To: <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>

ReplyTo: humjanenge@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Meeting on strategies (including RTI) to combat corruption

1.The main issues are :-
(a) Evident prosperity enhancement of public servants, including elected MPsw and MLAs, from the beging to end of their term. This reflects as disproportionate assets.
(b) Bureaucrat and politician nexus  which has resulted in the following :-
     (i)   For AAM ADMI, Indian Police Service has become an agency for documentation of crime by convenience.
     (ii) There is NOTHING in this country which a tax payer gets but tax evader does NOT.
     (iii) Justice is delayed to deny.
     (iv) Rules are practiced for denial only
     (v) Outlaws cab get away with anything if they have money to bribe.
2. Possible remedy is to open online registration of complaints and their acknowledgement regarding corruption safeguarding identity of complainant and a charter regarding time in which an action taken can be replied.
3. Public servants guilty of corruption, unless DISPROVED, to be retired without pension or such benefits.
Lt Col(Veteran) VC Khare    
On 12-08-2012, Mahesh Khera wrote:

---
Lt Col \28Retd\29 VC Khare B-406 Ram Vihar Sector 30, Noida 201303 \28Uttar Pradesh\29 Mob 9312807120, 9810114095 Phone +91-120-2456116

Dear  Sarbajit, what is this disservice to the nation when well meaning people want to brain storm strategies to combat corruption ? Anna did what he thought was right, it is upon us to make what ever we want to make out of it. The real question is not Anna or his followers but how should the corruption be minimized ? Make this country into e-governance and watch the amazing results of cleaner living.    Warm regards, Mahesh Khera  Sent from my BlackBerry® on Airtel    -----Original Message-----  From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>  Sender: humjanenge@googlegroups.com  Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 00:08:48   To: <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>  Reply-To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com  Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Meeting on strategies (including RTI) to combat corruption    Dear Mr Venkatraman    You are doing a great disservice to the nation by propounding that  the anti-corruption movement devolves upon the rising and setting  of Anna Hazare or upon his "team" of corrupt jokers.    Sarbajit    On 8/11/12, Venkatraman NS <nsvenkatchennai@gmail.com> wrote:

*BRAIN STORMING MEETING AT CHENNAI * * ON STRATEGIES ( INCLUDING RTI ) TO COMBAT CORRUPTION* * * *Nandini Voice For The Deprived, a Chennai based NGO will organize brain storming meeting on strategies to combat corruption ( including RTI ) * * * *Objective :* * * *There is, no doubt , great concern amongst the citizens about the widespread corruption in India at all levels, which has resulted in misuse of government funds ,set back to welfare projects and social tension.* *The country men responded to Anna Hazare’s call to fight against corruption spontaneously , since everyone thought that this would be the need of the hour. However, Anna Hazare’s decision to dissolve his team and enter electoral politics has created confusion and uncertainty about the future trend of anti corruption movement in India.* * * *The objective of the meeting is to discuss the possible and appropriate strategies to combat corruption in India and provide a forum for the concerned citizens to discuss the issue thread bare, in the light of Anna Hazare’s decision.* * * * RTI activists and those involved in anti corruption struggle will share their experience. * * * *Venue : Adyar , Chennai* * * *Date :- 26th August,2012 (Sunday)* * * *Time:- 10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.* * * *Invitation:* * * *Nandini Voice For the Deprived has pleasure in inviting everyone for the meeting. Those interested in participating in the meeting are requested to register their name in advance by email nsvenkatchennai@gmail.com or Tele No. :- 24916037* * N.S.Venkataraman** Nandini Voice For The Deprived www.nandinivoice.org *

 

Re: [HumJanenge] Mr. Shailesh Gandhi

Why don't you ask our mutual friend to provide us a copy of
the ORIGINAL 11th May 2012 circular as he received it ?

On 8/12/12, Girish Mittal <rtng.mittal@gmail.com> wrote:
> If the documents vanished, in what capacity did Mr.Varkey access those
> documents. Or if Mr. Varkey is one of the previledged few who have access
> to such documents-Mr. Varkey should provide the copies of the "private"
> document. Or if Mr. Roy has such "private" document, he should provide a
> copy !!!
>
> Girish Mittal
>
> Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> Aug 11 09:09AM +0530
>
> I think the point Mr. Varkey makes is that the documents
> have "vanished" (so there is nothing left for citizens to
> be provided under RTI) - as distinguished from insiders
> (ie. non-citizens) who have retained their own private
> copies to be filed in Courts should the need arise.
>

[HumJanenge] Mr. Shailesh Gandhi

 If the documents vanished, in what capacity did Mr.Varkey access those documents. Or if Mr. Varkey is one of the previledged few who have access to such documents-Mr. Varkey should provide the copies of the "private" document. Or if Mr. Roy has such "private" document, he should provide a copy !!!

Girish Mittal

Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> Aug 11 09:09AM +0530  

I think the point Mr. Varkey makes is that the documents
have "vanished" (so there is nothing left for citizens to
be provided under RTI) - as distinguished from insiders
(ie. non-citizens) who have retained their own private
copies to be filed in Courts should the need arise.