Friday, June 3, 2011

[HumJanenge] Task Force constituted for effect implementation of Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005-Comments invited

Dear Friends,
The central government has constituted a task force for effective
implementation of section 4 of the RTI act. Besides implementation of
section 4, this task force has been asked to recommend other items
that can be included under section 4(1)(b)(xvii), to recommend
measures for protection of information seekers and other issues. All
are requested to submit their valuable opinions at usrti-dopt@nic.in
by June 12, 2011.
The notification is enclosed as attachment.
Please rush as it is very vital opportunity for us.
regards
sandeep

--
Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
989, Sector 15-A, Opposite bishnoi Colony, Hisar-125001, INDIA
Phone: 91-99929-31181

Re: [HumJanenge] CIC-NO PENALTY OR ACTION AGAINST CPIO/FAA, DDA EVEN THEN BOTH HAVE NOT RESPONDED

Dear Mahesh Ji,
Please file a writ in the high court. I am ready to bear a part of
expenses. the judgement in your case will affect thousands of other
cases in the commission where similar judgements are being made.
sandeep

On 6/3/11, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> U R Right, Dear Sandeep.  This case belongs to a social activist Mr. Mahesh
> Tak who is working for adequate water for Dwarka sub-city for the last about
> 10 years.  He sought some information on water from the DDA  He is office
> bearer of sector 10, DDA Pocket, Dwarka and also running an orgn. named
> Prayas. .
>
> --- On Fri, 3/6/11, sandeep kumar <drsandgupta@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> From: sandeep kumar <drsandgupta@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] CIC-NO PENALTY OR ACTION AGAINST CPIO/FAA, DDA
> EVEN THEN BOTH HAVE NOT RESPONDED
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> Date: Friday, 3 June, 2011, 9:38 AM
>
>
> in my opinion u should file a writ in the high court against the
> order. The cic is duty bound to take action on the complaint.
>
> On 6/2/11, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
>>
>> In a case wherein neither the CPIO nor the FAA of DDA has given any reply
>> to
>> the complainant, the decision of Mrs. Deepak Sandhu, Hon'bvle CIC has been
>> given below.
>>
>> This decision has by and large, exornated the CPIO from any penaly or
>> disciplanary action.  FAA has also got almost scot-free.
>>
>> In the face of such decisions, Public Authorities will hardly take the RTI
>> Act seriously and will give information after an applicant/ complainant
>> reaches the CIC.
>>
>> CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
>> Room No.-307, 2nd Floor, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan
>> Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066.
>> Telefax:011-26180532 & 011-26107254
>> Website : cic.gov.in
>> Date : April 13, 2011
>> Complaint No. : CIC/DS/C/2011/000219
>> Complainant : Shri Mahesh Tak, Dwarka (New Delhi).
>> Public Authority : Delhi Development Authority, New Delhi.
>> ORDER
>> The Commission has received a complaint petition, dated 23/06/2010 (Diary
>> No.:43128/2010) from Shri Mahesh Tak, in respect of his/her
>> RTI-application
>> on
>> 04/03/2010 filed with the CPIO, Office of the Superintending Engineer
>> (H.Q.), Delhi
>> Development Authority, Manglapuri, New Delhi-110045 (A Copy of RTI
>> application is
>> enclosed). Thereafter, the petitioner filed 1st Appeal before the First
>> Appellate Authority of
>> Public Authority. From the perusal of documents on record, it is seen that
>> the same has not
>> been adjudicated upon by the First Appellate Authority.
>> 2. In order to avoid multiple proceedings under section 19 and 18 of the
>> RTI
>> Act, viz,
>> appeals and complaints, the matter is remitted to the CPIO with the
>> following
>> directions:
>> i. In case, no reply has been given by CPIO to the complainant to his/her
>> RTI request,
>> the CPIO should furnish a reply to the complainant within two weeks of
>> receipt of
>> this order.
>> ii. In case CPIO has already given reply to the complainant in the matter,
>> he/she
>> should furnish a copy of his/her reply to the complainant within one week
>> of
>> receipt
>> of this order.
>> iii. CPIO should invariably indicate to the complainant the name and
>> address
>> of
>> the 1st Appellate Authority, before whom the complainant can file first
>> appeal, if any.
>> Page
>> 1
>> iv. A copy of CPIO's reply will be endorsed to the Commission clearly
>> indicating
>> the case number and reason for delay, if any, in providing information.
>> 3. In case the complainant is not satisfied with the reply received from
>> the
>> CPIO, he/she,
>> under section 19(i) of the RTI Act, may file first-appeal before the FAA
>> within the
>> time prescribed under the RTI Act.
>> 4. On receipt of the first appeal from the petitioner as per the above
>> directions, FAA
>> should dispose of the appeal within the period stipulated in the RTI Act.
>> 5. In case complainant still feels aggrieved by the decision of FAA,
>> he/she
>> shall be free
>> to approach the Commission in second appeal under section 19(3), along
>> with
>> complaint u/s 18, if any, within the prescribed time limit.
>> (Smt. Deepak Sandhu)
>> Information Commissioner (DS)
>> Authenticated true copy:
>> (T. K. Mohapatra)
>> U.S. & Dy. Registrar
>> Tele. No. : 011-26105027
>> tk.mohapatra@nic.in
>> Copy to :-
>> 1. Shri Mahesh Tak
>> 58 C, Pocket – 1,
>> Sector – 10, Dwarka,
>> New Delhi-110075.
>> Contact No. : 98104 09087.
>> 2. Central Public Information Officer
>> Office of the Superintending Engineer (H.Q.),
>> Delhi Development Authority,
>> Page
>> 2
>> Manglapuri,
>> New Delhi-110045.
>> -:-
>> Page
>> 3
>
>
> --
> Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
> 989, Sector 15-A, Opposite bishnoi Colony, Hisar-125001, INDIA
> Phone: 91-99929-31181
>


--
Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
989, Sector 15-A, Opposite bishnoi Colony, Hisar-125001, INDIA
Phone: 91-99929-31181

Re: [HumJanenge] Anna has not lied. Pl do not spread this wrong info. Grateful to u if u appreciate this.

I must say Anna lost his credibility by speeches in Gujarat. He once
appreciated Narendra Modi Govt. and changed statement at all, as was
instigated by Mallika Sarabhai. She herself is a Psudo Activist.
Exploited so many in Calico Mill closure and also in classes of dance,
touring them for abroad prog. and earning through..so many
scams......She contested against L.K. Advani but got votes in 100s.

Now Anna spoke a lot in Guj. and declared Guj. as scamful state. The
other person with him was Swami Agniwesh, a political clan of swamis.
Baba must see the facts and after detailed inspection he must utter a word.
He must recall his one day jail resulted by his blufing.

He didnot adhere to the demand of removing any one from Bhushans and
ultimately they proved them involved in a big land scam, which they
can't clear. Atleast baba must distance from these people.

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 1:21 PM, R. Dua <r.dua1234@gmail.com> wrote:
> Am a bit sorry to get to this a little late.
> Actually the upside to this is that i get to read so many views and as
> sarabjitji rightly says no harm in putting up questions.. but we should not
> let these and personal issues of all these ppl involved in the fore front,
> and their individual personalities deter us from the crux of the whole
> matter.. stop the snow balling effect of bad practices, that is where the
> quantum comes in i guess.
> We all like to read these mails and gain knowledge abt these matters.
> Thank You.
>
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 4:37 AM, avinash chawla <achawla42@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Democracy essentially is Government of the people, by the people and for
>> the people. However , for limitations of Communications and Information ,
>> concept of Representatives had to be adopted. Unfortunately because of lack
>> of morals and ethics amongst the representatives, the Democracy has
>> degenerated to be the Government of the Representatives, by the
>> Representatives and for the Representatives so much so that the authority of
>> electorate who elected the representatives on the promise of good services
>> has been negated totally and the servants of Society have become masters.
>> It is being argued that the Parliament is the only authorized institution
>> to  legislate totally ignoring the voice of Society. One must not forget
>> that the ultimate authority lies with people only and the representatives
>> draw their powers through  the people. They are not supposed to give their
>> verdicts but represent the verdict of the people. Fortunately the
>> developments in Communication and Information  has made it much easier to
>> obtain the opinion of people which being authentic must be adopted in toto.
>> The massive support to the Jan Lok Pal bill needs to be  taken in to
>> account and bickering politicians need to go back to their constituency to
>> assess the mood of the people and adopt the same. however if they are not
>> satisfied with the will of the people they should no longer remain the
>> Representative.
>> As  stated by Anna and others ,the Lok Pal Bill is  not the panacea for
>> the wide spread corruption but this  definitely is the first step towards
>> eradication of the evils prevailing in Governance and must be pursued with
>> all the vigor ignoring efforts by some of the politicians to derail the
>> movement by diverting attention to petty issues.
>>  If the matters are not amicably  resolved  in the Joint Committee, it may
>> be worth going in for a referendum before taking the issue to Parliament.
>> Avinash Chawla
>> 9990924123
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 8:45 AM, <kiranbedi2005@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
>>>
>>> Anna has not lied.
>>> Please.
>>> The award is an announcement only.
>>> And not received.
>>> Let us please allow honest change in our country!
>>> Its for the good of all of us. And our children.
>>> With gratitude. Kiran.
>>> Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
>>> Sender: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
>>> Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 20:09:27
>>> To: HumJanenge RTI India Right to Information Act
>>> 2005<HumJanenge@googlegroups.com>
>>> Reply-To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
>>> Subject: [HumJanenge] "Anna" lies again
>>>
>>> http://www.hindu.com/2011/04/16/stories/2011041662461600.htm
>>>
>>> Dear Mr Anna Hazare.
>>>
>>> It seems that you have many names.
>>>
>>> What happened to the Rs. 110,00,000 (Rs 1.1 crore) that you received
>>> for the IIPM-Rabindranath Tagore award 2011 - or is that just another
>>> device to launder white money into black ?
>>
>
>

Re: [HumJanenge] CIC-NO PENALTY OR ACTION AGAINST CPIO/FAA, DDA EVEN THEN BOTH HAVE NOT RESPONDED

U R Right, Dear Sandeep.  This case belongs to a social activist Mr. Mahesh Tak who is working for adequate water for Dwarka sub-city for the last about 10 years.  He sought some information on water from the DDA  He is office bearer of sector 10, DDA Pocket, Dwarka and also running an orgn. named Prayas. . 

--- On Fri, 3/6/11, sandeep kumar <drsandgupta@gmail.com> wrote:

From: sandeep kumar <drsandgupta@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] CIC-NO PENALTY OR ACTION AGAINST CPIO/FAA, DDA EVEN THEN BOTH HAVE NOT RESPONDED
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Friday, 3 June, 2011, 9:38 AM

in my opinion u should file a writ in the high court against the
order. The cic is duty bound to take action on the complaint.

On 6/2/11, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
>
> In a case wherein neither the CPIO nor the FAA of DDA has given any reply to
> the complainant, the decision of Mrs. Deepak Sandhu, Hon'bvle CIC has been
> given below.
>
> This decision has by and large, exornated the CPIO from any penaly or
> disciplanary action.  FAA has also got almost scot-free.
>
> In the face of such decisions, Public Authorities will hardly take the RTI
> Act seriously and will give information after an applicant/ complainant
> reaches the CIC.
>
> CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
> Room No.-307, 2nd Floor, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan
> Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066.
> Telefax:011-26180532 & 011-26107254
> Website : cic.gov.in
> Date : April 13, 2011
> Complaint No. : CIC/DS/C/2011/000219
> Complainant : Shri Mahesh Tak, Dwarka (New Delhi).
> Public Authority : Delhi Development Authority, New Delhi.
> ORDER
> The Commission has received a complaint petition, dated 23/06/2010 (Diary
> No.:43128/2010) from Shri Mahesh Tak, in respect of his/her RTI-application
> on
> 04/03/2010 filed with the CPIO, Office of the Superintending Engineer
> (H.Q.), Delhi
> Development Authority, Manglapuri, New Delhi-110045 (A Copy of RTI
> application is
> enclosed). Thereafter, the petitioner filed 1st Appeal before the First
> Appellate Authority of
> Public Authority. From the perusal of documents on record, it is seen that
> the same has not
> been adjudicated upon by the First Appellate Authority.
> 2. In order to avoid multiple proceedings under section 19 and 18 of the RTI
> Act, viz,
> appeals and complaints, the matter is remitted to the CPIO with the
> following
> directions:
> i. In case, no reply has been given by CPIO to the complainant to his/her
> RTI request,
> the CPIO should furnish a reply to the complainant within two weeks of
> receipt of
> this order.
> ii. In case CPIO has already given reply to the complainant in the matter,
> he/she
> should furnish a copy of his/her reply to the complainant within one week of
> receipt
> of this order.
> iii. CPIO should invariably indicate to the complainant the name and address
> of
> the 1st Appellate Authority, before whom the complainant can file first
> appeal, if any.
> Page
> 1
> iv. A copy of CPIO's reply will be endorsed to the Commission clearly
> indicating
> the case number and reason for delay, if any, in providing information.
> 3. In case the complainant is not satisfied with the reply received from the
> CPIO, he/she,
> under section 19(i) of the RTI Act, may file first-appeal before the FAA
> within the
> time prescribed under the RTI Act.
> 4. On receipt of the first appeal from the petitioner as per the above
> directions, FAA
> should dispose of the appeal within the period stipulated in the RTI Act.
> 5. In case complainant still feels aggrieved by the decision of FAA, he/she
> shall be free
> to approach the Commission in second appeal under section 19(3), along with
> complaint u/s 18, if any, within the prescribed time limit.
> (Smt. Deepak Sandhu)
> Information Commissioner (DS)
> Authenticated true copy:
> (T. K. Mohapatra)
> U.S. & Dy. Registrar
> Tele. No. : 011-26105027
> tk.mohapatra@nic.in
> Copy to :-
> 1. Shri Mahesh Tak
> 58 C, Pocket – 1,
> Sector – 10, Dwarka,
> New Delhi-110075.
> Contact No. : 98104 09087.
> 2. Central Public Information Officer
> Office of the Superintending Engineer (H.Q.),
> Delhi Development Authority,
> Page
> 2
> Manglapuri,
> New Delhi-110045.
> -:-
> Page
> 3


--
Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
989, Sector 15-A, Opposite bishnoi Colony, Hisar-125001, INDIA
Phone: 91-99929-31181

Re: [HumJanenge] CIC-NO PENALTY OR ACTION AGAINST CPIO/FAA, DDA EVEN THEN BOTH HAVE NOT RESPONDED

Please file a writ in the high court against the decision as it is
violation of rti act.

On 6/3/11, C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Did you file this as a "Complaint" under Sec 18 or a "Second Appeal" under
> Sec 19(3) ?
> If it was a second appeal (and first appeal under Sec 19(1) already
> exhausted), there are no grounds for her to return this to the FAA.
> This is a copy paste order of several (thousands) such orders by IC DS, IC
> SS, IC AD, and even IC SG.
> CIC SM also passes such orders depending on the mood of his Registry staff.
>
> RTIwanted
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in>
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> Cc: Mahesh Tak <tak.mahesh@gmail.com>; REJIMON Keshavan Chathanchirayil
> <rejimonck@gmail.com>
> Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2011 10:33 PM
> Subject: [HumJanenge] CIC-NO PENALTY OR ACTION AGAINST CPIO/FAA, DDA EVEN
> THEN BOTH HAVE NOT RESPONDED
>
>
> In a case wherein neither the CPIO nor the FAA of DDA has given any reply to
> the complainant, the decision of Mrs. Deepak Sandhu, Hon'bvle CIC has been
> given below.
>
> This decision has by and large, exornated the CPIO from any penaly or
> disciplanary action.  FAA has also got almost scot-free.
>
> In the face of such decisions, Public Authorities will hardly take the RTI
> Act seriously and will give information after an applicant/ complainant
> reaches the CIC.
>
> CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
> Room No.-307, 2nd Floor, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan
> Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066.
> Telefax:011-26180532 & 011-26107254
> Website : cic.gov.in
> Date : April 13, 2011
> Complaint No. : CIC/DS/C/2011/000219
> Complainant : Shri Mahesh Tak, Dwarka (New Delhi).
> Public Authority : Delhi Development Authority, New Delhi.
> ORDER
> The Commission has received a complaint petition, dated 23/06/2010 (Diary
> No.:43128/2010) from Shri Mahesh Tak, in respect of his/her RTI-application
> on
> 04/03/2010 filed with the CPIO, Office of the Superintending Engineer
> (H.Q.), Delhi
> Development Authority, Manglapuri, New Delhi-110045 (A Copy of RTI
> application is
> enclosed). Thereafter, the petitioner filed 1st Appeal before the First
> Appellate Authority of
> Public Authority. From the perusal of documents on record, it is seen that
> the same has not
> been adjudicated upon by the First Appellate Authority.
> 2. In order to avoid multiple proceedings under section 19 and 18 of the RTI
> Act, viz,
> appeals and complaints, the matter is remitted to the CPIO with the
> following
> directions:
> i. In case, no reply has been given by CPIO to the complainant to his/her
> RTI request,
> the CPIO should furnish a reply to the complainant within two weeks of
> receipt of
> this order.
> ii. In case CPIO has already given reply to the complainant in the matter,
> he/she
> should furnish a copy of his/her reply to the complainant within one week of
> receipt
> of this order.
> iii. CPIO should invariably indicate to the complainant the name and address
> of
> the 1st Appellate Authority, before whom the complainant can file first
> appeal, if any.
> Page
> 1
> iv. A copy of CPIO's reply will be endorsed to the Commission clearly
> indicating
> the case number and reason for delay, if any, in providing information.
> 3. In case the complainant is not satisfied with the reply received from the
> CPIO, he/she,
> under section 19(i) of the RTI Act, may file first-appeal before the FAA
> within the
> time prescribed under the RTI Act.
> 4. On receipt of the first appeal from the petitioner as per the above
> directions, FAA
> should dispose of the appeal within the period stipulated in the RTI Act.
> 5. In case complainant still feels aggrieved by the decision of FAA, he/she
> shall be free
> to approach the Commission in second appeal under section 19(3), along with
> complaint u/s 18, if any, within the prescribed time limit.
> (Smt. Deepak Sandhu)
> Information Commissioner (DS)
> Authenticated true copy:
> (T. K. Mohapatra)
> U.S. & Dy. Registrar
> Tele. No. : 011-26105027
> tk.mohapatra@nic.in
> Copy to :-
> 1. Shri Mahesh Tak
> 58 C, Pocket – 1,
> Sector – 10, Dwarka,
> New Delhi-110075.
> Contact No. : 98104 09087.
> 2. Central Public Information Officer
> Office of the Superintending Engineer (H.Q.),
> Delhi Development Authority,
> Page
> 2
> Manglapuri,
> New Delhi-110045.
> -:-
> Page
> 3


--
Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
989, Sector 15-A, Opposite bishnoi Colony, Hisar-125001, INDIA
Phone: 91-99929-31181

Re: [HumJanenge] CIC-NO PENALTY OR ACTION AGAINST CPIO/FAA, DDA EVEN THEN BOTH HAVE NOT RESPONDED

This has been filed as complaint u.s. 18 which is also evident from the case number CIC/DS/C/2011/000219 given to this.  In the number, C stands for complaint.

--- On Fri, 3/6/11, C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] CIC-NO PENALTY OR ACTION AGAINST CPIO/FAA, DDA EVEN THEN BOTH HAVE NOT RESPONDED
To: "humjanenge@googlegroups.com" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
Date: Friday, 3 June, 2011, 7:10 AM

Did you file this as a "Complaint" under Sec 18 or a "Second Appeal" under Sec 19(3) ?
If it was a second appeal (and first appeal under Sec 19(1) already exhausted), there are no grounds for her to return this to the FAA.
This is a copy paste order of several (thousands) such orders by IC DS, IC SS, IC AD, and even IC SG.
CIC SM also passes such orders depending on the mood of his Registry staff.

RTIwanted


From: M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Cc: Mahesh Tak <tak.mahesh@gmail.com>; REJIMON Keshavan Chathanchirayil <rejimonck@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2011 10:33 PM
Subject: [HumJanenge] CIC-NO PENALTY OR ACTION AGAINST CPIO/FAA, DDA EVEN THEN BOTH HAVE NOT RESPONDED

In a case wherein neither the CPIO nor the FAA of DDA has given any reply to the complainant, the decision of Mrs. Deepak Sandhu, Hon'bvle CIC has been given below. 
 
This decision has by and large, exornated the CPIO from any penaly or disciplanary action.  FAA has also got almost scot-free.
 
In the face of such decisions, Public Authorities will hardly take the RTI Act seriously and will give information after an applicant/ complainant reaches the CIC.
 
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No.-307, 2nd Floor, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066.
Telefax:011-26180532 & 011-26107254
Website : cic.gov.in
Date : April 13, 2011
Complaint No. : CIC/DS/C/2011/000219
Complainant : Shri Mahesh Tak, Dwarka (New Delhi).
Public Authority : Delhi Development Authority, New Delhi.
ORDER
The Commission has received a complaint petition, dated 23/06/2010 (Diary
No.:43128/2010) from Shri Mahesh Tak, in respect of his/her RTI-application on
04/03/2010 filed with the CPIO, Office of the Superintending Engineer (H.Q.), Delhi
Development Authority, Manglapuri, New Delhi-110045 (A Copy of RTI application is
enclosed). Thereafter, the petitioner filed 1st Appeal before the First Appellate Authority of
Public Authority. From the perusal of documents on record, it is seen that the same has not
been adjudicated upon by the First Appellate Authority.
2. In order to avoid multiple proceedings under section 19 and 18 of the RTI Act, viz,
appeals and complaints, the matter is remitted to the CPIO with the following
directions:
i. In case, no reply has been given by CPIO to the complainant to his/her RTI request,
the CPIO should furnish a reply to the complainant within two weeks of receipt of
this order.
ii. In case CPIO has already given reply to the complainant in the matter, he/she
should furnish a copy of his/her reply to the complainant within one week of receipt
of this order.
iii. CPIO should invariably indicate to the complainant the name and address of
the 1st Appellate Authority, before whom the complainant can file first appeal, if any.
Page
1
iv. A copy of CPIO's reply will be endorsed to the Commission clearly indicating
the case number and reason for delay, if any, in providing information.
3. In case the complainant is not satisfied with the reply received from the CPIO, he/she,
under section 19(i) of the RTI Act, may file first-appeal before the FAA within the
time prescribed under the RTI Act.
4. On receipt of the first appeal from the petitioner as per the above directions, FAA
should dispose of the appeal within the period stipulated in the RTI Act.
5. In case complainant still feels aggrieved by the decision of FAA, he/she shall be free
to approach the Commission in second appeal under section 19(3), along with
complaint u/s 18, if any, within the prescribed time limit.
(Smt. Deepak Sandhu)
Information Commissioner (DS)
Authenticated true copy:
(T. K. Mohapatra)
U.S. & Dy. Registrar
Tele. No. : 011-26105027
tk.mohapatra@nic.in
Copy to :-
1. Shri Mahesh Tak
58 C, Pocket – 1,
Sector – 10, Dwarka,
New Delhi-110075.
Contact No. : 98104 09087.
2. Central Public Information Officer
Office of the Superintending Engineer (H.Q.),
Delhi Development Authority,
Page
2
Manglapuri,
New Delhi-110045.
-:-
Page
3


Re: [HumJanenge] Big companies paying bribe OR MAMUL every year to Congress in the way donation in own name or sister concern

Friends,
 
We, the people working  and living with grassroot people and dreaming of acorruption free India where every people will get enough  food without anyone's sympathy and get opportunity to work to  earn for their own.
 
We are with Ramdevji. We cannot believe Shah Rukh Khan can oppose Ramdevji's  fight against corruption. Is he or KKR also ....
 
 
Swapan Pramanick
Citizen
India