| Thank you very much Sir. I have another doubt. When we make a Power of Attorney we are told that it should have two witnesses who witness your signing, with their name address and date. We are also told that it should be notarised. Where are all these requirements listed out? Power of Attorney act does not say any of it. Regards Mohan Raj --- On Sun, 2/9/12, Udhe Prabhu <udayprabhu@activist.com> wrote:
|
Monday, September 3, 2012
[HumJanenge] Rules regarding making of a POWER of Attorney
Re: [HumJanenge] Re: DELAY IN ANNOUNCING DECISIONS AT CIC
Mr M K Gupta,
Don't be too surprised if a Peon does attend a hearing at a Information Commission.
It did happen in Punjab, where a peon posed as a clerk and attended 33 (thirty three) SIC hearings !
RTIwanted
From: M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in>
To: "humjanenge@googlegroups.com" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 2, 2012 9:34 AM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: DELAY IN ANNOUNCING DECISIONS AT CIC
Not satisfied at all. Even a very junior level employees, an inspector, from the Deptt. of Post attended the hearing. When I objected to this and said that either PIO or some Sr. employee of that level should be present from the Deptt., but this did not cut an ice with the IC. The inspector tried to give assurances about the handling of speed posts on behalf of Secy. Deptt. of Post but we know that the Secy. may not even be aware of such assurances being given on his behalf and even may not grant time to an inspector to meet him on this issue to know the first hand information. Tomorrow, the Deptt. may send some peon or clear in the hearing and that will not be acceptable but the IC was unfazed on this issue.
On my insistence to penalize the PIO for the delay in reply by the PIO which I proved on the basis of documents, IC agreed to issue notice to the PIO. Let us await for the order and see that on this issue.
Sunday, September 2, 2012
RE: [HumJanenge] WHAT BASIS FOR INFO COMMISSIONERS APPOINTMENT IN TAMIL NADU?
Dear Friends,
The same grievance was laid by us before State Govt. of Uttar Pradesh. An extract of our representation is set out below for your consideration. It is heard that some appointments are in the offing in U.P., but it is not heard that Criteria for appointments have been determined by the Government. A Writ Petition is pending in Lucknow Bench of High Court on this question. We are watching the developments.
Regards,
KN
“We the undersigned Petitioners, finding that the appointments of Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) and Information Commissioners (IC) in U.P., by and large, have not been done in accordance with the provisions of Right to Information Act 2005 (the Act), causing violation of the Laws and serious injustice to the people, approach you and Government of Uttar Pradesh to ensure that all such future appointments are made strictly in accordance with law and, in particular, with the mandatory provisions of Section 15(5) of the Act.
2. The exalted Status of CIC/IC, their Emoluments, the stipulated high achievements of prospective incumbents and the sweep of their powers under the Act may be appreciated:
(a) Salaries, allowances and terms of Conditions of Service of CIC are equivalent to those of an Election Commissioner of
(b) By Section 15(5), both must ("shall") be 'persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media, or administration and governance'.
(c) Information Commission is an autonomous Apex body not subject to directions from any other Authority under Section 15(4) of the Act in all matters relating to Right to Information. Under Section 19(7), its decisions 'shall be binding' on all concerned. It has authority to issue certain directions to every Public Authority under the Act, which includes High Court and Governor u/s 2(h). It has Monitoring role u/s 25, and may require the Public Authority to take necessary steps to secure compliance with the provisions of the Act or to require it to compensate the Complainant for any loss or detriment suffered or to impose penalties on Public Information Officer u/s 19(8).
2
3. Unfortunately for the People, the expression 'persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience …………' in Section 15(5) has not been elaborated. Each one of the terms in this expression is weighty, and the rationale for stated high achievements and exalted status of CIC & IC lies in the statutory powers exercisable by them on the highest Public Authority in the State as indicated above. No Government, Central or State, has framed Rules u/s 27 of the Act 'to carry out the provisions contained' in Section 15(5).
4. In the absence of Rules or Guidelines, the Citizen shall have to rely on Law Lexicons and English Dictionaries to find the meaning of the terms/expression as understood in common parlance, i.e., by the People for whom the Act has been framed to give effect to Constitutional Right of Information. A study has revealed the following:
(a) Collins English Dictionary & Thesaurus
· P.365 'Eminence' = a person of superiority or fame; 'Eminent' = above others in rank, merit or reputation, distinguished; noteworthy or outstanding.
· P. 924 'Public' = of or concerning the people as a whole; well-known or a public figure
(b) Chambers 20th Century Dictionary (1977): P. 423 'Eminent' = rising above others; conspicuous, distinguished, exalted in rank or office. 'Eminence' = distinction.
(c) The New Lexicon Websters Dictionary of English Language (1987)
· P.308 'Eminence' = distinction in Society or in profession. 'Eminent' = 'distinguished', 'widely thought of as superior in some way', 'outstanding', 'conspicuous'.
· P. 807 'Public' = 'of or pertaining to the community as a whole', 'prominent in public life', 'often receiving publicity, a public figure'.
(d) The Shorter
· P. 600 'Eminence' = Distinguished superiority as compared with others in rank, station, character, attainments or the possession of any quality good or bad. 'Eminent' = exalted in rank or station, distinguished in character or attainments.
· Vol 2 : P. 1613 'Public' = pertaining to or engaged in the affairs or service of the community; devoted or directed to promotion of general welfare; public spirited.
(e) The Compact Edition of
· P. 853 'Eminence' = Distinguished superiority, elevated rank as compared with others in social or official position, wealth or power. 'Eminent' = Exalted, distinguished in rank or station.
5.The universally accepted essence of the expression 'person of eminence in public life', thus, demands that person to be of distinction in attainments, widely thought of as being exalted, superior and prominent in Society/people as a whole, and devoted to promotion of general welfare. Added to these, the specific requirement of Section 15(5) is that he must have 'wide knowledge and experience' of any of the specified fields of learning.
6. On Ground Reality, these mandatory provisions for appointment have not been observed, with the result that quite a few ICs do not satisfy the appointment criteria and the work of the Commission greatly suffers both in quality and quantity, and numberless applicants for Information fail to get justice. To mention a few on the basis of data/information furnished by PIO of U.P. Prashashanik Sudhar Anubhag-2 or State Information Commission ……………”…[We are not setting out the details of certain ICs who we referred as illustrations in support of our point]
We have referred to the decision of your High Court dealing with a case of appointment of 3 ICs under Section 15 of RTI Act in WP No. 5741 of 2011, S.Vijaya Lakshmi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others (decided on 25.11.2011), relying on Supreme Court directions in Chief Vigilance Commissioner P.J.Thomas appointment case as CVC, reported in (2011) 4 SCC 1, and have demanded the Government to spell out appropriate and transparent criteria for selection/appointments under Section 15 by framing Rules or Guidelines and publish them for public awareness to enable aspirants to apply for the post and may include:
i. Length of Public Service & Experience: Since CIC is on parity with Election Commissioner, and IC is on parity with State Chief Secretary, the proper period should correspond to the average length of service preceding those appointments; this may be 25 to 30 years.
ii. Test of Eminence in public life: The incumbent for CIC or IC should be a personality of outstanding merit with high integrity, well known and admired for distinction in attainments in the field of his activity. These could be reflected from his service record or by confidential inquiry from seniors in his field or intelligence agency. He should be known as one devoted to promotion of General Welfare. He should also be payer of significant amount of Income Tax for at least 10 years.
iii. An appropriate Empanelling Authority (or Screening Committee) should be constituted to prepare a panel of suitable persons amongst aspirants (as indicated earlier) and forward the same, with complete material and data of each name on the panel, for consideration of the Selection Committee u/s 15(3).
iv. The Selection Committee must have an Agenda consisting of adequate documentation. All the Members of the Selection Committee must meet at the selection process. Minutes of the proceedings, including dissenting notes, must be recorded.
From the Desk of :
| Retd. | : | Up-Lokayukta ( Karnataka ), Vice Chairman – C.A.T ( Judge – High Court ( |
| Address | : | `Gunjan', C - 105, Niralanagar, |
| Phone(s) | : | +91-522-2789033 & +91-522-4016459. |
From:
Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2012 10:05 AM
To:
Subject: [HumJanenge] WHAT BASIS FOR INFO COMMISSIONERS APPOINTMENT IN TAMIL NADU?
To
RTI Group
WHAT BASIS FOR INFO COMMISSIONERS APPOINTMENT IN TAMIL NADU?
It is good that the Tamil Nadu government has at last appointed five new information commissioners . Until now, there have been one chief information commissioner and only one information commissioner in Tamil Nadu , resulting in huge backlog of work and several representations to the information commissioner from RTI activists remaining unanswered.
In the recent interactive meeting of RTI activists organized by Nandini Voice for Deprived, a Chennai based NGO , the importance of filling up the posts of information commissioners was stressed repeatedly and the above decision of the Tamil Nadu government would certainly satisfy the RTI activists. This is a long pending matter.
However, it is not clear about the selection procedure adopted by government of Tamil Nadu to fill these vacancies. It is necessary for the Tamil Nadu government to explain the procedure adopted , so that there would not be an impression that the selections have been made in an arbitrary manner.
RTI Act is a very important tool available to the common man to get vital information from the government agencies. There have been many complaints in recent times that several government departments either do not respond to the RTI queries or direct the question to some other departments thus wasting time or provide incomplete details. The RTI activists have no alternative other than approaching the information commissioners to redress their grievances. Under the circumstances, the post of information commissioners have become very crucial and they should enjoy high level of public confidence.
It is high time that proper and transparent guidelines for the selection of information commissioners should be adopted. One would hope that Tamil Nadu government has adopted such procedure in appointing the five information commissioners and it is necessary that the Tamil Nadu government would explain the procedure adopted to the public.
N.S.Venkataraman
Trustee
Nandini Voice for the Deprived
Chennai
Email:- nsvenkatchennai@gmail.com
Re: [HumJanenge] DELAY IN ANNOUNCING DECISIONS AT CIC
| sir, is there any time limit prescribed to upload the decisions ? --- On Sat, 1/9/12, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
|
Saturday, September 1, 2012
[HumJanenge] WHAT BASIS FOR INFO COMMISSIONERS APPOINTMENT IN TAMIL NADU?
To
RTI Group
WHAT BASIS FOR INFO COMMISSIONERS APPOINTMENT IN TAMIL NADU?
It is good that the Tamil Nadu government has at last appointed five new information commissioners . Until now, there have been one chief information commissioner and only one information commissioner in Tamil Nadu , resulting in huge backlog of work and several representations to the information commissioner from RTI activists remaining unanswered.
In the recent interactive meeting of RTI activists organized by Nandini Voice for Deprived, a Chennai based NGO , the importance of filling up the posts of information commissioners was stressed repeatedly and the above decision of the Tamil Nadu government would certainly satisfy the RTI activists. This is a long pending matter.
However, it is not clear about the selection procedure adopted by government of Tamil Nadu to fill these vacancies. It is necessary for the Tamil Nadu government to explain the procedure adopted , so that there would not be an impression that the selections have been made in an arbitrary manner.
RTI Act is a very important tool available to the common man to get vital information from the government agencies. There have been many complaints in recent times that several government departments either do not respond to the RTI queries or direct the question to some other departments thus wasting time or provide incomplete details. The RTI activists have no alternative other than approaching the information commissioners to redress their grievances. Under the circumstances, the post of information commissioners have become very crucial and they should enjoy high level of public confidence.
It is high time that proper and transparent guidelines for the selection of information commissioners should be adopted. One would hope that Tamil Nadu government has adopted such procedure in appointing the five information commissioners and it is necessary that the Tamil Nadu government would explain the procedure adopted to the public.
N.S.Venkataraman
Trustee
Nandini Voice for the Deprived
Chennai
Email:- nsvenkatchennai@gmail.com
Re: [HumJanenge] Re: DELAY IN ANNOUNCING DECISIONS AT CIC
Not satisfied at all. Even a very junior level employees, an inspector, from the Deptt. of Post attended the hearing. When I objected to this and said that either PIO or some Sr. employee of that level should be present from the Deptt., but this did not cut an ice with the IC. The inspector tried to give assurances about the handling of speed posts on behalf of Secy. Deptt. of Post but we know that the Secy. may not even be aware of such assurances being given on his behalf and even may not grant time to an inspector to meet him on this issue to know the first hand information. Tomorrow, the Deptt. may send some peon or clear in the hearing and that will not be acceptable but the IC was unfazed on this issue.
On my insistence to penalize the PIO for the delay in reply by the PIO which I proved on the basis of documents, IC agreed to issue notice to the PIO. Let us await for the order and see that on this issue.
From: sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: "HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005" <HumJanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, 1 September 2012 9:09 PM
Subject: [HumJanenge] Re: DELAY IN ANNOUNCING DECISIONS AT CIC
I explained why he is one of the 3 "duffers".
PS: Are you satisfied with the manner he conducted \the proceedings.
On Sep 1, 12:03 pm, "M.K. Gupta" <mkgupta...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> My appeal against the Deptt. of Post was heard on 23rd August, 2012 by Shri Basant Seth, Hon'ble Information Commissioner. Till date, I fail to spot any decision on the CIC's website. On searching the decisions, I found that the last decision of Shri Seth on the CIC's website pertain to 14th August. The delay of 15 days to announce the decision or to put the same on the website is too much and speak poorly about ICs. However, appreciably, I found the decisions of the cases heard on 31 and 30 by by CCIC, Satyanana Mishra, Ms. Sushma Singh and Ms. Deepak Sandhu, ICs. Other Commissioners should try to follow this example.
Re: Fw: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - If the Opp Party is found to have given false notarised affidavit.
Dear C R Mohan Raj
I believe, Shri Sarbajit Roy , is right in informing ALL herein , that you have the right to invoke section 191 / 193, [which is appended hereunder fro clairty sake] and disprove it by way of cross-examination or counter-affidavit & seeking indepth investigation of it, that will be rewarding for you.
But please keep in mind that if it becomes other way TRUE, the Opponent may use the same stick, hence not in vogue off late.
Thanks & Regards,
UDAYPRABHU- 093 222 666 17
==================================================================================================================================
Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Section 191. Giving false evidence
Whoever, being legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth, or being bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, is said to give false evidence.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Section 193. Punishment for false evidence
Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine,
and whoever intentionally gives or fabricates false evidence in any other case, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.
===========================================================================================================================================
----- Original Message -----
From: Satish Kumar Kapoor
Sent: 08/31/12 07:22 PM
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Fw: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - If the Opp Party is found to have given false notarised affidavit.
Dear SirIt will not effect the 'independence of judiciary', of-course will effect corrupt practices of mis-recording arguments/submissions, It is why Judges will not agree.S.K.Kapoor
From: capt beniwal <trident142@yahoo.co.in>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 1:56 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - If the Opp Party is found to have given false notarised affidavit.
i am sure Indian "honourable" judges will never allow the audio/video recording/live broadcast of the court proceeding as it will effect the "independence of judiciary".
--- On Fri, 31/8/12, Victor Cooper <victor99cooper@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Victor Cooper <victor99cooper@yahoo.com>
Subject: Fw: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - If the Opp Party is found to have given false notarised affidavit.
To: "LK Advani" <advanilk@sansad.nic.in>, "Asian Age" <editor@asianage.com>, "Goa Bachao" <goabachaoabhiyan@gmail.com>, "BBC" <newsonline@bbc.co.uk>, "Kiran Bedi" <kiranbedi2005@yahoo.co.in>, "Prashant Bhushan" <prashantbhush@gmail.com>, "Supreme Court" <supremecourt@nic.in>, "CVC" <cvc@nic.in>, "DNA" <inbox@dnaindia.net>, "Economist" <letters@economist.com>, "Letters to the Editor" <lettersmailbox@economist.com>, "Frontline" <frontline@thehindu.co.in>, "GOACAN" <goacan@gmail.com>, "Gurumurthy" <comment@gurumurthy.net>, "Herald" <mail@herald-goa.com>, "Human Rights" <chairnhrc@nic.in>, "Asia Human Rights India" <india@ahrc.asia>, "Times of India" <toi.goa@timesgroup.com>, indiaagainstcorruption.2010@gmail.com, "Jairam" <jairam54@gmail.com>, "Presm Jha" <premjha@airtelmail.in>, "WallStreet Journal" <nbudde@wsj.com>, "Fast Justice" <fastjustice@gmail.com>, "Karmayog" <infor@karmayog.org>, "Arvind Kejriwal" <pcrf@pcrf.in>, "Times London" <overseas.news@the-times.co.uk>, "Narayan Murthy" <nmurthy@infosys.com>, "Newsweek" <editors@newsweek.com>, "Paranjoy" <paranjoy@gmail.com>, "Manohar Parrikar" <manoharparrikar@yahoo.co.in>, "PM" <pmindia@pmindia.nic.in>, "Washington Post" <letters@washpost.com>, "Manmohan Singh" <manmohan@sansad.nic.in>, "Business Standard" <niraj.bhatt@bsmail.in>, "Sushma Swaraj" <sushmaswaraj@hotmail.com>, "Tehelka" <editor@tehelka.com>, "Time" <letters@time.com>, "Navhind Times" <lpost@navhindtimes.com>, "Gomantak Times" <gteditor@gmail.com>, "NewYork Times" <editorial@nytimes.com>, "Voiceofindia" <voiceofindiagroup@yahoogroups.co.in>, "Wall Street" <wsj.ltrs@wsj.com>, "Humanrightsactivist Yahoogroups" <humanrightsactivist@yahoogroups.com>, humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Friday, 31 August, 2012, 3:22 AM
--- On Wed, 8/29/12, capt beniwal <trident142@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
From: capt beniwal <trident142@yahoo.co.in>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - If the Opp Party is found to have given false notarised affidavit.
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Wednesday, August 29, 2012, 8:48 PM
dear cooper, a lawyer even if he is ones son/father/friend will charge money to start talking. individual cases have to be fought individually or similarly placed/effected persons can join hands. i think Luck and/or Money is more important for our courts then the Law. rgds. beniwal
--- On Wed, 29/8/12, Victor Cooper <victor99cooper@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Victor Cooper <victor99cooper@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - If the Opp Party is found to have given false notarised affidavit.
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Wednesday, 29 August, 2012, 12:12 AM
--- On Mon, 8/27/12, capt beniwal <trident142@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
From: capt beniwal <trident142@yahoo.co.in>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - If the Opp Party is found to have given false notarised affidavit.
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Monday, August 27, 2012, 10:29 PM
what could a petitioner ( particularly if in person) do, when his SLP is dismissed with out hearing his oral argument(standing in court and told not to speak) against the (false/misleading) one line oral submission made by the govt. panel ordinary advocate, and then order comes out after few days saying the ASG made the statement and quotes a paragraph. please note-Neither the ASG was present in the court nor the paragraph quoted in the order was stated in the court. there was no discussion of the contended rules under which relief was requested. now that judgement and order being cited to deprive the other similarly placed petitioner. such petitioners do not know how the collusive order was obtained by the govt. this is how some judges work and govt. obtains orders. by the way that judge got higher position in reward. this is the real meaning of "independence of judiciary".
--- On Mon, 27/8/12, Victor Cooper <victor99cooper@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Victor Cooper <victor99cooper@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - If the Opp Party is found to have given false notarised affidavit.
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Monday, 27 August, 2012, 8:45 AM
--- On Sun, 8/26/12, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - If the Opp Party is found to have given false notarised affidavit.
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Sunday, August 26, 2012, 7:21 PM
If it is tendered on affidavit (as evidence in chief), you
have the right to disprove it by way of cross-examination
or counter-affidavit.
On 8/27/12, C R Mohan Raj <crmohanraj@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dear Sir,
> In my case the Opposite Party has given a false affidavit [Notarised].
> Kindly advice as to how I proceed?
> Thanks
> Mohan Raj
>
> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - ADDITION OF GROUND IN THE PETITION AT
> CONSUMER FORUM
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> Date: Sunday, 26 August, 2012, 10:25 PM
>
> You should make out an application for amendment of complaint.In that
> amendment application, you should set out the changes / additions /
> deletions you want made to your original complaint, alongwith evidence if
> any.After the same is allowed by court, you should compile all the evidence,
> notarise same, and put it up in an affidavit as Evidence Affidavit.Hope this
> helps.
>
> --- On Sun, 8/26/12, prasad vaidya <prasadbvaidya@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> From: prasad vaidya <prasadbvaidya@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - ADDITION OF GROUND IN THE PETITION AT
> CONSUMER FORUM
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> Date: Sunday, August 26, 2012, 6:18 AM
>
> to you can file application to amend your complaint filled with the District
> consumer forum. You can even add additional parties as complainant .
>
> viadya
>
> --- On Sun, 26/8/12, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
>
> From: M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in>
> Subject: [HumJanenge] PL. ADVICE - ADDITION OF GROUND IN THE PETITION AT
> CONSUMER FORUM
> To: "RTI Act 2005 Hum Janenge Forum People's Right to Information"
> <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
> Date: Sunday, 26 August, 2012, 11:00 AM
>
> I
> filed a case against
> a builder (Vatika
> Land Base, Gurgaon) in the Consumer Forum, Gurgaon and which has been
> admitted.
> After this, another consumer told me about some other instances of
> misrepresentation of facts and cheating which came to his knowledge from the
> reply of Jaipur Development Board on an RTI
> filed by him.
>
>
>
> Now, what is the procedure to add these
> such facts in the petition? Please
> enlighten me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)