Thursday, December 31, 2009

[rti_india] Re: Why is the moderator of this group getting special treatment at the CIC ?

 

CIC WH,

I also demand parity !
None of my work gets done in the CIC through emails,
even though you are kind enough to answer them !

RTIwanted

--- In rti_india@yahoogroups.com, "sarbajitr" <sroy1947@...> wrote:

> > f) That I demanded parity with Ms Aruna Roy, Commodre Lokesh Batra, Mr Shekhar Singh etc who regularly use emails to get their work done at CIC through Mr Habibullah.
> >
> > Sarbajit

__._,_.___
.

__,_._,___

[rti_india] Re: Why is the moderator of this group getting special treatment at the CIC ?

 

Oops,

I clarify that I do not classify Commodore L.Batra in category of those who get work done in CIC.

I had included his name as an example of another person whose emails the CIC has taken cognisance of.

Sarbajit

--- In rti_india@yahoogroups.com, "sarbajitr" <sroy1947@...> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> I am Sarbajit (one who has conquered everything)
>
> Funnily, this question was put to me too by the CIC when I sent my email complaint. I explained to them as follows:-
>
> a) That "complaints" form the heart of the CIC's 'Soo-moto" powers - see 18(2).
>
> b) That inquiry into "complaints" take precedence over disposal of appeals per the scheme of the RTI Act.
>
> c) That there is no provision in the RTI Act to restrict in any way the form, nature or content of a complaint to the Commission (unlike appeals).
>
> d) That I did not recognise the CIC's illegal Management Regulations which were drafted and approved by idiots (ie, legally deficient morons).
>
> e) That whereas the duly notified rules for APPEALS to the CIC provided for "verification" (which requires a signature), there is no such requirements for complaints - which can be unsigned (and hence do not require a digital / electronic signature to be sent over email).
>
> f) That I demanded parity with Ms Aruna Roy, Commodre Lokesh Batra, Mr Shekhar Singh etc who regularly use emails to get their work done at CIC through Mr Habibullah.
>
> Sarbajit
>

__._,_.___
.

__,_._,___

[rti_india] Re: Why is the moderator of this group getting special treatment at the CIC ?

 

Hi

I am Sarbajit (one who has conquered everything)

Funnily, this question was put to me too by the CIC when I sent my email complaint. I explained to them as follows:-

a) That "complaints" form the heart of the CIC's 'Soo-moto" powers - see 18(2).

b) That inquiry into "complaints" take precedence over disposal of appeals per the scheme of the RTI Act.

c) That there is no provision in the RTI Act to restrict in any way the form, nature or content of a complaint to the Commission (unlike appeals).

d) That I did not recognise the CIC's illegal Management Regulations which were drafted and approved by idiots (ie, legally deficient morons).

e) That whereas the duly notified rules for APPEALS to the CIC provided for "verification" (which requires a signature), there is no such requirements for complaints - which can be unsigned (and hence do not require a digital / electronic signature to be sent over email).

f) That I demanded parity with Ms Aruna Roy, Commodre Lokesh Batra, Mr Shekhar Singh etc who regularly use emails to get their work done at CIC through Mr Habibullah.

Sarbajit

--- In rti_india@yahoogroups.com, C K Jam <rtiwanted@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Mr Sarbajit,
>
> It seems that you have either started a "free lubricant supply" business of your own or you have got into the good books of the CIC by floating a CIA (or Chinese) funded NGO !
>
> How come CIC gives you special treatment and also ignores its own legal cell in the process ?
>
> As per the following order of the CIC, your Complaint sent via email was taken cognizance of by the CIC:
>
> http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/SS-18112009-01.pdf
>
> Sh. Sarbjit Roy filed a complaint via email before the Commission alleging that UIDAI, constituted by the notification of the Govt. of India , hence being a public authority has not implemented the RTI Act, 2005 and he requested the Commission to give appropriate directions to the UIDAI to implement the RTI Act in its true spirit. The Commission issued notices to the CPIO, Planning Commission and DG-UIDAI to appear before the Commission.
>
> This clearly contravenes CIC's own directions:
>
> http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Minutes/Minutes03032009.pdf
>
> Agenda 1:- A note from legal cell as to whether a complaint on an appeal received
> through email is legally valid or should it be registered.
> Commission directed that the citizens, filing their appeal/complaints on email be
> advised to file their appeal / complaints online. They may do so by visiting the link
> RTI Complaint & Appeal. This site is linked through CIC as well.
> The officer of the Registry, who is designated for Public Authorities, may advise the
> citizens regarding the same. Commission however clarified that the appeal/complaint
> received through email cannot be registered unless filed online or otherwise.
>
>
>
> Mr Sarbajit, as a initiator of the responsible RTI concept and in the interest of equitable awareness, please share with the group as to how are you suddenly getting such undue favors from the CIC ?
>
> Note to CIC WH:
> ===============
>
> Sir, the writ of our Moderator is restricted to this Yahoo group, of which you are a member. However, on the 2nd Floor of the AK Bhawan, you are the Boss !
>
> PS: Is it Sarbjeet or Sarbjit or Sarbajit ?
>
> Confused RTIwanted
>

__._,_.___
.

__,_._,___

[rti_india] Why is the moderator of this group getting special treatment at the CIC ?

 

Dear Mr Sarbajit,

It seems that you have either started a "free lubricant supply" business of your own or you have got into the good books of the CIC by floating a CIA (or Chinese) funded NGO !

How come CIC gives you special treatment and also ignores its own legal cell in the process ?

As per the following order of the CIC, your Complaint sent via email was taken cognizance of by the CIC:

http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/SS-18112009-01.pdf

Sh. Sarbjit Roy filed a complaint via email before the Commission alleging that UIDAI, constituted by the notification of the Govt. of India , hence being a public authority has not implemented the RTI Act, 2005 and he requested the Commission to give appropriate directions to the UIDAI to implement the RTI Act in its true spirit. The Commission issued notices to the CPIO, Planning Commission and DG-UIDAI to appear before the Commission.

This clearly contravenes CIC's own directions:

http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Minutes/Minutes03032009.pdf

Agenda 1:- A note from legal cell as to whether a complaint  on an appeal received
through email is legally valid or should it be registered.
Commission directed that the citizens, filing their appeal/complaints on email be
advised to file their appeal / complaints online. They may do so by visiting the link
RTI Complaint & Appeal. This site is linked through CIC as well.
The officer of the Registry, who is designated for Public Authorities, may advise the
citizens regarding the same. Commission however clarified that the appeal/complaint
received through email cannot be registered unless filed online or otherwise.



Mr Sarbajit, as a initiator of the responsible RTI concept and in the interest of equitable awareness, please share with the group as to how are you suddenly getting such undue favors from the CIC ?

Note to CIC WH:
===============

Sir, the writ of our Moderator is restricted to this Yahoo group, of which you are a member. However, on the 2nd Floor of the AK Bhawan, you are the Boss !

PS: Is it Sarbjeet or Sarbjit or Sarbajit ?

Confused RTIwanted



__._,_.___
.

__,_._,___

[rti_india] State information panel asks state to pay relief to top cop

 

State information panel asks state to pay relief to top cop

http://www.indianex press.com/ news/state- information- panel-asks- state-to- pay-relief- to-top-cop/ 562126/0

Shiv Sahay Singh Posted online: Friday , Jan 01, 2010 at 0342 hrs

Kolkata : The West Bengal Information Commission has ordered the state home (political) department to pay a compensation of Rs 50,000 to Nazrul Islam, the additional director general of police (traffic), for failing to provide him the information he had sought under the RTI Act about the chief minister's noting on a complaint he had earlier sent to him about a few senior police officers.

Islam, however, has shot off a letter to the state information officer saying the compensation amount should be paid to him by the State Public Information officer (SPIO) of the home department, and not the department itself, which will have to use taxpayers' money for the purpose.

The order to state home department to pay the compensation to the police officer was given by the state Information Commission on December 15, which set a month's deadline for the payment.

Islam's ordeal began on June 4, 2007, when he filed an RTI seeking information on noting made by the chief minister on his letter of complaint against senior police officers and the action taken.

On May 23, 2006 Islam wrote to the CM saying a vigilance inquiry had been initiated against him for acting in an impartial way. The police officer urged the CM to act against the then Chief Secretary A K Deb, Vigilance Commissioner Shyamal Dutta and the then IG (Vigilance) M K Mukherjee for their alleged involvement in corrupt activities. The Calcutta High Court too had directed the state government to quash the Vigilance inquiry and slapped it with a fine of Re 1.

After Islam got no reply in the 30 days of filing RTI, he made the first appeal to the appellate authority the SPIO of home department. In August 2007, he filed a second appeal to the State Information Commission, but it did not take up any hearing on the issue. According to sources in the commission, Islam had given nearly two dozen reminders on the issue it.

On August 27, 2008, the Calcutta High Court directed to State Information Commission to dispose of all his appeals in four weeks.

Despite attempts by Islam and later by the Information Commission, the CM Secretariat said no record of the letter was kept. The home secretary said they had not also received the original application from the Director General of Police.

After a rap from the court, the state Information Commission finally started the proceeding and the order was given on December 15, 2009.

In its order, the commission rapped the home department. "The Commission considers that the home department, being one of the most important departments, shall have to pay a price for such procrastination," it observed.

Islam, a 1981 batch IPS officer, however, is not satisfied and has written back to the State Information Commission saying it should make the SPIO of the home department pay the compensation amount.

"I request for an order that the amount should be deducted from the salary of the person responsible because the name of the department, which is inanimate, cannot be the offender and the person responsible is the offender," Islam has said in his latest letter to the Information Commission.

Meanwhile, the West Bengal RTI Manch said it is a case of partisan act by the Commission. "I would not like to comment on the issue. Once an order is passed, this is best we could manage from the provision of the Act," said Arun Bhattacharjee, the state chief Information Commissioner, when asked why a penalty was not slapped on the erring official.

 



JUSTICE 4 ALL !


The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage.

__._,_.___
.

__,_._,___

[rti_india] Disposal of cases by KIC for the month of November 2009

 

Dear All,


The Statistics of disposal of cases for the month of November 2009 @ Karnatak Information Commission is given below for the information of the Activists:-

 

Cases pending at the end of Oct 09 is 7237

Number of Complaints and Appeals received during Nov 09 is 1340  

Number of Complaints & appeals disposed during Nov 09 is 917

Number of cases pending at the end of  Nov 09 is 7660

Number of cases heard during Nov 09 is 1684

Appeals & Complaints pending less than 3 months  is 3140

Appeals & Complaints pending more than 6 months  is 4347

Appeals & Complaints pending more than 12 months  is 173

 Number of Commissioners at prsent  4

 

 

With regards,

Anil


__._,_.___
.

__,_._,___

Re: [rti_india] Fw: ATM Thiefs ( ITS IMPORTANT READ AND FORWARD )

 

Dear Sir,
 
This is fake. Do not forward unless u check validity your self first. what if my pin is 1111 or 2222, or 3333, or 4444, or 5555 or 6666 or 7777, or 8888 or 9999 or 0000
 
Regards
 
Trivendra 

On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 8:12 PM, raja bunch <bunch_raja@yahoo.co.in> wrote:


----- Forwarded Message ----
From: sam bunch <sam_bunch2000@yahoo.com>
To: Raja Bunch <bunch_raja@yahoo.co.in>; RBL Vaish <vaishrbl@yahoo.co.in>; Richard Fernandes <urstrulyrichard@yahoo.co.in>
Sent: Thu, 31 December, 2009 4:22:03 PM
Subject: Fw: ATM Thiefs ( ITS IMPORTANT READ AND FORWARD )




 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

************ ******



 

 

.


 

"The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this  message are intended for exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain  confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please  notify the sender at LIC OF INDIA or co_mailadmin@licindia.com immediately and  destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. The views expressed in  this E-mail message / Attachments, are those of the individual sender."




The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage.



--
Try to be part of solution. It will add your value

__._,_.___
.

__,_._,___

[rti_india] Fw: Right to Emergency Care:

 



----- Forwarded Message ----
From: sam bunch <sam_bunch2000@yahoo.com>
To: Ramesh Narayan <areness216097@yahoo.co.in>; Raja Bunch <bunch_raja@yahoo.co.in>; Alok Tewari <alok.tewari@licindia.com>
Sent: Thu, 31 December, 2009 4:07:38 PM
Subject: Fw: Right to Emergency Care:



Subject: Fw: Right to Emergency Care

 
 


Right to Emergency Care:
Date Of Judgment: 23/02/2007.
Case No.: Appeal (civil) 919 of 2007.



The Supreme Court has ruled that all injured persons especially in the case of road traffic accidents, assaults, etc., when brought to a hospital / medical centre, have to be offered first aid, stabilized and shifted to a higher centre / government centre if required. It is only after this that the hospital can demand payment or complete police formalities. In case you are a bystander and wish to help someone in an accident, please go ahead and do so. Your responsibility ends as soon as you leave the person at the hospital.


 


The hospital bears the responsibility of informing the police, first aid, etc.
 
Please do inform your family and friends about these basic rights so that we all know what to expect and what to do in the hour of need. Please not only go ahead and forward, use it too!!!!


 


 

"The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this  message are intended for exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain  confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please  notify the sender at LIC OF INDIA or co_mailadmin@licindia.com immediately and  destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. The views expressed in  this E-mail message / Attachments, are those of the individual sender."



The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage.

__._,_.___
.

__,_._,___

[rti_india] Fw: ATM Thiefs ( ITS IMPORTANT READ AND FORWARD )



----- Forwarded Message ----
From: sam bunch <sam_bunch2000@yahoo.com>
To: Raja Bunch <bunch_raja@yahoo.co.in>; RBL Vaish <vaishrbl@yahoo.co.in>; Richard Fernandes <urstrulyrichard@yahoo.co.in>
Sent: Thu, 31 December, 2009 4:22:03 PM
Subject: Fw: ATM Thiefs ( ITS IMPORTANT READ AND FORWARD )



The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage.

Fw: Re: [rti_india] The contra-constitution provision for Anticipatory Bail

 




 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

************ ******



 

 

.


 

"The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this  message are intended for exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain  confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please  notify the sender at LIC OF INDIA or co_mailadmin@licindia.com immediately and  destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. The views expressed in  this E-mail message / Attachments, are those of the individual sender."




--- On Thu, 12/31/09, Victor Cooper <victor99cooper@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Victor Cooper <victor99cooper@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [rti_india] The contra-constitution provision for Anticipatory Bail
To: rti_india@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, December 31, 2009, 4:56 AM

 

The issues I am posing are:

1.  In a mango republic like ours, why should there be any discrection permitted to the police whether or not they may convert a complaint into an FIR. 

2.  Why should there be discrection permitted to the courts to allow anticipatory bail to any person required for interrogation and / or arrest.  Why should not everyone be automatically permitted that loophole OR why should noone be permitted that loophole.

3.  Why should certain types of citizens, mostly burecrats and politicians enjoy imunities / protection / special treatment under Single Point Directive, when the general citizens do not enjoy that privilage. (Sajjan Kumar: shielded for 2 or 3 decades!! And dozens more.)

4.  And, I may add, why are the judeges not accountable in the real sense of the word?  After all, they have not exactly held their heads up high in recent years.

Victor. 


--- On Thu, 12/31/09, Arun <arun_agrawal@ yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Arun <arun_agrawal@ yahoo.com>
Subject: [rti_india] The contra-constitution provision for Anticipatory Bail
To: rti_india@yahoogrou ps.com
Date: Thursday, December 31, 2009, 3:24 AM

 


Reference comments from Sarabjit .

I am not going to enter into a debate on this issue . Regardless of
earlier SC directives and now reported Home Ministry circulars, I have
always maintained the position that the Police should take action as per
the merits of the case and question the parties complained against
before they register any FIR and take punitive measures like arrest etc
. But with a qualification that this does not relate to heinous offences
.

Of course, I am fully aware of 154 and 157 , my discussions were on post
FIR arrest related procedures .

However, regardless of stated position in the law and directives, it is
honesty , integrity and competence of the S.H.O. or I.O. that is of
paramount importance at the end of the day .

Dr Arun Agrawal

--- In rti_india@yahoogrou ps.com, Victor Cooper <victor99cooper@ ...>
wrote:
>
> Friends:
> We have a number of contra-constitution provisions like Single Point
Directive, Anticipatory Bail, etc. that provide extra-constitutiona l
protection to the powerful and mighty, and discriminate against the
ordinary citizen.
> When there is a prima-facie case made out by way of FIR against any
person where the concerned authorities need to take into custody and
investigate such persons, why should he have the protection of
Anticipatory Bail? I mean, is it not contrary to the needs of law that
the person can evade his arrest / interrogation because he can put
together the resources to apply for Anticipatory Bail?
> I think there is no civilised nation that has such provisions like
Anticipatory Bail on its books. However, what they do have is a very
stringent pre-arrest criteria to be fulfilled before an (any) arrest can
be made. Such a sysytem is non discriminatory and does not make mockery
of the justice system. There is all the more reason in a 23rd world and
banana republic .... I mean mango republic country like ours to do away
with such extra-constitutiona l provisions and bring to account all, not
just the under dog.
> Victor.
>



__._,_.___
.

__,_._,___