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@yahoogrou
> > 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
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@yahoogrou
>
> 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
>
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@yahoogrou
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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
>
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 ! |
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 |
----- 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 )
************ ******
.
licindia. 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."com
Subject: Fw: Right to Emergency Care
|
|
--- On Thu, 12/31/09, Victor Cooper <victor99cooper@
|
