is this an April fools joke???? --- On Fri, 4/1/11, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
|
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Re: 07 - Re: [HumJanenge] DoPT concedes on RTI Rules
humjanenge@googlegroups.com is not on 
Re: [HumJanenge] DoPT concedes on RTI Rules
File No. 2/7/2006-IR
Summary of proceedings held with Civil Society Organisations on 31.03.2010 under Chairmanship Secy/CIC
".. It may be helpful to look into the possibility of penalising frivolous applicants at the level of the Information Commission .."
Summary of proceedings held with Civil Society Organisations on 31.03.2010 under Chairmanship Secy/CIC
".. It may be helpful to look into the possibility of penalising frivolous applicants at the level of the Information Commission .."
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 11:14 AM, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Scanned copies of replies from DoPT may clear the confusion.
From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>Date: Friday, 1 April, 2011, 11:03 AM
Dear Umapathy
In reply to your observation that I have no credible source. Let me counter by saying that it is public knowledge on the most credible source (ie RTI section 4 disclosure of concerned public authority ) that Civil Society Organisations at the behest of CIC recently implored DoPT to consider imposing penalties on frivolous applicants by the CIC while hearing appeals. It is also public knowledge that these civil society organisations present included a) Ms. Aruna Roy b) Mr Shekar Singh c) Mr Nikhil Dey etc. and they did not raise even a whimper to oppose it,
Sarbajit
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 10:50 AM, umapathy subramanyam <umapathi.s.rti@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Gupta Sir, I Feel what Mr. Roy is posting has no credible source.We are wasting our time and resource by replying to these messages. dont' forget, Mr. Roy is an "entertainer" as Mr. Wajhajat once rightly pointed out in our earlier postings.
Further,Mr. Roy is defending these changes ( whether real or imaginary) by stating that "Govt has powers to set fees and recover costs for enabling RTI provisions". everyone knows whether such charging of fees really enables or disables provision of RTI Act but Roy's View is quite opposite as usual.
regards.
umapathi.s
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 9:41 AM, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
The RTI Act has been enacted after it was passed by the Parliament, consent given by the Hon'ble President and after that it was duly notified. Some rules like forwarding cost under 6(3) will change the basic structure of the Act. The provision has been given in view of the large population residing in remote or far flung areas to submit the application in the designated post offices which they forward the same u.s. 6(3) of the Act while working as APIO. With the introduction of this provision, maintaining the RTI fee at Rs. 10/- is meaningless in such cases as the total cost will be Rs. 60, in place of 10/-. Already, some states like Haryana are charging Rs. 50 as RTI fee. Will the DoPT prevail upon such states to reduce the fee?
There is no justification of Appeal fee, appeal is filed upon the act of omission of the PIO/ FAA and for their fault; applicant or complainant should not be penalized.
What is the justification for charging the fee for issuing the notice to the third party? Govt. intends to recover the postage charges + some expenses / profit from the RTI applicants.
After the DoPT has reportedly dragged its feet on one subject, applications soliciting information on more than one subject may be termed as vexatious by misusing this provision.
Who will have the power to decide whether an application is vexatious?
When the DoPT has given the information, on what ground the appellant is planning to knock the door of CIC. I think that these rules can only be challenged in the High or Supreme Court, after they are enacted.
In fact, this is the back door route to get rid of RTI or at least blunt it. Govt. is already in the dock over the scams surfacing frequently and is peeved over on the frequent adverse remarks from the resurgent active judiciary in 2G, Has an Ali and other cases.
--- On Fri, 1/4/11, Manoj Pai <manojpai@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Manoj Pai <manojpai@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] DoPT concedes on RTI Rules
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Friday, 1 April, 2011, 6:46 AM
> 2) Forwarding Cost u/s 6(3) is fixed at Rs.50 per transfer
> 3) Cost of issuing Third Party notice u/s 11 is fixed at
> Rs. 50 per notice.
This would be a wonderful tool for CPIO to delay / deny every legitimate information. Every voucher, bill, claim or file noting would be treated as third party.
> FINES:
> The CIC is being given powers to levy fines upto Rs. 10,000
> on /
> vexatious appellants as part of appeal procedure. It is not
> clear
> which provision / section of RTI Act the DoPT intends to
> use to
> justify this. We are planning to file 2nd appeal to CIC.
>
Before the year is out, these fines imposed on appellants, would outnumber the total penalties imposed on the CPIOs for last five years.
Mera Bharat Mahan
Manoj
Re: [HumJanenge] DoPT concedes on RTI Rules
| Scanned copies of replies from DoPT may clear the confusion. --- On Fri, 1/4/11, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
|
Re: [HumJanenge] DoPT concedes on RTI Rules
Dear Umapathy
In reply to your observation that I have no credible source. Let me counter by saying that it is public knowledge on the most credible source (ie RTI section 4 disclosure of concerned public authority ) that Civil Society Organisations at the behest of CIC recently implored DoPT to consider imposing penalties on frivolous applicants by the CIC while hearing appeals. It is also public knowledge that these civil society organisations present included a) Ms. Aruna Roy b) Mr Shekar Singh c) Mr Nikhil Dey etc. and they did not raise even a whimper to oppose it,
Sarbajit
In reply to your observation that I have no credible source. Let me counter by saying that it is public knowledge on the most credible source (ie RTI section 4 disclosure of concerned public authority ) that Civil Society Organisations at the behest of CIC recently implored DoPT to consider imposing penalties on frivolous applicants by the CIC while hearing appeals. It is also public knowledge that these civil society organisations present included a) Ms. Aruna Roy b) Mr Shekar Singh c) Mr Nikhil Dey etc. and they did not raise even a whimper to oppose it,
Sarbajit
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 10:50 AM, umapathy subramanyam <umapathi.s.rti@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Gupta Sir, I Feel what Mr. Roy is posting has no credible source.We are wasting our time and resource by replying to these messages. dont' forget, Mr. Roy is an "entertainer" as Mr. Wajhajat once rightly pointed out in our earlier postings.
Further,Mr. Roy is defending these changes ( whether real or imaginary) by stating that "Govt has powers to set fees and recover costs for enabling RTI provisions". everyone knows whether such charging of fees really enables or disables provision of RTI Act but Roy's View is quite opposite as usual.
regards.
umapathi.sOn Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 9:41 AM, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
The RTI Act has been enacted after it was passed by the Parliament, consent given by the Hon'ble President and after that it was duly notified. Some rules like forwarding cost under 6(3) will change the basic structure of the Act. The provision has been given in view of the large population residing in remote or far flung areas to submit the application in the designated post offices which they forward the same u.s. 6(3) of the Act while working as APIO. With the introduction of this provision, maintaining the RTI fee at Rs. 10/- is meaningless in such cases as the total cost will be Rs. 60, in place of 10/-. Already, some states like Haryana are charging Rs. 50 as RTI fee. Will the DoPT prevail upon such states to reduce the fee?
There is no justification of Appeal fee, appeal is filed upon the act of omission of the PIO/ FAA and for their fault; applicant or complainant should not be penalized.
What is the justification for charging the fee for issuing the notice to the third party? Govt. intends to recover the postage charges + some expenses / profit from the RTI applicants.
After the DoPT has reportedly dragged its feet on one subject, applications soliciting information on more than one subject may be termed as vexatious by misusing this provision.
Who will have the power to decide whether an application is vexatious?
When the DoPT has given the information, on what ground the appellant is planning to knock the door of CIC. I think that these rules can only be challenged in the High or Supreme Court, after they are enacted.
In fact, this is the back door route to get rid of RTI or at least blunt it. Govt. is already in the dock over the scams surfacing frequently and is peeved over on the frequent adverse remarks from the resurgent active judiciary in 2G, Has an Ali and other cases.
--- On Fri, 1/4/11, Manoj Pai <manojpai@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Manoj Pai <manojpai@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] DoPT concedes on RTI Rules
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Friday, 1 April, 2011, 6:46 AM
> 2) Forwarding Cost u/s 6(3) is fixed at Rs.50 per transfer
> 3) Cost of issuing Third Party notice u/s 11 is fixed at
> Rs. 50 per notice.
This would be a wonderful tool for CPIO to delay / deny every legitimate information. Every voucher, bill, claim or file noting would be treated as third party.
> FINES:
> The CIC is being given powers to levy fines upto Rs. 10,000
> on /
> vexatious appellants as part of appeal procedure. It is not
> clear
> which provision / section of RTI Act the DoPT intends to
> use to
> justify this. We are planning to file 2nd appeal to CIC.
>
Before the year is out, these fines imposed on appellants, would outnumber the total penalties imposed on the CPIOs for last five years.
Mera Bharat Mahan
Manoj
Re: [HumJanenge] DoPT concedes on RTI Rules
| It is better to discuss all such serious issues tomorrow on 2nd onwards. If v discuss all this, all our energy may go in smoke if the apprehension of Mr. Jam is correct. --- On Fri, 1/4/11, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
|
Re: [HumJanenge] DoPT concedes on RTI Rules
Dear Gupta Sir, I Feel what Mr. Roy is posting has no credible source.We are wasting our time and resource by replying to these messages. dont' forget, Mr. Roy is an "entertainer" as Mr. Wajhajat once rightly pointed out in our earlier postings.
Further,Mr. Roy is defending these changes ( whether real or imaginary) by stating that "Govt has powers to set fees and recover costs for enabling RTI provisions". everyone knows whether such charging of fees really enables or disables provision of RTI Act but Roy's View is quite opposite as usual.
regards.
umapathi.s
Further,Mr. Roy is defending these changes ( whether real or imaginary) by stating that "Govt has powers to set fees and recover costs for enabling RTI provisions". everyone knows whether such charging of fees really enables or disables provision of RTI Act but Roy's View is quite opposite as usual.
regards.
umapathi.s
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 9:41 AM, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
The RTI Act has been enacted after it was passed by the Parliament, consent given by the Hon'ble President and after that it was duly notified. Some rules like forwarding cost under 6(3) will change the basic structure of the Act. The provision has been given in view of the large population residing in remote or far flung areas to submit the application in the designated post offices which they forward the same u.s. 6(3) of the Act while working as APIO. With the introduction of this provision, maintaining the RTI fee at Rs. 10/- is meaningless in such cases as the total cost will be Rs. 60, in place of 10/-. Already, some states like Haryana are charging Rs. 50 as RTI fee. Will the DoPT prevail upon such states to reduce the fee?
There is no justification of Appeal fee, appeal is filed upon the act of omission of the PIO/ FAA and for their fault; applicant or complainant should not be penalized.
What is the justification for charging the fee for issuing the notice to the third party? Govt. intends to recover the postage charges + some expenses / profit from the RTI applicants.
After the DoPT has reportedly dragged its feet on one subject, applications soliciting information on more than one subject may be termed as vexatious by misusing this provision.
Who will have the power to decide whether an application is vexatious?
When the DoPT has given the information, on what ground the appellant is planning to knock the door of CIC. I think that these rules can only be challenged in the High or Supreme Court, after they are enacted.
In fact, this is the back door route to get rid of RTI or at least blunt it. Govt. is already in the dock over the scams surfacing frequently and is peeved over on the frequent adverse remarks from the resurgent active judiciary in 2G, Has an Ali and other cases.
--- On Fri, 1/4/11, Manoj Pai <manojpai@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Manoj Pai <manojpai@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] DoPT concedes on RTI Rules
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Friday, 1 April, 2011, 6:46 AM
> 2) Forwarding Cost u/s 6(3) is fixed at Rs.50 per transfer
> 3) Cost of issuing Third Party notice u/s 11 is fixed at
> Rs. 50 per notice.
This would be a wonderful tool for CPIO to delay / deny every legitimate information. Every voucher, bill, claim or file noting would be treated as third party.
> FINES:
> The CIC is being given powers to levy fines upto Rs. 10,000
> on /
> vexatious appellants as part of appeal procedure. It is not
> clear
> which provision / section of RTI Act the DoPT intends to
> use to
> justify this. We are planning to file 2nd appeal to CIC.
>
Before the year is out, these fines imposed on appellants, would outnumber the total penalties imposed on the CPIOs for last five years.
Mera Bharat Mahan
Manoj
Re: [HumJanenge] DoPT concedes on RTI Rules
And tomorrow is 2nd April !!
No doubt the Govt has powers to set fees and recover costs for
enabling RTI provisions. Each of the fees and costs they have now
agreed to levy can be justified under RTI Act. As such we do not want
to appeal these.
The one we plan to file a 2nd appeal to CIC is to be informed on the
specific provisions of RTI Act which enable a penalty to be levied on
frivolous / vexatious APPELLANTS. (please note this is not levied on
frivolous APPLICANTS) and the reasoning on how this forms part of
Appeal Procedure.
Sarbajit
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 10:31 AM, C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Members, please remember that today is 1st April !
> ________________________________
> From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
> To: humjanenge <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, April 1, 2011 12:05 AM
> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] DoPT concedes on RTI Rules
>
> Summary of latest status on DoPT's RTI Rules in reply to 3 RTIs and
> after 1 decided first appeal.
>
> FEES:
> 1) No change in RTI Application fee. It stays at Rs.10
> 2) First Appeal fees fixed at Rs 25 or Court Fee in concerned State
> under Court Fee Act, whichever is higher.
> 3) Second Appeal fee to CIC fixed at Rs 250
> NB: Third parties have been exempted from paying appeal fees.
>
> COSTS:
> 1) Costs on hire of machinery, is prescribed for color photocopy
> (Rs.20 per A3/A4 page) and scanning of documents (Rs. 5 per A3/A4
> page)
> 2) Forwarding Cost u/s 6(3) is fixed at Rs.50 per transfer
> 3) Cost of issuing Third Party notice u/s 11 is fixed at Rs. 50 per notice.
>
> FINES:
> The CIC is being given powers to levy fines upto Rs. 10,000 on /
> vexatious appellants as part of appeal procedure. It is not clear
> which provision / section of RTI Act the DoPT intends to use to
> justify this. We are planning to file 2nd appeal to CIC.
>
>
>
>
Re: [HumJanenge] DoPT concedes on RTI Rules
Members, please remember that today is 1st April !
From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, April 1, 2011 12:05 AM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] DoPT concedes on RTI Rules
Summary of latest status on DoPT's RTI Rules in reply to 3 RTIs and
after 1 decided first appeal.
FEES:
1) No change in RTI Application fee. It stays at Rs.10
2) First Appeal fees fixed at Rs 25 or Court Fee in concerned State
under Court Fee Act, whichever is higher.
3) Second Appeal fee to CIC fixed at Rs 250
NB: Third parties have been exempted from paying appeal fees.
COSTS:
1) Costs on hire of machinery, is prescribed for color photocopy
(Rs.20 per A3/A4 page) and scanning of documents (Rs. 5 per A3/A4
page)
2) Forwarding Cost u/s 6(3) is fixed at Rs.50 per transfer
3) Cost of issuing Third Party notice u/s 11 is fixed at Rs. 50 per notice.
FINES:
The CIC is being given powers to levy fines upto Rs. 10,000 on /
vexatious appellants as part of appeal procedure. It is not clear
which provision / section of RTI Act the DoPT intends to use to
justify this. We are planning to file 2nd appeal to CIC.
Re: [HumJanenge] DoPT concedes on RTI Rules
The There is no justification of Appeal fee, appeal is filed upon the act of omission of the What is the justification for charging the fee for issuing the notice to the third party? Govt. intends to recover the postage charges + some expenses / profit from the After the DoPT has reportedly dragged its feet on one subject, applications soliciting information on more than one subject may be termed as vexatious by misusing this provision. Who will have the power to decide whether an application is vexatious? When the DoPT has given the information, on what ground the appellant is planning to knock the door of CIC. I think that these rules can only be challenged in the High or Supreme Court, after they are enacted. In fact, this is the back door route to get rid of
|
Re: [HumJanenge] DoPT concedes on RTI Rules
> 2) Forwarding Cost u/s 6(3) is fixed at Rs.50 per transfer
> 3) Cost of issuing Third Party notice u/s 11 is fixed at
> Rs. 50 per notice.
> 3) Cost of issuing Third Party notice u/s 11 is fixed at
> Rs. 50 per notice.
This would be a wonderful tool for CPIO to delay / deny every legitimate information. Every voucher, bill, claim or file noting would be treated as third party.
> FINES:
> The CIC is being given powers to levy fines upto Rs. 10,000
> on /
> vexatious appellants as part of appeal procedure. It is not
> clear
> which provision / section of RTI Act the DoPT intends to
> use to
> justify this. We are planning to file 2nd appeal to CIC.
>
Before the year is out, these fines imposed on appellants, would outnumber the total penalties imposed on the CPIOs for last five years.
Mera Bharat Mahan
Manoj
[HumJanenge] A Must Read : Dr. Sadgopal's Article in Jansatta on One year of RTE
Dear Members,
Pl. find attached an Article in Page 4 of Jansatta by Dr. Anil Sadgopal on One year of implementation of RTE Act. (enlarge the size to 100% to make it easily readable.) The Article provides an insight into the attitude of the Govt and ruling elites towards"Free and Compulsory Education for all" and where it is expected to lead to in the field of Education in India.
--
--
Dr.V.N.Sharma
Cell No.9431102680,
Cell No.9431102680,
Convenor, Jharkhand Shanti evam Nyaya Yatra (JSNY): May 15-20,2011
Member, Secretariat, All India Forum for Right to Education (AIF-RTE)
Member, Secretariat, All India Forum for Right to Education (AIF-RTE)
&
Working Committee Member, Jan Sansad
[HumJanenge] Sordid tale of an institution of national importance
Dear Esteemed Members,
Here is a sordid tale of an institution of national importance being run by one of the most corrupt and dictator. His highhandedness takes life of one most promising graduate of this country please. Support the agitation going on here. Please forward the tale to PM, HRD minister and journalistic community. This mail comes from an alumnus of this institution, RTI activist and Senior Software Engg. in an MNC.
http://justiceforakshay.blogspot.com/2011/03/justice-for-innocent-dead-student.html
http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#!/event.php?eid=139681292767827
http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#!/notes/siddharth-munot/student-agitation-at-iiita/10150139913553192
Thanks,
Vinit
Here is a sordid tale of an institution of national importance being run by one of the most corrupt and dictator. His highhandedness takes life of one most promising graduate of this country please. Support the agitation going on here. Please forward the tale to PM, HRD minister and journalistic community. This mail comes from an alumnus of this institution, RTI activist and Senior Software Engg. in an MNC.
http://justiceforakshay.blogspot.com/2011/03/justice-for-innocent-dead-student.html
http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#!/event.php?eid=139681292767827
http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#!/notes/siddharth-munot/student-agitation-at-iiita/10150139913553192
Thanks,
Vinit
[HumJanenge] DoPT concedes on RTI Rules
Summary of latest status on DoPT's RTI Rules in reply to 3 RTIs and
after 1 decided first appeal.
after 1 decided first appeal.
FEES:
1) No change in RTI Application fee. It stays at Rs.10
2) First Appeal fees fixed at Rs 25 or Court Fee in concerned State
under Court Fee Act, whichever is higher.
3) Second Appeal fee to CIC fixed at Rs 250
NB: Third parties have been exempted from paying appeal fees.
COSTS:
1) Costs on hire of machinery, is prescribed for color photocopy
(Rs.20 per A3/A4 page) and scanning of documents (Rs. 5 per A3/A4
page)
2) Forwarding Cost u/s 6(3) is fixed at Rs.50 per transfer
3) Cost of issuing Third Party notice u/s 11 is fixed at Rs. 50 per notice.
FINES:
The CIC is being given powers to levy fines upto Rs. 10,000 on /
vexatious appellants as part of appeal procedure. It is not clear
which provision / section of RTI Act the DoPT intends to use to
justify this. We are planning to file 2nd appeal to CIC.
Re: [HumJanenge] Govt Spent Rs 3,554.78 Crore on Hajj Subsidy Last Decade
It is indeed an excellent judgment from the Supreme Court which
upholds the rights of poor people to be dispensed their destiny by
Bharata Bhagya Vidhaata.
upholds the rights of poor people to be dispensed their destiny by
Bharata Bhagya Vidhaata.
To borrow a phrase from the Bible
"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for
a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven".
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Awdhesh Kumar <jhajee9999@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
>
>
> Please read this supreme court judgment
>
> Prafull Goradia Vs. Union of India (UOI) - Jan 28 2011
> Issue
> Haj Committee Act, 1959; Haj Committee Act, 2002; Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951; Income Tax Act; Central Excise Act; Sales Tax Act; Central Provinces and Berar Act; Constitution of India - Articles 14, 15, 27 and 32
> Synopsis
> This Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution had been initially filed challenging the constitutional validity of the Haj Committee Act 1959, but thereafter by an amendment application the Haj Committee Act of 2002 which replaced the 1959 Act, has been challenged. The ground for challenge was that the said Act is violative of Articles 14, 15, and 27 of the Constitution. The grievance of the Petitioner was that he is a Hindu but he has to pay direct and indirect taxes, part of whose proceeds go for the purpose of the Haj pilgrimage, which is only done by Muslims. This court relied upon Government of Andhra Pradesh v. P. Laxmi Devi AIR 2008 SC 1640 where the court held that Court should exercise great restraint when deciding the constitutionality of a statute, and every effort should be made to uphold its validity. Parliament has the legislative competence to enact the Haj Committee Act in view of entry 20 to List 1 of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution which states: "Pilgrimages to places outside India". On this ground petition was dismissed.
[HumJanenge] Govt Spent Rs 3,554.78 Crore on Hajj Subsidy Last Decade
|
[rti_india] Ministry of Road Transport & Highways GOI - Toll Tax - Extraordinary Gazette Notification Part II - Section 3 - Sub-Section (I) dated 12th January 2011..
Dear All,
Ministry of Road Transport & Highways - Extraordinary Gazette Notification Part II - Section 3 - Sub-Section (I) dated 12th January 2011.
Regards,
--
(Babubhai Vaghela)
C 202, Shrinandnagar V, Makarba Road Vejalpur, Ahmedabad - 380051
M - 94276 08632
http://twitter.com/BabubhaiVaghela
About me in Annexure at - http://bit.ly/9xsHFj
http://www.youtube.com/user/vaghelabd
(Administrator - Google Group - Right to Information Act 2005)
http://groups.google.com/group/Right-to-Information-Act-2005/about?hl=en
--
(Babubhai Vaghela)
C 202, Shrinandnagar V, Makarba Road Vejalpur, Ahmedabad - 380051
M - 94276 08632
http://twitter.com/BabubhaiVaghela
About me in Annexure at - http://bit.ly/9xsHFj
http://www.youtube.com/user/vaghelabd
(Administrator - Google Group - Right to Information Act 2005)
http://groups.google.com/group/Right-to-Information-Act-2005/about?hl=en
__._,_.___
.
__,_._,___
[HumJanenge] Re: new member
Hi Rajiv
The fact that you can post messages to the group means that you are
already a member.
Sarbajit
Group Moderator
The fact that you can post messages to the group means that you are
already a member.
Sarbajit
Group Moderator
On Mar 24, 11:03 am, "jai hanuman" <rd89...@gmail.com> wrote:
> dear sir,
> I want to join this group . my name is rajiv d desai.
[HumJanenge] BBMP, Bangalore website lists PIOs info in the regional language.
Dear All,
Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagar Palike lists the information about Public Information officers on its website http://www.bbmp.gov.in/ in Kanadda. Can someone help me to get the Name, address in English.me
I want the information on the payment of Property tax, Betterment charges by Alpine Housing Development Corporation Limited (www.alpinehousing.com) for various flats in the multistorey Apartment complex
called Alpine Eco in Dodenekkundi, Bangalore.
--
PIO list attached.
Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagar Palike lists the information about Public Information officers on its website http://www.bbmp.gov.in/ in Kanadda. Can someone help me to get the Name, address in English.me
I want the information on the payment of Property tax, Betterment charges by Alpine Housing Development Corporation Limited (www.alpinehousing.com) for various flats in the multistorey Apartment complex
called Alpine Eco in Dodenekkundi, Bangalore.
--
Thanks
Abhinav
PIO list attached.
"
Have a heart that never hardens, a temper that never tires, and a touch that never hurts...
"
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Re: [HumJanenge] DoPT deny to disclose the names considered for Chief of CIC
Let us not prolong the discussion on this issue since I have already filed the second appeal. In my I think there is no tangible difference between selection and appointment as only the selected candidate is appointed. This innovation of leading member on this blog may not be in the minds of the CPIO or the FAA of DoPT because they have not mentioned anything about this but know, after reading this, they may try to defend themselves before CIC on this count. I remember that one group has come to the conclusion on the basis of a tainted poll by only 11 members that that Mr. Krishan Raj should die when he was on fast unto death for the fair selection of ICs.
The govt. does not want transparent selections/ appointment to favour their confidantes and loyal irrespective of the fact that more deserving candidates are available even within the bureaucracy and outside bureaucracy. Mr. P J Thamos' case is a glaring example of this. No word has come about the non consideration or rejection of candidature of Ms. Kiran Bedi, However, to rectify my so-called mistake, I am seeking file inspection by filing fresh application. Will definitely share the information further with fellow members.
|
Re: [rti_india] DANDI MARCH 11 (LOK PAL BILL)
I fully support Anna Hazar's fast from Apr 5 and our movement against corruption which now seems to be gaining some strength. In order to ensure that most citizens support this movement, i Have three suggestions as follows:
1 We should introduce some badge (of the type introduced by India Against Corruption for use on internet profile pictures) that should be available freely (on payment) and worn by all to continuosly show support to this cause. This may also lead to he election symbol to be adopted by Swami Ramdev for the new Swabhiman Party.
2 We should organize daily prabhat pheris in every colony to support this cause. Standard banners may also be made available for display at all house nd important locations to show our solidarity o this cause.
3 A flag (which may ultimately become the flag of the Swbhiman Party proposed to be launched by Swami Ramdev on June 25) should be brought out at the earliest so that all citizens start mounting it on their houses to show their support to this important cause.
MK Singhal
MK Singhal
From: Bhaskar Prabhu <mahitiadhikarmanch@gmail.com>
To: rti_india@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, 30 March, 2011 7:37:11 PM
Subject: Re: [rti_india] DANDI MARCH 11 (LOK PAL BILL)
Dear friend,
Do participate in Delhi from 5th April 2011 where Shri Anna Hazare will sit on hunger strike to bring about Jan Lok Pal Bill at Janter Manter all are welcome.
Yours in service of RTi
Bhaskar Prabhu
Mahiti Adhikar Manch
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 7:04 PM, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
From: LESLIE ALMEIDA <lesals2000@yahoo.com>
Subject: [rti_india] DANDI MARCH 11 (LOK PAL BILL)
To: lesals@gmail.com
Date: Wednesday, 30 March, 2011, 9:58 AM
The Jail Bharo Andolan will begin on April 12 if the government does not pass the Jan Lokpal Bill, social activist Anna Hazare announced on Monday. The 73-year-old leader, who will begin a fast-unto-death at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi from April 5, told the media that if the Bill was not passed the people would take to the streets across the country.
"We will fight till our demands are considered and some strong steps are taken," said Hazare.
The National Advisory Council (NAC), headed by Congress president Sonia Gandhi has agreed to consider the Jan Lokpal bill drafted by activists and experts like former top cop Kiran Bedi, advocate Prashant Bhushan, Arvind Kejriwal and others.
"The Right to Information Act has unearthed many scams, but we need a law that can initiate action against the culprits. As with present laws its difficult for citizens to take remedies to procecute Govt servant/bureaucrats./politicians
Many individuals have already pledged their support. Sri Sri Ravishankar, Baba Ramdev and the Archbishop of Delhi are preaching their followers to fast for the Jan Lokpal Bill. Announcements are also being made in churches. Lots of citizens will be fasting on April 5,"
"When I took part in Dandi March in 1930, I never thought I might have to take apart in a similar event after 70 years," said freedom fighter H S Doreswamy who flagged off the march.many of us were not born to participate in Dandhi march in 1930, but surely we can in DANDI MARCH 2011The entire system is corrupt, bureaucrats and politicians are shielding each other. The bill is the need of the hour
__._,_.___
.
__,_._,___
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)