| The law of repugnancy will play its role. Article 254 of the constitution of India states about it. In my opinion when an applicant has two options first option is the law of either central law or state exists on the day and which is established prior to RTI Act and second RTI Act I feel that the authorities should not compel to choose old law and reject information under RTI ACT but rejection of infromation is common and even courts(High Court ) are compelling to take info as per old law such compulsion is bad at law since Right to Know is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) and RTI Act is enforced to give this right to all citizens the courts have ingnored many facts those old laws are not familier to peoples, second there is no provision of appeal in case authority is failed to provide info third the procedure of obtaining is not published on in print format and is not easily available to common citizens in India The judgments of Delhi High Court and other Courts took the right under RTI Act by asking to info under the law where getting info is difficult job viadya --- On Mon, 1/10/12, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
|
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Re: [HumJanenge] Sec 22 of RTI Act, 2005 about its overriding effect on other laws
Re: [HumJanenge] Sec 22 of RTI Act, 2005 about its overriding effect on other laws
Section 22 provides the over-riding of any "other law for the time
being in force".
Oct 12 is the more favourable date for RTI users not 21 June 2005 since more
laws will come into its scope to be over-ridden.
Obviously a law which came into force on 15 Oct 2005 will not be
over-ridden by RTI Act. These are standard / routine non-obtsante clauses
contained in many laws and nothing great should be read into them as
foolish RTI activists are wont to..
On 10/1/12, Surendera M. Bhanot <bhanot1952@gmail.com> wrote:
> *
> *
> Section 22 is as good represent the overriding effect as it was on 12
> October 2005. Its sentence formation does not say that it represent only
> one day i.e., 12 October 2005, why not 21 June 2005 or any other day.
>
> It is as relevant today as it was the act was enacted and as on it was came
> into force. Section 22 will remain relevant in its present form as long the
> RTI Act stays.
>
> Even the in para 77 of the WP(C) 210 of 2012 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
> explained the relevancy of Section 22 of the RTI Act even today. Para 77 of
> the Judgement is reproduced below:
>
> *77.* Let us now examine some other pre-requisites of vital significance in
> the functioning of the Commission. In terms of Section 22 of this Act, the
> provisions of the Act are to be given effect to, notwithstanding anything
> inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 and any
> other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by
> virtue of any law other than this Act. This Act is, therefore, to prevail
> over the specified Acts and even instruments. The same, however, is only to
> the extent of any inconsistency between the two. Thus, where the provisions
> of any other law can be applied harmoniously, without any conflict, the
> question of repugnancy would not arise.
>
>
> Section 22 is also reproduced below:
> *
>
> Act to have overriding effect*
> Section 22. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding
> anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act,
> 1923, and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument
> having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.
>
> On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If there is any portion of a preexisting law as on 12 Oct 2005 which
>> is inconsistent with providing information under RTI Act, then the
>> said law will not stand in the way of the applicant getting his
>> information.
>>
>> NB: It has to be first established that the applicant is otherwise
>> entitled to get info under RTI.
>>
>> On 9/30/12, NAVIN PANDYA <navinpandya1954@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hello Friends,
>> >
>> > How the subject section is to be interpreted and applied?
>> >
>> > Registrar of Mumbai has refused to accept the above section.
>> >
>> > Kindly post your views immediately in public interest.
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> >
>> > Navin Pandya
>> >
>> > --
>> > "CORRUPT AND UNACCOUNTABLE PUBLIC SERVANTS ARE THE GREATEST ENEMIES OF
>> THE
>> > SOCIETY."
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *GREETINGS AND WARM REGARDS
>
> Surendera M. Bhanot*
> - Coordinator, *RTIFED <http://www.rtifed.com/>*, Punjab Chandigarh
> - President, *RTI Help & Assistance* <http://www.rtihelp.in%20> Forum
> Chandigarh
> - Life Member, *Chandigarh Consumers Association*
> - Youth for Human Rights International - *YHRI
> <http://yhrisouthasia.ning.com/group/leadershipinyouth>*- South Asia
> - Jt. Secretary, Amateur Judo Association of Chandigarh
> - Member, *SPACE <http://www.thespace.org.in>*- Society for Promotion and
> Conservation of Environment, Chandigarh
> *No. 3758, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh-160022
> Mob: 919-888-810-811
> PHONE: 91-172-5000970
> FAX: 91-172-5000970*
> *Mail Me* <bhanot1952@gmail.com>
>
being in force".
Oct 12 is the more favourable date for RTI users not 21 June 2005 since more
laws will come into its scope to be over-ridden.
Obviously a law which came into force on 15 Oct 2005 will not be
over-ridden by RTI Act. These are standard / routine non-obtsante clauses
contained in many laws and nothing great should be read into them as
foolish RTI activists are wont to..
On 10/1/12, Surendera M. Bhanot <bhanot1952@gmail.com> wrote:
> *
> *
> Section 22 is as good represent the overriding effect as it was on 12
> October 2005. Its sentence formation does not say that it represent only
> one day i.e., 12 October 2005, why not 21 June 2005 or any other day.
>
> It is as relevant today as it was the act was enacted and as on it was came
> into force. Section 22 will remain relevant in its present form as long the
> RTI Act stays.
>
> Even the in para 77 of the WP(C) 210 of 2012 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
> explained the relevancy of Section 22 of the RTI Act even today. Para 77 of
> the Judgement is reproduced below:
>
> *77.* Let us now examine some other pre-requisites of vital significance in
> the functioning of the Commission. In terms of Section 22 of this Act, the
> provisions of the Act are to be given effect to, notwithstanding anything
> inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 and any
> other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by
> virtue of any law other than this Act. This Act is, therefore, to prevail
> over the specified Acts and even instruments. The same, however, is only to
> the extent of any inconsistency between the two. Thus, where the provisions
> of any other law can be applied harmoniously, without any conflict, the
> question of repugnancy would not arise.
>
>
> Section 22 is also reproduced below:
> *
>
> Act to have overriding effect*
> Section 22. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding
> anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act,
> 1923, and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument
> having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.
>
> On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If there is any portion of a preexisting law as on 12 Oct 2005 which
>> is inconsistent with providing information under RTI Act, then the
>> said law will not stand in the way of the applicant getting his
>> information.
>>
>> NB: It has to be first established that the applicant is otherwise
>> entitled to get info under RTI.
>>
>> On 9/30/12, NAVIN PANDYA <navinpandya1954@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hello Friends,
>> >
>> > How the subject section is to be interpreted and applied?
>> >
>> > Registrar of Mumbai has refused to accept the above section.
>> >
>> > Kindly post your views immediately in public interest.
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> >
>> > Navin Pandya
>> >
>> > --
>> > "CORRUPT AND UNACCOUNTABLE PUBLIC SERVANTS ARE THE GREATEST ENEMIES OF
>> THE
>> > SOCIETY."
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *GREETINGS AND WARM REGARDS
>
> Surendera M. Bhanot*
> - Coordinator, *RTIFED <http://www.rtifed.com/>*, Punjab Chandigarh
> - President, *RTI Help & Assistance* <http://www.rtihelp.in%20> Forum
> Chandigarh
> - Life Member, *Chandigarh Consumers Association*
> - Youth for Human Rights International - *YHRI
> <http://yhrisouthasia.ning.com/group/leadershipinyouth>*- South Asia
> - Jt. Secretary, Amateur Judo Association of Chandigarh
> - Member, *SPACE <http://www.thespace.org.in>*- Society for Promotion and
> Conservation of Environment, Chandigarh
> *No. 3758, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh-160022
> Mob: 919-888-810-811
> PHONE: 91-172-5000970
> FAX: 91-172-5000970*
> *Mail Me* <bhanot1952@gmail.com>
>
Re: [HumJanenge] Sec 22 of RTI Act, 2005 about its overriding effect on other laws
Even i have faced a similar situation where Registrar of Companies, Cuttack have refused to provide info saying that to collect the info from their registered agents by depositing Rs50/-. Also they have relied on CIC order as information is availbel in alternative places so they cant be compelled to share info under RTI.
Regards
Sankar
--
Sankar Prasad Pani, Lawyer
112/4, Infantry Road,(Opp infantry Wedding Hall)
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
If there is any portion of a preexisting law as on 12 Oct 2005 which
is inconsistent with providing information under RTI Act, then the
said law will not stand in the way of the applicant getting his
information.
NB: It has to be first established that the applicant is otherwise
entitled to get info under RTI.
On 9/30/12, NAVIN PANDYA <navinpandya1954@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Friends,
>
> How the subject section is to be interpreted and applied?
>
> Registrar of Mumbai has refused to accept the above section.
>
> Kindly post your views immediately in public interest.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Navin Pandya
>
> --
> "CORRUPT AND UNACCOUNTABLE PUBLIC SERVANTS ARE THE GREATEST ENEMIES OF THE
> SOCIETY."
>
Sankar Prasad Pani, Lawyer
112/4, Infantry Road,(Opp infantry Wedding Hall)
Bangaluru, 560001
India
Cell- 9437279278
India
Cell- 9437279278
Natural Justice: Lawyers for Communities and the Environment
Website | Blog | Facebook
http://environmentalrights-sankar.blogspot.com/
http://www.merinews.com/cj/sankarprasad
Website | Blog | Facebook
Biocultural Community Protocols
http://www.merinews.com/cj/sankarprasad
Re: [HumJanenge] Sec 22 of RTI Act, 2005 about its overriding effect on other laws
If there is any portion of a preexisting law as on 12 Oct 2005 which
is inconsistent with providing information under RTI Act, then the
said law will not stand in the way of the applicant getting his
information.
NB: It has to be first established that the applicant is otherwise
entitled to get info under RTI.
On 9/30/12, NAVIN PANDYA <navinpandya1954@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Friends,
>
> How the subject section is to be interpreted and applied?
>
> Registrar of Mumbai has refused to accept the above section.
>
> Kindly post your views immediately in public interest.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Navin Pandya
>
> --
> "CORRUPT AND UNACCOUNTABLE PUBLIC SERVANTS ARE THE GREATEST ENEMIES OF THE
> SOCIETY."
>
is inconsistent with providing information under RTI Act, then the
said law will not stand in the way of the applicant getting his
information.
NB: It has to be first established that the applicant is otherwise
entitled to get info under RTI.
On 9/30/12, NAVIN PANDYA <navinpandya1954@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Friends,
>
> How the subject section is to be interpreted and applied?
>
> Registrar of Mumbai has refused to accept the above section.
>
> Kindly post your views immediately in public interest.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Navin Pandya
>
> --
> "CORRUPT AND UNACCOUNTABLE PUBLIC SERVANTS ARE THE GREATEST ENEMIES OF THE
> SOCIETY."
>
[HumJanenge] Re: What kind of decision is this?
The thing you have not understood is "appeal"
CPIO denies information on ground that case is sub-judice .
FAA denies on same ground.
2nd appeal is in challenge that circumstances have changed.
This is not fit grounds for appeal
The Appellant has rightly been advised to file a fresh request.
On Sep 30, 8:34 pm, Girish Mittal <rtng.mit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What kind of decision is the attached decision?
>
> Information was denied earlier due to pending court case. At the time of
> hearing, no case was pending so information could have been provided, but
> the decision of CPIO/AA was upheld and appellant was asked to file another
> petition???
>
> Is this what is there in decision note or there is something I have not
> understood??
>
> Girish Mittal
>
> CIC_DS_A_2011_003676_M_CBDT_RM.pdf
> 91KViewDownload
CPIO denies information on ground that case is sub-judice .
FAA denies on same ground.
2nd appeal is in challenge that circumstances have changed.
This is not fit grounds for appeal
The Appellant has rightly been advised to file a fresh request.
On Sep 30, 8:34 pm, Girish Mittal <rtng.mit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What kind of decision is the attached decision?
>
> Information was denied earlier due to pending court case. At the time of
> hearing, no case was pending so information could have been provided, but
> the decision of CPIO/AA was upheld and appellant was asked to file another
> petition???
>
> Is this what is there in decision note or there is something I have not
> understood??
>
> Girish Mittal
>
> CIC_DS_A_2011_003676_M_CBDT_RM.pdf
> 91KViewDownload
[HumJanenge] What kind of decision is this?
What kind of decision is the attached decision?
Information was denied earlier due to pending court case. At the time of hearing, no case was pending so information could have been provided, but the decision of CPIO/AA was upheld and appellant was asked to file another petition???
Is this what is there in decision note or there is something I have not understood??
Girish Mittal
[HumJanenge] HAMMERING RTI
States Information Commissions take pretext of Supreme Court order to get rid of RTI Act? When the SC has granted 6-month time for the implementation of this decision, what is the justification of this logjam? All are out to hammer RTI Act.
Supreme Court order leads to RTI logjam across states
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court's order mandating the appointment of a judicial member and an expert to hear RTI-related cases, has crippled functioning of one-fourth of the country's 28 information commissions.
Work in the information commissions in Maharashtra, Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Haryana and Jharkhand has come to a halt, frustrating thousands who have filed RTI pleas to fight against injustices by authorities and for delivery of basic services. These information commissions ceased working on the advice of advocate generals and legal departments of respective states.
A survey conducted by Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) showed that all such commissions have stopped hearing fresh applications for disclosures under RTI. Appeals against earlier orders are also not being heard on RTI.
The situation may worsen in coming days because of indications that other information commissions may chose to be "risk-averse" for the fear of running foul of the SC order.
The Central Information Commission (CIC) has continued work after seeking the Centre's advice. Commissions in Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, Karnataka and Himachal Pradesh have also continued hearing RTI cases. In fact, the Advocate General in Kerala has asked the state information commission to continue working.
However, RTI activists feel that the crisis may deepen. A pointer to that has come from Jharkhand, where the state information commission has halted work despite the availability of a member with judicial training. The Jharkhand commission is headed by Justice (retired) DK Sinha. While the concern in many other commissions seems to be about the non-availability of a member with judicial training, in Jharkhand the worry seems to be about non-availability of non-judicial experts. No hearings are being held in Goa as members to the information commission have not been appointed.
Case for review plea
The SC in a recent order had held that the information commissions are quasi-judicial bodies and, therefore, ought to have a judge or a trained expert to hear cases. Since there are few judges in information commissions, the order has raised doubts about the validity of the decisions taken by the commissions.
The paralysis in information commissions is likely to spur the government to expedite the review petition it plans to file. Sources say that the government plans to argue that familiarity with administrative matters should be the only criteria for appointment to the commissions. However, until such time the court disposes of the review petition, confusion over the status of existing commissions and their orders will continue.
Reacting to the situation, National Campaign for People's Right to Information (NCPRI) member Shekhar Singh said that the Centre should ask for a clarification from the court instead of allowing status quo to continue.
SC lawyer Prashant Bhushan termed the order incorrect saying it "cripples the information commissions" because there were not enough judges to fill vacancies. "In my view it is not essential to stop hearing cases. The government should seek a clarification at least or a review of the order."
The J&K information commission is not affected by this ruling as it is constituted under a separate RTI law enacted by the J&K Legislature. The apex court's judgment is only restricted to the implementation of the RTI Act passed by Parliament.
According to CHRI, the patchy interpretation of the order has put India's reputation as a model for popular RTI at stake.
Work in the information commissions in Maharashtra, Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Haryana and Jharkhand has come to a halt, frustrating thousands who have filed RTI pleas to fight against injustices by authorities and for delivery of basic services. These information commissions ceased working on the advice of advocate generals and legal departments of respective states.
A survey conducted by Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) showed that all such commissions have stopped hearing fresh applications for disclosures under RTI. Appeals against earlier orders are also not being heard on RTI.
The situation may worsen in coming days because of indications that other information commissions may chose to be "risk-averse" for the fear of running foul of the SC order.
The Central Information Commission (CIC) has continued work after seeking the Centre's advice. Commissions in Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, Karnataka and Himachal Pradesh have also continued hearing RTI cases. In fact, the Advocate General in Kerala has asked the state information commission to continue working.
However, RTI activists feel that the crisis may deepen. A pointer to that has come from Jharkhand, where the state information commission has halted work despite the availability of a member with judicial training. The Jharkhand commission is headed by Justice (retired) DK Sinha. While the concern in many other commissions seems to be about the non-availability of a member with judicial training, in Jharkhand the worry seems to be about non-availability of non-judicial experts. No hearings are being held in Goa as members to the information commission have not been appointed.
Case for review plea
The SC in a recent order had held that the information commissions are quasi-judicial bodies and, therefore, ought to have a judge or a trained expert to hear cases. Since there are few judges in information commissions, the order has raised doubts about the validity of the decisions taken by the commissions.
The paralysis in information commissions is likely to spur the government to expedite the review petition it plans to file. Sources say that the government plans to argue that familiarity with administrative matters should be the only criteria for appointment to the commissions. However, until such time the court disposes of the review petition, confusion over the status of existing commissions and their orders will continue.
Reacting to the situation, National Campaign for People's Right to Information (NCPRI) member Shekhar Singh said that the Centre should ask for a clarification from the court instead of allowing status quo to continue.
SC lawyer Prashant Bhushan termed the order incorrect saying it "cripples the information commissions" because there were not enough judges to fill vacancies. "In my view it is not essential to stop hearing cases. The government should seek a clarification at least or a review of the order."
The J&K information commission is not affected by this ruling as it is constituted under a separate RTI law enacted by the J&K Legislature. The apex court's judgment is only restricted to the implementation of the RTI Act passed by Parliament.
According to CHRI, the patchy interpretation of the order has put India's reputation as a model for popular RTI at stake.
[HumJanenge] Sec 22 of RTI Act, 2005 about its overriding effect on other laws
Hello Friends,
How the subject section is to be interpreted and applied?
Registrar of Mumbai has refused to accept the above section.
Kindly post your views immediately in public interest.
Best regards,
Navin Pandya
--
"CORRUPT AND UNACCOUNTABLE PUBLIC SERVANTS ARE THE GREATEST ENEMIES OF THE SOCIETY."
--
"CORRUPT AND UNACCOUNTABLE PUBLIC SERVANTS ARE THE GREATEST ENEMIES OF THE SOCIETY."
Friday, September 28, 2012
Re: [HumJanenge] CIC poser to BJP, Congress on RTI
I think it absolutely right to bring the parties under rti act since public has all the right to know about source of their funds.
From: M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in>
To: RTI Act 2005 Hum Janenge Forum People's Right to Information <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 27 September 2012 7:40 PM
Subject: [HumJanenge] CIC poser to BJP, Congress on RTI
To: RTI Act 2005 Hum Janenge Forum People's Right to Information <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 27 September 2012 7:40 PM
Subject: [HumJanenge] CIC poser to BJP, Congress on RTI
CIC poser to BJP, Congress on RTI
HT Correspondent, Hindustan Times
New Delhi, September 26, 2012
New Delhi, September 26, 2012
First Published: 23:14 IST(26/9/2012)
Last Updated: 23:15 IST(26/9/2012)
Last Updated: 23:15 IST(26/9/2012)
The Central Information Commission (CIC) has given political parties, including the Congress and BJP 10 days to make their submissions on whether they should be declared public authorities under the Right To Information law. The commission decided to issue a notice to other political parties only after representatives of the CPI and Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) appeared before it on appeals filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and RTI activist Subhash Chandra Aggarwal seeking to bring political parties under the RTI ambit.
Appearing on behalf of appellants, Prashant Bhushan argued that the political parties should be declared public authority under the RTI law as they were receiving substantial government funding through I-T exemption.
Thursday, September 27, 2012
[HumJanenge] is there any way in which an RTI can be filed to find out how a VC has been appointed.
| There seems to be gross irregularity with the Gujarat Government's appointment of VC's to the detriment of the University system. However, it has been widely rumored that VC's have been appointed by paying huge bribes to the party in power. Is there a way of filing an RTI with the Governor and Chief Minister? How does one go about this? |
[HumJanenge] CIC poser to BJP, Congress on RTI
CIC poser to BJP, Congress on RTI
HT Correspondent, Hindustan Times
New Delhi, September 26, 2012
New Delhi, September 26, 2012
First Published: 23:14 IST(26/9/2012)
Last Updated: 23:15 IST(26/9/2012)
Last Updated: 23:15 IST(26/9/2012)
The Central Information Commission (CIC) has given political parties, including the Congress and BJP 10 days to make their submissions on whether they should be declared public authorities under the Right To Information law. The commission decided to issue a notice to other political parties only after representatives of the CPI and Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) appeared before it on appeals filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and RTI activist Subhash Chandra Aggarwal seeking to bring political parties under the RTI ambit.
Appearing on behalf of appellants, Prashant Bhushan argued that the political parties should be declared public authority under the RTI law as they were receiving substantial government funding through I-T exemption.
Re: [rti_india] Re: Solar News: Why We Pay Double for Solar in America (But Won't Forever)
Dear Mr. Bhanot
This is not a lamp and neither does it generate light.
The same result can be achieved by using bits of
semi translucent fibre glass sheet regularly.spaced
to let in sun-light through the shanty GI or asbestos roofs.
To summarise:
1) This "lamp" is only acting as a lens for the sun
2) The bleach is to prevent buildup of microorganisms
3) There is no chemical reaction taking place whatsoever.
Sarbajit
On 9/27/12, Surendera M. Bhanot <bhanot1952@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sir,
>
> How about this Plastic Bottle Solar Lamp (for day illumination only).
> Please see the attached pdf file. It's boon for the third-world low income
> groups living in dark slums colonies.
> --
> *Our biggest competition is never with the others. Instead, it is always
> within ourselves.
> It doesn't matter where we end up - first or at last. If we do our best to
> do better than before,
> We've won!!
> **
> Warm Regards**
>
> Surendera M. Bhanot*
__._,_.___
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (2) |
.
__,_._,___
[HumJanenge] Govt may file review petition in SC on Sept 13 CIC judgement
| Govt may file review petition in SC on Sept 13 CIC judgement |
| Press Trust of India / New Delhi September 26, 2012, 22:35 |
| The government is likely to file a review petition before the Supreme Court on its September 13 judgement that judges should also be appointed as members of the Central Information Commission and state commissions. Sources in the government said that the review is likely to be filed following a legal opinion by the Attorney General that the present system should continue and there was no need to change it at this moment.
Attorney General G E Vahanvati is learnt to have said that more clarity is required from the Supreme Court on the issue. Holding that Central and state information commissions perform quasi-judicial functions, the Supreme Court had on September 13 asked the government to appoint people from judicial background also as its members. A bench of justices A K Patnaik and Swatanter Kumar passed the order on a PIL challenging section 12 and 15 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 enumerating the qualifications needed for the appointment of members to the commissions. The bench, however, refused to quash the sections but asked the government to modify it so that people from judicial background are also preferred for the post. Currently, none of the eight members of the Central Information Commission (CIC), including the Chief Information Commissioner are from judicial background. The CIC comprises one Chief Information Commissioner and 10 Information Commissioners. |
| |
[rti_india] Re: Solar News: Why We Pay Double for Solar in America (But Won't Forever) [1 Attachment]
[Attachment(s) from Surendera M. Bhanot included below]
--
Our biggest competition is never with the others. Instead, it is always within ourselves.
It doesn't matter where we end up - first or at last. If we do our best to do better than before,
We've won!!
Warm Regards
Surendera M. Bhanot
- President, RTI Help & Assistance Forum Chandigarh
- Youth for Human Rights International YHRI - South Asia
- CEO, Avis Software, Chandigarh
- Convener & Life Member, Consumers Association Chandigarh
- Jt. Secretary, Amateur Judo Association of Chandigarh
- Member, SPACE - Society for Promotion and Conservation of Environment, Chandigarh
- Coordinator, RTIFED, Chandigarh
No. 3758, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh-160022
Mob: +91-9888-810-811
PHONE: +91-172-2780838
FAX: 0871 266 8523
Mail Me
DISCLAIMER: You have received this email because you any one time contacted me through mail or otherwise gave your mail-id. This e-mail is intended to be sent to the persons on my regular mail-list. In case you think this mail infringes your privacy or otherwise you do not want to receive this mail anymore, please reply with the word 'UNSUBSCRIBE" in the body of the mail. Please do not disturb the Subject line. I am sorry to see you go. But please mention the reason why you want to go. It will help me improve my services in future. Thanks
Sir,
How about this Plastic Bottle Solar Lamp (for day illumination only). Please see the attached pdf file. It's boon for the third-world low income groups living in dark slums colonies.
Our biggest competition is never with the others. Instead, it is always within ourselves.
It doesn't matter where we end up - first or at last. If we do our best to do better than before,
We've won!!
Warm Regards
Surendera M. Bhanot
- President, RTI Help & Assistance Forum Chandigarh
- Youth for Human Rights International YHRI - South Asia
- CEO, Avis Software, Chandigarh
- Convener & Life Member, Consumers Association Chandigarh
- Jt. Secretary, Amateur Judo Association of Chandigarh
- Member, SPACE - Society for Promotion and Conservation of Environment, Chandigarh
- Coordinator, RTIFED, Chandigarh
No. 3758, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh-160022
Mob: +91-9888-810-811
PHONE: +91-172-2780838
FAX: 0871 266 8523
Mail Me
DISCLAIMER: You have received this email because you any one time contacted me through mail or otherwise gave your mail-id. This e-mail is intended to be sent to the persons on my regular mail-list. In case you think this mail infringes your privacy or otherwise you do not want to receive this mail anymore, please reply with the word 'UNSUBSCRIBE" in the body of the mail. Please do not disturb the Subject line. I am sorry to see you go. But please mention the reason why you want to go. It will help me improve my services in future. Thanks
__._,_.___
Attachment(s) from Surendera M. Bhanot
1 of 1 File(s)
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (1) |
.
__,_._,___
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Re: [HumJanenge] re:
Compromised or Hacked ? Compromise Includes Co-operation either Voulntarily or by Force , I presume in instant case Both Parties are Far Apart and Unknowingly by Stealth The security Ring has been Broken by another party N vikramsimha , KRIA Katte , #12 Sumeru Sir M N Krishna Rao Road , Basvangudi < Bangalore 560004. --- On Wed, 26/9/12, Mathre Rangarajan <rangajan@yahoo.com> wrote:
|