Saturday, July 2, 2011

Re: [HumJanenge] Re: [HumJanenge-YG] “Dear RTI Activist, please solve my problem for free”

General Singh,

The Central Government and some State Governments have notified "Appeal Procedure" Rules.
The second appeals to the commission have to be as per the prescribed rules.
For example, the CIC Appeal procedure Rules state:

3. Contents of appeal:
.
.
.
4. Documents to accompany appeal
.
iii) an Index of documents accompanying the appeal.

The appellant has to at least conform to the appeal procedure rules.

CIC is a "class" based institution and you belong to the "special" category.
Ordinary mortals have had their appeals returned on even less frivolous grounds.
Quite a few of the Registry's in the CIC are staffed by interns these days and that could be one reason why your appeals have gone through and others ave been rejected.

In AP, the appeal procedure rules (GO 66 of 2006) are so cumbersome, that even today, 6 years after the RTI Act came into force, 40% of the second appeals are "returned" since they do not conform to the appeal procedure rules.

There is no format for a RTI application for Central PAs (like in Chandigarh). Some States have prescribed formats (Odisha and Maharashtra being two of them) for applications. But a RTI application cannot be rejected simply because it is not in the proper format, as long as the information in the application has all the fields as in the prescribed format.

RTIwanted





From: vinay singh <vinay4299@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, July 1, 2011 11:16 AM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: [HumJanenge-YG] "Dear RTI Activist, please solve my problem for free"

I find that the format of the complaints and 2nd  appeals being
recommended is similar to what is being followed in the high courts
and supreme courts. This is not necessary. Neither is it necessary to
use legalese like 'most respectfully sheweth ', 'Hon'ble Commission'
and so on.  Even the consumer forums have started following a similar
format, with index, synopsis, list of dates and so on. This is one of
the reasons a common citizen has to employ a lawyer.

I have filed about 50 complaints and 2nd appeals with the CIC, without
index, synopsis, list of dates and so on. All of been admitted and
heard. The best option is to keep it simple. The person reading it
will be happy if he has to read 2 pages instead of 4.

In an interesting case, the Chandigarh Information Commission find the
rgeistrar of societies who refused to accept my RTI application
because  it was not in the 'format' that he wanted.

Maj Gen VK Singh (Retd)

On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Col Kurup
>
> Welcome Home !! You will find so many of your former brother in arms on this
> channel. We are also now a disciplined and fighting fit force, and
> troublemakers (so called RTI activists) are put on KP or latrine duty.
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Col NR Kurup <colnrkurup@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Mr.Sarbajit Roy,
>>
>> I had kept myself out of circulation from all our RTI Groups since
>> last one year mainly due to my inability to sustain the in-fighting Of
>> course I kept myself away from it. Since last few days I started to
>> have a peep in my old forums.  Things seems cooled down. Do you think
>> I can sustain and can start to become active now ?.
>>
>> With warm regards
>> Col NR Kurup
>>
>> On 01/07/2011, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > There are 2 good places to get your problems solved free.
>> > a) This mailing list
>> > b) http://rtiindia.org  (run by Mr Karira and others)
>> >
>> > the "b" option is the preferred one.. Once you have reached some
>> > conclusion
>> > there, you ought to post the final draft 2nd appeal evolved for the
>> > consideration of this group's more advanced members..
>> >
>> > Sarbajit
>> >
>> > On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 7:45 AM, AVTAR SINGH
>> > <avtarsingh119@hotmail.com>wrote:
>> >
>> >>  Dear Sarabjit Roy,
>> >>
>> >> I am a rertired officer from defence.
>> >> I along with 200 officers have won our case regarding pension at three
>> >> different benches of AFT,
>> >> The plea has been identical and judgement similar. The judgement was
>> >> delivered on 16 Sep 2010,1 Nov 2011 and 25 Nov 2011.
>> >>
>> >> Though the stipulated period of three/four months has elapsed we have
>> >> not
>> >> got our dues.
>> >>
>> >> One of our fellow ranling officers who was not a petitioner have have
>> >> filed
>> >> two RTIS on 15 and a6 marcg 2011.
>> >>
>> >> The reminder for this was sent as first appeal to the appellate
>> >> authority
>> >> on 15 may 2011 and 18 June 2011
>> >>
>> >> We now propose to file second appeal to CIC.
>> >>
>> >> Can you suggest some expert of RTI around Delhi who could assist us in
>> >> filing second appeal to CIC.
>> >>
>> >> regards
>> >>
>> >> Avtar Singh
>> >> 1-7-2011
>> >>
>> >>  ------------------------------
>> >> Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 07:03:48 +0530
>> >> Subject: [HumJanenge] Re: [HumJanenge-YG] "Dear RTI Activist, please
>> >> solve
>> >> my problem for free"
>> >> From: sroy.mb@gmail.com
>> >> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Dear Karira ("rtiwanted")
>> >>
>> >> Many thanks for finally getting Mr Krishnaraj Rao to openly admit that
>> >> he
>> >> is in the business of filing RTI applications and negotiating deals to
>> >> "defend" people's assets for a charge. The bonafides of his so-called
>> >> RTI
>> >> Users Association are completely exposed by this statement.
>> >>
>> >> Secondly, if we recall his "hunger strike" at Anna's vilage of Ralegaon
>> >> Siddhi, it is quite obvious that he is only trying to replicate (in his
>> >> own
>> >> small way) Anna's own "business" model.
>> >>
>> >> Personally, I condemn such commercial minded people who are a blot on
>> >> the
>> >> RTI moivement, the less we interact with them the better. At
>> >> HumJanenge-Googlegroups we are trying to make this a group for selfless
>> >> people who freely asisst each other to further the RTI movement for
>> >> nation
>> >> building.
>> >>
>> >> Sarbajit
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Krishnaraj Rao
>> >> <sahasipadyatri@gmail.com>wrote:
>> >>
>> >> **
>> >>
>> >>  Dear Jam,
>> >>
>> >> My conclusion is:
>> >>
>> >> 1) RTI activists/experts should reasonably charge private parties whose
>> >> assets they defend, provided the parties are capable of bearing the
>> >> charge.
>> >>
>> >> 2) In private matters where there is a very large element of public
>> >> interest, they may consider not charging.
>> >>
>> >> 3) They should not charge citizens who are working for public interest.
>> >> In
>> >> fact, for such citizens, they should go out of their way to help with
>> >> time
>> >> and monetary resources.
>> >>
>> >> 4) For ensuring the health of the RTI movement, they have a multiple
>> >> responsibility. They have to act in such a way that:
>> >> a) Public Interest is paramount in all that they do or say.
>> >> b) People who uphold public interest remain in good financial health.
>> >> c) Private parties get good quality service and growing numbers of
>> >> service-providers (paid) or guidance-providers (free) to choose from.
>> >> d) There is plenty of self-help knowledge available in the public
>> >> domain
>> >> so
>> >> that people take the paid services out of free choice, and not because
>> >> of
>> >> lack of access to information.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for your interest in this discussion.
>> >>
>> >> Warm Regards,
>> >> Krish
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 10:06 AM, C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > **
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Krishnaraj,
>> >> >
>> >> > So, what is your conclusion ?
>> >> >
>> >> > Should RTI activists/helpers/consultants/experts/etc charge citizens
>> >> > or
>> >> not
>> >> > ?
>> >> __._,_.___
>> >>  Reply to
>> >>
>> >> sender<sahasipadyatri@gmail.com?subject=Re:+%5BHumJanenge-YG%5D+%93Dear+RTI+Activist,+please+solve+my+problem+for+free%94>|
>> >> Reply
>> >> to
>> >>
>> >> group<HumJanenge@yahoogroups.co.in?subject=Re:+%5BHumJanenge-YG%5D+%93Dear+RTI+Activist,+please+solve+my+problem+for+free%94>|
>> >> Reply
>> >> via web
>> >>
>> >> post<http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/HumJanenge/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJyYTNyOWhoBF9TAzk3NDkwNDgxBGdycElkAzEzNzYxODcwBGdycHNwSWQDMTcyMDA2NDAwNQRtc2dJZAMzMDU4NQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNycGx5BHN0aW1lAzEzMDk0NDgxMTQ-?act=reply&messageNum=30585>|
>> >> Start
>> >> a new
>> >>
>> >> topic<http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/HumJanenge/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJmMjA4MzllBF9TAzk3NDkwNDgxBGdycElkAzEzNzYxODcwBGdycHNwSWQDMTcyMDA2NDAwNQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNudHBjBHN0aW1lAzEzMDk0NDgxMTQ->
>> >> Messages in this
>> >>
>> >> topic<http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/HumJanenge/message/30572;_ylc=X3oDMTM3aW1tcThjBF9TAzk3NDkwNDgxBGdycElkAzEzNzYxODcwBGdycHNwSWQDMTcyMDA2NDAwNQRtc2dJZAMzMDU4NQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawN2dHBjBHN0aW1lAzEzMDk0NDgxMTQEdHBjSWQDMzA1NzI->(
>> >> 5)
>> >>  Recent Activity:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Visit Your
>> >>
>> >> Group<http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/HumJanenge;_ylc=X3oDMTJmY2thOGppBF9TAzk3NDkwNDgxBGdycElkAzEzNzYxODcwBGdycHNwSWQDMTcyMDA2NDAwNQRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzEzMDk0NDgxMTQ->
>> >> messages in archives can be accessed only by members, but all are
>> >> welcome
>> >> to join hum janenge group. visit http://indiarti.blogspot.com to know
>> >> everything on rti.
>> >> [image: Yahoo!
>> >>
>> >> Groups]<http://in.groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlaDRrb2R2BF9TAzk3NDkwNDgxBGdycElkAzEzNzYxODcwBGdycHNwSWQDMTcyMDA2NDAwNQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTMwOTQ0ODExNA-->
>> >> Switch to:
>> >>
>> >> Text-Only<HumJanenge-traditional@yahoogroups.co.in?subject=Change+Delivery+Format:+Traditional>,
>> >> Daily
>> >>
>> >> Digest<HumJanenge-digest@yahoogroups.co.in?subject=Email+Delivery:+Digest>•
>> >> Unsubscribe
>> >> <HumJanenge-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.co.in?subject=Unsubscribe>• Terms
>> >> of Use <http://in.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>
>> >>  .
>> >>
>> >> __,_._,___
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>
>


Re: [HumJanenge] CIC says Govt. notification on CBI exemption not in consonance with RTI

Dear Sarab, ,

 

How u have concluded that this order was first reserved as there is no such indication that the order was reserved?  However, if it was reserved, the same make sense as a detailed and speaking order running into 11 pages cannot the dictated instantly on the same day leaving all other cases.

 

It has nowhere mentioned in the decision whether the complainant or respondent were present or not during the hearing. Even if the they are not present, CIC has to take decision on the basis on the material available before him.

 

Section 18 (1) says, " Subject to the provision of this Act, it shall be duty of the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, to receive and inquire into a complaint from any person, ---

 

(d) who believes that he or she has been given incomplete, misleading or false information under this Act;"

 

As per order, complaint was filed on 5.2.2011, it was not the second appeal.  This has come for hearing within 4 months while it takes much more time with some other ICs.

 

Every accused has a right to fair trial and the RTI Act is applicable to him also.  There are enough safeguards in RTI Act against its misuse in section 8, 9 and 24. 

 

Executive cannot outdo an Act duly passed by the Parliament of India by just issuing an executive order (notification) exempting the Public Authorities without valid ground.  CBI is not an intelligence or security agency but an investigative agency. 



--- On Sat, 2/7/11, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] CIC says Govt. notification on CBI exemption not in consonance with RTI
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Saturday, 2 July, 2011, 9:09 AM

Dear Karira

1) almost all the rti_india yahoogroup members are on HumJanenge, so no need to post such messages there.

2) With my long experience of how CIC "reserved" orders are drafted, I can say with considerable force that the reason the Complainant was not present, was because there was "hanky panky" in the final order in favour of a retired judge who is accused in Ghaziabad judges PF scam. Anybody who tracks Shailesh Gandhi's usual orders will vouch for this. What is especially curious in the present case is that the CIC treated a "2nd Appeal" (w/o 1st appeal on record) as Complaint (and thereby invoked its enquiry powers to cut-n-paste from various websites).

3) I think it is high time that this practice of "reserved" orders at CIC be stopped.

Sarbajit

On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 9:33 PM, C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> wrote:
Today (01 July 2011), CIC has passed an order while hearing a Complaint from an accused in the Ghaziabad PF scam.

In a very long order, CIC has ruled that:

1. The Govt. order on exemption of CBI from RTI is not in consonance with the basic provisions of the RTI Act
2. CIC can hear direct Complaints and there is no need to exhaust 19(1) before approaching the commission
3. The gazette notification on CBIs exemption has only a prospective effect - ie cannot be applied to applications/appeals/complaints already in process.

Full order is attached to this post.

RTIwanted

Friday, July 1, 2011

Re: [HumJanenge] CIC says Govt. notification on CBI exemption not in consonance with RTI

Dear Karira

1) almost all the rti_india yahoogroup members are on HumJanenge, so no need to post such messages there.

2) With my long experience of how CIC "reserved" orders are drafted, I can say with considerable force that the reason the Complainant was not present, was because there was "hanky panky" in the final order in favour of a retired judge who is accused in Ghaziabad judges PF scam. Anybody who tracks Shailesh Gandhi's usual orders will vouch for this. What is especially curious in the present case is that the CIC treated a "2nd Appeal" (w/o 1st appeal on record) as Complaint (and thereby invoked its enquiry powers to cut-n-paste from various websites).

3) I think it is high time that this practice of "reserved" orders at CIC be stopped.

Sarbajit

On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 9:33 PM, C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> wrote:
Today (01 July 2011), CIC has passed an order while hearing a Complaint from an accused in the Ghaziabad PF scam.

In a very long order, CIC has ruled that:

1. The Govt. order on exemption of CBI from RTI is not in consonance with the basic provisions of the RTI Act
2. CIC can hear direct Complaints and there is no need to exhaust 19(1) before approaching the commission
3. The gazette notification on CBIs exemption has only a prospective effect - ie cannot be applied to applications/appeals/complaints already in process.

Full order is attached to this post.

RTIwanted

Re: [rti_india] CIC says Govt. notification on CBI exemption not in consonance with RTI

 

Dear Mr Arun,

SIC and CIC have separate jurisdictions - depending on whether the public authority is under Central or State Government. You cannot move the CIC for the public authorities that you have listed.

RTiwanted


From: arun gurtoo <agurtoo@hotmail.com>
To: rti_india@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, July 1, 2011 10:23 PM
Subject: RE: [rti_india] CIC says Govt. notification on CBI exemption not in consonance with RTI

 
dear shri jam, in MP, the Criminal Investigation Department (cid), THE Lokayukta organization and the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) have been exempted by the State Govt. from application of the RTI Act. on my application against this, the SIC upheld my contention but the State Govt. has gone in appeal to the High Court. this matter has been pending for the last almost 2 yrs in the H C at Jabalpur. can the matter be referred to the CIC? arun gurtoo






__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

RE: [rti_india] CIC says Govt. notification on CBI exemption not in consonance with RTI

 

dear shri jam, in MP, the Criminal Investigation Department (cid), THE Lokayukta organization and the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) have been exempted by the State Govt. from application of the RTI Act. on my application against this, the SIC upheld my contention but the State Govt. has gone in appeal to the High Court. this matter has been pending for the last almost 2 yrs in the H C at Jabalpur. can the matter be referred to the CIC? arun gurtoo


To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com; rti_india@yahoogroups.com
From: rtiwanted@yahoo.com
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 09:03:58 -0700
Subject: [rti_india] CIC says Govt. notification on CBI exemption not in consonance with RTI [1 Attachment]

 
[Attachment(s) from C K Jam included below]
Today (01 July 2011), CIC has passed an order while hearing a Complaint from an accused in the Ghaziabad PF scam.

In a very long order, CIC has ruled that:

1. The Govt. order on exemption of CBI from RTI is not in consonance with the basic provisions of the RTI Act
2. CIC can hear direct Complaints and there is no need to exhaust 19(1) before approaching the commission
3. The gazette notification on CBIs exemption has only a prospective effect - ie cannot be applied to applications/appeals/complaints already in process.

Full order is attached to this post.

RTIwanted

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

[HumJanenge] CIC says Govt. notification on CBI exemption not in consonance with RTI

Today (01 July 2011), CIC has passed an order while hearing a Complaint from an accused in the Ghaziabad PF scam.

In a very long order, CIC has ruled that:

1. The Govt. order on exemption of CBI from RTI is not in consonance with the basic provisions of the RTI Act
2. CIC can hear direct Complaints and there is no need to exhaust 19(1) before approaching the commission
3. The gazette notification on CBIs exemption has only a prospective effect - ie cannot be applied to applications/appeals/complaints already in process.

Full order is attached to this post.

RTIwanted

[rti_india] CIC says Govt. notification on CBI exemption not in consonance with RTI [1 Attachment]

 
[Attachment(s) from C K Jam included below]

Today (01 July 2011), CIC has passed an order while hearing a Complaint from an accused in the Ghaziabad PF scam.

In a very long order, CIC has ruled that:

1. The Govt. order on exemption of CBI from RTI is not in consonance with the basic provisions of the RTI Act
2. CIC can hear direct Complaints and there is no need to exhaust 19(1) before approaching the commission
3. The gazette notification on CBIs exemption has only a prospective effect - ie cannot be applied to applications/appeals/complaints already in process.

Full order is attached to this post.

RTIwanted

__._,_.___

Attachment(s) from C K Jam

1 of 1 File(s)

Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___