Nabble - RTI India

My moderation philosophy

2009-12-10T01:42:41Z

A few members have appealed for a) my increased participation in the group b) greater control over who / what is allowed to post /be posted.

Although I believe in strictly separating religion / state, it wouldn't harm us to occasionally recall a few ancient Indian gems. Currently I am re-translating (modernising) the English translation of the Katha Upanishad which was first translated in English about 200 years back by Rammohun Roy.

Opening 'Shanti' incantation of Katha Upanishad

Aum
saha nau~ avatu
saha nau b(h)unaktu
saha viryam~ karavavahai
tejasvi nau~ ad(h)itam astu
ma vi-dvi(s)avahai
au(m) ´santi(h) ´santi(h) ´santi(h)

Oh Supreme Brahma
May Thou Protect us both, (teacher and taught).
May we both strive to absorb your grace.
May our combined energies be productive.
May our study bring us illumination.
May there be no discord among us.
OM! PEACE! PEACE! PEACE!

Katha 2.5

avidyayam antare vartamanah~
svayam~-dhirah~ panditam~-manyamanah~
dandramyamanah~ pariyanti mudhah~
andhenaiva niyamana yathaandhah~

Fools dwelling in ignorance,
yet imagining themselves wise and learned,
in delusion go circling in unguided ways,
like the blind led by the blind.

Re: Video recording

2009-12-10T00:53:39Z

Dear Sunil,

Lets set out the entire clause

2(j) "right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to
(i) inspection of work, documents, records;
(ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records;
(iii) taking certified samples of material;
(iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device;""

Firstly, the information is limited only to that information (2f) which is held by or under the control of a public authority.

Secondly, "inspection " simply means a right to "formally observe in a non-destructive manner". (The issue of whether applicant can "test" / "measure" the information is clarified by other clauses)

Thirdly, the right to take extracts or certified copies is strictly limited to documents and records. This sub-clause does not enable you to "extract" a sample from a road. The true intent is to allow an applicant to get copies of part(s) of the record rather than pay for copying the whole.

Fourthly, applicant is entitled to TAKE certified sample(s) of MATERIAL. This is the clause which allows citizens to take samples of public works and get it certified as a RTI sample by the DESIGNATED COMPETENT PERSON - not neceesarily the PIO (under the P/A's own laws / rules) of the public authority.(NB: This is very important: In both this sub-clause and the preceding one, the "certification" is limited to a mere certification that the information copy / extract is being provided under RTI Act. This certification is not a certification as to the accuracy of the information - and it has no validity in a court of law) <--- If any RTI ACTIVIST(S) want to dispute this they must be very well prepared.

Fifthly, for information stored in the electronic form the RTI Act provided that copies can be "obtained" in a suitable FORM - including a physical printout if possible.

Nowhere is there an explicit right to videograph, photograph, or audiograph non-electronic information. For example cannot demand that a digital version in say MP3 format be CREATED of an analogue audiotape in Doordarshan archives.

Lastly, we have Sidharth's reference to that old order of Mr Habibullah saying there is nothing to preclude it. Use this decision at your own risk, as it wont stand up in a court of law in the face of section 3 of the Official Secrets Act which is the bar. RTI Act is only an enabling legislation to access/ copy information in restricted ways allowed by the RTI Act - see section 3 "Subject to the provisions of this Act, all citizens shall have the right to information."

Sarbajit

--- In rti_india@..., Sunil Ahya <sunilahya@...> wrote:

>
> Dear All,
>
> I think we are discussing sec. 2 (j) - (i), (ii) & (iv).
>
> Sec. 2 (j) Right to Information means............
>
> (i) inspection of work, .........
> (ii) ...........taking certified copies.........
> (iv)obtaining information.........video cassettes..........where such
> information is stored in a computer or in any other device.
>
> *(ii)* taking certified copies I suppose would implicitly mean taking
> photocopies of documents, records etc. Photocopy means taking the a photo of
> the document. Photo may be taken by a dedicated photocopy machine (like the
> most popular company named Xerox (Modi-Xerox in India) which makes dedicated
> photocopying machines) OR take a photocopy through a scanner attached to a
> computer OR take a photocopy through a digital camera / video camera etc.
> i.e take a photocopy through an electronic means that is most suitable.
>
> *(iv)* obtaining information.......video cassettes......where such
> information is stored in computer etc would mean that a video recording that
> has already been taken in the past and is being held by a PA, one may
> request the PA to provide oneself with a copy of the same.
>
> *(i) inspection of work*............. now how does one define that? what is
> the correct method to inspect work? Can one inspect the work through one's
> eyes (human cameras) and record it in the hard disk of one's human brain OR
> can one record it through the eyes of a video camera and record it on an
> electronic memory card??
>
> Warm Regards,
>
> Sunil.
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 11:41 AM, C K Jam <rtiwanted@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > If the Video signal is being continuously transmitted to NIC Bhawan, then
> > there is a need for the CIC to review its following position:
> >
> > http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Minutes/Minutes13052008.pdf
> >
> > Supplementary Item:
> > 4. Commission examined a request that the Commission to provide
> > a copy of the recording of a complainant's hearing, which was conducted
> > by Videoconference. While no decision on policy was taken on the issue,
> > the Commission observed that such recording will entail arrangements
> > for which we are not ready, and higher costs.
> >
> > RTIwanted
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > *From:* sarbajitr <sroy1947@...>**
> >
> >
> > 6) IC(MLS) may not be aware of the concerned Rule which prohibits
> > audio/video recording of CIC hearings. Recently our friend Karira (CK Jam)
> > had posted a query on his forum wanting to know how my DDA hearing had been
> > photographed. Upon enquiry I learnt that all the senior ICs now have NIC
> > videoconferencing systems installed in their office which are "always On"
> > and transmitting continuously back to NIC Bhawan for security reasons. In
> > other words the chambers of the senior ICs are always bugged. Our old
> > friends the "Chinese Hackers" know exactly what is going on even before
> > parties do. It seems they have some very graphic videos (with Dolby Audio)
> > of romps in a particular
> > office :-)
> >
> > Sarbajit
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> It is not always the same thing to be a good man and a good citizen -
> Aristotle
>

Inspection of RG/PG-R/N

2009-12-10T00:08:28Z

Dear Bunh,

If does not give the report make one report and submit your findings to
A.sst Coomi and Superitendent of Gardens. Copy to MC.

Bhaskar Prabhu

Inspection of RG/PG-R/N

2009-12-09T23:21:09Z

Dear Friends
After obtaining RTI reply from the concerned PIO, I got hold of him to do the physical Inspection/Cross check of the PGs/RGs.We managed to get 10-12 places done .I have asked the PIO to prepare a report of it.Since last 15 days he has not.Neither he is cooperating to do rest of the Inspection. Should he give a report on such Inspection as a record and continue with rest of the Inspection.? Please do send the address of the Vigilance PIO/ or competent authority where it should be taken care.

Regards

Bunch-IC Colony

The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage. http://in.yahoo.com/

Refusal of giving copies by PA on the grounds of matter not its own production

2009-12-09T23:13:32Z

Dear Sarbajit Royji and all,

I have been denied maps of IHSDP by HUDCO on the grounds of such maps not being their production.Although HUDCO is the state nodal agency to approve IHSDP proposals and give appraisal report to HUPA ministery.

Kindly suggest whether such denial is justified under RTI.

With regards
Manoj K.Kamra

Fw: why we fail [1 Attachment]

2009-12-09T23:08:33Z

Its time to learn.Now or never.
Best of luck.
Bunch

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: sam bunch <sam_bunch2000@...>
To: Richard Fernandes <urstrulyrichard@...>; Raja Bunch <bunch_raja@...>; Deep Bunch <deep_bunch@...>; Itrat Jafri <itratf@...>; Shaheen Jafri <shaheen.jafri@...>; Nusrat Jafri <nusratjafri@...>; Cheku <srsunita2000@...>
Sent: Wed, 9 December, 2009 12:54:25 PM
Subject: FW: why we fail

>

The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage. http://in.yahoo.com/

Re: Re: Video recording

2009-12-09T22:50:33Z

Thanks Sunil for declining the word Xerox. I have failed to convince people that the correct word is Photocopy or photostat.This is 100% correct description of xerox.
This the correct section we are dealing with.
Bunch

________________________________
From: Sunil Ahya <sunilahya@...>
To: rti_india@...
Sent: Thu, 10 December, 2009 12:10:59 PM
Subject: Re: [rti_india] Re: Video recording

Dear All,

I think we are discussing sec. 2 (j) - (i), (ii) & (iv).

Sec. 2 (j) Right to Information means....... .....

(i) inspection of work, .........
(ii) ...........taking certified copies...... ...
(iv)obtaining information. ........video cassettes... .......where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device.

(ii) taking certified copies I suppose would implicitly mean taking photocopies of documents, records etc. Photocopy means taking the a photo of the document. Photo may be taken by a dedicated photocopy machine (like the most popular company named Xerox (Modi-Xerox in India) which makes dedicated photocopying machines) OR take a photocopy through a scanner attached to a computer OR take a photocopy through a digital camera / video camera etc. i.e take a photocopy through an electronic means that is most suitable.

(iv) obtaining information. ......video cassettes... ...where such information is stored in computer etc would mean that a video recording that has already been taken in the past and is being held by a PA, one may request the PA to provide oneself with a copy of the same.

(i) inspection of work............ . now how does one define that? what is the correct method to inspect work? Can one inspect the work through one's eyes (human cameras) and record it in the hard disk of one's human brain OR can one record it through the eyes of a video camera and record it on an electronic memory card??

Warm Regards,

Sunil.

On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 11:41 AM, C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo. com> wrote:

>If the Video signal is being continuously transmitted to NIC Bhawan, then there is a need for the CIC to review its following position:
>
>http://cic.gov. in/CIC-Minutes/ Minutes13052008. pdf
>
>Supplementary Item:
>4. Commission examined a request that the Commission to provide
>a copy of the recording of a complainant’s hearing, which was conducted
>by Videoconference. While no decision on policy was taken on the issue,
>the Commission observed that such recording will entail arrangements
>for which we are not ready, and higher costs.
>
>RTIwanted
>
>
>
>

________________________________
From: sarbajitr <sroy1947@yahoo. com>
>
>
>
>6) IC(MLS) may not be aware of the concerned Rule which prohibits audio/video recording of CIC hearings. Recently our friend Karira (CK Jam) had posted a query on his forum wanting to know how my DDA hearing had been photographed. Upon enquiry I learnt that all the senior ICs now have NIC videoconferencing systems installed in their office which are "always On" and transmitting continuously back to NIC Bhawan for security reasons. In other words the chambers of the senior ICs are always bugged. Our old friends the "Chinese Hackers" know exactly what is going on even before parties do. It seems they have some very graphic videos (with Dolby Audio) of romps in a particular
>office :-)
>
>Sarbajit
>
>

--
It is not always the same thing to be a good man and a good citizen - Aristotle

The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage. http://in.yahoo.com/

Re: Re: Video recording

2009-12-09T22:40:59Z

Dear All,

I think we are discussing sec. 2 (j) - (i), (ii) & (iv).

Sec. 2 (j) Right to Information means............

(i) inspection of work, .........
(ii) ...........taking certified copies.........
(iv)obtaining information.........video cassettes..........where such
information is stored in a computer or in any other device.

*(ii)* taking certified copies I suppose would implicitly mean taking
photocopies of documents, records etc. Photocopy means taking the a photo of
the document. Photo may be taken by a dedicated photocopy machine (like the
most popular company named Xerox (Modi-Xerox in India) which makes dedicated
photocopying machines) OR take a photocopy through a scanner attached to a
computer OR take a photocopy through a digital camera / video camera etc.
i.e take a photocopy through an electronic means that is most suitable.

*(iv)* obtaining information.......video cassettes......where such
information is stored in computer etc would mean that a video recording that
has already been taken in the past and is being held by a PA, one may
request the PA to provide oneself with a copy of the same.

*(i) inspection of work*............. now how does one define that? what is
the correct method to inspect work? Can one inspect the work through one's
eyes (human cameras) and record it in the hard disk of one's human brain OR
can one record it through the eyes of a video camera and record it on an
electronic memory card??

Warm Regards,

Sunil.

On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 11:41 AM, C K Jam <rtiwanted@...> wrote:

>
>
> If the Video signal is being continuously transmitted to NIC Bhawan, then
> there is a need for the CIC to review its following position:
>
> http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Minutes/Minutes13052008.pdf
>
> Supplementary Item:
> 4. Commission examined a request that the Commission to provide
> a copy of the recording of a complainant’s hearing, which was conducted
> by Videoconference. While no decision on policy was taken on the issue,
> the Commission observed that such recording will entail arrangements
> for which we are not ready, and higher costs.
>
> RTIwanted
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* sarbajitr <sroy1947@...>**
>
>
> 6) IC(MLS) may not be aware of the concerned Rule which prohibits
> audio/video recording of CIC hearings. Recently our friend Karira (CK Jam)
> had posted a query on his forum wanting to know how my DDA hearing had been
> photographed. Upon enquiry I learnt that all the senior ICs now have NIC
> videoconferencing systems installed in their office which are "always On"
> and transmitting continuously back to NIC Bhawan for security reasons. In
> other words the chambers of the senior ICs are always bugged. Our old
> friends the "Chinese Hackers" know exactly what is going on even before
> parties do. It seems they have some very graphic videos (with Dolby Audio)
> of romps in a particular
> office :-)
>
> Sarbajit
>
>
>

--
It is not always the same thing to be a good man and a good citizen -
Aristotle

Re: Re: Video recording

2009-12-09T22:11:13Z

If the Video signal is being continuously transmitted to NIC Bhawan, then there is a need for the CIC to review its following position:

http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Minutes/Minutes13052008.pdf

Supplementary Item:
4. Commission examined a request that the Commission to provide
a copy of the recording of a complainant’s hearing, which was conducted
by Videoconference. While no decision on policy was taken on the issue,
the Commission observed that such recording will entail arrangements
for which we are not ready, and higher costs.

RTIwanted

________________________________
From: sarbajitr <sroy1947@...>

6) IC(MLS) may not be aware of the concerned Rule which prohibits audio/video recording of CIC hearings. Recently our friend Karira (CK Jam) had posted a query on his forum wanting to know how my DDA hearing had been photographed. Upon enquiry I learnt that all the senior ICs now have NIC videoconferencing systems installed in their office which are "always On" and transmitting continuously back to NIC Bhawan for security reasons. In other words the chambers of the senior ICs are always bugged. Our old friends the "Chinese Hackers" know exactly what is going on even before parties do. It seems they have some very graphic videos (with Dolby Audio) of romps in a particular
office :-)

Sarbajit

Re: Video recording

2009-12-09T21:31:48Z

1) IC AD's order clearly restricted your use of ELECTRONIC camera to 2(j)(iv) situations

"2(j)(iv) "right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to
(iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device;"

2) I have applied for the "romps" in RTI. The public authority which holds the record has denied me the info on grounds of National Security u/s 8(1)(a) whilst also claiming that they are an intelligence organisation exempted u/s 24. I had asked the public authority how the concerned participant is allowed wide ranging access to confidential government information when he leaves himself wide open to blackmail by foreign intelligence services. I must say that I have strong support from 2 or 3 ICs within the CIC on this issue. It is pertinent that a few of us on this group had also represented on such issues to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on RTI.

Sarbajit

--- In rti_india@..., Sidharth <sidharthbbsr@...> wrote:

>
> Dear Sarbajit,
>
> A minor correction.
>
> In my case I was Allowed by ICAD to photograph the documents/records
> inside the PA's office & NOT TO CAPTURE "electronic websites' as you
> have mentioned. It's a different matter that I could not do it that
> day due to some other reason.
>
> Otherwise there is no need to take anyone's permission to capture
> websites which are publicly accessible worldwide.
>
> IMHO too Wajaahat's following order still makes some sense even today.
>
> "There is no provision in the Act disallowing Videography, and
> therefore, cannot be excluded unless it violates the parameters of any
> information sought and agreed to be provided."
>
> I expect Rakesh should try his luck with the CIC.
>
> I also wonder whether the recordings of the 'Romps' coming under the
> definition of Information.
>
> Sidharth
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 7:28 PM, sarbajitr <sroy1947@...> wrote:
> > Dear Shibu,
> >
> > Thanks a lot for constructively reminding Rakesh about
> > recent changes to our group's posting rules.
> > http://old.nabble.com/SPECIAL-NOTICE%3A--Our-Posting-Norms-p26438582.html
> > especially "4(e) Please state facts and clearly distinguish your facts from opinions. Be as sure of your facts as you reasonably can"
> >
> > Now my 2 paise worth on Rakesh's problem
> >
> > 1) Yes, the RTI Act 2(j)(iv) allows for obtaining a videograph of
> > an existing electronic record. IC(AD) used this clause intelligently to grant Sidharth's request to capture some websites.
> >
> > 2) Equally the PIO is correct that he can compel you to take xerox copies of documents (which can be xeroxed) unless there is a danger to the record in question. The RTI Act provides for access to information (inspection) and the right to be provided a copy of the original record for a PRESCRIBED FEE.
> >
> > 3) This implies that if the PIO is prepared to allow you inspection (but not videography / photography) etc, and is willing to give you a xerox or other form of hardcopy printout at a prescribed further fee, then he has complied with the mandate of the Act. A skilled PIO will also use 7(9) to deny you information in a non-standard (ie. unprescribed) form.
> >
> > 4) For situations where no prescribed fee exists, it is open (by 7(9) to the PIO to get photographed or videographed the concerned MATERIAL - and debit the costs AS DETERMINED BY HIM to your account - you pay in advance. However, an applicant cannot insist on this. It is a discretionary power.
> >
> > 5) I recall an old order of IC(OPK) http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_20122007_41.pdf where he allowed the appellant to use his own camera to photograph an old and rare map (since the ferro print would get damaged during xeroxing). We had discussed this on the group at http://old.nabble.com/Re%3A-S-O-S-%3A-Taking-Photographs-during-inspections-not-allowed-p20736942.html
> >
> > 6) IC(MLS) may not be aware of the concerned Rule which prohibits audio/video recording of CIC hearings. Recently our friend Karira (CK Jam) had posted a query on his forum wanting to know how my DDA hearing had been photographed. Upon enquiry I learnt that all the senior ICs now have NIC videoconferencing systems installed in their office which are "always On" and transmitting continuously back to NIC Bhawan for security reasons. In other words the chambers of the senior ICs are always bugged. Our old friends the "Chinese Hackers" know exactly what is going on even before parties do. It seems they have some very graphic videos (with Dolby Audio) of romps in a particular
> > office :-)
> >
> > Sarbajit
> >
> > --- In rti_india@..., Shibu Narayanan <shibu.narayanan@> wrote:
> > >
> >
>

Re: Re: Video recording

2009-12-09T20:46:25Z

Dear Sarbajit,

A minor correction.

In my case I was Allowed by ICAD to photograph the documents/records
inside the PA's office & NOT TO CAPTURE "electronic websites' as you
have mentioned. It's a different matter that I could not do it that
day due to some other reason.

Otherwise there is no need to take anyone's permission to capture
websites which are publicly accessible worldwide.

IMHO too Wajaahat's following order still makes some sense even today.

"There is no provision in the Act disallowing Videography, and
therefore, cannot be excluded unless it violates the parameters of any
information sought and agreed to be provided."

I expect Rakesh should try his luck with the CIC.

I also wonder whether the recordings of the 'Romps' coming under the
definition of Information.

Sidharth

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 7:28 PM, sarbajitr <sroy1947@...> wrote:

> Dear Shibu,
>
> Thanks a lot for constructively reminding Rakesh about
> recent changes to our group's posting rules.
> http://old.nabble.com/SPECIAL-NOTICE%3A--Our-Posting-Norms-p26438582.html
> especially "4(e) Please state facts and clearly distinguish your facts from opinions. Be as sure of your facts as you reasonably can"
>
> Now my 2 paise worth on Rakesh's problem
>
> 1) Yes, the RTI Act 2(j)(iv) allows for obtaining a videograph of
> an existing electronic record. IC(AD) used this clause intelligently to grant Sidharth's request to capture some websites.
>
> 2) Equally the PIO is correct that he can compel you to take xerox copies of documents (which can be xeroxed) unless there is a danger to the record in question. The RTI Act provides for access to information (inspection) and the right to be provided a copy of the original record for a PRESCRIBED FEE.
>
> 3) This implies that if the PIO is prepared to allow you inspection (but not videography / photography) etc, and is willing to give you a xerox or other form of hardcopy printout at a prescribed further fee, then he has complied with the mandate of the Act. A skilled PIO will also use 7(9) to deny you information in a non-standard (ie. unprescribed) form.
>
> 4) For situations where no prescribed fee exists, it is open (by 7(9) to the PIO to get photographed or videographed the concerned MATERIAL - and debit the costs AS DETERMINED BY HIM to your account - you pay in advance. However, an applicant cannot insist on this. It is a discretionary power.
>
> 5) I recall an old order of IC(OPK) http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_20122007_41.pdf where he allowed the appellant to use his own camera to photograph an old and rare map (since the ferro print would get damaged during xeroxing). We had discussed this on the group at http://old.nabble.com/Re%3A-S-O-S-%3A-Taking-Photographs-during-inspections-not-allowed-p20736942.html
>
> 6) IC(MLS) may not be aware of the concerned Rule which prohibits audio/video recording of CIC hearings. Recently our friend Karira (CK Jam) had posted a query on his forum wanting to know how my DDA hearing had been photographed. Upon enquiry I learnt that all the senior ICs now have NIC videoconferencing systems installed in their office which are "always On" and transmitting continuously back to NIC Bhawan for security reasons. In other words the chambers of the senior ICs are always bugged. Our old friends the "Chinese Hackers" know exactly what is going on even before parties do. It seems they have some very graphic videos (with Dolby Audio) of romps in a particular
> office :-)
>
> Sarbajit
>
> --- In rti_india@..., Shibu Narayanan <shibu.narayanan@...> wrote:
> >
>

Re: Video recording

2009-12-09T09:28:32Z

Dear Shibu,

Thanks a lot for constructively reminding Rakesh about
recent changes to our group's posting rules.
http://old.nabble.com/SPECIAL-NOTICE%3A--Our-Posting-Norms-p26438582.html
especially "4(e) Please state facts and clearly distinguish your facts from opinions. Be as sure of your facts as you reasonably can"

Now my 2 paise worth on Rakesh's problem

1) Yes, the RTI Act 2(j)(iv) allows for obtaining a videograph of
an existing electronic record. IC(AD) used this clause intelligently to grant Sidharth's request to capture some websites.

2) Equally the PIO is correct that he can compel you to take xerox copies of documents (which can be xeroxed) unless there is a danger to the record in question. The RTI Act provides for access to information (inspection) and the right to be provided a copy of the original record for a PRESCRIBED FEE.

3) This implies that if the PIO is prepared to allow you inspection (but not videography / photography) etc, and is willing to give you a xerox or other form of hardcopy printout at a prescribed further fee, then he has complied with the mandate of the Act. A skilled PIO will also use 7(9) to deny you information in a non-standard (ie. unprescribed) form.

4) For situations where no prescribed fee exists, it is open (by 7(9) to the PIO to get photographed or videographed the concerned MATERIAL - and debit the costs AS DETERMINED BY HIM to your account - you pay in advance. However, an applicant cannot insist on this. It is a discretionary power.

5) I recall an old order of IC(OPK) http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_20122007_41.pdf where he allowed the appellant to use his own camera to photograph an old and rare map (since the ferro print would get damaged during xeroxing). We had discussed this on the group at http://old.nabble.com/Re%3A-S-O-S-%3A-Taking-Photographs-during-inspections-not-allowed-p20736942.html

6) IC(MLS) may not be aware of the concerned Rule which prohibits audio/video recording of CIC hearings. Recently our friend Karira (CK Jam) had posted a query on his forum wanting to know how my DDA hearing had been photographed. Upon enquiry I learnt that all the senior ICs now have NIC videoconferencing systems installed in their office which are "always On" and transmitting continuously back to NIC Bhawan for security reasons. In other words the chambers of the senior ICs are always bugged. Our old friends the "Chinese Hackers" know exactly what is going on even before parties do. It seems they have some very graphic videos (with Dolby Audio) of romps in a particular
office :-)

Sarbajit

--- In rti_india@..., Shibu Narayanan <shibu.narayanan@...> wrote:

>
> He being recommended for suspension has nothing to do in this case.
> _____
>
> From: Rakesh Agarwal [mailto:rakesh@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 4:45 PM
> To: rti_india@...
> Subject: RE: [rti_india] Video recording
> Sensitivity: Personal
>
> I would expect members of this group to know better. Read my email carefully. I only asked for a decision, not an advice whether video recording is an allowed way. In fact, I audio-recorded the entire proceedings of a hearing in M.L. Sharma's office after informing him.
>
> You want to see evidence of corruption on the part of the official? He has been recommended for suspension more than once but his wife's breast-cancer has evoked sympathy from those who are supposed to show him the door.
>
> I wonder how people can have so much time for unnecessary banter!
>
> From: rti_india@... [mailto:rti_-india@...] On Behalf Of Shibu Narayanan
> Sent: 09 December 2009 16:29
> To: rti_india@...
> Subject: RE: [rti_india] Video recording
> Sensitivity: Personal
>
> You are not sure whether video recording is an allowed way of collecting information from public records, and you are assuming that the official is corrupt because he did not allow you to video record?
>
> _____
>
> From: Rakesh Agarwal [mailto:rakesh@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 4:03 PM
> To: HumJanenge@...; rti_india@...
> Subject: [rti_india] Video recording
> Sensitivity: Personal
>
> Hi
>
> Could someone give me a decision or two of the CIC on video recording of inspection of work! I was stalled yesterday by some corrupt officials from video recording their work under RTI on an order from the FAA. Recent decisions will be more useful.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Rakesh Agarwal
>
> ,_.___
>

Re: Habibullah bungles again in a High Court matter

2009-12-09T08:36:26Z

Dear Venkatesh,

Sorry for the slight delay in your message getting through to the group, but Yahoo has tagged you as a "spammer" (possibly because of your posting history) and it had to be approved by me.

I quite agree that messages in violation of Yahoo ToS and also our Group "rules" are reprehensible. In these circumstances I usually "name" the member to defend his action or apologise or resign etc.
As in this case you have already named him, we shall expect an
appropriate response.

FYI, Mr Habibullah is a member of this group. Unfortunately due to
his heavy workload he doesn't get as much time nowadays to reply
here as he used to - this has perhaps emboldened his detractors.
Your intervention is an added caution that even the undefended (and
their parents) have champions here.

Sarbajit

--- In rti_india@..., "Venkatesh Nayak" <venkatesh@...> wrote:

>
> Dear Sarbajit and fellow members,
> Some group members are posting obnoxious and distasteful comments about
> individuals who are not even members of this group. Sometimes messages
> calumniating non-members in the most despicable way especially regards
> parentage is posted without any moderation or editing in this group. In view
> of this practice going on unhindered, I would like to ask all members
> including the moderator whether the present and past references to the
> parents of non-members are not in violation of the following guidelines of
> Yahoogroups?
>
> 1) You may not harass, abuse, threaten, or advocate violence against other
> members or individuals or groups.
> 2) You may not post content that is obscene, otherwise objectionable, or in
> violation of federal or state law.
>
> Some of the postings and language used in this group clearly are
> objectionable - especially when comments on non-members' intellectual
> capacity, moral character or parentage is made. I have great regard for the
> right to freedom of speech and expression of every person, but deference to
> the reputation and dignity of an individual is a reasonable restriction on
> that right. Freedom of speech and expression cannot be used for abusing
> people especially when they are not in a position to respond and defend
> themselves. Given the need for maintaining civility in our exchanges I have
> pasted the Yahoogroup guidelines to remind ourselves to temper the tone and
> language we use while being critical of others. Let us criticise, but let us
> do so in a civilised and inoffensive manner. We owe ourselves that much as
> literate and supposedly 'educated' human beings.
> Thanks
> Venkat
>
> _____
>
> From: rti_india@... [mailto:rti_india@...] On Behalf
> Of S.D. Sharma
> Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 11:05 AM
> To: rti_india@...
> Subject: [rti_india] Re: Habibullah bungles again in a High Court matter
>
> Dear Sarbjit
>
> As always your facility with words is right on target. This man
> Habibullah is a deliberate bungler of the
> first order. All he is concerned about is ensuring his own comfort and
> saving the skin of his political
> masters (Gandhi parivar) and all their cronies who are similarly
> sponging off the nation.
>
> Habibullah is a professional boot licker and a disgrace to his father
> Major General Enayat Habibullah
> who was the compleat gentleman. Wajahat was always a mamma's boy and
> is following in the footsteps
> of his notorious mother who got him into the IAS. The people of Jammu
> are delighted that he has been
> exposed on all fronts at RTI-India group, now we are trying our best
> to keep him out of J&K.
>
> S D Sharma
>
> --- In rti_india@yahoogrou <mailto:rti_india%40yahoogroups.com> ps.com,
> "sarbajitr" <sroy1947@> wrote:
> >
> > http://cic.gov. <http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/WB-07122009-03.pdf>
> in/CIC-Orders/WB-07122009-03.pdf

RE: Video recording

2009-12-09T04:55:42Z

He being recommended for suspension has nothing to do in this case.

_____

From: Rakesh Agarwal [mailto:rakesh@...]
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 4:45 PM
To: rti_india@...
Subject: RE: [rti_india] Video recording
Sensitivity: Personal

I would expect members of this group to know better. Read my email carefully. I only asked for a decision, not an advice whether video recording is an allowed way. In fact, I audio-recorded the entire proceedings of a hearing in M.L. Sharma's office after informing him.

You want to see evidence of corruption on the part of the official? He has been recommended for suspension more than once but his wife's breast-cancer has evoked sympathy from those who are supposed to show him the door.

I wonder how people can have so much time for unnecessary banter!

From: rti_india@... [mailto:rti_-india@...] On Behalf Of Shibu Narayanan
Sent: 09 December 2009 16:29
To: rti_india@...
Subject: RE: [rti_india] Video recording
Sensitivity: Personal

You are not sure whether video recording is an allowed way of collecting information from public records, and you are assuming that the official is corrupt because he did not allow you to video record?

_____

From: Rakesh Agarwal [mailto:rakesh@...]
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 4:03 PM
To: HumJanenge@...; rti_india@...
Subject: [rti_india] Video recording
Sensitivity: Personal

Hi

Could someone give me a decision or two of the CIC on video recording of inspection of work! I was stalled yesterday by some corrupt officials from video recording their work under RTI on an order from the FAA. Recent decisions will be more useful.

Thanks in advance.

Rakesh Agarwal

,_.___

HYPERLINK "mailto:shibu.narayanan@...?subject=RE:%20%5brti_india%5d%20Video%20recording"Reply to sender | HYPERLINK "mailto:rti_india@...?subject=RE:%20%5brti_india%5d%20Video%20recording"Reply to group

HYPERLINK "http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rti_india/message/5207;_ylc=X3oDMTM1b210cmVlBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE3MjkzMDUwBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTIzOTY0MwRtc2dJZAM1MjA4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTI2MDM1NjE0MQR0cGNJZAM1MjA3"Messages in this topic (2)

Recent Activity:

. HYPERLINK "http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rti_india/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJnZ3VybGRpBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE3MjkzMDUwBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTIzOTY0MwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2bWJycwRzdGltZQMxMjYwMzU2MTQx?o=6"New Members 2

HYPERLINK "http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rti_india;_ylc=X3oDMTJmYTA4cG0zBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE3MjkzMDUwBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTIzOTY0MwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzEyNjAzNTYxNDE-"Visit Your Group HYPERLINK "http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rti_india/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJmc2ppZDd1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE3MjkzMDUwBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTIzOTY0MwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNudHBjBHN0aW1lAzEyNjAzNTYxNDE-"Start a New Topic

MARKETPLACE

HYPERLINK "http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=14kounipf/M=493064.13814333.13821539.13298430/D=groups/S=1705239643:MKP1/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1260363342/L=/B=D8aRQEPDhFE-/J=1260356142049221/K=zzEqHEjai4EAeTOR_0hHnw/A=5922843/R=0/SIG=11ckn2mo6/*http:/advision.webevents.yahoo.com/green/"Going Green: Your Yahoo! Groups resource for green living

_____

HYPERLINK "http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=14ksm8r8v/M=493064.13814537.13821737.10835568/D=groups/S=1705239643:MKP1/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1260363342/L=/B=EMaRQEPDhFE-/J=1260356142049221/K=zzEqHEjai4EAeTOR_0hHnw/A=5898843/R=0/SIG=11kkq36go/*http:/advision.webevents.yahoo.com/parentingzone/"Parenting Zone: Find useful resources for a happy, healthy family and home

HYPERLINK "http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJldTU4bDk2BF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzE3MjkzMDUwBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTIzOTY0MwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTI2MDM1NjE0MQ--"Yahoo! Groups

Switch to: HYPERLINK "mailto:rti_india-traditional@...?subject=Change%20Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional"Text-Only, HYPERLINK "mailto:rti_india-digest@...?subject=Email%20Delivery:%20Digest"Daily Digest . HYPERLINK "mailto:rti_india-unsubscribe@...?subject=Unsubscribe"Unsubscribe . HYPERLINK "http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/"Terms of Use

.

http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=17293050/grpspId=1705239643/msgId=5208/stime=1260356141/nc1=4507179/nc2=3848643/nc3=5922730

RE: Video recording

2009-12-09T03:25:05Z

Thanks Sidharth.

From: rti_india@... [mailto:rti_india@...] On Behalf
Of Sidharth
Sent: 09 December 2009 16:33
To: rti_india@...
Subject: Re: [rti_india] Video recording

Dear Rakesh,

I also face exactly same predicament. All my requests for 'Photographing'
are invariably rebuffed by the PIO/FAA duo.

IN one case I got a favourable decision wrt Photography from ICAD.

I think the following is a classic decision with good applicability, though
it was delivered in 2006.

http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_03082006_1.pdf

This is wrt to photography in my own case.

http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/AD-23022009-06.pdf

In any case you have to limit your videography only to the allowed
information. You may never be allowed to go on a shooting spree.

Best of Luck

Sidharth Misra

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Rakesh Agarwal <rakesh@...>
wrote:

Hi

Could someone give me a decision or two of the CIC on video recording of
inspection of work! I was stalled yesterday by some corrupt officials from
video recording their work under RTI on an order from the FAA. Recent
decisions will be more useful.

Thanks in advance.

Rakesh Agarwal

RE: Video recording

2009-12-09T03:14:52Z

I would expect members of this group to know better. Read my email
carefully. I only asked for a decision, not an advice whether video
recording is an allowed way. In fact, I audio-recorded the entire
proceedings of a hearing in M.L. Sharma's office after informing him.

You want to see evidence of corruption on the part of the official? He has
been recommended for suspension more than once but his wife's breast-cancer
has evoked sympathy from those who are supposed to show him the door.

I wonder how people can have so much time for unnecessary banter!

From: rti_india@... [mailto:rti_india@...] On Behalf
Of Shibu Narayanan
Sent: 09 December 2009 16:29
To: rti_india@...
Subject: RE: [rti_india] Video recording
Sensitivity: Personal

You are not sure whether video recording is an allowed way of collecting
information from public records, and you are assuming that the official is
corrupt because he did not allow you to video record?

_____

From: Rakesh Agarwal [mailto:rakesh@...]
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 4:03 PM
To: HumJanenge@...; rti_india@...
Subject: [rti_india] Video recording
Sensitivity: Personal

Hi

Could someone give me a decision or two of the CIC on video recording of
inspection of work! I was stalled yesterday by some corrupt officials from
video recording their work under RTI on an order from the FAA. Recent
decisions will be more useful.

Thanks in advance.

Rakesh Agarwal

,_.___

Reply
<mailto:shibu.narayanan@...?subject=RE:%20[rti_india]%20Video%20recor
ding> to sender | Reply
<mailto:rti_india@...?subject=RE:%20[rti_india]%20Video%20record
ing> to group

Messages
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rti_india/message/5207;_ylc=X3oDMTM1b210cmVlB
F9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE3MjkzMDUwBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTIzOTY0MwRtc2dJZAM1MjA4B
HNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTI2MDM1NjE0MQR0cGNJZAM1MjA3> in this topic
(2)

Recent Activity:

.
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rti_india/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJnZ3VybGRpBF9TAz
k3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE3MjkzMDUwBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTIzOTY0MwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2bW
JycwRzdGltZQMxMjYwMzU2MTQx?o=6> New Members 2

<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rti_india;_ylc=X3oDMTJmYTA4cG0zBF9TAzk3MzU5Nz
E0BGdycElkAzE3MjkzMDUwBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTIzOTY0MwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW
1lAzEyNjAzNTYxNDE-> Visit Your Group
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rti_india/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJmc2ppZDd1BF9TAzk3M
zU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE3MjkzMDUwBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTIzOTY0MwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNudHBjB
HN0aW1lAzEyNjAzNTYxNDE-> Start a New Topic

MARKETPLACE

Going
<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=14kounipf/M=493064.13814333.13821539.13298430/D
=groups/S=1705239643:MKP1/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1260363342/L=/B=D8aRQEPDhFE-/J=1260356
142049221/K=zzEqHEjai4EAeTOR_0hHnw/A=5922843/R=0/SIG=11ckn2mo6/*http:/advisi
on.webevents.yahoo.com/green/> Green: Your Yahoo! Groups resource for green
living

_____

Parenting
<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=14ksm8r8v/M=493064.13814537.13821737.10835568/D
=groups/S=1705239643:MKP1/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1260363342/L=/B=EMaRQEPDhFE-/J=1260356
142049221/K=zzEqHEjai4EAeTOR_0hHnw/A=5898843/R=0/SIG=11kkq36go/*http:/advisi
on.webevents.yahoo.com/parentingzone/> Zone: Find useful resources for a
happy, healthy family and home

<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJldTU4bDk2BF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzE3M
jkzMDUwBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTIzOTY0MwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTI2MDM1NjE0M
Q--> Yahoo! Groups

Switch to:
<mailto:rti_india-traditional@...?subject=Change%20Delivery%20Fo
rmat:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
<mailto:rti_india-digest@...?subject=Email%20Delivery:%20Digest>
Daily Digest .
<mailto:rti_india-unsubscribe@...?subject=Unsubscribe>
Unsubscribe . <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Use

.

<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=17293050/grpspId=1705239643/msgI
d=5208/stime=1260356141/nc1=4507179/nc2=3848643/nc3=5922730>

Re: Video recording

2009-12-09T03:03:15Z

Dear Rakesh,

I also face exactly same predicament. All my requests for 'Photographing'
are invariably rebuffed by the PIO/FAA duo.

IN one case I got a favourable decision wrt Photography from ICAD.

I think the following is a classic decision with good applicability, though
it was delivered in 2006.

http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_03082006_1.pdf

This is wrt to photography in my own case.
http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/AD-23022009-06.pdf

In any case you have to limit your videography only to the allowed
information. You may never be allowed to go on a shooting spree.

Best of Luck

Sidharth Misra

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Rakesh Agarwal <rakesh@...>wrote:

>
>
> Hi
>
>
>
> Could someone give me a decision or two of the CIC on video recording of
> inspection of work! I was stalled yesterday by some corrupt officials from
> video recording their work under RTI on an order from the FAA. Recent
> decisions will be more useful.
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
>
>
> Rakesh Agarwal
>
>
>

RE: Video recording

2009-12-09T02:55:49Z

You are not sure whether video recording is an allowed way of collecting information from public records, and you are assuming that the official is corrupt because he did not allow you to video record?

_____

From: Rakesh Agarwal [mailto:rakesh@...]
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 4:03 PM
To: HumJanenge@...; rti_india@...
Subject: [rti_india] Video recording
Sensitivity: Personal

Hi

Could someone give me a decision or two of the CIC on video recording of inspection of work! I was stalled yesterday by some corrupt officials from video recording their work under RTI on an order from the FAA. Recent decisions will be more useful.

Thanks in advance.

Rakesh Agarwal

Video recording

2009-12-09T02:33:16Z

Hi

Could someone give me a decision or two of the CIC on video recording of
inspection of work! I was stalled yesterday by some corrupt officials from
video recording their work under RTI on an order from the FAA. Recent
decisions will be more useful.

Thanks in advance.

Rakesh Agarwal

Cabinet Secretariat won't reveal UIDAI details to me

2009-12-09T02:22:44Z

Some time back I had filed an RTI to the Cabinet Secretariat asking how exactly private persons like Nandan Nilekani and Shailesh Gandhi have been given access to Government documents.

The PIO has now replied back denying me the information.
He has invoked 8(1)(a) - "National Security" and also claimed that the Cabinet Secretariat is an exempted organisation in second schedule under section 24 to deny me this information.

Bizarre.

Sarbajit

RE: Re: Habibullah bungles again in a High Court matter

2009-12-09T01:58:37Z

Dear Sarbajit and fellow members,
Some group members are posting obnoxious and distasteful comments about
individuals who are not even members of this group. Sometimes messages
calumniating non-members in the most despicable way especially regards
parentage is posted without any moderation or editing in this group. In view
of this practice going on unhindered, I would like to ask all members
including the moderator whether the present and past references to the
parents of non-members are not in violation of the following guidelines of
Yahoogroups?

1) You may not harass, abuse, threaten, or advocate violence against other
members or individuals or groups.
2) You may not post content that is obscene, otherwise objectionable, or in
violation of federal or state law.

Some of the postings and language used in this group clearly are
objectionable - especially when comments on non-members' intellectual
capacity, moral character or parentage is made. I have great regard for the
right to freedom of speech and expression of every person, but deference to
the reputation and dignity of an individual is a reasonable restriction on
that right. Freedom of speech and expression cannot be used for abusing
people especially when they are not in a position to respond and defend
themselves. Given the need for maintaining civility in our exchanges I have
pasted the Yahoogroup guidelines to remind ourselves to temper the tone and
language we use while being critical of others. Let us criticise, but let us
do so in a civilised and inoffensive manner. We owe ourselves that much as
literate and supposedly 'educated' human beings.
Thanks
Venkat

_____

From: rti_india@... [mailto:rti_india@...] On Behalf
Of S.D. Sharma
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 11:05 AM
To: rti_india@...
Subject: [rti_india] Re: Habibullah bungles again in a High Court matter

Dear Sarbjit

As always your facility with words is right on target. This man
Habibullah is a deliberate bungler of the
first order. All he is concerned about is ensuring his own comfort and
saving the skin of his political
masters (Gandhi parivar) and all their cronies who are similarly
sponging off the nation.

Habibullah is a professional boot licker and a disgrace to his father
Major General Enayat Habibullah
who was the compleat gentleman. Wajahat was always a mamma's boy and
is following in the footsteps
of his notorious mother who got him into the IAS. The people of Jammu
are delighted that he has been
exposed on all fronts at RTI-India group, now we are trying our best
to keep him out of J&K.

S D Sharma

--- In rti_india@yahoogrou <mailto:rti_india%40yahoogroups.com> ps.com,
"sarbajitr" <sroy1947@...> wrote:
>
> http://cic.gov. <http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/WB-07122009-03.pdf>
in/CIC-Orders/WB-07122009-03.pdf
>
> Dear Mr Habibullah,
>
> In the above order you seem to have overlooked the fact that only a PIO
can seek assistance of another officer u/s 5(4)/5(5).
>
> In http://cic.gov. <http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/WB-06032009-02.pdf>
in/CIC-Orders/WB-06032009-02.pdf you clearly recorded that the applicant
Aftab Ahmed "applied to the PIO, SHO, Thana Paschim Vihar, Delhi"
>
> You also recorded
>
> "However, he (FAA Rajesh Kumar) took serious note of the failure to
respond by the SHO as follows:

>
> "The appellant had sent his RTI request sent by the appellant to
> SHO PS Paschim Vihar because the information sought by him
> relates to PS Paschim Vihar. In this case, the SHO/ PS
> Paschim Vihar was required to transfer/forward the said RTI
> Application to the competent authority i.e. PIO (DCP)/WD
> immediately along with his reply/ comments on the RTI request,
> in question and concerned record so that the appellant could be
> informed in time under the provisions of the Right to Information
> Act, 2005. But, instead of doing so the SHO/ PS Paschim Vihar
> on 1.9.2007 marked the said RTI request to ASI Ram Phal for
> necessary action. ASI Ram Phal had also not taken any action
> on the said RTI request till 1.11.2007 and kept the paper (S)
> with him unnecessarily for about two months.""
>
> After the High Court ticked you off and remanded the case back to you for

reconsideration you found
>
> "In this case, however, the reference to the then SHO and then ASI can be
made by the CPIO, u/s 5 (4) which reads as follows:"
>
> Unfortunately your recent decision was drafted by Mr Pankaj Shreyaskar and
completely ignores the fact that the SHO Paschim Vihar was not a PIO at any
point of time. The Delhi Police PIOs have always been DCPs or Addl CPs (see
http://www.delhipol <http://www.delhipolice.nic.in/home/rti/rtipio.pdf>
ice.nic.in/home/rti/rtipio.pdf)
>
> It is clear from your own orders that the PIO DCP/SW never received the
RTI application to utilise 5(4).
>
> This GROSS INCOMPETENCE is going to lead to another round of litigation in
the High Court which shall be paid for by us poor suffering taxpayers as
usual.
>
> I also hope that you will resolve the long pending penalty matter of SI
S.Narinder Singh in http://cic.gov.
<http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/WB-29092008-03.pdf>
in/CIC-Orders/WB-29092008-03.pdf and all the connected matters. I need
hardly remind you that it is simply not fair that you sit on SI Narinder
Singh's penalty matter (in which he is completely innocent and not liable to
penalty) where I assisted him simply to shield a Jt. Commissioner of Police
Dipender Pathak from penalty especially after Pathak and his brother officer
gheraoed your office and threatened to bash up / arrest your staff.
>
> I must voice that you may be a very high person but it is unworthy of a
gentleman to squeeze the small people like SI Narinder Singh, Sanjiv Tomar,
Ram Phal etc to allow their bosses to get away scot free.
>
> I must also voice that your pernicious habit of allowing outside
interference in your "reserved" decisions behind the backs of the parties is
completely corrupt and opposed to the letter and spirit of RTI Act.
>
> Yours faithfully
>
> Sarbajit Roy
>

Re: Habibullah bungles again in a High Court matter

2009-12-08T21:43:21Z

Just a brief followup

The J&K High Court has dismissed a WP filed by R.D.Sharma
opposing Habibullah's appointment. Actually it was a very
stupid writ to begin with.

Now I think it is time for you Jammuites and Pandits to roll
out the heavy artillery.

Sarbajit

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

>
> Sir,
>
> You wrote ".. now we are trying our best to keep him out of J&K."
>
> And we are trying our best to get him out of CIC !!! Although I daresay the alternative is likely to be much worse.
>
> Sarbajit
>
> --- In rti_india@..., "S.D. Sharma" <anonsharma@> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Sarbjit
> >
> > As always your facility with words is right on target. This man
> > Habibullah is a deliberate bungler of the
> > first order. All he is concerned about is ensuring his own comfort and
> > saving the skin of his political
> > masters (Gandhi parivar) and all their cronies who are similarly
> > sponging off the nation.
> >
> > Habibullah is a professional boot licker and a disgrace to his father
> > Major General Enayat Habibullah
> > who was the compleat gentleman. Wajahat was always a mamma's boy and
> > is following in the footsteps
> > of his notorious mother who got him into the IAS. The people of Jammu
> > are delighted that he has been
> > exposed on all fronts at RTI-India group, now we are trying our best
> > to keep him out of J&K.
> >
> > S D Sharma
> >
> > --- In rti_india@..., "sarbajitr" <sroy1947@> wrote:
> > >
> > > http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/WB-07122009-03.pdf
> > >
> > > Dear Mr Habibullah,
> > >
> > > In the above order you seem to have overlooked the fact that only a PIO can seek assistance of another officer u/s 5(4)/5(5).
> > >
> > > In http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/WB-06032009-02.pdf you clearly recorded that the applicant Aftab Ahmed "applied to the PIO, SHO, Thana Paschim Vihar, Delhi"
> > >
> > > You also recorded
> > >
> > > "However, he (FAA Rajesh Kumar) took serious note of the failure to respond by the SHO as follows:
> > >
> > > "The appellant had sent his RTI request sent by the appellant to
> > > SHO PS Paschim Vihar because the information sought by him
> > > relates to PS Paschim Vihar. In this case, the SHO/ PS
> > > Paschim Vihar was required to transfer/forward the said RTI
> > > Application to the competent authority i.e. PIO (DCP)/WD
> > > immediately along with his reply/ comments on the RTI request,
> > > in question and concerned record so that the appellant could be
> > > informed in time under the provisions of the Right to Information
> > > Act, 2005. But, instead of doing so the SHO/ PS Paschim Vihar
> > > on 1.9.2007 marked the said RTI request to ASI Ram Phal for
> > > necessary action. ASI Ram Phal had also not taken any action
> > > on the said RTI request till 1.11.2007 and kept the paper (S)
> > > with him unnecessarily for about two months.""
> > >
> > > After the High Court ticked you off and remanded the case back to you for reconsideration you found
> > >
> > > "In this case, however, the reference to the then SHO and then ASI can be made by the CPIO, u/s 5 (4) which reads as follows:"
> > >
> > > Unfortunately your recent decision was drafted by Mr Pankaj Shreyaskar and completely ignores the fact that the SHO Paschim Vihar was not a PIO at any point of time. The Delhi Police PIOs have always been DCPs or Addl CPs (see http://www.delhipolice.nic.in/home/rti/rtipio.pdf)
> > >
> > > It is clear from your own orders that the PIO DCP/SW never received the RTI application to utilise 5(4).
> > >
> > > This GROSS INCOMPETENCE is going to lead to another round of litigation in the High Court which shall be paid for by us poor suffering taxpayers as usual.
> > >
> > > I also hope that you will resolve the long pending penalty matter of SI S.Narinder Singh in http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/WB-29092008-03.pdf and all the connected matters. I need hardly remind you that it is simply not fair that you sit on SI Narinder Singh's penalty matter (in which he is completely innocent and not liable to penalty) where I assisted him simply to shield a Jt. Commissioner of Police Dipender Pathak from penalty especially after Pathak and his brother officer gheraoed your office and threatened to bash up / arrest your staff.
> > >
> > > I must voice that you may be a very high person but it is unworthy of a gentleman to squeeze the small people like SI Narinder Singh, Sanjiv Tomar, Ram Phal etc to allow their bosses to get away scot free.
> > >
> > > I must also voice that your pernicious habit of allowing outside interference in your "reserved" decisions behind the backs of the parties is completely corrupt and opposed to the letter and spirit of RTI Act.
> > >
> > > Yours faithfully
> > >
> > > Sarbajit Roy
> > >
> >
>

Re: Habibullah bungles again in a High Court matter

2009-12-08T21:38:09Z

Sir,

You wrote ".. now we are trying our best to keep him out of J&K."

And we are trying our best to get him out of CIC !!! Although I daresay the alternative is likely to be much worse.

Sarbajit

--- In rti_india@..., "S.D. Sharma" <anonsharma@...> wrote:

>
> Dear Sarbjit
>
> As always your facility with words is right on target. This man
> Habibullah is a deliberate bungler of the
> first order. All he is concerned about is ensuring his own comfort and
> saving the skin of his political
> masters (Gandhi parivar) and all their cronies who are similarly
> sponging off the nation.
>
> Habibullah is a professional boot licker and a disgrace to his father
> Major General Enayat Habibullah
> who was the compleat gentleman. Wajahat was always a mamma's boy and
> is following in the footsteps
> of his notorious mother who got him into the IAS. The people of Jammu
> are delighted that he has been
> exposed on all fronts at RTI-India group, now we are trying our best
> to keep him out of J&K.
>
> S D Sharma
>
> --- In rti_india@..., "sarbajitr" <sroy1947@> wrote:
> >
> > http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/WB-07122009-03.pdf
> >
> > Dear Mr Habibullah,
> >
> > In the above order you seem to have overlooked the fact that only a PIO can seek assistance of another officer u/s 5(4)/5(5).
> >
> > In http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/WB-06032009-02.pdf you clearly recorded that the applicant Aftab Ahmed "applied to the PIO, SHO, Thana Paschim Vihar, Delhi"
> >
> > You also recorded
> >
> > "However, he (FAA Rajesh Kumar) took serious note of the failure to respond by the SHO as follows:
> >
> > "The appellant had sent his RTI request sent by the appellant to
> > SHO PS Paschim Vihar because the information sought by him
> > relates to PS Paschim Vihar. In this case, the SHO/ PS
> > Paschim Vihar was required to transfer/forward the said RTI
> > Application to the competent authority i.e. PIO (DCP)/WD
> > immediately along with his reply/ comments on the RTI request,
> > in question and concerned record so that the appellant could be
> > informed in time under the provisions of the Right to Information
> > Act, 2005. But, instead of doing so the SHO/ PS Paschim Vihar
> > on 1.9.2007 marked the said RTI request to ASI Ram Phal for
> > necessary action. ASI Ram Phal had also not taken any action
> > on the said RTI request till 1.11.2007 and kept the paper (S)
> > with him unnecessarily for about two months.""
> >
> > After the High Court ticked you off and remanded the case back to you for reconsideration you found
> >
> > "In this case, however, the reference to the then SHO and then ASI can be made by the CPIO, u/s 5 (4) which reads as follows:"
> >
> > Unfortunately your recent decision was drafted by Mr Pankaj Shreyaskar and completely ignores the fact that the SHO Paschim Vihar was not a PIO at any point of time. The Delhi Police PIOs have always been DCPs or Addl CPs (see http://www.delhipolice.nic.in/home/rti/rtipio.pdf)
> >
> > It is clear from your own orders that the PIO DCP/SW never received the RTI application to utilise 5(4).
> >
> > This GROSS INCOMPETENCE is going to lead to another round of litigation in the High Court which shall be paid for by us poor suffering taxpayers as usual.
> >
> > I also hope that you will resolve the long pending penalty matter of SI S.Narinder Singh in http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/WB-29092008-03.pdf and all the connected matters. I need hardly remind you that it is simply not fair that you sit on SI Narinder Singh's penalty matter (in which he is completely innocent and not liable to penalty) where I assisted him simply to shield a Jt. Commissioner of Police Dipender Pathak from penalty especially after Pathak and his brother officer gheraoed your office and threatened to bash up / arrest your staff.
> >
> > I must voice that you may be a very high person but it is unworthy of a gentleman to squeeze the small people like SI Narinder Singh, Sanjiv Tomar, Ram Phal etc to allow their bosses to get away scot free.
> >
> > I must also voice that your pernicious habit of allowing outside interference in your "reserved" decisions behind the backs of the parties is completely corrupt and opposed to the letter and spirit of RTI Act.
> >
> > Yours faithfully
> >
> > Sarbajit Roy
> >
>

Re: Habibullah bungles again in a High Court matter

2009-12-08T21:34:35Z

Dear Sarbjit

As always your facility with words is right on target. This man
Habibullah is a deliberate bungler of the
first order. All he is concerned about is ensuring his own comfort and
saving the skin of his political
masters (Gandhi parivar) and all their cronies who are similarly
sponging off the nation.

Habibullah is a professional boot licker and a disgrace to his father
Major General Enayat Habibullah
who was the compleat gentleman. Wajahat was always a mamma's boy and
is following in the footsteps
of his notorious mother who got him into the IAS. The people of Jammu
are delighted that he has been
exposed on all fronts at RTI-India group, now we are trying our best
to keep him out of J&K.

S D Sharma

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

>
> http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/WB-07122009-03.pdf
>
> Dear Mr Habibullah,
>
> In the above order you seem to have overlooked the fact that only a PIO can seek assistance of another officer u/s 5(4)/5(5).
>
> In http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/WB-06032009-02.pdf you clearly recorded that the applicant Aftab Ahmed "applied to the PIO, SHO, Thana Paschim Vihar, Delhi"
>
> You also recorded
>
> "However, he (FAA Rajesh Kumar) took serious note of the failure to respond by the SHO as follows:
>
> "The appellant had sent his RTI request sent by the appellant to
> SHO PS Paschim Vihar because the information sought by him
> relates to PS Paschim Vihar. In this case, the SHO/ PS
> Paschim Vihar was required to transfer/forward the said RTI
> Application to the competent authority i.e. PIO (DCP)/WD
> immediately along with his reply/ comments on the RTI request,
> in question and concerned record so that the appellant could be
> informed in time under the provisions of the Right to Information
> Act, 2005. But, instead of doing so the SHO/ PS Paschim Vihar
> on 1.9.2007 marked the said RTI request to ASI Ram Phal for
> necessary action. ASI Ram Phal had also not taken any action
> on the said RTI request till 1.11.2007 and kept the paper (S)
> with him unnecessarily for about two months.""
>
> After the High Court ticked you off and remanded the case back to you for reconsideration you found
>
> "In this case, however, the reference to the then SHO and then ASI can be made by the CPIO, u/s 5 (4) which reads as follows:"
>
> Unfortunately your recent decision was drafted by Mr Pankaj Shreyaskar and completely ignores the fact that the SHO Paschim Vihar was not a PIO at any point of time. The Delhi Police PIOs have always been DCPs or Addl CPs (see http://www.delhipolice.nic.in/home/rti/rtipio.pdf)
>
> It is clear from your own orders that the PIO DCP/SW never received the RTI application to utilise 5(4).
>
> This GROSS INCOMPETENCE is going to lead to another round of litigation in the High Court which shall be paid for by us poor suffering taxpayers as usual.
>
> I also hope that you will resolve the long pending penalty matter of SI S.Narinder Singh in http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/WB-29092008-03.pdf and all the connected matters. I need hardly remind you that it is simply not fair that you sit on SI Narinder Singh's penalty matter (in which he is completely innocent and not liable to penalty) where I assisted him simply to shield a Jt. Commissioner of Police Dipender Pathak from penalty especially after Pathak and his brother officer gheraoed your office and threatened to bash up / arrest your staff.
>
> I must voice that you may be a very high person but it is unworthy of a gentleman to squeeze the small people like SI Narinder Singh, Sanjiv Tomar, Ram Phal etc to allow their bosses to get away scot free.
>
> I must also voice that your pernicious habit of allowing outside interference in your "reserved" decisions behind the backs of the parties is completely corrupt and opposed to the letter and spirit of RTI Act.
>
> Yours faithfully
>
> Sarbajit Roy
>

Fw: On-line petition on RTI

2009-12-08T09:03:51Z

-- Original Message --

From: "Suresh Gupta" qmsservices@...

Dear Friends,

I have put up a on-line petition for submitting to Chief Justice of India, Prime Minister, President of India. Let us get it signed by as many people we can. Please visit the link and sign it and then forward it to your friends, relatives and acquintences.
LINK to petition

Thanks & Regards,

S.C.Gupta
Visit my blog - INFOPOWER
http://soochna-ka-adhikaar.blogspot.com

Habibullah bungles again in a High Court matter

2009-12-08T04:11:02Z

http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/WB-07122009-03.pdf

Dear Mr Habibullah,

In the above order you seem to have overlooked the fact that only a PIO can seek assistance of another officer u/s 5(4)/5(5).

In http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/WB-06032009-02.pdf you clearly recorded that the applicant Aftab Ahmed "applied to the PIO, SHO, Thana Paschim Vihar, Delhi"

You also recorded

"However, he (FAA Rajesh Kumar) took serious note of the failure to respond by the SHO as follows:

"The appellant had sent his RTI request sent by the appellant to
SHO PS Paschim Vihar because the information sought by him
relates to PS Paschim Vihar. In this case, the SHO/ PS
Paschim Vihar was required to transfer/forward the said RTI
Application to the competent authority i.e. PIO (DCP)/WD
immediately along with his reply/ comments on the RTI request,
in question and concerned record so that the appellant could be
informed in time under the provisions of the Right to Information
Act, 2005. But, instead of doing so the SHO/ PS Paschim Vihar
on 1.9.2007 marked the said RTI request to ASI Ram Phal for
necessary action. ASI Ram Phal had also not taken any action
on the said RTI request till 1.11.2007 and kept the paper (S)
with him unnecessarily for about two months.""

After the High Court ticked you off and remanded the case back to you for reconsideration you found

"In this case, however, the reference to the then SHO and then ASI can be made by the CPIO, u/s 5 (4) which reads as follows:"

Unfortunately your recent decision was drafted by Mr Pankaj Shreyaskar and completely ignores the fact that the SHO Paschim Vihar was not a PIO at any point of time. The Delhi Police PIOs have always been DCPs or Addl CPs (see http://www.delhipolice.nic.in/home/rti/rtipio.pdf)

It is clear from your own orders that the PIO DCP/SW never received the RTI application to utilise 5(4).

This GROSS INCOMPETENCE is going to lead to another round of litigation in the High Court which shall be paid for by us poor suffering taxpayers as usual.

I also hope that you will resolve the long pending penalty matter of SI S.Narinder Singh in http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/WB-29092008-03.pdf and all the connected matters. I need hardly remind you that it is simply not fair that you sit on SI Narinder Singh's penalty matter (in which he is completely innocent and not liable to penalty) where I assisted him simply to shield a Jt. Commissioner of Police Dipender Pathak from penalty especially after Pathak and his brother officer gheraoed your office and threatened to bash up / arrest your staff.

I must voice that you may be a very high person but it is unworthy of a gentleman to squeeze the small people like SI Narinder Singh, Sanjiv Tomar, Ram Phal etc to allow their bosses to get away scot free.

I must also voice that your pernicious habit of allowing outside interference in your "reserved" decisions behind the backs of the parties is completely corrupt and opposed to the letter and spirit of RTI Act.

Yours faithfully

Sarbajit Roy

Re: CIC deletes R&AW from section 24 protected list

2009-12-08T02:18:06Z

In an extremely belated action, the CIC has just now amended the list
of exempted organisations u/s 24 of the RTI Act to include R&AW.

This shocking example of poor record keeping at CIC had caused me to file an RTI to the Cab Sec under the impression that R&AW was now open to public scrutiny. Even the CPIO of CabSec Mr K.S.Achar could offer me no explanation for the non-inclusion of R&AW as exempted on CIC's official website. I am still to receive a reply to my RTI filed on 27.10.2009 to CabSec. In case CabSec now claims that R&AW is an exempted organisation, I shall ask for Rs.1,00,000 to be paid to me as compensation by Mr Pankaj Shreyaskar who is responsible for this goof-up.

http://rti.india.gov.in/exempted.php

Have fun

Sarbajit

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

>
> Is there any organisation known as R&AW or RAW under the cabinet Secretariat?
>
> Is it an exempted organisation from RTI ?
>
> http://rti.india.gov.in/exempted.php
>
> "The List of 22 exempted organizations is given below:
>
> * Intelligence Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs
> * Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Ministry of Finance
> * Central Economic Intelligence Bureau, Ministry of Finance
> * Directorate of Enforcement, Ministry of Finance
> * Narcotics Control Bureau
> * Aviation Research Centre
> * Special Frontier Force
> * Border Security Force, Ministry of Home Affairs
> * Central Reserve Police Force, Ministry of Home Affairs
> * Indo-Tibetan Border Police, Ministry of Home Affairs
> * Central Industrial Security Force, Ministry of Home Affairs
> * National Security Guard, Ministry of Home Affairs
> * Special Service Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs
> * Assam Rifles, Ministry of Home Affairs
> * Sashastra Seema Bal, Ministry of Home Affairs
> * Special Protection Group
> * Defence Research and Development Organisation, Ministry of Defence
> * Border Road Development Organisation
> * Financial Intelligence Unit, India
> * Directorate General Income Tax (Investigation)
> * National Technical Research Organisation
> * National Security Council Secretariat"
>
> PS: This CICdecision refers to a book called "KAOBOYS of RAW" by B.Raman which makes for some very interesting reading.
> http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/WB-10102008-04.pdf
>

RTI act to be clipped & made ineffective

2009-12-07T18:18:42Z

Hello & namaste

please go through the article of times of india and analyse its effect
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Govt-mulls-changes-in-RTI-Act/articleshow/5308959.cms

The only options available with the citizens now is to move the constitutional bench of the supreme court and ask it whether Supreme court is above PUBLIC INTEREST in india or not ?

thanking you

Leslie Almeida

Re: [kria] RTI 4(1)(B) of CRC

2009-12-07T10:22:20Z

Dear Nalagund,

I could't find the attachment. Can you send it to me.
Anand S.
Anti Corruption Form
Bangalore 560 085
Cell No: +91-92410-12730
or +91-98450-39699

________________________________
From: Santosh P. Nargund <spnargund@...>
To: friends_of_RASTR@...
Cc: kria@...; HumJanenge@...; PROUD2B_INDIAN@...; rti_india@...; rti4empowerment@...
Sent: Sun, December 6, 2009 12:54:37 AM
Subject: [kria] RTI 4(1)(B) of CRC

Friends,

Attached is the 4(1)(b) of the Kendra Parihara Samiti, Karnatak (Central Relief Committee) for administartion of the Karnatak Prohibition of Beggary Act, 1975.

We received this in response to an RTI application. This document is received only over email from CRC! (Is our govt. system changing??!! )

Prima facie it appears that this 4(1)(b) document was compiled only after our application. In the covering letter (also attached), it is stated that CRC is taking steps to publish this 4-1-b in the Karnatak Gazette and 'website' now!

Prima facie it also appears that this document may not be in conformance with the requrements of the RTI Act and other guidelines.

Your comments and suggections are welcome.

Jai Hind!

Santosh P. Nargund
Rashtrotthan Sankalp

Evil Triumphs When Good People Sit Quiet
www.rastr.in

Either you're with us or with the evil forces.

--- On Fri, 4/12/09, Srivathsa Bharat <vathsa.mission@ gmail.com> wrote:

From: Srivathsa Bharat <vathsa.mission@ gmail.com>
Subject: Fwd: RTI 4(1)(B)
To: "Santosh P. Nargund" <spnargund@yahoo. com>
Date: Friday, 4 December, 2009, 7:46 PM

FYI

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: central relief committee crc <crcbng@yahoo. co.in>
Date: Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 4:40 PM
Subject: RTI 4(1)(B)
To: vathsa.mission@ gmail.com
Cc: Central Relief <crcbng@yahoo. co.in>

hi
Mr. Srivathsa.K

we are here with providing you the attachment copy of RTI Act 4(1)(B) . pl feel free to look for the attachment.

regards,

central relief committee
CRC

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

--
Dont go the way life takes you.Take life the way you go :)
JAI HIND
Srivathsa
http://rastrindia. googlepages. com

The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage. http://in.yahoo. com/

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: RTI movement

2009-12-07T07:52:26Z

Dear Leslie

Please don't be offended by my post or take it as a personal attack.

1) You are being foolish.

2) You are being as foolish as "Chicken Little" - please read this link very carefully first.
http://www.bachlund.org/Chicken_Little.htm

3) On this group we have no Chicken Littles who go running around screaming that the sky is about to fall on their heads. On this group we want you firstly to recognise a Foxy Loxy when you encounter one, and secondly to morph into a Foxy Loxy when required.

4) There are many people / groups who are out to "farm" the Chicken Littles, Ducky Wuckys and Goosey Looseys of the RTI world. They are all professional Foxy Loxy's and they need drones (a.k.a silly LITTLE RTI activists their heads stuffed full with nonsense).

5) A Foxy Loxy is a parasite. If he/she has no drones he will not survive even for a week. The Chief Justice of India is a Foxy Loxy, so is the PM. And yet you forget Goosey Loosey (who was eventually eaten by Foxy Loxy) who said "We will run, We will run and tell the king."

6) To stay out of the den of a Foxy Loxy, you must "SWITCH OFF YOUR BRAIN". It is your brain / intellect which confuses you and gets you mesmerised by these cobras.

BTW, to save India, we don't need numbers, we just need to have fun.

Sarbajit

--- In rti_india@..., LESLIE ALMEIDA <lesals2000@...> wrote:

>
> Dear all,
>
> Today morning TOI brought a news that, if implemented, will be a a blot to the RTI moment in India. Government is out to oblige judiciary to bring it out of the preview of the RTI Act 2005. Its obligations and the counter obligations between the three pillars of the democracy has ruined India since its independence. Europe was ruined in WW-II about the same time when India got its freedom. The leadership in Europe rose to the occasion and rebuilds the Europe. Now where the Europe is and where we stand?
>
> Whereas, in India itâs the just the way round. All policies are to serve the creamy layer, protect their unsavory rights, give them all the protection and let them fill up their coffers by all means.
>
> This creamy layer never participate in democratic process of electing their representative. For them, anybody who get elected he is in their fold. It is just give and take among them. This is a big joke on the country. This trend is needed to be arrested. Corruption is all time high. There is no peak for it. Trillions of Rupees have been amassed by all the three pillars of the democracy are stacked away from the country in the Swiss banks and property bought abroad. The big business houses have also joined the race. The forth pillar is about to join them.
>
> We must resist the move. We must vote for the transparency. It is requested that we may restore the following measures.
>
> Send e-mails to Prime Minister and Chief Justice of India
>
> Start a signature campaign in favour of Transparency
>
> Please send your opinion on the matter so that a larger base is set up to take the moment ahead.
>
>
>
> Thanks & Regards
>
> Leslie Almeida
>

RTI movement

2009-12-07T02:42:35Z

Dear all,

Today morning TOI brought a news that, if implemented, will be a a blot to the RTI moment in India. Government is out to oblige judiciary to bring it out of the preview of the RTI Act 2005. Its obligations and the counter obligations between the three pillars of the democracy has ruined India since its independence. Europe was ruined in WW-II about the same time when India got its freedom. The leadership in Europe rose to the occasion and rebuilds the Europe. Now where the Europe is and where we stand?

Whereas, in India it’s the just the way round. All policies are to serve the creamy layer, protect their unsavory rights, give them all the protection and let them fill up their coffers by all means.

This creamy layer never participate in democratic process of electing their representative. For them, anybody who get elected he is in their fold. It is just give and take among them. This is a big joke on the country. This trend is needed to be arrested. Corruption is all time high. There is no peak for it. Trillions of Rupees have been amassed by all the three pillars of the democracy are stacked away from the country in the Swiss banks and property bought abroad. The big business houses have also joined the race. The forth pillar is about to join them.

We must resist the move. We must vote for the transparency. It is requested that we may restore the following measures.

Send e-mails to Prime Minister and Chief Justice of India

Start a signature campaign in favour of Transparency

Please send your opinion on the matter so that a larger base is set up to take the moment ahead.

Thanks & Regards

Leslie Almeida

Re: Contempt notice to CIC Habibullah

2009-12-06T22:23:15Z

Not surprisingly the CIC was not represented when the matter came up in the SC - they dont even have a copy of the Contempt Petition or
any idea of this notice. CIC has asked me to use my contacts in SC to procure a copy for them. I am likely to get a copy of the contempt petition in a few days, and shall share it with the group too.

Sarbajit

--- In rti_india@..., Sanjeev Santoshi <sanjscot@...> wrote:

>
> Contempt notice to CIC Habibullah
>
> On Friday, Supreme Court has issued notice to India's Chief
> Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah on a criminal contempt
> petition filed by the Union of India and mentioned by attorney general
> GE Vahanavati.
>
> http://www.merinews.com/article/contempt-notice-to-cic-habibullah/15790132.shtml
>
> THE SUPREME Court on Friday (December 4), issued notice to India's
> Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah on a criminal
> contempt petition filed by the Union of India and mentioned by
> attorney general GE Vahanavati.
>
> The petition alleges that publication of two controversial decisions
> on the website of the Central Information Commission lowers the
> dignity of the court and interferes in the administration of justice.
> The petition also alleges that the two CIC decisions were in fact
> written by Prashant Bhushan advocate for the appellant one Subhash
> Chandra Agrawal.
>
> The contempt petition goes on to state that the appellant Subhash
> Chandra Agrawal is a professional information seeker fronting for a
> coterie of Supreme Court advocates styled as `Committee for Judicial
> Accountability' seeking to promote a few candidates for judgeship and
> the CIC is collaborating with busybodies bent on tarnishing the
> court's image.
>
> Habibullah has now decided to stay on as chief information
> commissioner to answer these charges levied against him in his
> personal capacity.
>
> The Supreme Court had decided to take the unusual step of staying the
> CIC's orders directed against it for the reason that Agrawal's right
> to information (RTI) appeal had raised queries concerning the passing
> over of Chief Justice AP Shah of the Delhi High Court who is himself
> hearing a previous matter of Agrawal's in the Delhi High Court versus
> the apex court.
>

Contempt notice to CIC Habibullah

2009-12-06T09:07:33Z

Contempt notice to CIC Habibullah

On Friday, Supreme Court has issued notice to India's Chief
Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah on a criminal contempt
petition filed by the Union of India and mentioned by attorney general
GE Vahanavati.

http://www.merinews.com/article/contempt-notice-to-cic-habibullah/15790132.shtml

THE SUPREME Court on Friday (December 4), issued notice to India's
Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah on a criminal
contempt petition filed by the Union of India and mentioned by
attorney general GE Vahanavati.

The petition alleges that publication of two controversial decisions
on the website of the Central Information Commission lowers the
dignity of the court and interferes in the administration of justice.
The petition also alleges that the two CIC decisions were in fact
written by Prashant Bhushan advocate for the appellant one Subhash
Chandra Agrawal.

The contempt petition goes on to state that the appellant Subhash
Chandra Agrawal is a professional information seeker fronting for a
coterie of Supreme Court advocates styled as ‘Committee for Judicial
Accountability’ seeking to promote a few candidates for judgeship and
the CIC is collaborating with busybodies bent on tarnishing the
court's image.

Habibullah has now decided to stay on as chief information
commissioner to answer these charges levied against him in his
personal capacity.

The Supreme Court had decided to take the unusual step of staying the
CIC's orders directed against it for the reason that Agrawal's right
to information (RTI) appeal had raised queries concerning the passing
over of Chief Justice AP Shah of the Delhi High Court who is himself
hearing a previous matter of Agrawal's in the Delhi High Court versus
the apex court.

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rti_india/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rti_india/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
rti_india-digest@...
rti_india-fullfeatured@...

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
rti_india-unsubscribe@...

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: RTI 4(1)(B) of CRC

2009-12-06T07:51:37Z

Hi Santosh

I opened the 8 page PDF attachment, I can't understand a word of it.
However it seems to be more comprehensive than many of the 4-1-b's floating around - so Good Work.

Sarbajit

--- In rti_india@..., "Santosh P. Nargund" <spnargund@...> wrote:

>
> Friends,
>
> Attached is the 4(1)(b) of the Kendra Parihara Samiti, Karnatak (Central Relief Committee) for administartion of the Karnatak Prohibition of Beggary Act, 1975.
>
> We received this in response to an RTI application.This document is received only over email from CRC! (Is our govt. system changing??!!)
>
> Prima facie it appears that this 4(1)(b) document was compiled only after our application. In the covering letter (also attached), it is stated that CRC is taking steps to publish this 4-1-b in the Karnatak Gazette and 'website' now!
>
> Prima facie it also appears that this document may not be in conformance with the requrements of the RTI Act and other guidelines.
>
> Your comments and suggections are welcome.
>
>
> Jai Hind!
>
> Santosh P. Nargund
> Rashtrotthan Sankalp
>
> Evil Triumphs When Good People Sit Quiet
> www.rastr.in
>
> Either you're with us or with the evil forces.
>
> --- On Fri, 4/12/09, Srivathsa Bharat <vathsa.mission@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Srivathsa Bharat <vathsa.mission@...>
> Subject: Fwd: RTI 4(1)(B)
> To: "Santosh P. Nargund" <spnargund@...>
> Date: Friday, 4 December, 2009, 7:46 PM
>
>
> FYI
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: central relief committee crc <crcbng@...>
> Date: Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 4:40 PM
> Subject: RTI 4(1)(B)
> To: vathsa.mission@...
> Cc: Central Relief <crcbng@...>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> hi
> Mr. Srivathsa.K
>
> we are here with providing you the attachment copy of RTI Act 4(1)(B) . pl feel free to look for the attachment.
>
> regards,
>
> central relief committee
> CRC
>
>
>
> The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage.
>
>
> --
> Dont go the way life takes you.Take life the way you go :)
> JAI HIND
> Srivathsa
> http://rastrindia.googlepages.com
>
>
>
> The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage. http://in.yahoo.com/
>

RTI 4(1)(B) of CRC [1 Attachment]

2009-12-06T00:54:37Z

Friends,

Attached is the 4(1)(b) of the Kendra Parihara Samiti, Karnatak (Central Relief Committee) for administartion of the Karnatak Prohibition of Beggary Act, 1975.

We received this in response to an RTI application.This document is received only over email from CRC! (Is our govt. system changing??!!)

Prima facie it appears that this 4(1)(b) document was compiled only after our application. In the covering letter (also attached), it is stated that CRC is taking steps to publish this 4-1-b in the Karnatak Gazette and 'website' now!

Prima facie it also appears that this document may not be in conformance with the requrements of the RTI Act and other guidelines.

Your comments and suggections are welcome.

Jai Hind!

Santosh P. Nargund
Rashtrotthan Sankalp

Evil Triumphs When Good People Sit Quiet
www.rastr.in

Either you're with us or with the evil forces.

--- On Fri, 4/12/09, Srivathsa Bharat <vathsa.mission@...> wrote:

From: Srivathsa Bharat <vathsa.mission@...>
Subject: Fwd: RTI 4(1)(B)
To: "Santosh P. Nargund" <spnargund@...>
Date: Friday, 4 December, 2009, 7:46 PM

FYI

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: central relief committee crc <crcbng@...>
Date: Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 4:40 PM
Subject: RTI 4(1)(B)
To: vathsa.mission@...
Cc: Central Relief <crcbng@...>

hi
Mr. Srivathsa.K

we are here with providing you the attachment copy of RTI Act 4(1)(B) . pl feel free to look for the attachment.

regards,

central relief committee
CRC

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

--
Dont go the way life takes you.Take life the way you go :)
JAI HIND
Srivathsa
http://rastrindia.googlepages.com

The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage. http://in.yahoo.com/