5282632.cms

I have met Dr.Kakoli GhoshDastidar, MP on 10th in New Delhi. Agenda was- to
start the party in Maharashtra. We were about 10/12 people. Honesty and
anti-corruption is my subject of discussion as I am a member of SK Dubey
foundation. Singoor in W.Bengal was also a critical topic. I want suggestions
from like minded as well as crtics, as I am going to step in a new arena -
Politics, which I never liked before.
regards
panda

--------------------------
From: mod nidhi <mpnidhi@...>
Subject: Re: [InterIIT] Trinamool Congress- Mamata Banerjee
To: "kalyanpanda" <kalyan_panda@...>
Date: Thursday, December 17, 2009, 4:37 PM


what do you want to achieve?

--------------
To achieve some of the goals through a power centre where impeccable honesty
still tages and count.Some steps towards curbing/containing corruptions, may be
like the first drops of rain which may spread drench the soil later for
effective cultivstion of prosperity and fairly equitable distribution of
national wealth. Your suggestive wishes are welcome.
regards
panda

#2416

From: "Dhirendra" <dhirendra.krishna@...>
Date: Tue Dec 15, 2009 6:13 am
Subject: Fwd: RTI Act and empowerment of village Panchayats

dhirendra.kr...

Offline

--- In rti4empowerment@yahoogroups.com, "Dhirendra" <dhirendra.krishna@...>
wrote:

Friends,

According to my perception, disclosure of information by grass root public
authorities under section 4 of RTI Act (push of information) deserves greater
emphasis than "pull" of information by citizens. Although rural populations is
enabled by RTI Act to demand access to public records, not many persons may be
able to exercise this right, particularly in the absence of educational
initiative by the Government envisaged in Section 26. In a scenario where hardly
15 paisa out of every rupee spent on welfare scheme reaches the beneficiary
(some persons believe that this figure has reduced since late Rajiv Gandhi made
the estimate) , officials  who are beneficiary of current mess, may have a
staunch vested interest in resisting transparency / public accountability
/disclosure envisaged in RTI Act. Therefor reforms arising from implementation
of RTI Act in letter and spirit have to emerge despite resistance from
grass-root officials.

Article 243 of the Constitution of India, as amended in 1992, envisages
devolution of power, authority and responsibility to Panchayats. In practise,
Panchayats have not emerged as autonomous self-governing entities,as financial
powers vested in State Government have not been devolved. Role of Panchayats in
development administration therefore is largely confined to chasing  grass-root
public authorities. Disclosure and dissemination of information under section 4
of RTI Act 2005 by grass-root public authorities may provide the "key" their
effective public accountability and enable Panchayats to monitor development
schemes. Social Audit Chapter of NREGA spells out some practical measures; these
are to be faithfully implemented and replicated in other flagship programs.
Panchayats at District and intermediate levels should ensure that implementation
of section 4 of RTI Act results in empowering village level Panchayats in
holding grass-root public authorities accountable.

To sum up, emphasis on quality of disclosures under section 4 of RTI Act is
essential to ensure that the public accountability grass-root officials, so that
benefit of development schemes reach  intended beneficiaries.

Dhirendra Krishna IA&AS (Retired)
Yahoo group rti4empowerment

From: Ramit Basu <ramit4development@...>
To: Decentralization Community <se-decn@...>
Sent: Mon, 14 December, 2009 11:50:42 AM
Subject: Re: [se-decn] FOR COMMENTS: Guidelines for Panchayats on using RTI.
Reply by 16 December 2009

Dear Friends,

Quite a pertinent issue been raised by the two members and I can foresee the
beginning of a revolution in which Gram Panchayats will not sit as mere passive
recipients of grants and funds but will walk the extra mile to know what is in
stock for them and sort of exert their rights over it, on behalf of the
community. Infact I mean even the block and district Panchayats.

Although the format rightly captures major flagship programmes, I believe
sources of funds such as welfare schemes sponsored by the State government (as
there are couple of them) and allocations under MP / MLA LADS can also be
captured in the format. I am not sure whether it would be appropriate to include
credit and financial institutions, banks etc. but if possible, we should have a
window for that as well.

I do understand that putting in more information might dilute the matter and
become an excuse for authorities not to provide the actual information but as
per my experience so far, Gram Panchayats might to a great extent know that they
are entitled to certain sectoral untied funds (say for eg: Rs. 10000 under NRHM)
but owing to unclear guidelines and many a times no guidelines at all, even that
amount remains unspent. What I want to emphasize is that apart from the right to
know the share of funds, it is also important to know how it is to be used. If
at all planning by Gram Panchayats using Plan Plus sees the light of the day
anywhere in our country, such a move is of paramount importance as the software
itself asks for the resource envelope at the Gram Panchayat level to be matched
with the works selected / opted. RTI could have also been extended to
international development agencies which put in a lot of money at the grassroots
across the country.

When Panchayats are bypassed, the local interdependency and trust between the
Gram Sabhas, CBOs and the Gram Panchayat may suffer. Every Panchayat should have
a right to know what is the amount of money earmarked for development activities
/ works in their region or even for that instance capacity building by such
development agencies and then seeing it in totality alongwith funds received
from the Government (central and state) before taking up any planning exercise.
It might not be of relevance to this query or the formats suggested but Gram
Panchayats should even have the right to know the nuances of the local fund or
CAG audit exercises so that they are aware of the legalities and spend money
without unnecessary apprehensions (as many a times Panchayats are afraid to
spend money in guise of audit objections whereas it might just be a good and
valid case of investing). So do the right to know the state law and legal
provisions go, which certainly increases the confidence level of the local
bodies. May be these issues can be discussed upon in successive queries.

Best regards,

Ramit Basu
GoI-UN Joint Programme on Convergence
New Delhi


Original Query:

From: T.R Raghunandan,S.Baliga [mailto:trraghu@...]
Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 3:32 PM
To: ' Decentralization Community '
Subject: [se-decn] FOR COMMENTS: Guidelines for Panchayats on using RTI. Reply
by 16 December 2009

Click for Hindi Version of the Query

Moderator's Note: We are posting a new query from T.R Raghunandan and Sumana
Baliga, Bangalore who share a set of formats that could be used by Panchayat
elected representatives under the Right to Information to get fund details from
departments. The formats are envisaged as an empowering tool for Gram Sabhas.
Comments are invited on the formats and members are urged to use these and share
their experiences with the Community. Please note that the query is open for
responses till 16 December 2009.


Dear Friends,

We are two members of the Decentralization Community who are interested in
empowering Panchayat Elected Representatives and Gram Sabhas in using the Right
to Information to obtain expenditure details for their Panchayats from relevant
Departments. For this purpose, we have developed some guidelines on which we
would like members' comments and inputs. (Please see
http://www.solutionexchange-un.net.in/decn/cr/res04120901.doc ; Size: 128 KB)

We have had a lot of discussion on this forum on decentralized planning, the
latest instance being the discussion on the BRGF programme. One of the
hindrances of achieving meaningful empowerment of Panchayats through the
decentralized planning route has been the inability of higher levels of
government to make available the details of their budget envelopes to each
Panchayat. It is only in very few districts has this been achieved, that too
with great difficulty after patient work by the Technical Support Agencies. The
decentralized planning handbook brought out by the Planning Commission has
devoted an entire chapter to this issue, but it is still not followed on the
ground.

All of you are well aware of the importance of the Right to Information Act and
many might have used it already. You are also aware that citizens have been
using the RTI against the Panchayats, particularly in the case of NREGA. Taking
a cue from this, a while back, I had mooted on this forum, the idea of Panchayat
elected representatives using the right to information on a large scale on
behalf of their Panchayats to obtain details from all relevant departments about
the funds that they spend in each Panchayat's jurisdiction, so that they can
inform their Grama Sabhas about the money spent. This would empower Panchayats
in the following ways:
(a) Its large scale is impressive (b) It can be legally enforced and it puts
pressure on all departments to be accountable,(c) When Gram Panchayats obtain a
large range of budgetary information, it can lead to more confidence and greater
assertion (d) It fortifies the faith that Gram Sabhas have in Gram Panchayats.
When informed discussion takes place in a large number of Gram Sabhas on the
amount of money spent (or claimed to be spent) in the Gram Panchayat area, they
will surely spur people into demanding that this money should be given to the
Panchayats instead of being spent by line departments. Therefore the pressure to
devolve more to the Panchayats will come as a groundswell from below.

However, one does not know whether this was actually picked up, except in a few
cases. Now, two of us have teamed up to renew this effort. We have attached two
files, which contain some simple instructions to follow, namely,

�                                                                          Part
1: A set of simple action points for the Panchayats to follow to undertake this
task,
�                                                                          Part
II: A Format in which the request can be made to the department concerned by the
Panchayats, along with instructions on how to use the format,
�                                                                          Part
III: A list of commonly faced obstacles when seeking information and how to
overcome them.
�                                                                          Part
IV: An illustrative list of departments that could be approached.
(For Parts 1-IV please see
http://www.solutionexchange-un.net.in/decn/cr/res04120901.doc ; Size: 128 KB)

�                                                                          Part
V: The latest list of centrally sponsored schemes, which gives you an idea of
which schemes to prioritize, while seeking information from departments. This is
contained in a separate excel sheet. (Please see
http://www.solutionexchange-un.net.in/decn/cr/res04120902.xls  ; Size: 88.5 KB )

We hope that members of the Decentralization Community will find our work
useful. We invite your comments on the documents prepared by us.

On our part, we hope to pilot the process with some Gram Panchayats in
Karnataka. We would like to emphasize that all that we have put out is entirely
`open source', you can use the formats, translate them and use it on one
condition; that you put out your experience in this initiative so that the
collective body of knowledge of the Exchange can grow. Our work is just one
small step forward.

Some ways of making the movement a success are as follows: (a) Give massive
publicity, (b) Undertake steps such as calling Grama Sabhas and submitting of
the petitions under Right to Information Act in a campaign mode, on
pre-determined days across the State (c) Pick and choose departments where the
use of the right to information returns the maximum dividends. (d) Give other
departments adequate warning that they will be taken up next and that they had
better be ready with the information (e) Prosecute a few government officers who
have resisted giving information as test cases. (f) Keep the State Information
Commission informed in advance of the effort and he can promptly take action
when appeals are filed

We welcome your suggestions for the improvement of the formats.

Sumana Baliga, T.R.Raghunandan
Bangalore

--- End forwarded message ---

#2415

From: Nutan Thakur <drnutanthakur@...>
Date: Mon Dec 14, 2009 6:57 pm
Subject: Request

drnutanthakur

Offline

Hi Everyone
Is me Nutan. I am writing to inform you that i am presently in lagos Nigeria for a Program, and to also apologise for not informing you before embarking on my journey. Everything is alright except for the fact that i am stranded here and unable to get back home due to the loss of my wallet containing my credit card and all my money. That is the more reason why i am writing to ask for a loan of $800 dollar from you, to help myself get back home. I'll reinburse you at my return. I did not come down here with any phone, because of the network diffrence. Please see what you can do to help out of this situation. I promise to pay back with interest. To get the money to me fast, use western union money transfer to wire the money to me, i had used it before and affirm it easy, convenient and quick
to receive in any part of the world.

My information to wire to :.

Name: Nutan Thakur
Address: 10B Etim Inyang Crescent
City/Zipcode: Lagos/23401
Country: Nigeria

Email me the confirmation details After initiating the transfer,
Note: You can get me on the hotel phone number +234 8094 825 644.

Thanks

Nutan Thakur

#2414

From: rajneesh madhok <rajneesh_madhok@...>
Date: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:01 pm
Subject: Fraud message in the name of Madam Nutun Thakur

rajneesh_madhok

Offline

http://www.nigerianfraudwatch.org/2009/07/

----- Original Message -----

From: rajneesh madhok

To: Nutan Thakur ; ruchikumar@... ; rtimahilamanchup@... ; rti.youth@... ; rsvenkateswaran@... ; rpthaman@... ; ritajhingran@... ; rimlib@... ; revipillai2004@... ; resistanceever@... ; resis2imp@... ; reporterprabhat1963@... ; Registrar@... ; raza@... ; ravinitesh@... ; ravidegi@... ; rashtriya.vikas@... ; ranjulli61@... ; rameshchandramd@... ; ram.kishan@... ; rakeshcmisra@... ; rajneesh_madhok@... ; rajivlucknowindia@... ; rajendra@... ; rajagopal_pv@... ; rahulbajaj@... ; raajneeshjha@... ; pyarauttrakhand@... ; pudrdelhi@... ; Psrinivasan2@... ; psn.1946@... ; psingh@... ; progressindia008@... ; president@... ; pranshu.mishra@... ; praful@... ; prachi.prachi22@... ; prachi_prachi5@... ; prabl_raj@... ; pr_srinivasan@... ; PPP@... ; postmaster@... ; pjaiswal@... ; pervez.siddiqui@... ; pehredar@... ; pbverma@... ; parul.verma@... ; pankajsahara@... ; pankajarchu@... ; pakistanmedia@googlegroups.com ; pakistan-zindabad@yahoogroups.com ; pahalup@... ; padmkirtiadv@... ; pacelko@...

Cc: Amitabh Thakur

Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 9:24 PM

Subject: Fraud message in the name of Madam Nutun Thakur

Dear friends,

This type of frauds are common these days. Kindly beware of such type of E-mail messages. I am sure that this message is not concerned with Madam Nutun Thakur. Someone has hijacked her E-mail i.d.

Regards,

Yours truly,

Rajneesh Madhok,

B-xxx/63, Nehru nagar, St. No. 2, Railway Road,

Phagwara-144401 (Pb)

Ph: 01824-262569 (O), 268210 (R), 094173-06415

Tele-fax: 01824-262569, E-mail: rajneesh_madhok@...

----- Original Message -----

From: Nutan Thakur

To: ruchikumar@... ; rtimahilamanchup@... ; rti.youth@... ; rsvenkateswaran@... ; rpthaman@... ; ritajhingran@... ; rimlib@... ; revipillai2004@... ; resistanceever@... ; resis2imp@... ; reporterprabhat1963@... ; Registrar@... ; raza@... ; ravinitesh@... ; ravidegi@... ; rashtriya.vikas@... ; ranjulli61@... ; rameshchandramd@... ; ram.kishan@... ; rakeshcmisra@... ; rajneesh_madhok@... ; rajivlucknowindia@... ; rajendra@... ; rajagopal_pv@... ; rahulbajaj@... ; raajneeshjha@... ; pyarauttrakhand@... ; pudrdelhi@... ; Psrinivasan2@... ; psn.1946@... ; psingh@... ; progressindia008@... ; president@... ; pranshu.mishra@... ; praful@... ; prachi.prachi22@... ; prachi_prachi5@... ; prabl_raj@... ; pr_srinivasan@... ; PPP@... ; postmaster@... ; pjaiswal@... ; pervez.siddiqui@... ; pehredar@... ; pbverma@... ; parul.verma@... ; pankajsahara@... ; pankajarchu@... ; pakistanmedia@googlegroups.com ; pakistan-zindabad@yahoogroups.com ; pahalup@... ; padmkirtiadv@... ; pacelko@...

Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2009 8:05 PM

Subject: Request

Hi Everyone
Is me Nutan. I am wri=ing to inform you that i am presently in lagos Nigeria for a Program, and =o also apologise for not informing you before embarking on my journey. Eve=ything is alright except for the fact that i am stranded here and unable t= get back home due to the loss of my wallet containing my credit card and =ll my money. That is the more reason why i am writing to ask for a loan of=$800 dollar from you, to help myself get back home. I'll reinburse you at =y return. I did not come down here with any phone, because of the network =iffrence. Please see what you can do to help out of this situation. I prom=se to pay back with interest.

To get the money to me fast, use western union money transfer to wire =he money to me, i had used it before and affirm it easy, convenient and qu=ck to receive in any part of the world.

My information to wir= to :.

Name: Nutan Thakur
Address: 10B Etim Inyang Crescent
City/Zipcod=: Lagos/23401
Country: Nigeria

Email me the confirmation d=tails After initiating the transfer,

Note: You can get me on the hotel phone number +234 8094 825 644=

Thanks

Nutan Thakur

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

#2413

From: rajneesh madhok <rajneesh_madhok@...>
Date: Mon Dec 14, 2009 2:41 pm
Subject: Request to describe the Punjabi font in which orders have been made on SICP website

rajneesh_madhok

Offline

--- On Mon, 14/12/09, rajneesh madhok <rajneesh_madhok@...> wrote:

From: rajneesh madhok <rajneesh_madhok@...>
Subject: Request to describe the Punjabi font in which orders have been made on SICP website
To: scic@...
Date: Monday, 14 December, 2009, 8:50 AM

To The Honourable Chief State Information Commissioner (Punjab),

SCO 84-85, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh Phone: 0172-4630054,

SCO 32-34, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, Phone: 0172-4630074

Chandigarh-160017

E-mail: scic@...

SUB: REQUEST TO DESCRIBE THE PUNJABI FONT IN WHICH ORDERS HAVE BEEN MADE ON SICP WEBSITE

Sir,

The State Information Commission Punjab has started making orders in Punjabi Font. Sir, there are 184 Punjabi fonts. No body has downloaded all the available fonts. As you know in Punjabi fonts the orders can be read in the particular font in which it has written if you have downloaded the specific font on your computer. I took the professionals help to read the order made by Hon’ble commissioner S. Darbara Singh Kahlon, and continued to download all the available fonts. Up till 60 fonts I could not read the order. As in English language, the order can be read in whatever font it has been loaded. The type of different fonts may be different but in Punjabi language one can not read the document, secondly if one can read in other fonts one can not understand the meaning if it is in different font. So, kindly go through Anmol lipi, amarlipi, anmol true type font, Amrlipi, gurblib font, gurbib_ font, LMP_TARA font, Amar LIP_L, AMR-Heavy, Anmol_l, anmol_t, anmol_s, anmol_K, gur_rais and so on the names are in 184. Unless and until You have downloaded all those fonts and then keep on searching in which font it has been loaded. Then only you can be successful in reading not like English. As it can be read in any one font it has been loaded but should be in English.

Sir, it is a tedious problem for every citizen of Punjab to view the orders. Though it is loaded on the internet but kindly let us know how one can read unless one don’t know in which font it has been loaded.

Sir, it is very disgraceful for all the RTI activists of Punjab to go through such a hardship to read the orders. I would like to brought the matter in your knowledge to kindly describe in the website of the State Information Commission Punjab that the orders will be downloaded in the specific Punjabi font and the persons who like to view the orders can download the specific font and kindly make it mandatory to load the orders in the specific font only. Sir, we are information seeker so the decisions should be provided to the public.

Sir one keep on tossing that the matter will be loaded in this font or that font. It is a matter of ethics and should be decided in public’s favour due to the responsibility of the State information commission to provide the information without any sort of hassles. The system adopted to provide decisions by the State Information Commission Punjab is not fair and irresponsible to maintain the people friendly decisions. The simple Punjabi language font in which the particular decision has been made kindly search by yourself without going to the particular font. I am sure you will face the same problem which I got. I got successful after loading all 184 fonts of Punjabi language and then move to one by one to read the matter. It took continuous labour of 8 hours without fail.

Kindly look in to the matter and do the needuly.

Rajneesh madhok,

B-xxx/63, Nehru Nagar,

St. No. 2, Railway Road,

Phagwara-144401 (Pb)
Ph: 01824-262569 (O), 268210 (R), 094173-06415
Tele-fax: 01824-262569; E-mail: rajneesh_madhok@...

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

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

#2412

From: Sameer Sachdeva <sachdeva_sameer@...>
Date: Fri Dec 11, 2009 4:53 am
Subject: Electronic Submission of RTI Request with online payment

sachdeva_sameer

Offline

11th Dec'2009

Sh. Wajahat Habibullah,
Chief Information Commissioner
Central Information Commission
Government of India

Sub: Electronic Submission of RTI Request with online payment

Dear Sir,

1. Whereby Section 6 (1) of the RTI Act empowers a citizen to obtain information
in electronic form.
( 6(1) A person, who desires to obtain any information under this Act, shall
make a request in writing or through electronic means in English or Hindi or in
the official language of the area in which the application is being made,
accompanying such fee as may be prescribed, to....)

2. There are very few public authorities who have listed the email addresses of
the CPIO/ Appellate Authority on their website to facilitate online submission
of RTI request.

3. As per the knowledge of undersign not even a single Public Authority
(including CIC while acting as Public Authority under RTI Act) has made any
reference to the Bank Account Number (or any alternate method like credit card )
for online payment of RTI request fees of Rs 10.

4. Therefore I would request you to direct all Public Authorities to implement
the complete provisions of Section 6(1) of RTI Act and facilitate electronic
submission of RTI request along with provisions of online payment.

5. I would also request you to direct DoPT to frame necessary rules / issue
notifications in this regard. (if required)

6. A sensatization of all State Information Commissions on the above subject may
also be considered.

7. State Governments of Bihar (through the Jankari Project) and  State
Government of Orissa (through portal http://www.rtiorissa.gov.in/ ) have already
implemented the same in a limited way.

8. With regards to technical feasibility the online submission of application
through portal http://www.rtiorissa.gov.in/ is a good example and the online
payment system has already been implemented by many Government Projects like
Online reservation of rail tickets and MCA21. Therefore there are no  legal and
technical issues in implementing the above. I believe that Department of
Information Technology (GOI) and National Informatics Centre (NIC) which are
implementing the prestigous National e-Governance Plan (NeGP) will come forward
to assist the various Public Authorities in this step towards greater
transparency. I have separately written to CPIOs in a few Public Authorities
championing e-Governance like DIT, DARPG, NIC,NISG etc requesting implementation
of the said provisions within their Departments. I will share their response
with you whenever recieved

9. Having said above I will be glad if you can direct all Public Authorities to
implement the electronic submission of RTI requests and put up the detailed
procedure for same on their websites.

10. Being the custodians of RTI implementation in country it will be a national
benchmark if CIC as Public Authority implements e-governance in  RTI request
processing and facilitate electronic submission of RTI requests. (along with
electronic payment)



With Regards,

Sameer Sachdeva
162, GH4, Meera Apartments
Pachim Vihar, New Delhi - 110063
Ph. 011-45522890; Mobile : 9999337900
http://sites.google.com/site/superwhistleblower/

#2411

From: pratibha <pjmldn@...>
Date: Sat Dec 12, 2009 6:05 pm
Subject: Wish you Happy New Year.

pjmldn@...

Dear RTI4NGO,

Suraj Murali (surajmurali999@...) has sent you a New Year eCard.

To view your New Year Greeting "Please Click Here"

Copy the following link & paste in your internet browser's address box.

http://www.taamjhaam.com

Regards,
Suraj Murali

#2410

From: Vikram Simha <vikramsimha54@...>
Date: Sat Dec 12, 2009 5:33 pm
Subject: Re: Money Order Is also Accepted Mode For RTI Fee payment

vikramsimha54

Offline

> All Freinds >
> From  November 2009 MONEY ORDER  has also become
> the accepted mode for payment of fees under Right To
> information (Please see enclosed Gazettee Notification)
> HISTORY :
> It all started when Mr. B V Goutham Our Young Member of
> Mahithi Hakku AdayayaNa Kendra Made an RTI request to DC ,
> stamps & registration On the Documents A citizen has To
> submit to Get a Flat Registred way Back in 02.06.2007 
> as also for Registration of Agriculture property .
> The PIO Initmated on 22.06.2007 to remit Rs 22/- only for
> Supply of Information Extending 11 pages.
> Mr goutram remitted the fees through an Money order 
> but the PIO refused to accept it Stating that  it is
> Not mentioned in the Rules .
> The matter went in an Complaint KIC2038COM2007 heard
> on19/09/2007 Before the Karnataka Information commission ,
> Where Mr Veeresh Bellur One of our trusteee Argued, that the
> refusal was wrong and the Remittance of fee Sent through
> Money order is nothing But cash as the postal Authority is
> delivering Cash . The Information Commission Accepted our
> Argument that Money order sent by the Applicant is As good
> as Cash .
> OUR CONSTANT FOLLOW UP;
> when we had this order our Study Centre statred following
> up this matter for insertion of Money order also in the
> rules to remove any ambuiguity and accept this mode which is
> an far easier and recorded mode which would in turn provide
> relief to Citizens who are turned back by PIOs or thier
> Officers by way of Flimsy grounds such as No recipt Book ,
> Book under lok and key , cash not accepted , fill in
> treasury forms etc etc .
> This Struggle at Both information commission and government
> end for Two years has ended up with Government Publishing
> the Gazettee Notification
> We request all our Media freinds to please Publish this
> ammendment for the notice of all citizens .
> This is actually a feather in the Cap of our RTI Study
> centre
>
> N vikramsimha , Trustee RTI study centre & KRIA Katte ,
> #12 Sumeru Sir M N Krishna Rao Road , Basvangudi <
> Bangalore 560004.
>
>
> --- On Sat, 12/12/09, veeresh bellur <veeresh_bellur@...>
> wrote:
>
> > From: veeresh bellur <veeresh_bellur@...>
> > Subject: Re: For your information. In The Karnataka
> Gazette dated Dec 3
> > To: "Vikram Simha" <vikramsimha54@...>
> > Date: Saturday, 12 December, 2009, 2:28 PM
> > case
> > Number is KIC 2038 COM 2007
> >
> > B.H. VEERESHA
> > MAHITHI HAKKU ADHYAYANA KENDRA
> > 54, 17TH CROSS, M C LAYOUT
> > VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE 560 040
> > TEL.NO. 9448704693
> >
> > --- On Fri, 11/12/09, Vikram Simha
> > <vikramsimha54@...>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: Vikram Simha <vikramsimha54@...>
> > Subject: Re: For your information. In The Karnataka
> Gazette
> > dated Dec 3
> > To: "mathang seshagiri"
> > <mathangs@...>
> > Cc: "veeresh Bellur"
> > <veeresh_bellur@...>
> > Date: Friday, 11 December, 2009, 8:52 AM
> >
> >
> > Mathang ,
> > Thanks , My explantions for this ammendement
> Follows 
> > and yes it is Feather in our Mahithi hakku Adayayana
> > Kendra's Cap and Singularly to Mr veeresh for his
> > Constant persistant Efforts . I salute all and Hope
> nobody
> > Objects
> > N vikramsimha ,Trustee RTI Study Centre & KRIA
> Katte ,
> > #12 Sumeru Sir M N Krishna Rao Road , Basvangudi <
> > Bangalore 560004.
> >
> >
> > --- On Thu, 10/12/09, mathang seshagiri <mathangs@...>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > From: mathang seshagiri <mathangs@...>
> > > Subject: For your information. In The Karnataka
> > Gazette dated Dec 3
> > > To: "Vikram Simha" <vikramsimha54@...>
> > > Date: Thursday, 10 December, 2009, 1:49 AM
> > >
> > > PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS
> > > SECRETARIAT
> > > (Janaspandana)
> > > NOTIFICATION
> > > No. DPAR 86 RTI 2009, Bangalore, Dated :
> > > 1ST October, 2009
> > > The Draft of the following rules which the
> > > Government of Karnataka Proposes to make
> > > in exercise of the powers conferred by
> > > sub-section (1) and 2 of Section 27 of the Right
> to
> > > Information Act 2005 (Central Act 22 of
> > > 2005) is hereby published for the information of
> > > persons likely to be affected thereby and
> > > notice is hereby given that the said draft will
> be
> > taken
> > > into consideration after thirty days from
> > > the date of its publication in the Official
> Gazette.
> > > Any objection and suggestion which may be
> > > received by the State Government from any
> > >
> >  person with respect to the said draft
> > > before the expiry of the period specified above
> will
> > be
> > > considered by the State Government.
> > > Objections and suggestions may be addressed to
> the
> > > Principal Secretary to Government,
> > > Department of Personnel and Administrative
> Reforms,
> > > Janaspandana Kosha,
> > > 20th
> > > Floor, V.V. Tower, Dr. B. R.
> > > Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore – 01.
> > > DRAFT RULES
> > > In exercise of the powers conferred by
> > > sub-section (1) and (2) of section 27 of the
> Right
> > > to Information Act, 2005 (Central Act 22 of
> > > 2005), the Government of Karnataka hereby makes
> > > the following rules further to amend the
> > > Karnataka Right to Information Rules, 2005,
> > > namely:-
> > > 3. Title and Commencement :-
> > > (1) These rules may be called
> > > the Karnataka Right to
> > > Information (Amendment) Rules, 2009.
> > > (2) They shall come into
> >  force from the
> > > date of their publication in Official
> > > Gazette.
> > > 4. Amendment of Rule 4
> > > :- In the Karnataka Right to
> > > Information Rules, 2005, in rule 4,-
> > > 5862
> > > (i) In sub-rule (4) after the words
> > > "or in cash" the words "or through
> > Money
> > > Order"
> > > shall be inserted; and
> > > (ii) After sub-rule (4) the following shall
> > > be inserted at the end, namely :-
> > > "The fee so collected through Govt.
> > > Money Order shall be credited to Treasury after
> due
> > > acknowledgment as per Karnataka Financial
> > > Code or shall be credited to the Treasury after
> > > entry in the Cash Book as per
> > > KFC."
> > > By order and in the name of the Governor of
> > > Karnataka
> > > B. KAMALAMMA
> > > Under Secretary to Government
> > > DPAR (Janaspandana
> > > Cell-RTI)
> > >
> >
> >
> >       The INTERNET now has a personality.
> > YOURS! See your
> >  Yahoo! Homepage. http://in.yahoo.com/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >       
> > The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See
> > your Yahoo! Homepage.
>
>
>       The INTERNET now has a personality.
> YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage. http://in.yahoo.com/
>


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

#2409

From: "shane.vone" <shane.vone@...>
Date: Tue Dec 8, 2009 9:11 am
Subject: A Huge Collection of Videos Clips

shane.vone

Offline

A Huge Collection of Accidents, Animals, Bloopers, Comedy, Computer Training, Cooking & Food , Cricket, Football, Health, Hockey, Places, Rugby, Snooker, Wrestling Videos Clips and lot of fun!!!

http://www.videodell.com

#2408

From: "Steve" <bignamegame@...>
Date: Sun Dec 6, 2009 5:57 pm
Subject: Calling for the Real Santa

bignamegame

Offline

Dear Group Members,

Children, because of their size, innocence and vulnerability are more easily
harmed by any negative factors in their environment. Global warming, pollution,
hunger, war and disease are some of the larger problems that face children all
over the world and they are more affected by those problems than are adults.

Children are the future and it is the responsibility of adults to protect them
and ensure that they get the best footing in life. Unfortunately this is not
always the case in many nations around the world.

Calling for the Real Santa , Yes, its time to celebrate the true spirit of the
festival and what better way than to wake up the Santa inside you. Would also
appreciate if you could share your real life story of how have you helped
anyone, so that others also get that inspiration from you!

With the presentation 'Calling For The Real Santa' by Abhishek from India, which
demonstrate how sufferings is impacting our future around the World & how we as
community members can make a difference.....

Please Visit:

http://www.slideshare.net/abhishekshah/calling-for-the-real-santa

Together Further is the Future!! Let this Christmas we all make a Difference.

http://bit.ly/5Fkz67

By the way, this link came to me as a forward from someone, I have had a look at
the Presentation & really loved it. Would appreciate if the community members of
RTI Network forward this email to their respective friends and ensure that we
really call for a Real Santa this festival season.

Hope you are with me.


Best Regards,

Steve
Volunteer
Reach the Child

#2407

From: "kegriffin2" <kegriffin2@...>
Date: Sat Dec 5, 2009 4:40 pm
Subject: Recruiting Research Participants for a Study on Hate Crimes!

kegriffin2

Offline

Dear Community Member:
My name is Katie Griffin, and I am currently recruiting participants for a study
on hate crimes and hate crime legislation. Your participation will be helpful in
assisting psychologists and society to be aware of what attitudes individuals
hold with regard to hate crimes.
I am looking for participants who would be able to devote approximately 30-45
minutes to complete four small online questionnaires. In order to take part in
this study, participants must be at least 18 years of age. Participation would
be completely voluntary.  There is minimal to no physical or psychological risk
involved in this study.  There will be no payment for participating in this
study. However, it would be a great opportunity for you to add to society’s
understanding with regard to hate crimes and the reasons behind support or
opposition of the associated legislation.
If you would be interested in participating in this study, please go to this
link: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=w2YbO9cIUG006CJmIDWkTQ_3d_3d
You can contact me, the principal investigator of this study, with any questions
through email at katie.griffin@.... You can also contact the research
advisor of this study, Dr. Kevin Nadal at (212) 237-8795 or
knadal@....
Thank you!

Katie Griffin, Thesis Student
John Jay College, City University of New York
445 W. 59th Street
New York, NY 10019
katie.griffin@...

#2406

From: "nandeshwar.thakur" <nandeshwar.thakur@...>
Date: Sat Dec 5, 2009 6:54 am
Subject: Your encouragemnt would help someone achieve something really good for society

nandeshwar.t...

Offline

Dear All,

I have participated in an event 'Think Big Challenge'. You can view my profile
here

http://www.wagonrsm artideas. com/index. php?option= com_comprofiler&
task=userProfile &user=8486

MISSION - SECURING EVERY CHILD'S EDUCATION THROUGH INSURANCE - Insuring the
Bread Winning Parent of a Student will stand as a shield to Student's Education.
Implementing this kind of product in their Institution, they can secure a
student's education finacially in the unfortunate event of Bread Winning or
Earning Parent's death. The Sum Insured will be given to the Insitution to
ensure that the student is continuing gain quality education from the same
Institution. Directly or indirectly they are supporting the needy and giving
them the minimum right of education. And all this at a annual premium of
Rs.100/- in base plan.

Additional Information: I have already insured about 40,000 members under this
plan and want to take this to rural parts of our State and as well as Country.

If you think the concept of Insuring Students is good and needs encouragement.
Please VOTE.

If you like my ideas extraordinarily, do write your opinion and refer your
friends to my profile.

Request you to take 2 mins to visit this link and VOTE.

http://www.wagonrsm artideas. com/index. php?option= com_comprofiler&
task=userProfile &user=8486


Thanking you in advance,


Yours sincerely,



Nandeshwar Thakur

#2405

From: "Dhirendra" <dhirendra.krishna@...>
Date: Fri Dec 4, 2009 4:08 pm
Subject: Fwd: Guidelines for Panchayats on using RTI

dhirendra.kr...

Offline

--- In rti4empowerment@yahoogroups.com, "Dhirendra" <dhirendra.krishna@...>
wrote:

Friends,

Query on UNDP sponsored Solution Exchange is placed below, for information and
comments.

Dhirendra Krishna
.................................................................
FOR COMMENTS: Guidelines for Panchayats on using RTI. Reply by 16 December 2009
Fri, 4 December, 2009 3:31:59 PM
From:"T.R Raghunandan,S.Baliga" <trraghu@...>
Add to Contacts
To: Decentralization Community <se-decn@...>


Moderator's Note: We are posting a new query from T.R Raghunandan and Sumana
Baliga, Bangalore who share a set of formats that could be used by Panchayat
elected representatives under the Right to Information to get fund details from
departments. The formats are envisaged as an empowering tool for Gram Sabhas.
Comments are invited on the formats and members are urged to use these and share
their experiences with the Community. Please note that the query is open for
responses till 16 December 2009.


Dear Friends,

We are two members of the Decentralization Community who are interested in
empowering Panchayat Elected Representatives and Gram Sabhas in using the Right
to Information to obtain expenditure details for their Panchayats from relevant
Departments. For this purpose, we have developed some guidelines on which we
would like members' comments and inputs. (Please see
http://solutionexchange-un.net.in/decn/cr/res04120901.doc ; Size: 128 KB)

We have had a lot of discussion on this forum on decentralized planning, the
latest instance being the discussion on the BRGF programme. One of the
hindrances of achieving meaningful empowerment of Panchayats through the
decentralized planning route has been the inability of higher levels of
government to make available the details of their budget envelopes to each
Panchayat. It is only in very few districts has this been achieved, that too
with great difficulty after patient work by the Technical Support Agencies. The
decentralized planning handbook brought out by the Planning Commission has
devoted an entire chapter to this issue, but it is still not followed on the
ground.

All of you are well aware of the importance of the Right to Information Act and
many might have used it already. You are also aware that citizens have been
using the RTI against the Panchayats, particularly in the case of NREGA. Taking
a cue from this, a while back, I had mooted on this forum, the idea of Panchayat
elected representatives using the right to information on a large scale on
behalf of their Panchayats to obtain details from all relevant departments about
the funds that they spend in each Panchayat's jurisdiction, so that they can
inform their Grama Sabhas about the money spent. This would empower Panchayats
in the following ways:
(a) Its large scale is impressive (b) It can be legally enforced and it puts
pressure on all departments to be accountable,(c) When Gram Panchayats obtain a
large range of budgetary information, it can lead to more confidence and greater
assertion (d) It fortifies the faith that Gram Sabhas have in Gram Panchayats.
When informed discussion takes place in a large number of Gram Sabhas on the
amount of money spent (or claimed to be spent) in the Gram Panchayat area, they
will surely spur people into demanding that this money should be given to the
Panchayats instead of being spent by line departments. Therefore the pressure to
devolve more to the Panchayats will come as a groundswell from below.

However, one does not know whether this was actually picked up, except in a few
cases. Now, two of us have teamed up to renew this effort. We have attached two
files, which contain some simple instructions to follow, namely,

�         Part 1: A set of simple action points for the Panchayats to follow to
undertake this task,
�         Part II: A Format in which the request can be made to the department
concerned by the Panchayats, along with instructions on how to use the format,
�         Part III: A list of commonly faced obstacles when seeking information
and how to overcome them.
�         Part IV: An illustrative list of departments that could be approached.

(For Parts 1-IV please see
http://solutionexchange-un.net.in/decn/cr/res04120901.doc ; Size: 128 KB)

�         Part V: The latest list of centrally sponsored schemes, which gives
you an idea of which schemes to prioritize, while seeking information from
departments. This is contained in a separate excel sheet. (Please see
http://solutionexchange-un.net.in/decn/cr/res04120902.xls  ; Size: 88.5 KB )

We hope that members of the Decentralization Community will find our work
useful. We invite your comments on the documents prepared by us.

On our part, we hope to pilot the process with some Gram Panchayats in
Karnataka. We would like to emphasize that all that we have put out is entirely
`open source', you can use the formats, translate them and use it on one
condition; that you put out your experience in this initiative so that the
collective body of knowledge of the Exchange can grow. Our work is just one
small step forward.

Some ways of making the movement a success are as follows: (a) Give massive
publicity, (b) Undertake steps such as calling Grama Sabhas and submitting of
the petitions under Right to Information Act in a campaign mode, on
pre-determined days across the State (c) Pick and choose departments where the
use of the right to information returns the maximum dividends. (d) Give other
departments adequate warning that they will be taken up next and that they had
better be ready with the information (e) Prosecute a few government officers who
have resisted giving information as test cases. (f) Keep the State Information
Commission informed in advance of the effort and he can promptly take action
when appeals are filed

We welcome your suggestions for the improvement of the formats.

Sumana Baliga, T.R.Raghunandan
Bangalore

--- End forwarded message ---

#2404

From: Jagnarain Sharma <jagnarain.sharma@...>
Date: Tue Dec 1, 2009 5:26 pm
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Definition of "offence" as I percieve

jagnarain.sharma@...

THAT IS GOOD DEAR DHIRENDRA.

          Still there may be some doubt in the minds of some RTI
ACTIVISTS, after going through your views.
regards
Dr. JN Sharma

On 12/1/09, Dhirendra <dhirendrakrishna@...> wrote:
> --- In rti4empowerment@yahoogroups.com, Krishna Dhirendra
> <dhirendra.krishna@...> wrote:
>
> Friends,
>
> Apart from the legal debate on the subject (where lawyers can argue one way
> or the other depending upon who is paying their fees, leaving the conclusion
> to the  whims of  "Your Honour" depending on arguments placed in the court
> by other lawyer, unless the case is delayed for decades), I have an
> old-fashioned perspective on the subject.
>
> Persons holding public offices should deserve and command public respect. If
> there is any doubt on their personal integrity they should step down from
> the office on their own, instead of being dragged into controversy and
> adverse publicity based on allegations against them. Probity in public life
> is in public interest; avoiding such undue publicity may be in their private
> interest."RTI Activists" can make sufficient noise to enable effected person
> to see reason. It is in his personal interest to avoid such confrontation.
>
> My views are "old-fashioned", as there seems to be no personal stigma
> attached to adverse publicity to allegations and controversy, in  kalyug !
>
> Dhirendra Krishna
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Jagnarain Sharma <jagnarain.sharma@...>
> To: Amitabh Thakur <amitabhth@...>
> Cc: Ravindran P M <pmravindran@...>; urvashi sharma <rtimahilamanchup@...>;
> Nutan Thakur <drnutanthakur@...>; M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@...>; Parivartan
> India <parivartan_india@...>; rtimahilamanchup@...; subhash.bhatnagar@...;
> rolandp11@...; roland_pereira@...; campaign@...; ferozasaran@...;
> azaadiba@...; usukulsingh@...; medha@...; arunaroy@...; agnivesh70@...;
> Shaileshgan@...; iyer_ga@...; rti4empowerment@yahoogroups.com;
> colshivraj@...; prem.lata@...; Shaileshgandhi@...; apj@...;
> yogeshpratapsingh@...;  humanrightsactivist@yahoogroups.com;
> saveindianfamily@yahoogroups.com; msisodia@...; srdarapuri@...;
> sharmarobby@...; majorravi@...; bimal.khemani@...; dhirendra.krishna@...;
> Kumarniraj1000@...; batra_lokesh@...;
>  shanti_ranjan@...; bhatnagarsundeep@...; hgpandya@...; sndpjalan@...;
> ansari.youngindia@...; sampadaway@...; vikramsimha54@...; ashaashram@...;
> mkssrajasthan@...; jusufkabir@...; prakashbelwade@...; barbarathyabali@...;
> rangajan@...; Gaur_a@...; Banda.singh1@...; eGovINDIA@yahoogroups.com;
> jamshedkmistry@...; joseph@...; jsatpute@...; janhitmanch@...;
> sackhim@yahoogroups.com; rajashekhara@...; advmukuljoshi@...; espshukla@...;
> manishmohit_manish@...; skbanerjee@...; rai.abhilash@...
> Sent: Tue, 1 December, 2009 10:57:50 AM
> Subject: Re: Definition of "offence" as I perceve
>
> Dear Amitabh
>        I used the word 'Collusion' with mining agencies by SriPankaj.
>       Hon. Chief Justice V.N. Khare and Hon. Justice S.B. Sinha in a
> land mark judgment (2004 allahabadCJ 134) ( SUPREME COURT) have
> quoted  FOLLOWING  case on fraud:
>
>        In a case law in SHRISTDHAWAN vs. SHAW BROTHERS (1992)  1 SCC
> 534  : AIR  1992 (SC 1555), in para  20: IT IS HELD BY HON. SUPREME
> COURT;
>
>        ''FRAUD AND COLLUSION VITIATE EVEN THE MOST SOLMEN PROCEEDINGS
> IN ANY CIVILISED SYSTEM OF JURISPRUDENCE. IT IS A CONCEPT DESCRIPTIVE
> OF HUMAN CONDUCT ''
>         As such offence committed by sripankaj comes under the
> category of collusion/fraud.
> Regards
> Dr JN Sharma
> Advocate/RTI Activist
>
> On 11/30/09, Amitabh Thakur <amitabhth@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Ms Urvashi, Sri
>> Ravindran, Sri Sharma and friends,
>>
>>
>>
>> Without going into
>> the facts of the matter and without commenting on the merit of the case,
>> which
>> you must be knowing better, I would like to respond to what ur mails have
>> been
>> saying about the legal aspects of the issue.
>>
>> When Ms Urvashi says
>> that section 17(3) seems to have an overriding effect over 17(1) in the
>> RTI
>> Act, there seems to be no point of disagreement because the words of
>> section
>> 17(3) are very clear in this regards.
>>
>> Again section 17(3) (b)
>> does talk of conviction in an offence involving moral turpitude. It is
>> only
>> on
>> this aspect that I would like to harp upon. When the words “offence�
>> is
>> used,
>> what exactly does it mean? Is it governed by the definition under the
>> Indian
>> Penal Code where in section 40 it says-
>>
>> “Except in the Chapters and sections
>> mentioned in clauses 2 and 3 of this section, the word "offence"
>> denotes a thing made punishable by this code.�
>>
>> Or is it the definition of law under section 3(38) of the General Clauses
>> Act-
>>
>> "offence"
>> shall mean any act or omission made punishable by any law for the time
>> being
>> in
>> force.
>>
>> So far as I can think of, the definition under the IPC seems to be limited
>> to
>> the offences punishable under the IPC while that under the General Clauses
>> Act
>> seems to be wider in acceptance. This is also what the section 3 of the
>> General
>> Clauses Act states in the beginning of section 3-
>>
>> “3.
>> Definitions.- In this Act, and in all Central Acts and Regulations made
>> after
>> the commencement of this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the
>> subject
>> or context.�
>>
>> I present these legal aspects, as far as I can construe, because we all
>> know
>> that finally in any case it is law and the legalities of any matter that
>> take
>> the front seat. Though at the same time, no one can deny the fact that law
>> is never
>> detached from human emotions and common belief.
>>
>>
>>
>> Amitabh Thakur
>>
>> IPS,
>>
>> IIM Lucknow
>>
>> # 94155-34526
>>
>>
>>
>> --- On Sun, 11/29/09, urvashi sharma <rtimahilamanchup@...> wrote:
>>
>> From: urvashi sharma <rtimahilamanchup@...>
>> Subject: Re: SIC UP Removal- a few legal issues involved
>> To: "Ravindran P M" <pmravindran@...>
>> Cc: "Nutan Thakur" <drnutanthakur@...>, "M.K. Gupta"
>> <mkgupta100@...>, "Jagnarain Sharma" <jagnarain.sharma@...>,
>> "Parivartan India" <parivartan_india@...>,
>> rtimahilamanchup@..., subhash.bhatnagar@...,
>> rolandp11@..., roland_pereira@..., campaign@...,
>> ferozasaran@..., azaadiba@..., usukulsingh@...,
>> medha@..., arunaroy@..., agnivesh70@...,
>> Shaileshgan@..., iyer_ga@..., rti4empowerment@yahoogroups.com,
>> colshivraj@..., prem.lata@..., Shaileshgandhi@...,
>> apj@..., yogeshpratapsingh@..., .lucknow@...,
>> humanrightsactivist@yahoogroups.com, saveindianfamily@yahoogroups.com,
>> msisodia@..., srdarapuri@..., sharmarobby@...,
>> majorravi@..., bimal.khemani@...,
>> dhirendra.krishna@..., Kumarniraj1000@...,
>> Amitabhth@..., batra_lokesh@...,
>>  shanti_ranjan@..., bhatnagarsundeep@...,
>> hgpandya@..., sndpjalan@..., ansari.youngindia@...,
>> sampadaway@..., vikramsimha54@..., ashaashram@...,
>> mkssrajasthan@..., jusufkabir@..., prakashbelwade@...,
>> barbarathyabali@..., rangajan@..., Gaur_a@...,
>> Banda.singh1@..., eGovINDIA@yahoogroups.com, jamshedkmistry@...,
>> joseph@..., jsatpute@..., janhitmanch@...,
>> sackhim@yahoogroups.com, rajashekhara@..., advmukuljoshi@...,
>> espshukla@..., manishmohit_manish@..., skbanerjee@...,
>> rai.abhilash@...
>> Date: Sunday, November 29, 2009, 10:49 PM
>>
>> 100% agreed
>>
>> urvashi
>>
>> On 11/29/09, Ravindran P M <pmravindran@...> wrote:
>>> Dear Ms Sharma
>>>
>>> I am also not a law-qualified person but by and large if a statement of
>>> law
>>> has a direct meaning there is no reason why it should be interpreted
>>> otherwise. But unfortunately it does happen in our courts. But that is a
>>> different subject altogether.
>>>
>>> In the context of the powers of the Prez/Gov to remove the ICs your
>>> interpretations are absolutely correct. Sec 14(3) and 17(3) have
>>> overriding
>>> effect. But the hitch is the qualifier 'in *the opinion of the Prez/
>>> Gov'*.
>>> Now there is no reason why the Prez/Gov should have a different opinion
>>> when
>>> the facts speak for themselves. But then how do we challenge the opinion
>>> of
>>> a person? The only solution is mass movement. But if mass movements are
>>> required for every such activity then is there any need for the present
>>> system of management we have set up for our society?
>>>
>>> regards n bw
>>>
>>> ravi
>>> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 3:35 PM, urvashi sharma
>>> <rtimahilamanchup@...>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Respected  All
>>>> I am a social worker , most of the times driven by emotions though
>>>> necessarily with a justified logic embedded in it . I am not a legal
>>>> expert but understand law on the basis of my logical approach to it n
>>>> that’s why I know I am not legally right all the times but I intend to
>>>> put the right things before others. I believe that  we all activists
>>>> are  an individual entity and its better to express my weakness before
>>>> myself than others tell this to me later on.
>>>> So please guide me On legal aspects on the issue of  Removal of Uttar
>>>> Pradesh State Chief Information Commissioner RanjitSinghPankaj.
>>>> ( 1 ) Section 17 subsection (1) has the condition “ Subject to the
>>>> provisions of subsection (3) � , to me this means that subsection 3
>>>> overrides subsection 1 . please tell me if I am wrong.
>>>> ( 2 ) Again section 17 subsection (3) says  Notwithstanding anything
>>>> contained in sub-section (1), the Governor may by order remove from
>>>> office the State Chief Information Commissioner if a State Chief
>>>> Information Commissioner (b) has been convicted of an offence which,
>>>> in the opinion of the Governor, involves moral turpitude;
>>>> The  section 17 subsection (3) has condition “  Notwithstanding
>>>> anything contained in sub-section (1) �  , to me this means in spite of
>>>> the laid down provisions of subsection (1) , provisions of subsection
>>>> ( 3 )  shall have  overriding effect on subsection ( 1 ) .
>>>> ( 3 ) Section 17 subsection (4) states some conditions that shall also
>>>> be taken into consideration for the purposes of sub-section (1) .
>>>> ( 4 ) So in my view , in section 17,  subsection 3 is the ultimate n
>>>> gives immense powers to an honest governor for an honest n just
>>>> functioning of ICs .
>>>> ( 5 ) On the issue of penalization of RanjitsinghPankaj  by
>>>> Allahabad high court i.e.  slapping  a fine of Rs 50,000 on Singh for
>>>> "misleading the court and extending favors to a lessee involved in
>>>> illegal mining" during his previous tenure as the mining secretary in
>>>> the state government and The court taking a strict view of the role of
>>>> Pankaj as the mining secretary and directing pankaj to submit Rs
>>>> 50,000 as fine to the registrar general of the high court from his
>>>> salary through bank draft within four weeks for "concealing facts,
>>>> telling lies" and favoring the wrong man instead of taking action
>>>> against him.
>>>>
>>>> I want to know if in compliance to above order the person named Pankaj
>>>> who is SCIC also shall take 50000/- out of the salary a/c of SCIC ,
>>>> shall make a draft and deposit it with the registrar or it is some
>>>> other Pankaj who shall do it? Then how SCICPankaj is not guilty of
>>>> moral turpitude . If  the past of a public servant ( SCIC ) has no
>>>> bearing on his future assignments ? then does this mean that the
>>>> general service rules of public servants are not applicable on SCIC ,
>>>> another public servant?
>>>>
>>>> In a nutshell I want to know if pankaj’s case is a case of  proved
>>>> professional misconduct  involving  proved moral turpitude  or not ?
>>>>
>>>> If law permits a corrupt  and convicted person to hold a public post ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> urvashi
>>>>
>>>> On 11/28/09, Nutan Thakur <drnutanthakur@...> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Urvashi ji and
>>>> > friends,
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > With due apologies, I would like to state that in the present case,
>>>> > there
>>>> > seems
>>>> > a need for proper reevaluation of section 17, RTI as regards Mr
>>>> > Pankaj.
>>>> This
>>>> > is
>>>> > because-
>>>> >
>>>> > When the Act talks of “proven misbehaviour� ,
>>>> >      it has defined this term in section 17(4) of the Act. A perusal
>>>> > of
>>>> this
>>>> >      section makes it clear that misbehaviour is something that has to
>>>> > be
>>>> >      linked with the present/ongoing tenure of the person concerned.
>>>> > It
>>>> does
>>>> >      not seem to mention the past acts of the person, before being
>>>> appointed
>>>> > to
>>>> >      the postAgain, the word “convicted of an
>>>> >      offence�  in section 17(3) (b) seems to be related with an
>>>> > offence
>>>> > as
>>>> > such.
>>>> >      A fine by the High Court or an enquiry report by the Commissioner
>>>> > indicting
>>>> >      the officer might not be called an offence in the legal sense of
>>>> > the
>>>> > word.
>>>> >
>>>> > I don’t intend to say anything in favour of
>>>> > this person. Like all of you, I would also like such a person to be
>>>> removed.
>>>> > But I present these points to all of you, so that we might frame our
>>>> stand
>>>> > accordingly, if there is a need to do so.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Regards,
>>>> >
>>>> > Dr Nutan Thakur
>>>> >
>>>> > IRDS,
>>>> >
>>>> > Lucknow
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > --- On Fri, 11/27/09, urvashi sharma <rtimahilamanchup@...>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > From: urvashi sharma <rtimahilamanchup@...>
>>>> > Subject: Re: Problems of UP SIC , atleast we can try , i have taken a
>>>> step
>>>> > forward , let's convert it in a giant leap
>>>> > To: "M.K. Gupta" <mkgupta100@...>
>>>> > Cc: drnutanthakur@..., "Jagnarain Sharma"
>>>> > <jagnarain.sharma@...>, pmravindran@..., "Parivartan India"
>>>> > <parivartan_india@...>, rtimahilamanchup@...,
>>>> > subhash.bhatnagar@..., rolandp11@...,
>>>> roland_pereira@...,
>>>> > campaign@..., ferozasaran@...,
>>>> azaadiba@...,
>>>> > usukulsingh@..., medha@..., arunaroy@...,
>>>> > agnivesh70@..., Shaileshgan@..., iyer_ga@...,
>>>> > rti4empowerment@yahoogroups.com, colshivraj@...,
>>>> > prem.lata@..., Shaileshgandhi@..., apj@...,
>>>> > yogeshpratapsingh@..., HumJanenge@...,
>>>> > rti.lucknow@..., humanrightsactivist@yahoogroups.com,
>>>> > saveindianfamily@yahoogroups.com, msisodia@...,
>>>> > srdarapuri@..., sharmarobby@..., majorravi@...,
>>>> > bimal.khemani@..., dhirendra.krishna@...,
>>>> > Kumarniraj1000@..., Amitabhth@...,
>>>> batra_lokesh@...,
>>>> >  shanti_ranjan@..., bhatnagarsundeep@...,
>>>> > hgpandya@..., sndpjalan@..., ansari.youngindia@...,
>>>> > sampadaway@..., vikramsimha54@..., ashaashram@...,
>>>> > mkssrajasthan@..., jusufkabir@...,
>>>> > prakashbelwade@...,
>>>> > barbarathyabali@..., rangajan@..., Gaur_a@...,
>>>> > Banda.singh1@..., eGovINDIA@yahoogroups.com,
>>>> > map_india@yahoogroups.com, jamshedkmistry@...,
>>>> joseph@...,
>>>> > jsatpute@..., janhitmanch@..., sackhim@yahoogroups.com,
>>>> > rajashekhara@..., advmukuljoshi@..., espshukla@...,
>>>> > manishmohit_manish@..., skbanerjee@...,
>>>> > rai.abhilash@...
>>>> > Date: Friday, November 27, 2009, 11:30 PM
>>>> >
>>>> > governor house assures action against U. P. SCICRanjitSinghpankaj
>>>> > within 15 days
>>>> >
>>>> > Supported by national alliance of people's movements ( NAPM ), members
>>>> > of civil societies under the leadership of urvashi sharma met  the
>>>> > principal secterary to the governor of uttarpradesh on 27-11-2009 at
>>>> > 5 pm to press their point of taking action u/s 17(3)(b) of rti act
>>>> > 2005 against SCICranjitsinghpankaj by removing him from the chair
>>>> > of SCIC.
>>>> >
>>>> > please find attached a copy of the memorandum given to governor of
>>>> > uttarpradesh.
>>>> >
>>>> > the copy of memorandum can be accessed at given link also -
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
http://rtiact2005india4u.hpage.com/27_november_2009_memorandum__to_governor_to_r\
emove_scic_18254151.html
>>>> >
>>>> > please support our movement
>>>> > 1- against corruption
>>>> > 2- for  implementation of rti act in letter n spirit .
>>>> >
>>>> > regards
>>>> >
>>>> > urvashi sharma
>>>> > 9235169855
>>>> >
>>>> > -----------------------
>>>> >
>>>> > @i$#w@ry@!
>>>> >
>>>> > On 11/27/09, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@...> wrote:
>>>> >> UP SIC is a chronicle patient and not responding to the minor
>>>> >> treatment.
>>>> >> Some major operation / radical treatment or approaching in a PIL to
>>>> >> Allahabad will is required. Some Lucknow or Allahabad based Advocate
>>>> >> wedded
>>>> >> to RTI can bell the cat by bringing the facts to the notice of
>>>> >> Allahabad
>>>> >> High Court.  Before that, the study and other facts should be brought
>>>> >> to
>>>> >> the
>>>> >> notice of Hoh’ble Governor of U.P. in order to exhaust the remedies
>>>> >> available before knocking the door f the Court.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> --- On Fri, 27/11/09, Jagnarain Sharma <jagnarain.sharma@...>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> From: Jagnarain Sharma <jagnarain.sharma@...>
>>>> >> Subject: Re: Problems of UP SIC
>>>> >> To: drnutanthakur@...
>>>> >> Cc: pmravindran@..., "Parivartan India"
>>>> >> <parivartan_india@...>, rtimahilamanchup@...,
>>>> >> rtimahilamanchup@..., subhash.bhatnagar@...,
>>>> >> rolandp11@..., roland_pereira@...,
>>>> >> campaign@...,
>>>> >> ferozasaran@..., azaadiba@..., usukulsingh@...,
>>>> >> medha@..., arunaroy@..., agnivesh70@...,
>>>> >> Shaileshgan@..., iyer_ga@...,
>>>> rti4empowerment@yahoogroups.com,
>>>> >> colshivraj@..., prem.lata@..., Shaileshgandhi@...,
>>>> >> apj@..., yogeshpratapsingh@...,
>>>> >> HumJanenge@..., rti.lucknow@...,
>>>> >> humanrightsactivist@yahoogroups.com,
>>>> >> saveindianfamily@yahoogroups.com,
>>>> >> msisodia@..., srdarapuri@..., sharmarobby@...,
>>>> >> majorravi@..., bimal.khemani@...,
>>>> >> dhirendra.krishna@..., Kumarniraj1000@...,
>>>> >> Amitabhth@..., batra_lokesh@...,
>>>> shanti_ranjan@...,
>>>> >>  bhatnagarsundeep@..., hgpandya@..., sndpjalan@...,
>>>> >> ansari.youngindia@..., sampadaway@...,
>>>> >> vikramsimha54@..., ashaashram@...,
>>>> mkssrajasthan@...,
>>>> >> jusufkabir@..., prakashbelwade@...,
>>>> >> mkgupta100@...,
>>>> >> barbarathyabali@..., rangajan@..., Gaur_a@...,
>>>> >> Banda.singh1@..., eGovINDIA@yahoogroups.com,
>>>> >> map_india@yahoogroups.com, jamshedkmistry@...,
>>>> joseph@...,
>>>> >> jsatpute@..., janhitmanch@..., sackhim@yahoogroups.com,
>>>> >> rajashekhara@..., advmukuljoshi@..., espshukla@...,
>>>> >> manishmohit_manish@..., skbanerjee@...,
>>>> >> rai.abhilash@...
>>>> >> Date: Friday, 27 November, 2009, 3:02 AM
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Dear Dr.Nutan
>>>> >>         The five points you have raised shows that the State CIC
>>>> >> needs
>>>> >> proper medication, because of its acute illness.
>>>> >>          You have reported the truth, as six months have passed, the
>>>> >> SCIC has not informed me of any date for hearing, on my appeal made
>>>> >> in
>>>> >> March 2009.
>>>> >>           In the seminar held at NBRI  Lucknow on 21-22 NOV. 2009, A
>>>> >> STUDY REPORT WAS PRESENTED BY SRISHEKHARSINGH, WHICH WAS MOST
>>>> >> REVEALING, like sriArvind has sent.
>>>> >>           Like Urvishi had conducted so many peaceful
>>>> >> agitation/Dharna, before SCIC OFFICE, again we need to repeat it, to
>>>> >> implement the 5 issues you have raised.
>>>> >>           Regards
>>>> >>           Dr. JN Sharma
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On 11/26/09, Nutan Thakur <drnutanthakur@...> wrote:
>>>> >>> Dear SriArvind,
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> While the study u have conducted is of huge importance to this
>>>> >>> cause,
>>>> yet
>>>> >>> I
>>>> >>> thought I might bring a few simple facts about the position of RTI
>>>> >>> in
>>>> UP.
>>>> >>> 1. The SIC office never intimates the complainant about the dates of
>>>> >>> hearing
>>>> >>> 2. The dates being fixed are so long that many a times the relevance
>>>> >>> of
>>>> >>> the
>>>> >>> info sought gets over
>>>> >>> 3. There is hardly any record keeping
>>>> >>> 4. The office staff keep yelling about their own problems of staff
>>>> >>> shortage.
>>>> >>> 5. The SIC members are extremely pro-govt, to the extent of being
>>>> >>> servile.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Any wayout suggested by u?
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Dr Nutan Thakur
>>>> >>> Editor,
>>>> >>> Nutan SattaPravah
>>>> >>> Lucknow
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> --- On Mon, 11/23/09, Parivartan India <
>>>> parivartan_india@...>
>>>> >>> wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> From: Parivartan India <parivartan_india@...>
>>>> >>> Subject: An appeal to fellow activists and friends
>>>> >>> To: pmravindran@...
>>>> >>> Cc: jagnarain.sharma@..., rtimahilamanchup@...,
>>>> >>> rtimahilamanchup@..., subhash.bhatnagar@...,
>>>> >>> rolandp11@..., roland_pereira@...,
>>>> >>> campaign@...,
>>>> >>> ferozasaran@..., azaadiba@..., usukulsingh@...,
>>>> >>> medha@..., arunaroy@..., agnivesh70@...,
>>>> >>> Shaileshgan@..., iyer_ga@...,
>>>> >>> rti4empowerment@yahoogroups.com,
>>>> >>> colshivraj@..., prem.lata@..., Shaileshgandhi@...,
>>>> >>> apj@..., yogeshpratapsingh@...,
>>>> >>> HumJanenge@..., rti.lucknow@...,
>>>> >>> humanrightsactivist@yahoogroups.com,
>>>> >>> saveindianfamily@yahoogroups.com,
>>>> >>> msisodia@..., srdarapuri@..., sharmarobby@...,
>>>> >>> majorravi@..., drnutanthakur@...,
>>>> >>> bimal.khemani@...,
>>>> >>> dhirendra.krishna@..., Kumarniraj1000@...,
>>>> >>> Amitabhth@..., batra_lokesh@...,
>>>> >>> shanti_ranjan@...,
>>>> >>> bhatnagarsundeep@...,
>>>> >>>  hgpandya@..., sndpjalan@...,
>>>> >>> ansari.youngindia@...,
>>>> >>> sampadaway@..., vikramsimha54@...,
>>>> >>> ashaashram@...,
>>>> >>> mkssrajasthan@..., jusufkabir@...,
>>>> prakashbelwade@...,
>>>> >>> mkgupta100@..., barbarathyabali@...,
>>>> >>> rangajan@...,
>>>> >>> Gaur_a@..., Banda.singh1@..., eGovINDIA@yahoogroups.com,
>>>> >>> map_india@yahoogroups.com, jamshedkmistry@...,
>>>> >>> joseph@...,
>>>> >>> jsatpute@..., janhitmanch@..., sackhim@yahoogroups.com,
>>>> >>> rajashekhara@..., advmukuljoshi@...,
>>>> >>> espshukla@...,
>>>> >>> manishmohit_manish@..., skbanerjee@...,
>>>> >>> rai.abhilash@...
>>>> >>> Date: Monday, November 23, 2009, 5:26 PM
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Dear friends and fellow-activists,
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Thank you for your responses to our draft report evaluating the
>>>> >>> performance
>>>> >>> of Information Commissioners. The large number of bouquets and
>>>> brickbats
>>>> >>> that we have received show that there is enormous public interest.
>>>> >>> We
>>>> >>> salute
>>>> >>> your refusal to accept our opinion blindly; healthy dissent and
>>>> >>> debate
>>>> is
>>>> >>> not only inevitable, but essential for a healthy participatory
>>>> democracy.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> The biggest question that everybody seems to be asking is why did we
>>>> >>> place
>>>> >>> such and such Information Commissioner above or below another one in
>>>> >>> ranking? Our answer is: My colleagues and I at PCRF exercised no
>>>> control
>>>> >>> over the ranking of any information commissioner. The ranking was
>>>> >>> done
>>>> on
>>>> >>> an
>>>> >>> objective basis based on the available data and statistics, my
>>>> colleagues
>>>> >>> and I were hands-off in this process. Commissioners were ranked by
>>>> >>> autonomous teams of researchers, based on the statistics generated
>>>> >>> by
>>>> the
>>>> >>> orders of various Information Commissioners and public feedback.
>>>> >>> After
>>>> >>> assigning the work and the system parameters to the researchers, my
>>>> >>> colleagues and I stood back from the entire process, and let the
>>>> process
>>>> >>> do
>>>> >>> its work without any interference. Rest assured, neither the primary
>>>> data
>>>> >>> collected nor the statistics generated from this data was cooked. As
>>>> >>> a
>>>> >>> result, this study was quite an eye opener for all of us at PCRF,
>>>> because
>>>> >>> our own beliefs about
>>>> >>>  some Commissioners known to us were proved wrong. If you find some
>>>> >>> of
>>>> >>> the
>>>> >>> conclusions disturbing and startling, please believe us when we say
>>>> that
>>>> >>> so
>>>> >>> do we!
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Let me briefly describe the process of conducting this study:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> " Around 52,000 orders passed by various Information Commissions
>>>> >>> across
>>>> >>> the
>>>> >>> country were collected. Some orders were on their websites, but
>>>> >>> others,
>>>> >>> we
>>>> >>> collected by filing RTI applications and sometimes making many trips
>>>> >>> to
>>>> >>> the
>>>> >>> concerned SICs. By and large, we got cooperation from all SICs, but
>>>> there
>>>> >>> were some exceptions. For instance, we were unsuccessful in
>>>> >>> persuading
>>>> >>> Lucknow bench of UPSIC to give us copies of their orders.
>>>> >>> " Each order collected was read and analyzed by a team of 12 persons
>>>> over
>>>> >>> a
>>>> >>> six-month period.
>>>> >>> " Around 34,000 orders were classified as pro-disclosure. So, we
>>>> >>> wrote
>>>> >>> letters to each of the appellants, asking whether they had received
>>>> >>> complete
>>>> >>> and satisfactory information. A team of 25 persons worked for three
>>>> >>> months
>>>> >>> to write letters and get replies.
>>>> >>> " We received written responses from around 6000 people. According
>>>> >>> to
>>>> >>> statisticians, this was a reasonably good sample.
>>>> >>> " However, this was not uniformly distributed over all
>>>> >>> commissioners.
>>>> >>> Response in some cases was inadequate. To rectify this, we contacted
>>>> >>> these
>>>> >>> commissioners and asked for phone numbers of appellants from their
>>>> appeal
>>>> >>> files. Most commissioners agreed to provide this information.
>>>> >>> " Our teams visited Guwahati, Arunachal Pradesh, Chandigarh and many
>>>> SICs
>>>> >>> to
>>>> >>> collect appellants phone numbers. In the case of Arunachal Pradesh,
>>>> >>> the
>>>> >>> phone numbers did not work due to bad connectivity. So, our team
>>>> >>> personally
>>>> >>> met as many appellants as possible in Arunachal Pradesh to get their
>>>> >>> feedback.
>>>> >>> " Thus, we tried to ensure that we had feedback from at least 20% of
>>>> the
>>>> >>> appellants in whose cases pro-disclosure orders were passed. In the
>>>> case
>>>> >>> of
>>>> >>> a few commissioners, we could not reach 20%. In some other cases, we
>>>> got
>>>> >>> more than 40% feedback. With the help of a statistician, we are now
>>>> >>> working
>>>> >>> out the error margin in the case of each commissioner with the
>>>> available
>>>> >>> sample size and population size.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> The five parameters for our study are:
>>>> >>> " Two parameters of our study viz. Pro-disclosure Factor and
>>>> >>> Deterrent
>>>> >>> Impact, came straight from analysis of orders, and not from
>>>> >>> appellants
>>>> >>> feedback.
>>>> >>> " The other two parameters viz. Overall Public Satisfaction and
>>>> >>> Effectiveness came from public feedback.
>>>> >>> " Pendency and disposals is a fifth parameter, which we have added
>>>> >>> belatedly.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> How does one interpret these parameters to evaluate a particular
>>>> >>> commissioner? One has to look at all parameters together to get a
>>>> >>> meaningful
>>>> >>> picture. For instance, if a commissioner issues a large number of
>>>> >>> pro-disclosure orders, but cannot get his orders implemented (low
>>>> >>> effectiveness), there is an overall failure on his part in procuring
>>>> >>> information for the citizen.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> All our raw data has been put up on our website www.rtiawards.org .
>>>> >>> We
>>>> >>> urge
>>>> >>> you to understand and cross-check our data and analysis, and point
>>>> >>> out
>>>> >>> mistakes so that we can correct them. Also give us more feedback on
>>>> >>> Information Commissioners performance.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Activists in many states totally accepted the findings, including
>>>> Bihar,
>>>> >>> MP,
>>>> >>> AP, WB, Haryana and Arunachal Pradesh. Some of these activists
>>>> >>> independently
>>>> >>> released it to media, taking ownership of the report findings.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Activists of some states like Orissa and Kerala disputed our
>>>> >>> findings.
>>>> >>> Some
>>>> >>> Information Commissioners such as R S Tolia and Prof M M Ansari sent
>>>> >>> us
>>>> a
>>>> >>> written response. A few others let us know their views on phone.
>>>> >>> Their
>>>> >>> letters and our response thereto are on our website.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> We are grateful to Pradeep Pradhan from Orissa and Mr C J Karira
>>>> >>> from
>>>> AP
>>>> >>> for
>>>> >>> pointing out specific mistakes. We have either already corrected
>>>> >>> them
>>>> or
>>>> >>> will do so before finalizing this report. We are also grateful to
>>>> >>> Major
>>>> >>> Ravindran and Col Kurup from Kerala for giving us important feedback
>>>> and
>>>> >>> inputs on the performance of Kerala commissioners.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> We do realize that our methodology and parameters need further
>>>> refining.
>>>> >>> The
>>>> >>> study has indeed left out some key aspects of the functioning of
>>>> >>> Information
>>>> >>> Commissioners, which we shall include next year. Please bear in mind
>>>> that
>>>> >>> this is just the beginning of an important process, which must be
>>>> carried
>>>> >>> out year after year in order to empower citizens with data, and give
>>>> >>> meaningful feedback to Information Commissioners to enable them to
>>>> >>> reflect
>>>> >>> upon and improve their own performance.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Some interesting findings:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> " Not a single penalty has been imposed by 25 Information
>>>> >>> Commissioners
>>>> >>> and
>>>> >>> 4 state commissions!
>>>> >>> " A large number of show cause notices remain pending for years.
>>>> >>> Over
>>>> 90%
>>>> >>> show cause notices remained pending for long periods in many
>>>> commissions!
>>>> >>> " Nationally, just two percent of recorded violations were
>>>> >>> penalized!
>>>> And
>>>> >>> a
>>>> >>> commissioner who imposes just 11% penalties is the top-ranking
>>>> >>> commissioner
>>>> >>> according to this parameter!
>>>> >>> " Some commissioners remand back a large proportion of orders to
>>>> >>> first
>>>> >>> appellate authorities, or reject them outright. Some commissioners
>>>> >>> in
>>>> >>> Maharashtra remand back as many as 50% cases.
>>>> >>> " A number of appeals are rejected on completely frivolous grounds
>>>> (such
>>>> >>> as
>>>> >>> the absence of appellants signature on each page of the appeal).
>>>> >>> More
>>>> >>> than
>>>> >>> 30% cases in AP are rejected like this.
>>>> >>> " State Information Commisssion of Arunachal Pradesh is making
>>>> relatively
>>>> >>> better use its civil-court-like powers conferred by Section18 of RTI
>>>> Act,
>>>> >>> sometimes even issuing arrest warrants! We personally visited
>>>> >>> Arunachal
>>>> >>> Pradesh and met many appellants in Itanagar, the capital city.
>>>> Appellants
>>>> >>> are overwhelmingly praising their commission. The public authorities
>>>> are
>>>> >>> quite scared of appeals going to commission as they result in
>>>> >>> stringent
>>>> >>> penalties, and therefore they do their best to sort it out at their
>>>> >>> level.
>>>> >>> As a consequence, compliance with RTI Act is relatively high.
>>>> >>> " One of the front-runners for the post of Chief Central Information
>>>> >>> Commissioner, Prof M M Ansari, ranked very poorly on all the
>>>> parameters.
>>>> >>> This has publicly put a big question-mark on his candidature. With
>>>> >>> what
>>>> >>> face
>>>> >>> would the government appoint him as Chief CIC when he has been
>>>> >>> publicly
>>>> >>> found wanting?
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> The big picture that emerges from such aggregated data enables us to
>>>> >>> engage
>>>> >>> with the individual commissioners and state commissioners, discuss
>>>> >>> the
>>>> >>> shortcomings in their work and find solutions. For instance, after
>>>> >>> the
>>>> >>> release of this data, the activists and media in West Bengal
>>>> >>> repeatedly
>>>> >>> and
>>>> >>> publicly questioned the Commissioner, and he was forced to admit,
>>>> >>> for
>>>> the
>>>> >>> first time, that the performance of the SIC was unsatisfactory.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Some friends feel that no awards should be given. As the overall
>>>> >>> data
>>>> was
>>>> >>> not very encouraging, we too felt that the jury may decide not to
>>>> >>> give
>>>> >>> any
>>>> >>> award this year. However, we are upbeat about the strict approach
>>>> >>> taken
>>>> >>> by
>>>> >>> Arunachal Pradesh. Let us see what the jury has to say.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> We are in the process of preparing our final report. Please send us
>>>> your
>>>> >>> inputs at the earliest. If your inputs can be incorporated, even at
>>>> this
>>>> >>> late stage, we assure you they shall be, so that together, we can
>>>> >>> say
>>>> >>> that
>>>> >>> this study belongs to all of us.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> We are building up this mechanism for citizens and activists
>>>> >>> everywhere
>>>> >>> to
>>>> >>> oversee the Information Commissioners. It is your mechanism. Please
>>>> >>> improve
>>>> >>> it and use it; dont tear it down with destructive criticism. Make
>>>> efforts
>>>> >>> to
>>>> >>> remove its shortcomings and see that this fledgling initiative
>>>> >>> survives
>>>> >>> and
>>>> >>> thrives. Help it to emerge as a strong voice of oppressed RTI
>>>> applicants
>>>> >>> and
>>>> >>> appellants in all corners of the country, who were until now
>>>> >>> helpless
>>>> and
>>>> >>> voiceless.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> With Warm Regards
>>>> >>> Arvind Kejriwal
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>       The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo!
>>>> Homepage.
>>>> >> http://in.yahoo.com/
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > @i$#w@ry@!
>>>> >
>>>> > ----------------------
>>>> >
>>>> > -----------------------
>>>> >
>>>> > @i$#w@ry@!
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> @i$#w@ry@!
>>>>
>>>> ----------------------
>>>>
>>>> -----------------------
>>>>
>>>> @i$#w@ry@!
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> @i$#w@ry@!
>>
>> ----------------------
>>
>> -----------------------
>>
>> @i$#w@ry@!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>       The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage.
> http://in.yahoo.com/
>
> --- End forwarded message ---
>
>
>

#2403

From: urvashi sharma <rtimahilamanchup@...>
Date: Wed Dec 2, 2009 3:34 am
Subject: "if u r in uttar pradesh , don't even think to have an honest info-commissioner " - nishpaksh pratidin 30 nov issue news

rtimahilaman...

Offline

respected all ,

please find below the link of a news item published in " nishpaksh
pratidin - 30 nov issue " .

please go thru and decide on ur own :

URL to this file:
http://file1.hpage.com/000223/57/bilder/nishpaksh_pratidin_30_november_09_upscic\
.jpg

HTML code to embed: <img
src="http://file1.hpage.com/000223/57/bilder/nishpaksh_pratidin_30_november_09_u\
pscic.jpg"
alt="">

--
urvashi sharma
9369613513
@i$#w@ry@!
helpline-9235169855

#2402

From: Malay Bhattacharyya <bhattacharyyamalay@...>
Date: Thu Dec 3, 2009 2:12 am
Subject: Retd DG to be state’s second RTI commissioner

bhattacharyy...

Offline

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/retd-dg-to-be-states-second-rti-commissioner/549389/0

Retd DG to be state’s second RTI commissioner

Shiv Sahay Singh Posted online: Thursday , Dec 03, 2009 at 0423 hrs

Kolkata : After operating with a lone information commissioner for four years, the state is scheduled to get its second information commissioner.

Sujit Sarkar, the former Director General of West Bengal Police, will be sworn into the post on Thursday. Sarkar retired as the DG this June. He will be assisting Arun Bhattacharya, the Chief Information Commissioner, a former bureaucrat who is heading the state information commission since 2006.

The appointment has had the RTI activists up in arms in a state which is at the bottom of the Right to Information (RTI) Act satisfaction table. They claim this has been done on grounds of favouritism and not transparency.

Under the RTI Act, there are provisions for 10 information commissioners at the state level, but West Bengal so far had only one. When search began for another commissioner, activists from the RTI Manch urged the Governor to intervene and make the election process more transparent by bringing it under the public domain. But despite its attempts, the Governor, whose term expires this month, has expressed his inability to take up the issue.

A letter from Governor’s Secretariat said: “With reference to your letter dated 12.11.09, I am directed by the Governor to say that he is thankful to your request but he regrets his inability to accede to it owing to his lack of time at present.”

The secretary West Bengal RTI Manch, Malay Bhattacharyya, said: “The state information commission has become a parking lot for retired bureaucrats and political loyalists. We fear such appointments would suppress information rather than bring it out in the open.”

Bhhattacharya, who was been spearheading the RTI campaign in the state since its inception, says the Manch is considering legal steps to challenge the appointment.

RTI activists say that in a situation where RTI implementation is poor in West Bengal, the appointment of former director general of police will be of no help in improving information delivery and spreading awareness about the act.

“It is no surprise that in West Bengal, where there has not been much enthusiasm about the Act, a former police head who have maintained secrecy all his career and followed Official Secrets Act has been appointed state information commisoner,” said Sabir Ahamed, a city-based RTI activist. Even the Opposition did not participate in the process of choosing the state information commissioner and they are also to be blame for such an appointment, Ahamed said.

“I do not have much idea about the organisation and since I am yet to join, I cannot comment,” Sujit Sarkar told The Indian Express. Regarding the criticism that he is a former DG, he said people from all streams of society have been entrusted with the responsibility and there is nothing wrong in the appointment.

Bengal hard of RTI hearing
In other states, each information commissioner hears three cases a day. The track record of West Bengal is three cases a month. So far, 13 penalties have been imposed in West Bengal, which is the lowest in the country.

Since the implementation of Right To Information Act in 2005, 15,000 second appeals have been made in the state, of which the chief State Information Commissioner has held hearing for 163. According to a study conducted by one of the initiators of the RTI Act 2005, Arvind Kejriwal, published in October, West Bengal is at the bottom of the RTI satisfaction table, with six per cent people saying they are satisfied with the reply they received using the Act. The satisfaction rate was high in other states — and highest in Karnataka with 55 per cent.

JUSTICE 4 ALL !

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

#2401

From: "Dhirendra" <dhirendrakrishna@...>
Date: Tue Dec 1, 2009 4:20 pm
Subject: Fwd: Re: Definition of "offence" as I percieve

dhirendrakri...

Offline

--- In rti4empowerment@yahoogroups.com, Krishna Dhirendra
<dhirendra.krishna@...> wrote:

Friends,

Apart from the legal debate on the subject (where lawyers can argue one way or
the other depending upon who is paying their fees, leaving the conclusion to the
whims of  "Your Honour" depending on arguments placed in the court by other
lawyer, unless the case is delayed for decades), I have an old-fashioned
perspective on the subject.

Persons holding public offices should deserve and command public respect. If
there is any doubt on their personal integrity they should step down from the
office on their own, instead of being dragged into controversy and adverse
publicity based on allegations against them. Probity in public life is in public
interest; avoiding such undue publicity may be in their private interest."RTI
Activists" can make sufficient noise to enable effected person to see reason. It
is in his personal interest to avoid such confrontation.

My views are "old-fashioned", as there seems to be no personal stigma attached
to adverse publicity to allegations and controversy, in  kalyug !

Dhirendra Krishna



________________________________
From: Jagnarain Sharma <jagnarain.sharma@...>
To: Amitabh Thakur <amitabhth@...>
Cc: Ravindran P M <pmravindran@...>; urvashi sharma <rtimahilamanchup@...>;
Nutan Thakur <drnutanthakur@...>; M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@...>; Parivartan India
<parivartan_india@...>; rtimahilamanchup@...; subhash.bhatnagar@...;
rolandp11@...; roland_pereira@...; campaign@...; ferozasaran@...; azaadiba@...;
usukulsingh@...; medha@...; arunaroy@...; agnivesh70@...; Shaileshgan@...;
iyer_ga@...; rti4empowerment@yahoogroups.com; colshivraj@...; prem.lata@...;
Shaileshgandhi@...; apj@...; yogeshpratapsingh@...; 
humanrightsactivist@yahoogroups.com; saveindianfamily@yahoogroups.com;
msisodia@...; srdarapuri@...; sharmarobby@...; majorravi@...; bimal.khemani@...;
dhirendra.krishna@...; Kumarniraj1000@...; batra_lokesh@...;
  shanti_ranjan@...; bhatnagarsundeep@...; hgpandya@...; sndpjalan@...;
ansari.youngindia@...; sampadaway@...; vikramsimha54@...; ashaashram@...;
mkssrajasthan@...; jusufkabir@...; prakashbelwade@...; barbarathyabali@...;
rangajan@...; Gaur_a@...; Banda.singh1@...; eGovINDIA@yahoogroups.com;
jamshedkmistry@...; joseph@...; jsatpute@...; janhitmanch@...;
sackhim@yahoogroups.com; rajashekhara@...; advmukuljoshi@...; espshukla@...;
manishmohit_manish@...; skbanerjee@...; rai.abhilash@...
Sent: Tue, 1 December, 2009 10:57:50 AM
Subject: Re: Definition of "offence" as I perceve

Dear Amitabh
        I used the word 'Collusion' with mining agencies by SriPankaj.
       Hon. Chief Justice V.N. Khare and Hon. Justice S.B. Sinha in a
land mark judgment (2004 allahabadCJ 134) ( SUPREME COURT) have
quoted  FOLLOWING  case on fraud:

        In a case law in SHRISTDHAWAN vs. SHAW BROTHERS (1992)  1 SCC
534  : AIR  1992 (SC 1555), in para  20: IT IS HELD BY HON. SUPREME
COURT;

        ''FRAUD AND COLLUSION VITIATE EVEN THE MOST SOLMEN PROCEEDINGS
IN ANY CIVILISED SYSTEM OF JURISPRUDENCE. IT IS A CONCEPT DESCRIPTIVE
OF HUMAN CONDUCT ''
         As such offence committed by sripankaj comes under the
category of collusion/fraud.
Regards
Dr JN Sharma
Advocate/RTI Activist

On 11/30/09, Amitabh Thakur <amitabhth@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Dear Ms Urvashi, Sri
> Ravindran, Sri Sharma and friends,
>
>
>
> Without going into
> the facts of the matter and without commenting on the merit of the case,
> which
> you must be knowing better, I would like to respond to what ur mails have
> been
> saying about the legal aspects of the issue.
>
> When Ms Urvashi says
> that section 17(3) seems to have an overriding effect over 17(1) in the RTI
> Act, there seems to be no point of disagreement because the words of section
> 17(3) are very clear in this regards.
>
> Again section 17(3) (b)
> does talk of conviction in an offence involving moral turpitude. It is only
> on
> this aspect that I would like to harp upon. When the words “offence” is
> used,
> what exactly does it mean? Is it governed by the definition under the Indian
> Penal Code where in section 40 it says-
>
> “Except in the Chapters and sections
> mentioned in clauses 2 and 3 of this section, the word "offence"
> denotes a thing made punishable by this code.”
>
> Or is it the definition of law under section 3(38) of the General Clauses
> Act-
>
> "offence"
> shall mean any act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being
> in
> force.
>
> So far as I can think of, the definition under the IPC seems to be limited
> to
> the offences punishable under the IPC while that under the General Clauses
> Act
> seems to be wider in acceptance. This is also what the section 3 of the
> General
> Clauses Act states in the beginning of section 3-
>
> “3.
> Definitions.- In this Act, and in all Central Acts and Regulations made
> after
> the commencement of this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the
> subject
> or context.”
>
> I present these legal aspects, as far as I can construe, because we all know
> that finally in any case it is law and the legalities of any matter that
> take
> the front seat. Though at the same time, no one can deny the fact that law
> is never
> detached from human emotions and common belief.
>
>
>
> Amitabh Thakur
>
> IPS,
>
> IIM Lucknow
>
> # 94155-34526
>
>
>
> --- On Sun, 11/29/09, urvashi sharma <rtimahilamanchup@...> wrote:
>
> From: urvashi sharma <rtimahilamanchup@...>
> Subject: Re: SIC UP Removal- a few legal issues involved
> To: "Ravindran P M" <pmravindran@...>
> Cc: "Nutan Thakur" <drnutanthakur@...>, "M.K. Gupta"
> <mkgupta100@...>, "Jagnarain Sharma" <jagnarain.sharma@...>,
> "Parivartan India" <parivartan_india@...>,
> rtimahilamanchup@..., subhash.bhatnagar@...,
> rolandp11@..., roland_pereira@..., campaign@...,
> ferozasaran@..., azaadiba@..., usukulsingh@...,
> medha@..., arunaroy@..., agnivesh70@...,
> Shaileshgan@..., iyer_ga@..., rti4empowerment@yahoogroups.com,
> colshivraj@..., prem.lata@..., Shaileshgandhi@...,
> apj@..., yogeshpratapsingh@..., .lucknow@...,
> humanrightsactivist@yahoogroups.com, saveindianfamily@yahoogroups.com,
> msisodia@..., srdarapuri@..., sharmarobby@...,
> majorravi@..., bimal.khemani@...,
> dhirendra.krishna@..., Kumarniraj1000@...,
> Amitabhth@..., batra_lokesh@...,
>  shanti_ranjan@..., bhatnagarsundeep@...,
> hgpandya@..., sndpjalan@..., ansari.youngindia@...,
> sampadaway@..., vikramsimha54@..., ashaashram@...,
> mkssrajasthan@..., jusufkabir@..., prakashbelwade@...,
> barbarathyabali@..., rangajan@..., Gaur_a@...,
> Banda.singh1@..., eGovINDIA@yahoogroups.com, jamshedkmistry@...,
> joseph@..., jsatpute@..., janhitmanch@...,
> sackhim@yahoogroups.com, rajashekhara@..., advmukuljoshi@...,
> espshukla@..., manishmohit_manish@..., skbanerjee@...,
> rai.abhilash@...
> Date: Sunday, November 29, 2009, 10:49 PM
>
> 100% agreed
>
> urvashi
>
> On 11/29/09, Ravindran P M <pmravindran@...> wrote:
>> Dear Ms Sharma
>>
>> I am also not a law-qualified person but by and large if a statement of
>> law
>> has a direct meaning there is no reason why it should be interpreted
>> otherwise. But unfortunately it does happen in our courts. But that is a
>> different subject altogether.
>>
>> In the context of the powers of the Prez/Gov to remove the ICs your
>> interpretations are absolutely correct. Sec 14(3) and 17(3) have
>> overriding
>> effect. But the hitch is the qualifier 'in *the opinion of the Prez/
>> Gov'*.
>> Now there is no reason why the Prez/Gov should have a different opinion
>> when
>> the facts speak for themselves. But then how do we challenge the opinion
>> of
>> a person? The only solution is mass movement. But if mass movements are
>> required for every such activity then is there any need for the present
>> system of management we have set up for our society?
>>
>> regards n bw
>>
>> ravi
>> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 3:35 PM, urvashi sharma
>> <rtimahilamanchup@...>wrote:
>>
>>> Respected  All
>>> I am a social worker , most of the times driven by emotions though
>>> necessarily with a justified logic embedded in it . I am not a legal
>>> expert but understand law on the basis of my logical approach to it n
>>> that’s why I know I am not legally right all the times but I intend to
>>> put the right things before others. I believe that  we all activists
>>> are  an individual entity and its better to express my weakness before
>>> myself than others tell this to me later on.
>>> So please guide me On legal aspects on the issue of  Removal of Uttar
>>> Pradesh State Chief Information Commissioner RanjitSinghPankaj.
>>> ( 1 ) Section 17 subsection (1) has the condition “ Subject to the
>>> provisions of subsection (3) ”, to me this means that subsection 3
>>> overrides subsection 1 . please tell me if I am wrong.
>>> ( 2 ) Again section 17 subsection (3) says  Notwithstanding anything
>>> contained in sub-section (1), the Governor may by order remove from
>>> office the State Chief Information Commissioner if a State Chief
>>> Information Commissioner (b) has been convicted of an offence which,
>>> in the opinion of the Governor, involves moral turpitude;
>>> The  section 17 subsection (3) has condition “  Notwithstanding
>>> anything contained in sub-section (1) ” , to me this means in spite of
>>> the laid down provisions of subsection (1) , provisions of subsection
>>> ( 3 )  shall have  overriding effect on subsection ( 1 ) .
>>> ( 3 ) Section 17 subsection (4) states some conditions that shall also
>>> be taken into consideration for the purposes of sub-section (1) .
>>> ( 4 ) So in my view , in section 17,  subsection 3 is the ultimate n
>>> gives immense powers to an honest governor for an honest n just
>>> functioning of ICs .
>>> ( 5 ) On the issue of penalization of RanjitsinghPankaj  by
>>> Allahabad high court i.e.  slapping  a fine of Rs 50,000 on Singh for
>>> "misleading the court and extending favors to a lessee involved in
>>> illegal mining" during his previous tenure as the mining secretary in
>>> the state government and The court taking a strict view of the role of
>>> Pankaj as the mining secretary and directing pankaj to submit Rs
>>> 50,000 as fine to the registrar general of the high court from his
>>> salary through bank draft within four weeks for "concealing facts,
>>> telling lies" and favoring the wrong man instead of taking action
>>> against him.
>>>
>>> I want to know if in compliance to above order the person named Pankaj
>>> who is SCIC also shall take 50000/- out of the salary a/c of SCIC ,
>>> shall make a draft and deposit it with the registrar or it is some
>>> other Pankaj who shall do it? Then how SCICPankaj is not guilty of
>>> moral turpitude . If  the past of a public servant ( SCIC ) has no
>>> bearing on his future assignments ? then does this mean that the
>>> general service rules of public servants are not applicable on SCIC ,
>>> another public servant?
>>>
>>> In a nutshell I want to know if pankaj’s case is a case of  proved
>>> professional misconduct  involving  proved moral turpitude  or not ?
>>>
>>> If law permits a corrupt  and convicted person to hold a public post ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> urvashi
>>>
>>> On 11/28/09, Nutan Thakur <drnutanthakur@...> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Urvashi ji and
>>> > friends,
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > With due apologies, I would like to state that in the present case,
>>> > there
>>> > seems
>>> > a need for proper reevaluation of section 17, RTI as regards Mr Pankaj.
>>> This
>>> > is
>>> > because-
>>> >
>>> > When the Act talks of “proven misbehaviour”,
>>> >      it has defined this term in section 17(4) of the Act. A perusal of
>>> this
>>> >      section makes it clear that misbehaviour is something that has to
>>> > be
>>> >      linked with the present/ongoing tenure of the person concerned. It
>>> does
>>> >      not seem to mention the past acts of the person, before being
>>> appointed
>>> > to
>>> >      the postAgain, the word “convicted of an
>>> >      offence” in section 17(3) (b) seems to be related with an offence
>>> > as
>>> > such.
>>> >      A fine by the High Court or an enquiry report by the Commissioner
>>> > indicting
>>> >      the officer might not be called an offence in the legal sense of
>>> > the
>>> > word.
>>> >
>>> > I don’t intend to say anything in favour of
>>> > this person. Like all of you, I would also like such a person to be
>>> removed.
>>> > But I present these points to all of you, so that we might frame our
>>> stand
>>> > accordingly, if there is a need to do so.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Regards,
>>> >
>>> > Dr Nutan Thakur
>>> >
>>> > IRDS,
>>> >
>>> > Lucknow
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --- On Fri, 11/27/09, urvashi sharma <rtimahilamanchup@...>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > From: urvashi sharma <rtimahilamanchup@...>
>>> > Subject: Re: Problems of UP SIC , atleast we can try , i have taken a
>>> step
>>> > forward , let's convert it in a giant leap
>>> > To: "M.K. Gupta" <mkgupta100@...>
>>> > Cc: drnutanthakur@..., "Jagnarain Sharma"
>>> > <jagnarain.sharma@...>, pmravindran@..., "Parivartan India"
>>> > <parivartan_india@...>, rtimahilamanchup@...,
>>> > subhash.bhatnagar@..., rolandp11@...,
>>> roland_pereira@...,
>>> > campaign@..., ferozasaran@...,
>>> azaadiba@...,
>>> > usukulsingh@..., medha@..., arunaroy@...,
>>> > agnivesh70@..., Shaileshgan@..., iyer_ga@...,
>>> > rti4empowerment@yahoogroups.com, colshivraj@...,
>>> > prem.lata@..., Shaileshgandhi@..., apj@...,
>>> > yogeshpratapsingh@..., HumJanenge@...,
>>> > rti.lucknow@..., humanrightsactivist@yahoogroups.com,
>>> > saveindianfamily@yahoogroups.com, msisodia@...,
>>> > srdarapuri@..., sharmarobby@..., majorravi@...,
>>> > bimal.khemani@..., dhirendra.krishna@...,
>>> > Kumarniraj1000@..., Amitabhth@...,
>>> batra_lokesh@...,
>>> >  shanti_ranjan@..., bhatnagarsundeep@...,
>>> > hgpandya@..., sndpjalan@..., ansari.youngindia@...,
>>> > sampadaway@..., vikramsimha54@..., ashaashram@...,
>>> > mkssrajasthan@..., jusufkabir@...,
>>> > prakashbelwade@...,
>>> > barbarathyabali@..., rangajan@..., Gaur_a@...,
>>> > Banda.singh1@..., eGovINDIA@yahoogroups.com,
>>> > map_india@yahoogroups.com, jamshedkmistry@...,
>>> joseph@...,
>>> > jsatpute@..., janhitmanch@..., sackhim@yahoogroups.com,
>>> > rajashekhara@..., advmukuljoshi@..., espshukla@...,
>>> > manishmohit_manish@..., skbanerjee@...,
>>> > rai.abhilash@...
>>> > Date: Friday, November 27, 2009, 11:30 PM
>>> >
>>> > governor house assures action against U. P. SCICRanjitSinghpankaj
>>> > within 15 days
>>> >
>>> > Supported by national alliance of people's movements ( NAPM ), members
>>> > of civil societies under the leadership of urvashi sharma met  the
>>> > principal secterary to the governor of uttarpradesh on 27-11-2009 at
>>> > 5 pm to press their point of taking action u/s 17(3)(b) of rti act
>>> > 2005 against SCICranjitsinghpankaj by removing him from the chair
>>> > of SCIC.
>>> >
>>> > please find attached a copy of the memorandum given to governor of
>>> > uttarpradesh.
>>> >
>>> > the copy of memorandum can be accessed at given link also -
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
http://rtiact2005india4u.hpage.com/27_november_2009_memorandum__to_governor_to_r\
emove_scic_18254151.html
>>> >
>>> > please support our movement
>>> > 1- against corruption
>>> > 2- for  implementation of rti act in letter n spirit .
>>> >
>>> > regards
>>> >
>>> > urvashi sharma
>>> > 9235169855
>>> >
>>> > -----------------------
>>> >
>>> > @i$#w@ry@!
>>> >
>>> > On 11/27/09, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@...> wrote:
>>> >> UP SIC is a chronicle patient and not responding to the minor
>>> >> treatment.
>>> >> Some major operation / radical treatment or approaching in a PIL to
>>> >> Allahabad will is required. Some Lucknow or Allahabad based Advocate
>>> >> wedded
>>> >> to RTI can bell the cat by bringing the facts to the notice of
>>> >> Allahabad
>>> >> High Court.  Before that, the study and other facts should be brought
>>> >> to
>>> >> the
>>> >> notice of Hoh’ble Governor of U.P. in order to exhaust the remedies
>>> >> available before knocking the door f the Court.
>>> >>
>>> >> --- On Fri, 27/11/09, Jagnarain Sharma <jagnarain.sharma@...>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> From: Jagnarain Sharma <jagnarain.sharma@...>
>>> >> Subject: Re: Problems of UP SIC
>>> >> To: drnutanthakur@...
>>> >> Cc: pmravindran@..., "Parivartan India"
>>> >> <parivartan_india@...>, rtimahilamanchup@...,
>>> >> rtimahilamanchup@..., subhash.bhatnagar@...,
>>> >> rolandp11@..., roland_pereira@...,
>>> >> campaign@...,
>>> >> ferozasaran@..., azaadiba@..., usukulsingh@...,
>>> >> medha@..., arunaroy@..., agnivesh70@...,
>>> >> Shaileshgan@..., iyer_ga@...,
>>> rti4empowerment@yahoogroups.com,
>>> >> colshivraj@..., prem.lata@..., Shaileshgandhi@...,
>>> >> apj@..., yogeshpratapsingh@...,
>>> >> HumJanenge@..., rti.lucknow@...,
>>> >> humanrightsactivist@yahoogroups.com, saveindianfamily@yahoogroups.com,
>>> >> msisodia@..., srdarapuri@..., sharmarobby@...,
>>> >> majorravi@..., bimal.khemani@...,
>>> >> dhirendra.krishna@..., Kumarniraj1000@...,
>>> >> Amitabhth@..., batra_lokesh@...,
>>> shanti_ranjan@...,
>>> >>  bhatnagarsundeep@..., hgpandya@..., sndpjalan@...,
>>> >> ansari.youngindia@..., sampadaway@...,
>>> >> vikramsimha54@..., ashaashram@...,
>>> mkssrajasthan@...,
>>> >> jusufkabir@..., prakashbelwade@...,
>>> >> mkgupta100@...,
>>> >> barbarathyabali@..., rangajan@..., Gaur_a@...,
>>> >> Banda.singh1@..., eGovINDIA@yahoogroups.com,
>>> >> map_india@yahoogroups.com, jamshedkmistry@...,
>>> joseph@...,
>>> >> jsatpute@..., janhitmanch@..., sackhim@yahoogroups.com,
>>> >> rajashekhara@..., advmukuljoshi@..., espshukla@...,
>>> >> manishmohit_manish@..., skbanerjee@...,
>>> >> rai.abhilash@...
>>> >> Date: Friday, 27 November, 2009, 3:02 AM
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Dear Dr.Nutan
>>> >>         The five points you have raised shows that the State CIC needs
>>> >> proper medication, because of its acute illness.
>>> >>          You have reported the truth, as six months have passed, the
>>> >> SCIC has not informed me of any date for hearing, on my appeal made in
>>> >> March 2009.
>>> >>           In the seminar held at NBRI  Lucknow on 21-22 NOV. 2009, A
>>> >> STUDY REPORT WAS PRESENTED BY SRISHEKHARSINGH, WHICH WAS MOST
>>> >> REVEALING, like sriArvind has sent.
>>> >>           Like Urvishi had conducted so many peaceful
>>> >> agitation/Dharna, before SCIC OFFICE, again we need to repeat it, to
>>> >> implement the 5 issues you have raised.
>>> >>           Regards
>>> >>           Dr. JN Sharma
>>> >>
>>> >> On 11/26/09, Nutan Thakur <drnutanthakur@...> wrote:
>>> >>> Dear SriArvind,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> While the study u have conducted is of huge importance to this cause,
>>> yet
>>> >>> I
>>> >>> thought I might bring a few simple facts about the position of RTI in
>>> UP.
>>> >>> 1. The SIC office never intimates the complainant about the dates of
>>> >>> hearing
>>> >>> 2. The dates being fixed are so long that many a times the relevance
>>> >>> of
>>> >>> the
>>> >>> info sought gets over
>>> >>> 3. There is hardly any record keeping
>>> >>> 4. The office staff keep yelling about their own problems of staff
>>> >>> shortage.
>>> >>> 5. The SIC members are extremely pro-govt, to the extent of being
>>> >>> servile.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Any wayout suggested by u?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Dr Nutan Thakur
>>> >>> Editor,
>>> >>> Nutan SattaPravah
>>> >>> Lucknow
>>> >>>
>>> >>> --- On Mon, 11/23/09, Parivartan India <
>>> parivartan_india@...>
>>> >>> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> From: Parivartan India <parivartan_india@...>
>>> >>> Subject: An appeal to fellow activists and friends
>>> >>> To: pmravindran@...
>>> >>> Cc: jagnarain.sharma@..., rtimahilamanchup@...,
>>> >>> rtimahilamanchup@..., subhash.bhatnagar@...,
>>> >>> rolandp11@..., roland_pereira@...,
>>> >>> campaign@...,
>>> >>> ferozasaran@..., azaadiba@..., usukulsingh@...,
>>> >>> medha@..., arunaroy@..., agnivesh70@...,
>>> >>> Shaileshgan@..., iyer_ga@...,
>>> >>> rti4empowerment@yahoogroups.com,
>>> >>> colshivraj@..., prem.lata@..., Shaileshgandhi@...,
>>> >>> apj@..., yogeshpratapsingh@...,
>>> >>> HumJanenge@..., rti.lucknow@...,
>>> >>> humanrightsactivist@yahoogroups.com,
>>> >>> saveindianfamily@yahoogroups.com,
>>> >>> msisodia@..., srdarapuri@..., sharmarobby@...,
>>> >>> majorravi@..., drnutanthakur@...,
>>> >>> bimal.khemani@...,
>>> >>> dhirendra.krishna@..., Kumarniraj1000@...,
>>> >>> Amitabhth@..., batra_lokesh@...,
>>> >>> shanti_ranjan@...,
>>> >>> bhatnagarsundeep@...,
>>> >>>  hgpandya@..., sndpjalan@...,
>>> >>> ansari.youngindia@...,
>>> >>> sampadaway@..., vikramsimha54@...,
>>> >>> ashaashram@...,
>>> >>> mkssrajasthan@..., jusufkabir@...,
>>> prakashbelwade@...,
>>> >>> mkgupta100@..., barbarathyabali@...,
>>> >>> rangajan@...,
>>> >>> Gaur_a@..., Banda.singh1@..., eGovINDIA@yahoogroups.com,
>>> >>> map_india@yahoogroups.com, jamshedkmistry@...,
>>> >>> joseph@...,
>>> >>> jsatpute@..., janhitmanch@..., sackhim@yahoogroups.com,
>>> >>> rajashekhara@..., advmukuljoshi@...,
>>> >>> espshukla@...,
>>> >>> manishmohit_manish@..., skbanerjee@...,
>>> >>> rai.abhilash@...
>>> >>> Date: Monday, November 23, 2009, 5:26 PM
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Dear friends and fellow-activists,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Thank you for your responses to our draft report evaluating the
>>> >>> performance
>>> >>> of Information Commissioners. The large number of bouquets and
>>> brickbats
>>> >>> that we have received show that there is enormous public interest. We
>>> >>> salute
>>> >>> your refusal to accept our opinion blindly; healthy dissent and
>>> >>> debate
>>> is
>>> >>> not only inevitable, but essential for a healthy participatory
>>> democracy.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> The biggest question that everybody seems to be asking is why did we
>>> >>> place
>>> >>> such and such Information Commissioner above or below another one in
>>> >>> ranking? Our answer is: My colleagues and I at PCRF exercised no
>>> control
>>> >>> over the ranking of any information commissioner. The ranking was
>>> >>> done
>>> on
>>> >>> an
>>> >>> objective basis based on the available data and statistics, my
>>> colleagues
>>> >>> and I were hands-off in this process. Commissioners were ranked by
>>> >>> autonomous teams of researchers, based on the statistics generated by
>>> the
>>> >>> orders of various Information Commissioners and public feedback.
>>> >>> After
>>> >>> assigning the work and the system parameters to the researchers, my
>>> >>> colleagues and I stood back from the entire process, and let the
>>> process
>>> >>> do
>>> >>> its work without any interference. Rest assured, neither the primary
>>> data
>>> >>> collected nor the statistics generated from this data was cooked. As
>>> >>> a
>>> >>> result, this study was quite an eye opener for all of us at PCRF,
>>> because
>>> >>> our own beliefs about
>>> >>>  some Commissioners known to us were proved wrong. If you find some
>>> >>> of
>>> >>> the
>>> >>> conclusions disturbing and startling, please believe us when we say
>>> that
>>> >>> so
>>> >>> do we!
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Let me briefly describe the process of conducting this study:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> " Around 52,000 orders passed by various Information Commissions
>>> >>> across
>>> >>> the
>>> >>> country were collected. Some orders were on their websites, but
>>> >>> others,
>>> >>> we
>>> >>> collected by filing RTI applications and sometimes making many trips
>>> >>> to
>>> >>> the
>>> >>> concerned SICs. By and large, we got cooperation from all SICs, but
>>> there
>>> >>> were some exceptions. For instance, we were unsuccessful in
>>> >>> persuading
>>> >>> Lucknow bench of UPSIC to give us copies of their orders.
>>> >>> " Each order collected was read and analyzed by a team of 12 persons
>>> over
>>> >>> a
>>> >>> six-month period.
>>> >>> " Around 34,000 orders were classified as pro-disclosure. So, we
>>> >>> wrote
>>> >>> letters to each of the appellants, asking whether they had received
>>> >>> complete
>>> >>> and satisfactory information. A team of 25 persons worked for three
>>> >>> months
>>> >>> to write letters and get replies.
>>> >>> " We received written responses from around 6000 people. According to
>>> >>> statisticians, this was a reasonably good sample.
>>> >>> " However, this was not uniformly distributed over all commissioners.
>>> >>> Response in some cases was inadequate. To rectify this, we contacted
>>> >>> these
>>> >>> commissioners and asked for phone numbers of appellants from their
>>> appeal
>>> >>> files. Most commissioners agreed to provide this information.
>>> >>> " Our teams visited Guwahati, Arunachal Pradesh, Chandigarh and many
>>> SICs
>>> >>> to
>>> >>> collect appellants phone numbers. In the case of Arunachal Pradesh,
>>> >>> the
>>> >>> phone numbers did not work due to bad connectivity. So, our team
>>> >>> personally
>>> >>> met as many appellants as possible in Arunachal Pradesh to get their
>>> >>> feedback.
>>> >>> " Thus, we tried to ensure that we had feedback from at least 20% of
>>> the
>>> >>> appellants in whose cases pro-disclosure orders were passed. In the
>>> case
>>> >>> of
>>> >>> a few commissioners, we could not reach 20%. In some other cases, we
>>> got
>>> >>> more than 40% feedback. With the help of a statistician, we are now
>>> >>> working
>>> >>> out the error margin in the case of each commissioner with the
>>> available
>>> >>> sample size and population size.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> The five parameters for our study are:
>>> >>> " Two parameters of our study viz. Pro-disclosure Factor and
>>> >>> Deterrent
>>> >>> Impact, came straight from analysis of orders, and not from
>>> >>> appellants
>>> >>> feedback.
>>> >>> " The other two parameters viz. Overall Public Satisfaction and
>>> >>> Effectiveness came from public feedback.
>>> >>> " Pendency and disposals is a fifth parameter, which we have added
>>> >>> belatedly.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> How does one interpret these parameters to evaluate a particular
>>> >>> commissioner? One has to look at all parameters together to get a
>>> >>> meaningful
>>> >>> picture. For instance, if a commissioner issues a large number of
>>> >>> pro-disclosure orders, but cannot get his orders implemented (low
>>> >>> effectiveness), there is an overall failure on his part in procuring
>>> >>> information for the citizen.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> All our raw data has been put up on our website www.rtiawards.org .
>>> >>> We
>>> >>> urge
>>> >>> you to understand and cross-check our data and analysis, and point
>>> >>> out
>>> >>> mistakes so that we can correct them. Also give us more feedback on
>>> >>> Information Commissioners performance.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Activists in many states totally accepted the findings, including
>>> Bihar,
>>> >>> MP,
>>> >>> AP, WB, Haryana and Arunachal Pradesh. Some of these activists
>>> >>> independently
>>> >>> released it to media, taking ownership of the report findings.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Activists of some states like Orissa and Kerala disputed our
>>> >>> findings.
>>> >>> Some
>>> >>> Information Commissioners such as R S Tolia and Prof M M Ansari sent
>>> >>> us
>>> a
>>> >>> written response. A few others let us know their views on phone.
>>> >>> Their
>>> >>> letters and our response thereto are on our website.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> We are grateful to Pradeep Pradhan from Orissa and Mr C J Karira from
>>> AP
>>> >>> for
>>> >>> pointing out specific mistakes. We have either already corrected them
>>> or
>>> >>> will do so before finalizing this report. We are also grateful to
>>> >>> Major
>>> >>> Ravindran and Col Kurup from Kerala for giving us important feedback
>>> and
>>> >>> inputs on the performance of Kerala commissioners.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> We do realize that our methodology and parameters need further
>>> refining.
>>> >>> The
>>> >>> study has indeed left out some key aspects of the functioning of
>>> >>> Information
>>> >>> Commissioners, which we shall include next year. Please bear in mind
>>> that
>>> >>> this is just the beginning of an important process, which must be
>>> carried
>>> >>> out year after year in order to empower citizens with data, and give
>>> >>> meaningful feedback to Information Commissioners to enable them to
>>> >>> reflect
>>> >>> upon and improve their own performance.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Some interesting findings:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> " Not a single penalty has been imposed by 25 Information
>>> >>> Commissioners
>>> >>> and
>>> >>> 4 state commissions!
>>> >>> " A large number of show cause notices remain pending for years. Over
>>> 90%
>>> >>> show cause notices remained pending for long periods in many
>>> commissions!
>>> >>> " Nationally, just two percent of recorded violations were penalized!
>>> And
>>> >>> a
>>> >>> commissioner who imposes just 11% penalties is the top-ranking
>>> >>> commissioner
>>> >>> according to this parameter!
>>> >>> " Some commissioners remand back a large proportion of orders to
>>> >>> first
>>> >>> appellate authorities, or reject them outright. Some commissioners in
>>> >>> Maharashtra remand back as many as 50% cases.
>>> >>> " A number of appeals are rejected on completely frivolous grounds
>>> (such
>>> >>> as
>>> >>> the absence of appellants signature on each page of the appeal). More
>>> >>> than
>>> >>> 30% cases in AP are rejected like this.
>>> >>> " State Information Commisssion of Arunachal Pradesh is making
>>> relatively
>>> >>> better use its civil-court-like powers conferred by Section18 of RTI
>>> Act,
>>> >>> sometimes even issuing arrest warrants! We personally visited
>>> >>> Arunachal
>>> >>> Pradesh and met many appellants in Itanagar, the capital city.
>>> Appellants
>>> >>> are overwhelmingly praising their commission. The public authorities
>>> are
>>> >>> quite scared of appeals going to commission as they result in
>>> >>> stringent
>>> >>> penalties, and therefore they do their best to sort it out at their
>>> >>> level.
>>> >>> As a consequence, compliance with RTI Act is relatively high.
>>> >>> " One of the front-runners for the post of Chief Central Information
>>> >>> Commissioner, Prof M M Ansari, ranked very poorly on all the
>>> parameters.
>>> >>> This has publicly put a big question-mark on his candidature. With
>>> >>> what
>>> >>> face
>>> >>> would the government appoint him as Chief CIC when he has been
>>> >>> publicly
>>> >>> found wanting?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> The big picture that emerges from such aggregated data enables us to
>>> >>> engage
>>> >>> with the individual commissioners and state commissioners, discuss
>>> >>> the
>>> >>> shortcomings in their work and find solutions. For instance, after
>>> >>> the
>>> >>> release of this data, the activists and media in West Bengal
>>> >>> repeatedly
>>> >>> and
>>> >>> publicly questioned the Commissioner, and he was forced to admit, for
>>> the
>>> >>> first time, that the performance of the SIC was unsatisfactory.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Some friends feel that no awards should be given. As the overall data
>>> was
>>> >>> not very encouraging, we too felt that the jury may decide not to
>>> >>> give
>>> >>> any
>>> >>> award this year. However, we are upbeat about the strict approach
>>> >>> taken
>>> >>> by
>>> >>> Arunachal Pradesh. Let us see what the jury has to say.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> We are in the process of preparing our final report. Please send us
>>> your
>>> >>> inputs at the earliest. If your inputs can be incorporated, even at
>>> this
>>> >>> late stage, we assure you they shall be, so that together, we can say
>>> >>> that
>>> >>> this study belongs to all of us.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> We are building up this mechanism for citizens and activists
>>> >>> everywhere
>>> >>> to
>>> >>> oversee the Information Commissioners. It is your mechanism. Please
>>> >>> improve
>>> >>> it and use it; dont tear it down with destructive criticism. Make
>>> efforts
>>> >>> to
>>> >>> remove its shortcomings and see that this fledgling initiative
>>> >>> survives
>>> >>> and
>>> >>> thrives. Help it to emerge as a strong voice of oppressed RTI
>>> applicants
>>> >>> and
>>> >>> appellants in all corners of the country, who were until now helpless
>>> and
>>> >>> voiceless.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> With Warm Regards
>>> >>> Arvind Kejriwal
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>       The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo!
>>> Homepage.
>>> >> http://in.yahoo.com/
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > @i$#w@ry@!
>>> >
>>> > ----------------------
>>> >
>>> > -----------------------
>>> >
>>> > @i$#w@ry@!
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> @i$#w@ry@!
>>>
>>> ----------------------
>>>
>>> -----------------------
>>>
>>> @i$#w@ry@!
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> @i$#w@ry@!
>
> ----------------------
>
> -----------------------
>
> @i$#w@ry@!
>
>
>
>



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

--- End forwarded message ---

#2400

From: Abhinandan Sekhri <abhinandan@...>
Date: Sat Nov 28, 2009 11:29 am
Subject: Re: error of ( Indian ) law or law of ( pcrf ) errors.

abhinandan@...

Hi Urvashi

I’m Abhinandan. One of the trustees of pcrf.
Thanks for your mail and pointing this out. While we call this the citizens category, citizens who use RTI even as a group or organization are eligible. ADR or NBA are acting as citizens for the larger good.. Whether as individuals or as a group. However I see the merit in your point maybe next year we should consider a separate category for NGOs and resident welfare associations.
Actually many of the citizens this year too belong to an NGO or activists group.

Thanks again for your interest.
More strength to RTI.

Warm Regards
Abhinandan Sekhri

On 11/27/09 7:10 PM, "urvashi sharma" <rtimahilamanchup@...> wrote:

Was pcrf not ready to do it the way it should have been ? or was it
deliberate .
I Happened to visit the webpage
http://www.rtiawards.org/citizens_finalists.html on pcrf website .
This webpage has list containing names of “ citizen finalists ” which
are as given below –
? Ajay Dubey
? Ajay Singh Rawat
? Akhil Gogoi
? Amit Kumar
? Association for Democratic Reforms
? Bharatsinh R. Jhala
? Dev Ashish Bhattacharya
? Narmada Bachao Aandolan
? Prashant Kumar Dubey
? Prof Rajeev Kumar
? Raaj Mangal Prasad
? Rajesh Bissa
? Rajinder Nagar Welfare Association
? Ramesh Kumar Verma
? Ravindra Singh
? Shyamlal Yadav
? Subhash Chandra Agrawal
? Sunil Kumar Mahto
? Vinod Pandya
On citizen selection process , the website has the procedure as “We
received a total of 1130 nominations in the citizens’ category.In the
first round, those cases were shortlisted who had used RTI for any
public purpose rather than for personal benefit such as ones' own
transfer, rations card, pension etc. The intent was to recognize those
who attempted to use RTI for the larger good of citizens as a whole as
opposed to personal needs. Then we met each of the jury members
individually to discuss the applicants. 19 such citizens have now made
it to the list of finalists who made substantial public impact through
the use of RTI.”

As we all know that the settled law is as given below
( i ) The Citizenship Act and the Constitution are completely
exhaustive of the citizenship of this country and these citizens can
only be natural persons, the fact that corporations may be nationals
of the country for purposes of International laws will not make them
citizens of this country for purposes of Municipal Law or the
Constitution; State Trading Corporation of India v. Commercial Tax
Officer, AIR 1963 SC 1811: (1964) 45 SCR 99.

(ii) Nationality and Citizenship are not interchangeable terms; State
Trading Corporation of India v. Commercial Tax Officer, AIR 1963 SC
1811: (1964) 4 SCR 99.

(iii) "Citizenship" has nothing to do with a juristic person. "Person"
means a natural person and not any legal entity; State Trading
Corporation of India v. Commercial Tax Officer, AIR 1963 SC 1811:
(1964) 4 SCR 99.

Going by these definitions ,
? 1- Association for Democratic Reforms
? 2-Narmada Bachao Aandolan &
? 3-Rajinder Nagar Welfare Association

Are not the citizens of India though these may be juristic person
.These three organizations cannot be said to be citizens of India and
putting them in the citizen’s category is neither legal nor justified.
I don’t understand if this is error of ( Indian ) law or law of ( pcrf
) errors.

I demand exclusion of these three from the citizen’s category at once
to have competitions among the citizens only.

If pcrf wish , it should go for a separate category of awards for such
organizations which are working for the noble cause rti.

But please don’t do anything that is illegal n may lead to more
controversies for the awards in the days to come.

strengthen rti , save the country

regards

urvashi

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

@i$#w@ry@!

#2399

From: urvashi sharma <rtimahilamanchup@...>
Date: Mon Nov 30, 2009 11:59 am
Subject: Fwd: SIC UP Removal- a few legal issues involved

rtimahilaman...

Offline

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jagnarain Sharma <jagnarain.sharma@...>
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 22:02:30 -0800
Subject: Re: SIC UP Removal- a few legal issues involved
To: drnutanthakur@...
Cc: rtimahilamanchup@..., urvashirti@...,
rtimahilamanchup@..., majorravi@...,
mkgupta100@..., parivartan_india@...

Dear Dr Nutan, Ravi and all
          To interpret whether Mr Pankaj is guilty of any offence or
not, what the high court interpret in all such matter that Mr Pankaj
is guily of certain law, Rules and Regulations in the mining deptt.,
who colluded with few persons who got illegal benefit out of sanction
of mining lease.
         And  on thatH.C.  has slapped Rs 50000/-( using its inherent powers).

          In many cases, when an Advocate is involved in a false
statement or false information or other mischief, they are fined under
contempt of court by the Hon. High Court. in several other cases even
jail term can also be awarded, but Hon. High Court reserves its right
on the matter.
          But in the matter of Mr Pankaj, he has violated certain
law/Rules etc. in any dealing with Govt./public dealing matters,
having collusion with one of the parties. In legal Terminology
collusion is a'fraud' and if an applicant approaches the Hon.High
Court, it is the prerogative of the court to slap only fine or minimum
jail term of three months or  both.

          As such Mr Pankaj does not remain a person of eminence at all
and the application moved by Urvashi for removal of Mr. pankaj, is on
the right direction.

          The matter is in the court of Hon. Governor, who after
obtaining comments of Behen Mayawati may like to remove Mr Pankaj.
          Let us wait till that date or say for 15 days, as promised by
Mahamahim  Rajyapal, U.P.
Regards
Dr. JN Sharma


On 11/28/09, Jagnarain Sharma <jagnarain.sharma@...> wrote:
> HE WAS REMOVED by Hon. Governor, (and his case was with S.C.) FOR
> CORRUPTION, BY ILLEGALLY APPOINTING HIS MEN IN THE OFFICE.
> SOME HOW HE  FILED A WRIT AND HIS FELLOW BROTHER JUDGE GAVE JUDGMENT
> IN HIS FAVOUR, HE JOINED  OFFICE FOR 15 MINUTES  AND THEN RAN AWAY
> LEAVING THE OFFICE JOB.
> Dear Urvashi may throw more light in the case as she held so many
> Dharna before Khan Sahab, the then CIC Lucknow.
> Regards
> Dr JN Sharma
>
>
> On 11/28/09, Nutan Thakur <drnutanthakur@...> wrote:
>> Dear Friends,
>>
>> What Sri Ravindran is an important point. Can we be elucidated something
>> about how the previous SIC, a retired HC judge, was removed? Or had his
>> term
>> ended in the natural course?
>> This would give us a good ground to act and proceed.
>>
>> Nutan Thakur
>>
>> --- On Sun, 11/29/09, Ravindran Major <majorravi@...> wrote:
>>
>> From: Ravindran Major <majorravi@...>
>> Subject: Re: SIC UP Removal- a few legal issues involved
>> To: "Nutan Thakur" <drnutanthakur@...>
>> Cc: "M.K. Gupta" <mkgupta100@...>, "urvashi sharma"
>> <rtimahilamanchup@...>, "Jagnarain Sharma"
>> <jagnarain.sharma@...>, "Parivartan India"
>> <parivartan_india@...>, rtimahilamanchup@...,
>> subhash.bhatnagar@..., rolandp11@...,
>> roland_pereira@...,
>> campaign@..., ferozasaran@...,
>> azaadiba@...,
>> usukulsingh@..., medha@..., arunaroy@...,
>> agnivesh70@..., Shaileshgan@..., iyer_ga@...,
>> rti4empowerment@yahoogroups.com, colshivraj@...,
>> prem.lata@..., Shaileshgandhi@..., apj@...,
>> yogeshpratapsingh@..., rti.lucknow@...,
>> msisodia@...,
>> srdarapuri@..., sharmarobby@...,
>> bimal.khemani@..., dhirendra.krishna@...,
>> Kumarniraj1000@..., Amitabhth@...,
>> batra_lokesh@...,
>> shanti_ranjan@..., bhatnagarsundeep@...,
>> hgpandya@...,
>>  sndpjalan@..., ansari.youngindia@..., sampadaway@...,
>> vikramsimha54@..., ashaashram@..., mkssrajasthan@...,
>> jusufkabir@..., prakashbelwade@...,
>> barbarathyabali@...,
>> rangajan@..., Gaur_a@..., Banda.singh1@...,
>> eGovINDIA@yahoogroups.com, jamshedkmistry@...,
>> joseph@...,
>> jsatpute@..., janhitmanch@..., sackhim@yahoogroups.com,
>> rajashekhara@..., advmukuljoshi@..., espshukla@...,
>> manishmohit_manish@..., skbanerjee@...,
>> rai.abhilash@...
>> Date: Sunday, November 29, 2009, 6:52 AM
>>
>> Dear Dr Nutan Thakur
>>
>> While your observations look funny I know that they are not because our
>> legal system is funnier. But the unfortunate thing is it is not fun but
>> torture for the ordinary people who are forced to visit the courts even
>> as
>> complainants. But shouldn't we explore how the earlier CIC was booted out
>> by
>> Maya? If he has fulfilled the criteria completely then shouldn't removing
>> him only be the first step? Was he subsequently punished for his crimes?
>>
>>
>> regards n bw
>>
>> ravi
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Nutan Thakur <drnutanthakur@...>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Urvashi ji and friends,
>>
>> With due apologies, I would like to state that in the present case, there
>> seems a need for proper reevaluation of section 17, RTI as regards Mr
>> Pankaj. This is because-
>>
>>
>> When the Act talks of “proven misbehaviour”, it has defined this term in
>> section 17(4) of the Act. A perusal of this section makes it clear that
>> misbehaviour is something that has to be linked with the present/ongoing
>> tenure of the person concerned. It does not seem to mention the past acts
>> of
>> the person, before being appointed to the post
>>
>> Again, the word “convicted of an offence” in section 17(3) (b) seems to
>> be
>> related with an offence as such. A fine by the High Court or an enquiry
>> report by the Commissioner indicting the officer might not be called an
>> offence in the legal sense of the word.
>>
>> I don’t intend to say anything in favour of this person. Like all of you,
>> I
>> would also like such a person to be removed. But I present these points
>> to
>> all of you, so that we might frame our stand accordingly, if there is a
>> need
>> to do so.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dr Nutan Thakur
>> IRDS,
>> Lucknow
>> --- On Fri, 11/27/09, urvashi sharma <rtimahilamanchup@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> From: urvashi sharma <rtimahilamanchup@...>
>>
>> Subject: Re: Problems of UP SIC , atleast we can try , i have taken a
>> step
>> forward , let's convert it in a giant leap
>> To: "M.K. Gupta" <mkgupta100@...>
>>
>> Cc: drnutanthakur@..., "Jagnarain Sharma"
>> <jagnarain.sharma@...>, pmravindran@..., "Parivartan India"
>> <parivartan_india@...>, rtimahilamanchup@...,
>> subhash.bhatnagar@..., rolandp11@...,
>> roland_pereira@...,
>> campaign@..., ferozasaran@...,
>> azaadiba@...,
>> usukulsingh@..., medha@..., arunaroy@...,
>> agnivesh70@..., Shaileshgan@..., iyer_ga@...,
>> rti4empowerment@yahoogroups.com, colshivraj@...,
>> prem.lata@..., Shaileshgandhi@..., apj@...,
>> yogeshpratapsingh@..., HumJanenge@...,
>> rti.lucknow@..., humanrightsactivist@yahoogroups.com,
>> saveindianfamily@yahoogroups.com, msisodia@...,
>> srdarapuri@..., sharmarobby@..., majorravi@...,
>> bimal.khemani@..., dhirendra.krishna@...,
>> Kumarniraj1000@..., Amitabhth@...,
>> batra_lokesh@...,
>>  shanti_ranjan@..., bhatnagarsundeep@...,
>> hgpandya@..., sndpjalan@..., ansari.youngindia@...,
>> sampadaway@..., vikramsimha54@..., ashaashram@...,
>> mkssrajasthan@..., jusufkabir@..., prakashbelwade@...,
>> barbarathyabali@..., rangajan@..., Gaur_a@...,
>> Banda.singh1@..., eGovINDIA@yahoogroups.com,
>> map_india@yahoogroups.com, jamshedkmistry@...,
>> joseph@...,
>> jsatpute@..., janhitmanch@..., sackhim@yahoogroups.com,
>> rajashekhara@..., advmukuljoshi@..., espshukla@...,
>> manishmohit_manish@..., skbanerjee@...,
>> rai.abhilash@...
>>
>> Date: Friday, November 27, 2009, 11:30 PM
>>
>>
>> governor house assures action against U. P. SCIC Ranjit Singh pankaj
>> within 15 days
>>
>> Supported by national alliance of people's movements ( NAPM ), members
>> of civil societies under the leadership of urvashi sharma met  the
>>
>> principal secterary to the governor of uttar pradesh on 27-11-2009 at
>> 5 pm to press their point of taking action u/s 17(3)(b) of rti act
>> 2005 against SCIC ranjit singh pankaj by removing him from the chair
>> of SCIC.
>>
>>
>> please find attached a copy of the memorandum given to governor of
>> uttar pradesh.
>>
>> the copy of memorandum can be accessed at given link also -
>>
>>
http://rtiact2005india4u.hpage.com/27_november_2009_memorandum__to_governor_to_r\
emove_scic_18254151.html
>>
>>
>> please support our movement
>> 1- against corruption
>> 2- for  implementation of rti act in letter n spirit .
>>
>> regards
>>
>> urvashi sharma
>> 9235169855
>>
>> -----------------------
>>
>> @i$#w@ry@!
>>
>>
>> On 11/27/09, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@...> wrote:
>>> UP SIC is a chronicle patient and not responding to the minor treatment.
>>> Some major operation / radical treatment or approaching in a PIL to
>>
>>> Allahabad will is required. Some Lucknow or Allahabad based Advocate
>>> wedded
>>> to RTI can bell the cat by bringing the facts to the notice of Allahabad
>>> High Court.  Before that, the study and other facts should be brought to
>>> the
>>
>>> notice of Hoh’ble Governor of U.P. in order to exhaust the remedies
>>> available before knocking the door f the Court.
>>>
>>> --- On Fri, 27/11/09, Jagnarain Sharma <jagnarain.sharma@...>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Jagnarain Sharma <jagnarain.sharma@...>
>>> Subject: Re: Problems of UP SIC
>>> To: drnutanthakur@...
>>
>>> Cc: pmravindran@..., "Parivartan India"
>>> <parivartan_india@...>, rtimahilamanchup@...,
>>
>>> rtimahilamanchup@..., subhash.bhatnagar@...,
>>
>>> rolandp11@..., roland_pereira@...,
>>> campaign@...,
>>
>>> ferozasaran@..., azaadiba@..., usukulsingh@...,
>>
>>> medha@..., arunaroy@..., agnivesh70@...,
>>
>>> Shaileshgan@..., iyer_ga@...,
>>> rti4empowerment@yahoogroups.com,
>>
>>> colshivraj@..., prem.lata@..., Shaileshgandhi@...,
>>
>>> apj@..., yogeshpratapsingh@...,
>>> HumJanenge@..., rti.lucknow@...,
>>
>>> humanrightsactivist@yahoogroups.com, saveindianfamily@yahoogroups.com,
>>
>>> msisodia@..., srdarapuri@..., sharmarobby@...,
>>
>>> majorravi@..., bimal.khemani@...,
>>> dhirendra.krishna@..., Kumarniraj1000@...,
>>
>>> Amitabhth@..., batra_lokesh@...,
>>> shanti_ranjan@...,
>>
>>>  bhatnagarsundeep@..., hgpandya@..., sndpjalan@...,
>>
>>> ansari.youngindia@..., sampadaway@...,
>>> vikramsimha54@..., ashaashram@...,
>>> mkssrajasthan@...,
>>
>>> jusufkabir@..., prakashbelwade@..., mkgupta100@...,
>>
>>> barbarathyabali@..., rangajan@..., Gaur_a@...,
>>
>>> Banda.singh1@..., eGovINDIA@yahoogroups.com,
>>> map_india@yahoogroups.com, jamshedkmistry@...,
>>> joseph@...,
>>
>>> jsatpute@..., janhitmanch@..., sackhim@yahoogroups.com,
>>
>>> rajashekhara@..., advmukuljoshi@..., espshukla@...,
>>
>>> manishmohit_manish@..., skbanerjee@...,
>>> rai.abhilash@...
>>
>>> Date: Friday, 27 November, 2009, 3:02 AM
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Dr.Nutan
>>>         The five points you have raised shows that the State CIC needs
>>> proper medication, because of its acute illness.
>>
>>>          You have reported the truth, as six months have passed, the
>>> SCIC has not informed me of any date for hearing, on my appeal made in
>>> March 2009.
>>>           In the seminar held at NBRI  Lucknow on 21-22 NOV. 2009, A
>>
>>> STUDY REPORT WAS PRESENTED BY SRI SHEKHAR SINGH, WHICH WAS MOST
>>> REVEALING, like sri Arvind has sent.
>>>           Like Urvishi had conducted so many peaceful
>>> agitation/Dharna, before SCIC OFFICE, again we need to repeat it, to
>>
>>> implement the 5 issues you have raised.
>>>           Regards
>>>           Dr. JN Sharma
>>>
>>> On 11/26/09, Nutan Thakur <drnutanthakur@...> wrote:
>>
>>>> Dear Sri Arvind,
>>>>
>>>> While the study u have conducted is of huge importance to this cause,
>>>> yet
>>>> I
>>>> thought I might bring a few simple facts about the position of RTI in
>>>> UP.
>>
>>>> 1. The SIC office never intimates the complainant about the dates of
>>>> hearing
>>>> 2. The dates being fixed are so long that many a times the relevance of
>>>> the
>>>> info sought gets over
>>
>>>> 3. There is hardly any record keeping
>>>> 4. The office staff keep yelling about their own problems of staff
>>>> shortage.
>>>> 5. The SIC members are extremely pro-govt, to the extent of being
>>>> servile.
>>
>>>>
>>>> Any wayout suggested by u?
>>>>
>>>> Dr Nutan Thakur
>>>> Editor,
>>>> Nutan Satta Pravah
>>>> Lucknow
>>>>
>>>> --- On Mon, 11/23/09, Parivartan India
>>>> <parivartan_india@...>
>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: Parivartan India <parivartan_india@...>
>>>> Subject: An appeal to fellow activists and friends
>>
>>>> To: pmravindran@...
>>>> Cc: jagnarain.sharma@..., rtimahilamanchup@...,
>>
>>>> rtimahilamanchup@..., subhash.bhatnagar@...,
>>
>>>> rolandp11@..., roland_pereira@...,
>>>> campaign@...,
>>
>>>> ferozasaran@..., azaadiba@..., usukulsingh@...,
>>
>>>> medha@..., arunaroy@..., agnivesh70@...,
>>
>>>> Shaileshgan@..., iyer_ga@...,
>>>> rti4empowerment@yahoogroups.com,
>>
>>>> colshivraj@..., prem.lata@..., Shaileshgandhi@...,
>>
>>>> apj@..., yogeshpratapsingh@...,
>>>> HumJanenge@..., rti.lucknow@...,
>>
>>>> humanrightsactivist@yahoogroups.com, saveindianfamily@yahoogroups.com,
>>
>>>> msisodia@..., srdarapuri@..., sharmarobby@...,
>>
>>>> majorravi@..., drnutanthakur@...,
>>>> bimal.khemani@...,
>>
>>>> dhirendra.krishna@..., Kumarniraj1000@...,
>>
>>>> Amitabhth@..., batra_lokesh@...,
>>>> shanti_ranjan@...,
>>
>>>> bhatnagarsundeep@...,
>>>>  hgpandya@..., sndpjalan@..., ansari.youngindia@...,
>>
>>>> sampadaway@..., vikramsimha54@..., ashaashram@...,
>>
>>>> mkssrajasthan@..., jusufkabir@...,
>>>> prakashbelwade@...,
>>
>>>> mkgupta100@..., barbarathyabali@..., rangajan@...,
>>
>>>> Gaur_a@..., Banda.singh1@..., eGovINDIA@yahoogroups.com,
>>
>>>> map_india@yahoogroups.com, jamshedkmistry@...,
>>>> joseph@...,
>>
>>>> jsatpute@..., janhitmanch@..., sackhim@yahoogroups.com,
>>
>>>> rajashekhara@..., advmukuljoshi@..., espshukla@...,
>>
>>>> manishmohit_manish@..., skbanerjee@...,
>>
>>>> rai.abhilash@...
>>>> Date: Monday, November 23, 2009, 5:26 PM
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear friends and fellow-activists,
>>
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for your responses to our draft report evaluating the
>>>> performance
>>>> of Information Commissioners. The large number of bouquets and
>>>> brickbats
>>>> that we have received show that there is enormous public interest. We
>>
>>>> salute
>>>> your refusal to accept our opinion blindly; healthy dissent and debate
>>>> is
>>>> not only inevitable, but essential for a healthy participatory
>>>> democracy.
>>>>
>>>> The biggest question that everybody seems to be asking is why did we
>>>> place
>>
>>>> such and such Information Commissioner above or below another one in
>>>> ranking? Our answer is: My colleagues and I at PCRF exercised no
>>>> control
>>>> over the ranking of any information commissioner. The ranking was done
>>>> on
>>
>>>> an
>>>> objective basis based on the available data and statistics, my
>>>> colleagues
>>>> and I were hands-off in this process. Commissioners were ranked by
>>>> autonomous teams of researchers, based on the statistics generated by
>>>> the
>>
>>>> orders of various Information Commissioners and public feedback. After
>>>> assigning the work and the system parameters to the researchers, my
>>>> colleagues and I stood back from the entire process, and let the
>>>> process
>>
>>>> do
>>>> its work without any interference. Rest assured, neither the primary
>>>> data
>>>> collected nor the statistics generated from this data was cooked. As a
>>>> result, this study was quite an eye opener for all of us at PCRF,
>>>> because
>>
>>>> our own beliefs about
>>>>  some Commissioners known to us were proved wrong. If you find some of
>>>> the
>>>> conclusions disturbing and startling, please believe us when we say
>>>> that
>>>> so
>>
>>>> do we!
>>>>
>>>> Let me briefly describe the process of conducting this study:
>>>>
>>>> " Around 52,000 orders passed by various Information Commissions across
>>>> the
>>
>>>> country were collected. Some orders were on their websites, but others,
>>>> we
>>>> collected by filing RTI applications and sometimes making many trips to
>>>> the
>>>> concerned SICs. By and large, we got cooperation from all SICs, but
>>>> there
>>
>>>> were some exceptions. For instance, we were unsuccessful in persuading
>>>> Lucknow bench of UPSIC to give us copies of their orders.
>>>> " Each order collected was read and analyzed by a team of 12 persons
>>>> over
>>
>>>> a
>>>> six-month period.
>>>> " Around 34,000 orders were classified as pro-disclosure. So, we wrote
>>>> letters to each of the appellants, asking whether they had received
>>>> complete
>>
>>>> and satisfactory information. A team of 25 persons worked for three
>>>> months
>>>> to write letters and get replies.
>>>> " We received written responses from around 6000 people. According to
>>>> statisticians, this was a reasonably good sample.
>>
>>>> " However, this was not uniformly distributed over all commissioners.
>>>> Response in some cases was inadequate. To rectify this, we contacted
>>>> these
>>>> commissioners and asked for phone numbers of appellants from their
>>>> appeal
>>
>>>> files. Most commissioners agreed to provide this information.
>>>> " Our teams visited Guwahati, Arunachal Pradesh, Chandigarh and many
>>>> SICs
>>>> to
>>>> collect appellants phone numbers. In the case of Arunachal Pradesh, the
>>
>>>> phone numbers did not work due to bad connectivity. So, our team
>>>> personally
>>>> met as many appellants as possible in Arunachal Pradesh to get their
>>>> feedback.
>>>> " Thus, we tried to ensure that we had feedback from at least 20% of
>>>> the
>>
>>>> appellants in whose cases pro-disclosure orders were passed. In the
>>>> case
>>>> of
>>>> a few commissioners, we could not reach 20%. In some other cases, we
>>>> got
>>>> more than 40% feedback. With the help of a statistician, we are now
>>
>>>> working
>>>> out the error margin in the case of each commissioner with the
>>>> available
>>>> sample size and population size.
>>>>
>>>> The five parameters for our study are:
>>>> " Two parameters of our study viz. Pro-disclosure Factor and Deterrent
>>
>>>> Impact, came straight from analysis of orders, and not from appellants
>>>> feedback.
>>>> " The other two parameters viz. Overall Public Satisfaction and
>>>> Effectiveness came from public feedback.
>>
>>>> " Pendency and disposals is a fifth parameter, which we have added
>>>> belatedly.
>>>>
>>>> How does one interpret these parameters to evaluate a particular
>>>> commissioner? One has to look at all parameters together to get a
>>
>>>> meaningful
>>>> picture. For instance, if a commissioner issues a large number of
>>>> pro-disclosure orders, but cannot get his orders implemented (low
>>>> effectiveness), there is an overall failure on his part in procuring
>>
>>>> information for the citizen.
>>>>
>>>> All our raw data has been put up on our website www.rtiawards.org . We
>>>> urge
>>>> you to understand and cross-check our data and analysis, and point out
>>
>>>> mistakes so that we can correct them. Also give us more feedback on
>>>> Information Commissioners performance.
>>>>
>>>> Activists in many states totally accepted the findings, including
>>>> Bihar,
>>
>>>> MP,
>>>> AP, WB, Haryana and Arunachal Pradesh. Some of these activists
>>>> independently
>>>> released it to media, taking ownership of the report findings.
>>>>
>>>> Activists of some states like Orissa and Kerala disputed our findings.
>>
>>>> Some
>>>> Information Commissioners such as R S Tolia and Prof M M Ansari sent us
>>>> a
>>>> written response. A few others let us know their views on phone. Their
>>>> letters and our response thereto are on our website.
>>
>>>>
>>>> We are grateful to Pradeep Pradhan from Orissa and Mr C J Karira from
>>>> AP
>>>> for
>>>> pointing out specific mistakes. We have either already corrected them
>>>> or
>>>> will do so before finalizing this report. We are also grateful to Major
>>
>>>> Ravindran and Col Kurup from Kerala for giving us important feedback
>>>> and
>>>> inputs on the performance of Kerala commissioners.
>>>>
>>>> We do realize that our methodology and parameters need further
>>>> refining.
>>
>>>> The
>>>> study has indeed left out some key aspects of the functioning of
>>>> Information
>>>> Commissioners, which we shall include next year. Please bear in mind
>>>> that
>>>> this is just the beginning of an important process, which must be
>>>> carried
>>
>>>> out year after year in order to empower citizens with data, and give
>>>> meaningful feedback to Information Commissioners to enable them to
>>>> reflect
>>>> upon and improve their own performance.
>>>>
>>
>>>> Some interesting findings:
>>>>
>>>> " Not a single penalty has been imposed by 25 Information Commissioners
>>>> and
>>>> 4 state commissions!
>>>> " A large number of show cause notices remain pending for years. Over
>>>> 90%
>>
>>>> show cause notices remained pending for long periods in many
>>>> commissions!
>>>> " Nationally, just two percent of recorded violations were penalized!
>>>> And
>>>> a
>>>> commissioner who imposes just 11% penalties is the top-ranking
>>
>>>> commissioner
>>>> according to this parameter!
>>>> " Some commissioners remand back a large proportion of orders to first
>>>> appellate authorities, or reject them outright. Some commissioners in
>>
>>>> Maharashtra remand back as many as 50% cases.
>>>> " A number of appeals are rejected on completely frivolous grounds
>>>> (such
>>>> as
>>>> the absence of appellants signature on each page of the appeal). More
>>>> than
>>
>>>> 30% cases in AP are rejected like this.
>>>> " State Information Commisssion of Arunachal Pradesh is making
>>>> relatively
>>>> better use its civil-court-like powers conferred by Section18 of RTI
>>>> Act,
>>
>>>> sometimes even issuing arrest warrants! We personally visited Arunachal
>>>> Pradesh and met many appellants in Itanagar, the capital city.
>>>> Appellants
>>>> are overwhelmingly praising their commission. The public authorities
>>>> are
>>
>>>> quite scared of appeals going to commission as they result in stringent
>>>> penalties, and therefore they do their best to sort it out at their
>>>> level.
>>>> As a consequence, compliance with RTI Act is relatively high.
>>
>>>> " One of the front-runners for the post of Chief Central Information
>>>> Commissioner, Prof M M Ansari, ranked very poorly on all the
>>>> parameters.
>>>> This has publicly put a big question-mark on his candidature. With what
>>
>>>> face
>>>> would the government appoint him as Chief CIC when he has been publicly
>>>> found wanting?
>>>>
>>>> The big picture that emerges from such aggregated data enables us to
>>
>>>> engage
>>>> with the individual commissioners and state commissioners, discuss the
>>>> shortcomings in their work and find solutions. For instance, after the
>>>> release of this data, the activists and media in West Bengal repeatedly
>>
>>>> and
>>>> publicly questioned the Commissioner, and he was forced to admit, for
>>>> the
>>>> first time, that the performance of the SIC was unsatisfactory.
>>>>
>>>> Some friends feel that no awards should be given. As the overall data
>>>> was
>>
>>>> not very encouraging, we too felt that the jury may decide not to give
>>>> any
>>>> award this year. However, we are upbeat about the strict approach taken
>>>> by
>>>> Arunachal Pradesh. Let us see what the jury has to say.
>>
>>>>
>>>> We are in the process of preparing our final report. Please send us
>>>> your
>>>> inputs at the earliest. If your inputs can be incorporated, even at
>>>> this
>>>> late stage, we assure you they shall be, so that together, we can say
>>>> that
>>
>>>> this study belongs to all of us.
>>>>
>>>> We are building up this mechanism for citizens and activists everywhere
>>>> to
>>>> oversee the Information Commissioners. It is your mechanism. Please
>>
>>>> improve
>>>> it and use it; dont tear it down with destructive criticism. Make
>>>> efforts
>>>> to
>>>> remove its shortcomings and see that this fledgling initiative survives
>>>> and
>>
>>>> thrives. Help it to emerge as a strong voice of oppressed RTI
>>>> applicants
>>>> and
>>>> appellants in all corners of the country, who were until now helpless
>>>> and
>>>> voiceless.
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> With Warm Regards
>>>> Arvind Kejriwal
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>       The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo!
>>> Homepage.
>>
>>> http://in.yahoo.com/
>>
>>
>> --
>> @i$#w@ry@!
>>
>> ----------------------
>>
>> -----------------------
>>
>> @i$#w@ry@!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>



--
urvashi sharma
9369613513
@i$#w@ry@!
helpline-9235169855

#2398

From: Jagnarain Sharma <jagnarain.sharma@...>
Date: Sun Nov 29, 2009 12:05 pm
Subject: Re: If law permits a corrupt and convicted person to hold a public post ?

jagnarain.sharma@...

Dear Urvashi
         Your views on SCIC removal are very correct.
          Go ahead with your mission to eradicate corruption.
          May God bless you
          Regards
          Dr JN Sharma

On 11/29/09, urvashi sharma <rtimahilamanchup@...> wrote:
> Respected  All
> I am a social worker , most of the times driven by emotions though
> necessarily with a justified logic embedded in it . I am not a legal expert
> but understand law on the basis of my logical approach to it n that�s why I
> know I am not legally right all the times but I intend to put the right
> things before others. I believe that  we all activists are  an individual
> entity and its better to express my weakness before myself than others tell
> this to me later on.
> So please guide me On legal aspects on the issue of  Removal of Uttar
> Pradesh State Chief Information Commissioner Ranjit Singh Pankaj.
> ( 1 ) Section 17 subsection (1) has the condition � Subject to the
> provisions of subsection (3) �, to me this means that subsection 3 overrides
> subsection 1 . please tell me if I am wrong.
> ( 2 ) Again section 17 subsection (3) says  Notwithstanding anything
> contained in sub-section (1), the Governor may by order remove from office
> the State Chief Information Commissioner if a State Chief Information
> Commissioner (b) has been convicted of an offence which, in the opinion of
> the Governor, involves moral turpitude;
> The  section 17 subsection (3) has condition �  Notwithstanding anything
> contained in sub-section (1) � , to me this means in spite of the laid down
> provisions of subsection (1) , provisions of subsection ( 3 )  shall have
>  overriding effect on subsection ( 1 ) .
> ( 3 ) Section 17 subsection (4) states some conditions that shall also be
> taken into consideration for the purposes of sub-section (1) .
> ( 4 ) So in my view , in section 17,  subsection 3 is the ultimate n gives
> immense powers to an honest governor for an honest n just functioning of ICs
> .
> ( 5 ) On the issue of penalization of Ranjit singh Pankaj  by Allahabad high
> court i.e.  slapping  a fine of Rs 50,000 on Singh for "misleading the court
> and extending favors to a lessee involved in illegal mining" during his
> previous tenure as the mining secretary in the state government and The
> court taking a strict view of the role of Pankaj as the mining secretary and
> directing pankaj to submit Rs 50,000 as fine to the registrar general of the
> high court from his salary through bank draft within four weeks for
> "concealing facts, telling lies" and favoring the wrong man instead of
> taking action against him.
>
> I want to know if in compliance to above order the person named Pankaj who
> is SCIC also shall take 50000/- out of the salary a/c of SCIC , shall make a
> draft and deposit it with the registrar or it is some other Pankaj who shall
> do it? Then how SCIC Pankaj is not guilty of moral turpitude . If  the past
> of a public servant ( SCIC ) has no bearing on his future assignments ? then
> does this mean that the general service rules of public servants are not
> applicable on SCIC , another public servant?
>
> In a nutshell I want to know if pankaj�s case is a case of  proved
> professional misconduct  involving  proved moral turpitude  or not ?
>
> If law permits a corrupt  and convicted person to hold a public post ?
>   URVASHI SHARMA
> http://aishwaryaj.hpage.com
> helpline no. - 09235169855
> @i$#w@ry@!
>
>
>       The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage.
> http://in.yahoo.com/

#2397

From: urvashi sharma <rtimahilamanchup@...>
Date: Sun Nov 29, 2009 9:54 am
Subject: (No subject)

rtimahilaman...

Offline

Respected  All
I am a social worker , most of the times driven by emotions though
necessarily with a justified logic embedded in it . I am not a legal
expert but understand law on the basis of my logical approach to it n
that’s why I know I am not legally right all the times but I intend to
put the right things before others. I believe that  we all activists
are  an individual entity and its better to express my weakness before
myself than others tell this to me later on.
So please guide me On legal aspects on the issue of  Removal of Uttar
Pradesh State Chief Information Commissioner Ranjit Singh Pankaj.
( 1 ) Section 17 subsection (1) has the condition “ Subject to the
provisions of subsection (3) ”, to me this means that subsection 3
overrides subsection 1 . please tell me if I am wrong.
( 2 ) Again section 17 subsection (3) says  Notwithstanding anything
contained in sub-section (1), the Governor may by order remove from
office the State Chief Information Commissioner if a State Chief
Information Commissioner (b) has been convicted of an offence which,
in the opinion of the Governor, involves moral turpitude;
The  section 17 subsection (3) has condition “  Notwithstanding
anything contained in sub-section (1) ” , to me this means in spite of
the laid down provisions of subsection (1) , provisions of subsection
( 3 )  shall have  overriding effect on subsection ( 1 ) .
( 3 ) Section 17 subsection (4) states some conditions that shall also
be taken into consideration for the purposes of sub-section (1) .
( 4 ) So in my view , in section 17,  subsection 3 is the ultimate n
gives immense powers to an honest governor for an honest n just
functioning of ICs .
( 5 ) On the issue of penalization of Ranjit singh Pankaj  by
Allahabad high court i.e.  slapping  a fine of Rs 50,000 on Singh for
"misleading the court and extending favors to a lessee involved in
illegal mining" during his previous tenure as the mining secretary in
the state government and The court taking a strict view of the role of
Pankaj as the mining secretary and directing pankaj to submit Rs
50,000 as fine to the registrar general of the high court from his
salary through bank draft within four weeks for "concealing facts,
telling lies" and favoring the wrong man instead of taking action
against him.

I want to know if in compliance to above order the person named Pankaj
who is SCIC also shall take 50000/- out of the salary a/c of SCIC ,
shall make a draft and deposit it with the registrar or it is some
other Pankaj who shall do it? Then how SCIC Pankaj is not guilty of
moral turpitude . If  the past of a public servant ( SCIC ) has no
bearing on his future assignments ? then does this mean that the
general service rules of public servants are not applicable on SCIC ,
another public servant?

In a nutshell I want to know if pankaj’s case is a case of  proved
professional misconduct  involving  proved moral turpitude  or not ?

If law permits a corrupt  and convicted person to hold a public post ?






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

@i$#w@ry@!

#2396

From: urvashi sharma <rtimahilamanchup@...>
Date: Tue Dec 1, 2009 4:10 am
Subject: RTI case study " black money in swiss banks strengthens sovereignty and integrity of india and its disclosure would hamper economic interests of the state " asserts PIO of DOR

rtimahilaman...

Offline

dear mahendra
sending draft
make ness. changes if required

urvashi

APPEAL  UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005

by speed post
To, Mr. Kamlesh C. Varshney ,
The Appellate Authority & The Director ( FT & TR-1) , Room no. 908 , C
wing , Hudco Vishala building , 14 , Bhikaji Cama Place , New Delhi -
110066
Mohan Road , Lucknow , Uttar Pradesh - 226017

Sub.: APPEAL  UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005

Sir ,
         Please be informed that -
I made a request dated 29 September  2009 as per section 6 of RIGHT TO
INFORMATION ACT 2005 , to the  PIO of the Prime Minister's office  ,
{ Annexure -1 , copy enclosed } The abovementioned request was
accompanied with IPO no. 57E 761459 of ten  rupees  and was sent vide
SPEED POST no. SP EU708579222 IN dated 29-09-09 ,

• Vide letter no. RTI/2003/2009-PMR  dated 15-10-09{ Annexure -2 ,
copy enclosed } ,The CPIO of PMO  transferred my  request letter dated
29 September   2009  to the Secretary to GOI , Deptt. of Revenue ,
north block new delhi   under section 6(3) of RTI act 2005 ,

• The PIO of your office has sent letter no. F. No.
500/434/RTI/2009-FTD-I  dated 10 November 2009 { Annexure -3 , copy
enclosed }to me . A bare perusal of this letter would reveal that The
PIO has -
1- Misinterpret  section 8 ( 1 ) ( a ) of RTI act 2005 on point no. 1
of my letter of section 6

The PIO has written that communication between the swiss bank and the
GOI   is the information, disclosure of which would prejudicially
affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security,
strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation
with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence

I strongly raise my objections agianst the pio's order . Infact the
disclosure of this information would reveal black faces of the corrupt
of india by unearthing the black money that shall demoralise such
practices in future and in the long run it shall go a long way off to
strengthen true democratic values.

so please punish the PIO and furnish me  information required by me
i.e. the certified copies of all communication between the swiss bank
and the GOI in larger public interest  .

2- Grossly violated section 6 (3) of RTI act 2005. On point no. 2 and
3  of my letter of section 6

The PIO has written that the information required by me  does not
exists with  your office. In this case  he was duty bound to transfer
my letter of section 6 to the concerned PIO/PIOs as per section 6(3)
of the RTI Act 2005 ,

	 By not transferring these two points of my letter of section 6 , the
PIO has grossly violated the RTI act 2005 , so punish the PIO and
transfer my application as per section 6(3) of the rti act to the
concerned PIO

Hence this appeal under section 19(1) is being sent to the you  to -
1. Receive the appeal and inquire into the matter ,
2. Ensure that I should get the required documents as per section 7(9)
of the RTI act and that too free of charge as per section 7(6) of RTI
act 2005 ,
3. Punish the Respondent PIO  (for non-compliance of the act )as per
provisions of the act.

Thanks,

Enclosures: as above

Date :

#2395

From: urvashi sharma <rtimahilamanchup@...>
Date: Sun Nov 29, 2009 9:57 am
Subject: legal aspect of section 17 of rti act 2005 - clarification required

rtimahilaman...

Offline

Respected  All
I am a social worker , most of the times driven by emotions though
necessarily with a justified logic embedded in it . I am not a legal
expert but understand law on the basis of my logical approach to it n
that’s why I know I am not legally right all the times but I intend to
put the right things before others. I believe that  we all activists
are  an individual entity and its better to express my weakness before
myself than others tell this to me later on.
So please guide me On legal aspects on the issue of  Removal of Uttar
Pradesh State Chief Information Commissioner Ranjit Singh Pankaj.
( 1 ) Section 17 subsection (1) has the condition “ Subject to the
provisions of subsection (3) ”, to me this means that subsection 3
overrides subsection 1 . please tell me if I am wrong.
( 2 ) Again section 17 subsection (3) says  Notwithstanding anything
contained in sub-section (1), the Governor may by order remove from
office the State Chief Information Commissioner if a State Chief
Information Commissioner (b) has been convicted of an offence which,
in the opinion of the Governor, involves moral turpitude;
The  section 17 subsection (3) has condition “  Notwithstanding
anything contained in sub-section (1) ” , to me this means in spite of
the laid down provisions of subsection (1) , provisions of subsection
( 3 )  shall have  overriding effect on subsection ( 1 ) .
( 3 ) Section 17 subsection (4) states some conditions that shall also
be taken into consideration for the purposes of sub-section (1) .
( 4 ) So in my view , in section 17,  subsection 3 is the ultimate n
gives immense powers to an honest governor for an honest n just
functioning of ICs .
( 5 ) On the issue of penalization of Ranjit singh Pankaj  by
Allahabad high court i.e.  slapping  a fine of Rs 50,000 on Singh for
"misleading the court and extending favors to a lessee involved in
illegal mining" during his previous tenure as the mining secretary in
the state government and The court taking a strict view of the role of
Pankaj as the mining secretary and directing pankaj to submit Rs
50,000 as fine to the registrar general of the high court from his
salary through bank draft within four weeks for "concealing facts,
telling lies" and favoring the wrong man instead of taking action
against him.

I want to know if in compliance to above order the person named Pankaj
who is SCIC also shall take 50000/- out of the salary a/c of SCIC ,
shall make a draft and deposit it with the registrar or it is some
other Pankaj who shall do it? Then how SCIC Pankaj is not guilty of
moral turpitude . If  the past of a public servant ( SCIC ) has no
bearing on his future assignments ? then does this mean that the
general service rules of public servants are not applicable on SCIC ,
another public servant?

In a nutshell I want to know if pankaj’s case is a case of  proved
professional misconduct  involving  proved moral turpitude  or not ?

If law permits a corrupt  and convicted person to hold a public post ?

pls. guide

urvashi
-----------------------

@i$#w@ry@!

#2394

From: urvashi sharma <rtimahilamanchup@...>
Date: Sun Nov 29, 2009 2:46 pm
Subject: if u r live , just show it by raising ur voice against the u p scic regulations to stop back door amendments to rti act

rtimahilaman...

Offline

rept. all ,

more than a year ago , when we got air of illconceived plans of sic up
to implement scic regulations , we raised our voice n succeeded in
compelling the scic to defer their plans .
================================================================================\
==========================================
a news item from memorylanes about all this is given

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/activists-cry-foul-as-up-information-commiss/3\
65717/

Activists cry foul as UP Information Commission drafts regulations
Alka Pande
Tags : lucknow, government

Posted: Thursday , Sep 25, 2008 at 0208 hrs
Lucknow, September 24:

The UP State Information Commission has formulated some regulations
for the implementation of the Right to Information Act, which,
activists allege, are contrary to the spirit of the law enacted to
facilitate availability of information.

“The regulations of the state commission are the copy of the Central
Information Commission (CIC) rules and regulations, which reject 60
per cent cases on technical grounds,” said Arvind Kejriwal, who was
actively involved in the formation of the RTI Act.

The commission has not sought public opinion while formulating the
regulations. But since the matter was posted on the commission
website, it has attracted suggestions from various quarters.

Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah clarified that the
states have the authority to form regulations for the implementation
of the Act in its true spirit. But it is better to seek public opinion
while drafting the regulations, he added.

The activists from across the nation have now come together to oppose
the regulations and have demanded several amendments.

Social worker and RTI activist Urvashi Sharma from RTI Mahila Manch
has raised the issue by writing an open letter to the officiating
state Chief Information Commissioner, Gyanendra Sharma. Copies of the
letter have been sent to the President, besides the Governor and the
Chief Minster of Uttar Pradesh.

Urvashi says the rules are meant to make the process so complex that
it acts as a deterrent, and forces the applicant to seek legal help.

“The law was passed after a people’s movement. It was drafted by civil
societies. Its rules should also be made through public discussions,”
she said.

Gyanendra Sharma said the regulations were basically for the
functioning of the commission, but still he got them posted at the
commission website.

“We are going through all suggestions and will incorporate whatever is
feasible before implementing them,” said Sharma. He however, denied
that the regulations had been sent to the government for its approval.

“The question of sending the regulations to government does not arise
as they are an internal matter.”

Some of the points in the SIC regulations and the counterpoints of the
activists:

* Rule 6 mentions a flexible two to four-week summer break and a
two-week winter break. Activists say: This lacks clarity. Besides,
this is unjustified when over 10,000 cases are pending with the SIC.

* Rule 8(1) (a) makes it mandatory for the appellant/complainant to
furnish his personal details, apart from name and address.
Activists say: Personal details are not specified.

* Rule 11(5) (b) says that the registrar can cancel cases that are not
maintainable due to “some” reasons.
Activists say: The word “some” is ambiguous.

* Rule 12 dealing with filing of counter by the public information
officer gives a bunch of relaxations to the PIO as it says, “after
getting the complaint/appeal, the PIO shall submit his counter (if
there is any) along with related documents.
Activists say: Why the words “if there is any” when according to Rule
10, the complainant/appellant has to send a copy of complaint/appeal
to the PIO and compulsorily furnish attested copies to the SIC while
filing the complaint/appeal

* Rule 12 says during hearing in commission, “generally” the PIO shall
present his view.
Activists say: Why is this not mandatory?

* Rule 15(5) says the commission shall pass order on the merits of the case.
Activists say: The term “speaking order” has not been used, which is
mandatory as per Section 4(1)d of the Act.
================================================================================\
==========================================
at that time acting scic sri gyanendra sharma assured us that any
decision in this effect shall be taken only after taking us in full
confidance. we had submitted our objections on these regulations to
the scic. but now the website of upsic shows it as final though the
sic says these r draft regulations.

now since the issue has surfaced once again , i request all fello
rti-activists of uttar pradesh to raise the issue without any further
delay lest rti act is deprived of its soul in uttar pradesh.

================================================================================\
==========================================

The  SCIC regulations can be accessed at given link

http://upsic.up.nic.in/

http://rtiact2005india4u.hpage.com/up_sic_rules__final_copy__77116916.html

उत्‍तर प्रदेश राज्‍य सूचना
आयोग (संचालन) नियमावली, 2008

	 सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम, 2005 की
धारा 15(4) और दूसरे प्रा‍वधानों
के
तहत दी गयी शक्तियों का प्रयोग
करते हुए उत्‍तर प्रदेश राज्‍य
सूचना आयोग
के मुख्‍य सूचना आयुक्‍त,
राज्‍य सूचना आयोग के विभिन्‍न
मामलों के
प्रभावी संचालन हेतु
नि‍म्‍नलिखित नियम बनाते हैं:-

अध्‍याय:-1 संक्षिप्‍त नाम और
प्रारंभ
1. नाम एवं प्रारम्‍भ तिथि:  अ. इस
नियमावली को राज्‍य सूचना आयोग
(संचालन) नियमावली
2008 के नाम से पुकारा जायेगा। आ.
यह नियमावली उस तिथि से
प्रभावशील होगी
जो मुख्‍य सूचना
आयुक्‍त अलग से आदेश जारी करके
तय करेंगे।
इ.  जो अपीलें/शिकायतें इस
नियमावली के प्रभावी होने के
पहले
पंजीकृत की जा चुकी हैं और
जिनका निस्‍तारण हो चुका है
उनके अलावा शेष पर
यह नियमावली लागू होगी। पूर्व
में पंजीकृत् मामले तत्‍समय
प्रभावी नियमों
के तहत सुने एवं निस्‍तारित किए
जाएंगे। यह नियमावली उन पुराने
वादों पर
भी लागू होगी जिनमें आगे कोई
कार्यवाही प्रस्‍तावित की गई
हो।

2. परिभाषाएं: इस नियमावली में
प्रयुक्‍त शब्‍दों और
संज्ञाओं की परिभाषा
इस प्रकार होगी:-
(i) ^अधिनियम* का तात्‍पर्य सूचना
का अधिकार अधिनियम, 2005 से होगा।
(ii) ^अपीलकर्ता* की श्रेणी में
शिकायतकर्ता भी शामिल होगा
(iii) ^आयोग* का तात्‍पर्य राज्‍य
सूचना आयोग से है।
(iv) ^मुख्‍य सूचना आयुक्‍त* से
तात्‍पर्य राज्‍य मुख्‍य
सूचना आयुक्‍त से होगा।
(v) ^जसूधि* का तात्‍पर्य जन सूचना
अधिकारी से है] जो अधिनियम की
धारा
5(1) के तहत नियुक्‍त किया गया हो
और इसमें 5(2) के तहत नियुक्‍त
सहायक
जन सूचना अधिकारी भी शामिल
होगा। इसकी परिभाषा में
निम्‍नलिखित भी शामिल
होंगे।
अ.  वह अधिकारी जिसके पास धारा 5(4)
के तहत सूचना सम्‍बंधी आवेदन
स्‍थानांतरित किया गया हो,
आ. वह अधिकारी जिसके पास सूचना
सम्‍बंधी आवेदन जसूधि ने
स्‍वीक`ति या
निस्‍तारण हेतु भेजा हो और,
इ. कोई जन सूचना अधिकारी
नियुक्‍त या अधिसूचित न होने की
स्थिति में लोक
प्राधिकारी का प्रमुख।
(vi) ^निर्णय* से तात्‍पर्य किसी
विषय पर आदेश-निर्देश और किसी
विषय पर
निष्‍कर्ष से होगा।
(vii) ^प्रथम अपीलीय अधिकारी* से
तात्‍पर्य इस अधिनियम के तहत
संबंधित
लोक प्राधिकkरी द्वारा नियुDr
किये गये विभागीय अपीलीय
अधिकारी से होगा।
यदि किसी लोक प्राधिकारी
द्वारा किसी प्रथम या विभागीय
अपील अधिकारी की
नियुक्ति न की गई हो तो वह उस लोक
प्राधिकारी का प्रमुख भी हो
सकता है।
(viii) ^सूचना आयुक्‍त* से
तात्‍पर्य इस कानून के तहत
नियुक्ति किये गये
राज्‍य सूचना आयुक्‍त से होगा।
(ix)   ^विहित* का तात्‍पर्य
अधिनियम के तहत और इस नियमावली
में विहित
नियमों से होगा
(x) ^अभिलेखों* का तात्‍पर्य उन
कागजातों से होगा] जो अपील या
शिकायत के
संबंध में उभयपक्षों द्वारा
प्रतिउततर, टिप्‍पणh, प्रकियाओं
और
तर्को-वितर्को के दौरान दिए
जाएं या अन्‍यथा प्रस्‍तुत
किये जाएं या बाद
में दिए जाने वाले अभिलेख या
मौखिक साक्ष्‍य से होगा जो
विभिन्‍न
निर्णयों, आदेशों आदि के दौरान
दिए जाएं।
(xi) ^रजिस्‍ट्री* से तात्‍पर्य
आयोग की रजिस्‍ट्री से होगा
जिसमें
रजिस्‍ट्रार, अतिरिक्‍त
रजिस्‍ट्रार, संयुक्‍त
रजिस्‍ट्रार, उप
रजिस्‍ट्रार या सहायक
रजिस्‍ट्रार शामिल होगें।
(xii) ^रजिस्‍ट्रार* से तात्‍पर्य
आयोग के रजिस्‍ट्रार से होगाA
इसमें
अतिरिक्‍त रजिस्‍ट्रार,
संयुक्‍त रजिस्‍ट्रार, उप
रजिस्‍ट्रार और सहायक
रजिस्‍ट्रार शामिल होंगे।
(xiii) ^नियमावली* से तात्‍पर्य
नियमित नियमावली से होगा।
(xiv) ^प्रतिनिधि* से तात्‍पर्य
विभिन्‍न पक्षों की ओर से या
उनकीh ओर से
अधिकृत किये गये व्‍यक्ति से
होगा] इसमें अधिवक्‍ता शामिल
होंगे।
(xv) ‘प्रतिवादी’ से तात्‍पर्य
हस्‍तक्षेप करने वाले पक्ष,
द्वितीय पक्ष
व आयोग द्वारा बनाए गए पक्ष से
होगा।
(xvi) ‘नियम’ से तात्‍पर्य राज्‍य
सरकार द्वारा इस अधिनियम की
धारा 27 के
अंतर्गत बनkये गये नियमों से
होगा।
(xvii) ‘धारा’ से तात्‍पर्य इस
अधिनियम में शामिल धारा से
होगा।
(xviii) ऐसे शब्‍दों और
अभिव्‍यक्तियों का जिन्‍हें
यहां परिभाषित नहीं
किया गया है] उनका तात्‍पर्य इस
अधिनियम या यहां बनाये जा रहे
नियमों के
अंतर्गत दी गयी परिभाषाओं से
होगा।

अध्‍याय:-2 आयोग के अधिकारी और
उनके कर्तव्‍य

3. रजिस्‍ट्रार की नियुक्ति
आयोग की ओर से मुख्‍य सूचना
आयुक्‍त को यह अधिकार होगा कि
वह आयोग में
रजिस्‍ट्रार और अतिरिक्‍त
रजिस्‍टा्र के पद पर कार्य करने
के लिए माननीय
उच्‍च न्‍यायालय से जिला
न्‍यायाधीश अथवा अपर जिला
न्‍यायाधीश के समकक्ष
न्‍यायाधिकारियों को आयोग में
प्रतिनियुक्ति पर भेजने हेतु
अनुरोध करे।
आयोग अतिरिक्‍त रजिस्‍ट्रार,
संयुक्‍त रजिस्‍ट्रार, उप
रजिस्‍ट्रार या
सहायक रजिस्‍ट्रार के पद पर
कार्य करने के लिए भी अपने
अधिकारियों में से
किन्‍हीं को नामित कर सकेगा और
उक्‍त रजिस्‍ट्रारों को अपने
कर्तव्‍यों
का निर्वहन के लिए आवश्‍यक
कर्मी उपलब्‍ध करायेगा।
4. रजिस्‍ट्रार की शक्तियां और
कर्तव्‍य
(i) रजिस्‍ट्रार आयोग के न्‍याय
पक्ष के मामले मेंa मुख्‍य
कार्यकारी
अधिकारी होगा, कोई भी पत्राचार
जो उन्‍हें संबोधित किया
जायेगा वह आयोग
को संबोधित पत्राचार माना
जायेगा और वह सभी न्‍यायिक
मामलों में आयोग का
प्रतिनिधित्‍व करेगा।
(ii) रजिस्‍ट्रार मुख्‍य राज्‍य
सूचना आयुक्‍त के नियंत्रण एवं
अधीक्षण
में अपने कर्तव्‍यों का
निर्वहन करेगा।
(iii) आयोग के सभी अभिलेख
रजिस्‍ट्रार के नियंत्रण में
होंगे।
(iv) आयोग की अधिकृत मोहर
रजिस्‍ट्रार के नियंत्रणाधीन
होगी।
(v) मुख्‍य राज्‍य सूचना आयुक्‍त
के सामान्‍य व विशेष निर्देशों
के तहत
आयोग की अधिकृत मोहर विभिन्‍न
आदेशों, समन और रजिस्‍ट्रार के
अधीन अन्‍य
प्रक्रियाओं में लगायी जा
सकेगी।
(vi) आयोग की अधिकृत मोहर आयोग
द्वारा जारी की जाने वाली किसी
प्रमाणित
प्रतिलिपि पर नहीं लगायी
जायेगी सिवा ऐसे मामलों के
जिनमेंa स्‍वयं
रजिस्‍ट्रार इसके लिए आदेश
करें।
(vii) रजिस्‍ट्रार का कार्यालय
सभी आवेदन, अपील, प्रतिउत्‍तर,
उत्‍तर और
अन्‍य अभिलेख प्राप्‍त करेगा।
(viii) सभी अपीलों और शिकायतों को
पंजीकृत किये जाने के पूर्व
तत्‍संबंधी
मामलों में रजिस्‍ट्रार के
आदेशानुसार उनकी जांच-पड़ताल
होगी।
(ix) रजिस्‍ट्रार को यह अधिकार
होगा कि वह किसी भी आवेदन, अपील,
प्रतिउततर, उत्‍तर जो आयोग के
समक्ष प्रस्‍तुत किये जायेगें]
उनमेंsa इस
नियमावली के तहत आवश्‍यक
संशोधन  के आदेश कर सकेंगे।
(x) रजिस्‍ट्रार विभिन्‍न
अपीलों, शिकायतों अथवा दूसरी
सुनवाई के मामलों
में तारीख तय करेंगे और सुनवाई
के लिए सूचीबद्ध मामलों की
काWWजलिस्‍ट
तैयार करके उसे अग्रिम रूप से
अधिसूचित करेंगे।
(xi) रजिस्‍ट्रार को अधिकार होगा
कि वे प्रतिउत्‍तर, उत्‍तर आदि
दाखिल
किये जाने के संबंध में
अतिरिक्‍त समय दिए जाने के
अनुरोध पर फैसला
करेंa।
(xii) रजिस्‍ट्रार, निर्धारित
शुल्‍क लेने के बाद किसी भी
पक्ष को आयोग
के तत्‍संबंधी अभिलेखों का
निरीक्षण करा सकेगें और यह
कार्यवाही आयोग के
किसी अधिकारी की देख-रेख और
उपस्थिति में होगी।
(xiii) विभिन्‍न मामलों से संबंधित
पक्षों को अभिलेखों की अधिकृत
या
प्रमाणित प्रतियां केवल
रजिस्‍ट्रार के अधिकार के तहत
दी जायेगी।
(xiv) रजिस्‍ट्रार आयोग के सभी
निर्णयों, आदेशों व निर्देशों
को संबंधित
पक्षों को अवगत करायेंगे और उन
पर हस्‍ताक्षर करके उन्‍हें
प्रमाणित
करेंगे। इस तरह दिये गये सभी
अभिलेख आयोग की तरफ से दिये गये
अभिलेख माने
जायेंगे।
(xv) आयोग द्वारा जारी किये गये
सभी आदेशों, निर्देशों व
निर्णयों के
क्रियान्‍वयन की जिम्‍मेदारी
रजिस्‍ट्रार की होगी और वह इस
संबंध में सभी
आवश्‍यक कदम उठाने के लिए
अधिकृत होगें।
(xvi) रजिस्‍ट्रार यह सुनिश्चित
करेंगे कि अपीलों, शिकायतों और
दुसरी
सुनवाई के दौरान आयोग में उचित
व अनुकूल माहौल रहे और इसके लिए
वे सभी
आवश्‍यक कदम उठा सकेंगे।
(xvii) रजिस्‍ट्रार इस नियमावली के
तहत उन्‍हें सौंपे गये सभी
दायित्‍यों
और अधिका‍रों का निर्वहन
करेंगे और मुख्‍य सूचना
आयुक्‍त इस संबंध में
समय समय पर उन्‍हें निर्देश दे
सकेंगे।
(xviii) रजिस्‍ट्रार सभी राज्‍य
सूचना आयुक्‍तों को उनके
कर्तव्‍यों के
निष्‍पादन में सहायता करेंगे।
(xix) अतिरिक्‍त रजिस्‍ट्रार को
रजिस्‍ट्रार की सभी शक्तियां
प्राप्‍त
होंगी और वह रजिस्‍ट्रार के
दिशा निर्देशों के अधीन कार्य
करेंगे।
(xx) रजिस्‍ट्रार इस नियमावली के
अधीन उल्लिखित दायित्‍वों व
कार्यों का
निष्‍पादन अथवा संपादन
सुनिश्चित करने के लिए मुख्‍य
राज्‍य सूचना
आयुक्‍त की स्‍वीकृति से
संयुक्‍त रजिस्‍ट्रार, उप
रजिस्‍ट्रार व सहायक
रजिस्‍ट्रार को कोई भी कार्य
सौंप सकेंगे।
अध्‍याय-3 कार्य के घण्‍टे और
अवकाश इत्‍यादि

5. मुख्‍य राज्‍य सूचना आयुक्‍त
के आदेश के अधीन आयोग का
कार्यालय सभी
कार्य दिवसों में प्रात: 09:30 बजे
से सायंकाल 06:00 बजे तक खुला रहेगा
और अपराह्नन 01:00 बजे से 02:00 बजे के
बीच भोजनावकाश रहेगा।
6. मुख्‍य राज्‍य सूचना आयुक्‍त
के निर्देशों के चलते आयोग में
जून-जुलाई
के बीच 2 से 4 सप्‍ताह का
ग्रीष्‍म अवकाश और दिसम्‍बर से
जनवरी में 2
सप्‍ताह का शीतकालीन अवकाश
घोषित किया जा सकेगा, लेकिन
आयोग का कार्यालय
उक्‍त अवकाश के दौरान
राजपत्रित अवकाश के अलावा बाकी
दिनों में खुला
रहेगा। अवकाश के दिनों में
अविलंबनीय व आवश्‍यक कार्यों
के निष्‍पादन के
लिए मुख्‍य  सूचना आयुक्‍त
आवश्‍यक उपाय करेंगे।
अध्‍याय-4  पंजीकरण, निस्‍तारण
अथवा अपील की वापसी
7. पंजीकरण एवं निस्‍तारण :
  	 अपील अथवा शिकायत इत्‍यादि के
संबंध में प्राप्‍त अपील,
शिकायत,
आवेदन, वक्‍तव्‍य, प्रतिउत्‍तर,
उत्‍तर इत्‍यादि अथवा कोई भी
अन्‍य
अभिलेख जो आयोग के समक्ष दायर
किया जायेगा वह या तो टाइप किया
गया या
मुद्रित होगा अथवा साफ-साफ और
स्‍पष्‍टत: पठनीय विधि से और
सुसंस्‍कृत
भाषा में लिखा जायेगा और उसमें
किसी तरह की असभ्‍य या गाली
गलौज वाली
भाषा का प्रयोग नहीं किया
जायेगा। अपील, शिकायत अथवा
आवेदन जो भी आयोग के
समक्ष लिये जायेंगे वह दो
प्रतियां में होंगे और वे पेपर
बुक के फार्म
में देय होंगे।


8. अपील/शिकायत की विषय वस्‍तु:
1- आयोग के समक्ष प्रस्‍तुत की
जानी वाली अपील/शिकायत के साथ
निम्‍नलिखित अभिलेख/सूचनाएं
संलग्‍न किया जाना आवश्‍यक है:-
यथा,
अ.  अपीलकर्ता/शिकायतकर्ता का
नाम पता और दूसरा व्‍यक्तिगत
विवरण।   आ.
	 उस जन सूचना अधिकारी का नाम व
पता जिसके खिलाफ अधिनियम
         	 की धारा 18 के अंतर्गत शिकायत
की जा रही है अथवा प्रथम अपीलीय
अधिकारी का नाम व पता जिसके
खिलाफ धारा 19(1) के अंतर्गत
द्वितीय  अपील
की जा रही है।
इ. उस निर्णय का विवरण, जिसमें
उसकी संख्‍या व दिनांक शामिल
होगा,
जिसके कि खिलाफ अपील की जा रही
है।
ई. अपील/शिकायत के कारणों का
संक्षिप्‍त विवरण। उ. यदि अपील
या शिकायत
सूचना देने से इंकार किये जाने
या सूचना न
       दिए जाने के खिलाफ की जा रही
है तो उक्‍त जन सूचना अधिकारी
को
      	 दिये गये आवेदन का विवरण
अथवा प्रथम अपीलीय अधिकारी के
समक्ष
       की गयी  अपील का विवरण।    ऊ.
अपील/शिकायत के माध्‍यम से
क्‍या
राहत मांगी जा रही है या क्‍या
       प्रार्थना की जा रही है, उसका
विवरण।
ए. उक्‍त प्रार्थना/राहत मांगने
का आधार। ऐ. 
अपीलकर्ता/शिकायतकर्ता
द्वारा प्रस्‍तुत विवरण को
स्‍वप्रमाणित किया
जाना। ओ.  ऐसा कोई विवरण जिससे
आयोग को अपील/शिकायत के
निस्‍तारण
में  मदद मिले।
2- दर्ज की जाने वाली शिकायत के
साथ आवश्‍यक रूप से नत्‍थी किए
जाने वाले
अभिलेख/सूचनाएं उसी तरह से दी
जाएंगी जैसी कि अपील के मामले
में दी जानी
होती हैं।

9. अपील/शिकायत के साथ नत्‍थी
किये जाने वाले अभिलेख:
आयोग के समक्ष की जानी वाली
प्रत्‍येक अपील/शिकायत के साथ
निम्‍नलिखित
अभिलेख/दस्‍तावेज
स्‍वप्रमाणित करके भेजा जाना
अनिवार्य होगा:- अ. जन
सूचना अधिकारी के समक्ष दी गयी
सूचना संबंधी आवेदन और उसके साथ
जमा किये गये शुल्‍क का प्रमाण।
आ. यदि उक्‍त जन सूचना अधिकारी
द्वारा
उक्‍त आवेदन पर कोई आदेश/निर्णय
दिया
गया  है तो उसकी प्रतिलिपि।
इ. प्रथम अपीलीय अधिकारी के
समक्ष दायर की गयी अपील की
प्रति एवं
  उसे दायर किये जाने का प्रमाण।
ई. प्रथम अपीलीय अधिकारी द्वारा
यदि संबंधित अपील पर कोई निर्णय
या
    आदेश जारी किये गये हैं तो
उसकी प्रतिलिपि।
उ. वे दस्‍तावेज/अभिलेख जिसके
आधार पर अपील/शिकायत की जा रही
है।
ऊ. अपीलकर्ता/शिकायतकर्ता का यह
प्रमाणपत्र कि जिस विषय पर वह
अपील या
शिकायत कर रहा है उसके बारे में
उसने पहले कोई अपील या शिकायत
आयोग में
नहीं की है और न ही उसके संबंध
में किसी न्‍यायालय अथवा किसी
न्‍यायाधिरण
के समक्ष कोई मामला दायर है या
उनके समक्ष विचाराधीन है।
ए. अपील/शिकायत के साथ नत्‍थी
किये जा रहे अभिलेखों की सूची।
ऐ.  अपील/शिकायत पर हुई
कार्यवाही/सुनवाई आदि का
तिथिवार विवरण
जो सभी अभिलेखों के ऊपर नत्‍थी
किया जाये।

10. अपील/शिकायत की प्रतियों का
दिया जाना
आयोग के समक्ष कोई भी अपील या
शिकायत दर्ज कराने के पूर्व
परंतु यदि जो
शिकायतकर्ता धारा 18 के अंतर्गत
शिकायत करता है और उसे संबंधित
जनसूचना
अधिकारी अथवा प्रथम अपीलीय
अधिकारी का नाम या पता यदि
ज्ञात नहीं है तो
अपनी शिकायत लोक प्राधिकारी के
अथवा उसके प्रमुख के कार्यालय
में देगा और
उक्‍त कार्यालय में अपनी
शिकायत दर्ज करने का प्रमाण
आयोग के समक्ष देगा।

11¬. अपील/शिकायत का
प्रस्‍तुतीकरण और उसकी
दस्‍तावेजी जॉच:
1- आयोग का रजिस्‍ट्रार या उसकी
तरफ से अधिकृत कर्मी
अपील/शिकायत
प्राप्‍त करेगा और यह देखेगा
कि:-
(अ) क्‍या अपील/शिकायत
निर्धारित प्रारूप के अनुसार
की गयी है और
(आ) सभी विवरण/दस्‍तावेज
अपीलकर्ता/शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा
स्‍वप्रमाणित
   किये गये हैं और कि
(इ) अपील/शिकायत इस नियमावली के
विभिन्‍न नियमों के तहत दायर
की गयी है।
2- रजिस्‍ट्रार यह भी सुनिश्चित
करेगा कि अपील/शिकायत के साथ
निम्‍नलिखित
दस्‍तावेज व उनकी
प्रतिलिपियां निर्धारित विधि
से संलग्‍न की गयी हैं:-
(अ) सूचना संबंधित आवेदन
(आ) सूचना संबंधित आवेदन जमा
किये जाने की रसीद (इ) जमा की गयी
फीस,
अतिरिक्‍त शुल्‍क के भुगतान का
प्रमाण (यदि कोई हो)
(ई) संबंधित जन सूचना अधिकारी
द्वारा दिये गये
आदेश/निर्णय/उत्‍तर की
प्रतिलिपि (यदि कोई हो)
(उ) प्रथम अपीलीय अधिकारी के
समक्ष की गयी अपील और प्रथम
अपीलीय अधिकारी
द्वारा जारी किये गये
आदेश/निर्णय (यदि कोई हो)
3- रजिस्‍ट्रार या अधिकृत कर्मी
प्रत्‍येक अपील/शिकायत की जांच
पड़ताल
करेगा और यह सुनिश्चित करेगा
कि,
(अ) अपील/शिकायत बाकायदा
प्रमाणित हो और उसकी प्रति
वांछित
             संख्‍या में जमा की गयी है।
(आ) जमा किये गये सभी दस्‍तावेज
पृष्‍ठांकित किये गये हैं और वे
अपीलकर्ता/शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा
प्रमाणित हैं।
(इ) जो दस्‍तावेज जमा किये जा रहे
हैं वे स्‍पष्‍ट रूप से लिखे
गये हैं और
       पठनीय हैं।
4- रजिस्‍ट्रार या अधिकृत कर्मी
ऐसी किसी अपील/शिकायत को वापस
लौटा देगा
जो उपरोक्‍त विधि/प्रारूप के
तहत प्रस्‍तुत नहीं की गयी है।
वह उक्‍त
अपील/शिकायत को दोबारा
निर्धारित प्रारूप पर दर्ज
किये जाने की अनुमति दे
सकेगा।
5- रजिस्‍ट्रार को यह अधिकार
होगा कि वह किसी अपील/शिकायत को
खारिज कर दे यदि,
(अ)   वह कालातीत है या (आ) वह
किन्‍ही कारणवश पोषणीय नहीं
है। या (इ) वह
इस नियमावली में निर्धारित
नियमों के अंतर्गत नहीं आती है
परन्‍तु शर्त
यह होगी कि कोई भी अपील/शिकायत
रजिस्‍ट्री द्वारा तब तक खारिज
नहीं की
जायेगी जब तक
अपीलकर्ता/शिकायतकर्ता को
उसके बारे में अपनी बात कहने का
मौका नहीं दिया जाता।
अपील/शिकायत की पोषणीयता के
संबंध में रजिस्‍ट्र।र
का जो निर्णय होगा, अंतिम माना
जायेगा।
6- वे सारी अपीलें/शिकायतें जो
अस्‍वीकार या वापस नहीं की जाती
हैं और जो
नियमत: पायी जाती है उन्‍हें
विधिवत् पंजीकृत किया जायेगा
और प्रत्‍येक
को एक विशिष्‍ट नंबर दिया
जायेगा।
7- रजिस्‍ट्रार या आयोग द्वारा
अधिकृत कोई अन्‍य अधिकारी
प्रत्‍येक
अपील/शिकायत पर उस तारीख का
अंकन करेगा जिस तारीख को वह
प्रस्‍तुत की गई
होगी।
8- सभी अपीलों/शिकायतों का
अलग-अलग नंबर होगा ताकि उन्‍हें
आसानी से
चिन्हित किया जा सके।
9- यदि किसी अपील/शिकायत में कोई
खामी या कमी पायी जाती है जो
तकनीकी हो
तो रजिस्‍ट्रार संबंधित
अपीलकर्ता/शिकायतकर्ता से
अपनी उपस्थिति में ही
खामी/कमी को दुरुस्‍त करा सकता
है अथवा उसे दो सप्‍ताह का समय
इसके लिए
दिया जा सकता है। यदि ऐसी
कमी/खामी वाली अपील/शिकायत डाक
से प्राप्‍त हो
तो रजिस्‍ट्रार द्वारा
अपीलकर्ता/शिकायतकर्ता को इसे
दुरुस्‍त करने के
लिए लिखेगा और इसके लिए तीन
सप्‍ताह का समय उसे देगा।
10- यदि अपीलकर्ता/शिकायतकर्ता
उक्‍त खामी/कमी को दी गयी
समयावधि में
दुरुस्‍त नहीं करता है तो उक्‍त
अपील/शिकायत वापस ली हुई मानी
जायेगी।
11- यदि अपील/शिकायत जो अन्‍यथा
त्रुटिपूर्ण होगी या
निर्धारित प्रारूप
के अनुकूल नहीं होगी तो उसे
खारिज कर दिया जायेगा। परंतु
यदि रजिस्‍ट्रार
चाहे तो अपने विवेकानुसार
शिकायतकर्ता/अपीलकर्ता को
उचित या निर्धारित
प्रारूप पर नये आवेदन देने की
अनुमति दे सकता है।
12- किसी अपील/शिकायत को उस सूरत
में कभी भी  खारिज किया जा सकेगा
जब इस
बात की पुष्टि हो जाय कि उसके
साथ नत्‍थी कोई भी अभिलेख या
दस्‍तावेज या
कोई भी अन्‍य सम्‍बंधित
सामग्री सत्‍य से परे है,
भ्रामक है, अर्धसत्‍य
है, उसमें तथ्‍यों को छिपाने की
कोशिश की गई है।

12. जनसूचना अधिकारी/प्रथम
अपीलीय अधिकारी द्वारा
प्रतिउत्‍तर दाखिल किया
जाना: अपील/शिकायत की प्राप्ति
के बाद जनसूचना अधिकारी/प्रथम
अपीलीय
अधिकारी अपना प्रतिउत्‍तर (यदि
कोई हो) सम्‍बंधित दस्‍तावेजों
के सहित
दाखिल करेगा और इसकी प्रतिलिपि
अपीलकर्ता/शिकायतकर्ता को
उसके या उसके
लोक प्राधिकारी द्वारा भेजी
जायेगी। आयोग में सुनवाई के समय
सामान्‍य तौर
पर जन सूचना अधिकारी अथवा प्रथम
अपील अधिकारी (जैसा कि मामला हो)
ही अपना
पक्ष रखेंगे। यदि किसी कारणवश
वे आयोग के समक्ष उ‍पस्थित न हो
पा रहे हों
तो अपने समकक्ष या वरीयता क्रम
में अपने से एक क्रम नीचे के
अधिकारी को
पूरे विवरण के साथ आयोग में भेज
सकते हैं लेकिन उनके लिए इस
सम्‍बंध में
यह स्‍पष्‍टीकरण देना
अनिवार्य होगा कि वे आयोग के
समक्ष क्‍यों नहीं
उपस्थित हो पा रहे हैं।

13. सूचना आयुक्‍त के समक्ष
अपील/शिकायत का प्रस्‍तुतीकरण:
1- कोई भी अपील/शिकायत या
विभिन्‍न अपीलें या शिकायतें
जो एक निर्धारित
श्रेणी की हों, उन्‍हें एक
राज्‍य सूचना आयुक्‍त, दो
राज्‍य सूचना
आयुक्‍त की खण्‍डपीठ अथवा तीन
या अधिक आयुक्‍तों की पूर्ण
खण्‍डपीठ
द्वारा सुना जायेगा और यह
मुख्‍य सूचना आयुक्‍त के
विशिष्‍ट या सामान्‍य
आदेश के तहत होगा जो वे इस आशय के
लिए समय-समय पर जारी करेंगे।
2- यदि किसी अपील/शिकायत की
सुनवाई के दौरान सूचना आयुक्‍त
की एकल पीठ यह
समझती है कि प्रश्‍नगत मामले से
ही सम्‍बंधित कोई वाद किसी
अन्‍य आयुक्‍त
द्वारा सुना जा रहा है या उनके
निर्णयाधीन है तो वह इसे
सम्‍बंधित
आयुक्‍त को संदर्भित करने के
लिए मुख्‍य सूचना आयुक्‍त को
भेज सकेगी। उकल
पीठ यदि समझती है कि प्रश्‍नगत
वाद को किसी खण्‍डपीठ या पूर्ण
खण्‍डपीठ
द्वारा सुना जाना चाहिए तो वह
इस मामले को मुख्‍य सूचना
आयुक्‍त को
संदर्भित करेगी। तत्‍पश्‍चात
ऐसी पीठ का गठन मुख्‍य राज्‍य
सूचना आयुक्‍त
द्वारा मामले की सुनवाई और
निस्‍तारण के लिए किया जायेगा।
3- इसी तरह यदि किसी मामले की
सुनवाई के समय खण्‍डपीठ यह
समझती है कि
मामले को पूर्ण खण्‍डपीठ
द्वारा सुना जाना चाहिए या फिर
पूर्ण पीठ के समझ
सुनवाई के दौरान वह इस
निष्‍कर्ष पर पहुंचती है कि इसे
और बड़ी पीठ
द्वारा सुना जाना चाहिए तो वह
मामले को मुख्‍य सूचना आयुक्‍त
को संदर्भित
करेंगे और तत्‍पश्‍चात वे
मामले की सुनवाई और उसके
निस्‍तारण के लिए पीठ
का गठन करेंगे।

14. अपील/शिकायत में संशोधन व
उसका वापस लिया जाना:
आयोग अपने विवेकानुसार किसी भी
अपील या शिकायत में संशोधन किये
जाने या
उसे वापस लिये जाने का अनुरोध
यदि वह लिखित रूप में किया गया
हो तो उसे
अपने विवेकानुसार स्‍वीकार कर
सकता है। परंतु कोई अनुरोध या
प्रार्थना तब
स्‍वीकार नहीं की जायेगी जब
संबंधित मामले में अंतिम
सुनवाई हो चुकी हो
या कोई आदेश या निर्णय जारी कर
दिया गया हो।

15. अपीलकर्ता/शिकायतकर्ता की
व्‍यक्तिगत उपस्थिति:
1- अपीलकर्ता/शिकायतकर्ता को
सुनवाई की तारीख के बारे में कम
से कम सात
दिन पूर्व सूचना दी जानी चाहिए।
2- अपीलकर्ता/शिकायतकर्ता अपने
विवेकानुसार सुनवाई के दौरान
स्‍वयं
उपस्थित हो सकता है अथवा अपने
किसी अधिकृत प्रतिनिधि को
उपस्थित कर सकता
है अथवा वह अनुपस्थित भी रह
सकता है।
अपीलकर्ता/शिकायतकर्ता यदि
आयोग में
सुनवाई के समय अनुपस्थित रहने
का विकल्‍प चुनता है तो उसे
अपनी यह मंशा
अपनी मूल शिकायत/अपील में लिखित
रूप में जाहिर कर देनी चाहिए।
3- यदि आयोग इस नतीजे पर पहुंचता
है कि ऐसी प‍रिस्थितियां हैं,
जिन में
अपीलकर्ता/शिकायतकर्ता को
आयोग के समक्ष सुनवाई से दूर
रखा जा रहा है तो
अपीलकर्ता/शिकायतकर्ता को
मामले में अंतिम निर्णय से
पूर्व सुनवाई का एक
और अवसर दे सकते हैं अथवा इस
मामले में ऐसी कोई कार्यवाही कर
सकता है
जिसे वह उचित समझे।
4- अपीलकर्ता/शिकायतकर्ता आयोग
में अपने पक्ष के
प्रस्‍तुतीकरण के समय
किसी भी  व्‍यक्ति की सहायता ले
सकता है और यह व्‍यक्ति
अधिवक्‍ता के
अलावा भी कोई हो सकता है।
5- यदि अपीलकर्ता/शिकायतकर्ता
बिना किसी पूर्व सूचना के आयोग
में सुनवाई
के समय अनुपस्थित रहता है तो
आयोग प्रस्‍तुत वाद में
एकपक्षीय निर्णय
देने से पूर्व उसे अपना पक्ष
प्रस्‍तुत करने का एक और अवसर
दे सकता है।
लेकिन दूसरी सुनवाई के समय भी
अपीलकर्ता/शिकायतकर्ता बिना
किसी सूचना के
अनुपस्थित रहता है तो आयोग
गुणदोष के आधार पर वाद पर अपना
निर्णय देगा।
6- यदि वाद की दो लगातार सुनवाई
के समय दोनों ही पक्ष बिना किसी
सूचना के
अनुपस्थित रहते हैं तो आयोग या
तो इस आदेश के साथ कि दोनों ही
पक्षों की
दिलचस्‍पी प्रस्‍तुत वाद में
नहीं रह गई है, उसे खारिज कर
सकेगा या फिर
वह प्रतिवादी की अनिवार्य
उपस्थिति के लिए सम्‍बंधित जन
सूचना  अधिकारी
या लोक प्राधिकारी के किसी
अन्‍य वरिष्‍ठ अधिकारी को
आवश्‍यक आदेश जारी
कर सकेगा और वाद के अंतिम
निस्‍तारण के लिए एक और तारीख
मुकर्रर कर
सकेगा।
7- विचाराधीन वाद में जब दोनों ही
पक्ष उपस्थित हों और आयोग यदि
मामले को
किसी अन्‍य तिथि को सुने जाने
का निश्‍चय करे तो सुनवाई की
अगली तिथि का
निर्धारण आयोग के उस दिन दिए गए
आदेश का हिस्‍सा होगा और इसकी
जानकारी
देने के लिए किसी भी पक्ष को अलग
से कोई नोटिस जारी नहीं की
जाएगी।

16. सुनवाई की तिथि को घोषित किया
जाना:  आयोग द्वारा किसी भी
अपील/शिकायत की सुनवाई की तारीख
और स्‍थान की सूचना संबंधित
पक्ष को इस
तरह से देगा जैसा कि मुख्‍य
राज्‍य सूचना आयुक्‍त अपने
सामान्‍य या
विशिष्‍ट आदेश द्वारा
निर्देशित करेंगे।

17. सुनवाई का स्‍थगन:  कोई भी
अपीलकर्ता/शिकायतकर्ता अथवा
कोई भी अन्‍य
पक्ष विधि सम्‍मत और उपयुक्‍त
कारणों से सुनवाई को स्‍थगित
किये जाने के
संबंध में आवेदन दे सकेगा जिस
पर आयोग जैसा उचित समझे आदेश
पारित कर
सकेगा।

18. आयोग के समक्ष साक्ष्‍य:
       अपील/शिकायत पर निर्णय  देते
समय आयोग:-      1- शपथ या शपथपत्र पर
मौखिक या लिखित साक्ष्‍य
संबंधित व्‍यक्ति या
       	 व्‍यक्तियों से ले सकेगा।     
2- संबंधित अभिलेख अथवा उसकी
प्रतिलिपियों का निरीक्षण व
जांच पड़ताल
       	 कर सकेगा।
3- अधिकृत अधिकारी के माध्‍यम से
मामले के विभिन्‍न
विवरणों/तथ्‍यों के
बारे में जांच पड़ताल कर सकेगा।
4- किसी भी जनसूचना अधिकारी,
सहायक
जनसूचना अधिकारी, अथवा उस
       	 विशिष्‍ट अधिकारी को, जिसने
प्रथम अपील का निस्‍तारण किया
हो अथवा
       ऐसे व्‍यक्ति या
व्‍यक्तियों जिनके खिलाफ
शिकायत की गयी हो उनको
      	 व्‍यक्तिगत रूप से सुन
सकेगा, एक्‍जामिन कर सकेगा अथवा
उनसे
       शपथ पत्र पर साक्ष्‍य
प्राप्‍त किए जा सकेंगे।
5- ऐसे तृतीय पक्ष को अथवा
हस्‍तक्षेप करने वाले को अथवा
किसी अन्‍य
व्‍यक्ति या व्‍यक्तियों को,
जिनका संबंधित मामले में
साक्ष्‍य आवश्‍यक या
प्रसांगिक हो, उन्‍हें
व्‍यक्तिगत रूप से सुन सकेगा,
उन्‍हें एक्‍जामिन कर
सकेगा अथवा शपथपत्र पर उनसे
साक्ष्‍य प्राप्‍त किया जा
सकेगा।


19. सम्‍मन जारी करना:
आयोग के समक्ष विभिन्‍न पक्षों
अथवा गवाहों की उपस्थिति अथवा
अभिलेख/दस्‍तावेज अथवा अन्‍य
चीजों को प्रस्‍तुत किये जाने
के बारे में
रजिस्‍ट्रार द्वारा आयोग की ओर
से समन जारी किया जायेगा और यह
कार्य आयोग
द्वारा निर्धारित विधि से किया
जायेगा।
20. जांच के आदेश:  किसी भी
अपील/शिकायत जो आयोग के समक्ष
विचाराधीन है
उसके संबंध में आयोग किसी जांच
का आदेश रजिस्‍ट्रार या अन्‍य
अधिकारी को
दे सकता है। रजिस्‍ट्रार या ऐसा
कोई अधिकारी जिसे जांच का काम
सौंपा
जाये, उसे सभी आवश्‍यक अधिकार
प्राप्‍त होंगे जिसमें
निम्‍नलिखित अधिकार
शामिल हैं:-
1- विभिन्‍न व्‍यक्तियों को समन
जारी करने और उन्‍हें उपस्थिति
के लिए बाध्‍य
करना
2- दस्‍तावेज अथवा अन्‍य
वस्‍तुओं को आयोग के समक्ष
प्रस्‍तुत करने के लिए
बाध्‍य करना
3- शपथ दिलाना/मौखिक साक्ष्‍य
लेना अथवा शपथ पत्र या लिखित
साक्ष्‍य
 	 प्राप्‍त करना।
4- दस्‍तावेजों का परीक्षण करना
और दस्‍तावेजों के
प्रस्‍तुतीकरण के लिए
आदेश देना तथा
5- किसी भी लोक प्राधिकारी से कोई
भी सार्वजनिक अभिलेख अथवा
दस्‍तावेज
      	 मांगना।
21. आयोग द्वारा हर्जाने का आदेश
दिया जाना: 	 आयोग मामले के
तथ्‍यों और
परिस्थिति के ध्‍यान में रखते
हुए विभिन्‍न
	 पक्षों को ऐसे हर्जाने के
भुगतान का आदेश दे सकता है जिसे
वह उचित समझे।
22. आदेश या निर्णयों को जारी
किया जाना:
1- आयोग के प्रत्‍येक
निर्णय/आदेश पर उस आयुक्‍त एवं
आयुक्‍तों द्वारा
हस्‍ताक्षर किया जायेगा और उसे
दिनांकित किया जाएगा जिसने
उससे सम्‍बंधित
अपील/शिकायत को सुना हो और उस पर 
निर्णय दिया हो। प्रत्‍येक
आदेश/निर्णय
को रजिस्‍टार द्वारा प्रमाणित
किया जाएगा।
2- आयोग का प्रत्‍येक
निर्णय/आदेश वाद की सुनवाई के
समय सुनाया जायेगा और
उसे लिख्रित रूप में
रजिस्‍ट्ार या किसी अन्‍य
अधिक़ृत अधिकारी द्वारा
प्रमाणित किया जाएगा।
3- कोई भी निर्णय/आदेश चाहे वह एक
सूचना आयुक्‍त या खण्‍डपीठ या
तीन से अधिक सूचना आयुक्‍तों की
पूर्ण पीठ द्वारा सुनाया
जायेगा, उसे
      आयोग द्वारा इस अधिनियम के
तहत जारी किया गया निर्णय/आदेश
माना जायेगा।
4- आयोग के निर्णय/आदेश की नकल
उक्‍त निर्णय या आदेश के पारित
होने के चार कार्य दिवस बाद
आयोग के कार्यालय से स्‍वत:
अथवा
अपने अधिकृत प्रतिनिधि के
माध्‍यम से अथवा खुद का पता
अंकित
टिकट लगा 10 गुणा 4 का खाली लिफाफा
आयोग के कार्यालय में जमा
करके डाक से प्राप्‍त किया जा
सकेगा।

23. अंतिम निर्णय:
1- आयोग द्वारा सुनाया गया
निर्णय/आदेश अंतिम होगा। 2-
हालांकि कोई भी
अपीलकर्ता/शिकायतकर्ता अथवा
परिवादी मुख्‍य सूचना  आयुक्‍त
को आवेदन देकर
उक्‍त निर्णय/आदेश पर
पुनर्विचार के लिए
पुनर्विचार याचिका (स्‍पेशल
लीव पिटीशन) दायर कर सकेगा और
इसमें वह उन
कारणों का उल्‍लेख करेगा जिन पर
उसकी प्रार्थना आधारित है।
3- मुख्‍य सूचना आयुक्‍त ऐसे
किसी प्रार्थना के मिलने के बाद
उस पर
     उचित आदेश जारी करेंगे और
उचित समझेंगे तो उसे
पुनर्विचार के लिए
सम्‍बंधित आयुक्‍त/आयुक्‍तों
या उनकी सम्‍बंधित पीठ, जिसने
वह आदेश दिया
हो, को पुनर्विचार के लिए
संदर्भित कर सकेंगे।

24. अपील/शिकायत की समाप्ति: 	   
किसी अपीलकर्ता/शिकायतकर्ता
की आयोग के
समक्ष विचाराधीन कार्यवाही
उसके निधन के बाद समाप्‍त मानी
जायेगी।












अध्‍याय-5 विविध:
25. मोहर एवं प्रतीक चिन्‍ह:  आयोग
की अधिकृत मोहर एवं प्रतीक
चिन्‍ह ऐसा
होगा जैसा कि आयोग स्‍वयं तैयार
करे।

26. आयोग की भाषा: 1- कोई भी
अपील/शिकायत आयोग के समक्ष
दस्‍तावेजों एवं
प्रतिलिपियों        के साथ
हिन्‍दी या अंग्रेजी में दायर
की जा सकेगी।
जो भी दस्‍तावेज संलग्‍न
किया जायेगा वह अंग्रेजी या
हिन्‍दी जिस भाषा में भी होगा
उसमें ही उसे
नत्‍थी करके भेजा जाये। यह
उपबंध, प्रतिउत्‍तर, उत्‍तर
अथवा आयोग के
समक्ष प्रस्‍तुत किये जाने
वाले किसी भी अभिलेख/दस्‍तावेज
पर लागू होगा।
2- आयोग की कार्यवाही हिन्‍दी
भाषा में सम्‍पादित की जायेगी।
                               ----- / -----
================================================================================\
==========================================
please help save rti .

best regards

urvashi sharma
9235169855
9369613513

#2393

From: urvashi sharma <rtimahilamanchup@...>
Date: Mon Nov 30, 2009 2:25 am
Subject: RTI activists demand removal of tainted SCIC

rtimahilaman...

Offline

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/lucknow/RTI-activists-demand-removal-of-\
tainted-SCIC-/articleshow/5282632.cms

RTI activists demand removal of tainted SCIC
TNN 30 November 2009, 03:51am IST

LUCKNOW: The RTI activists have approached Governor B L Joshi
individually and in small groups requesting him to take action against
the state chief


information commissioner (SCIC) Ranjit Singh Pankaj. A group of
activists handed over a memorandum to the governor office on Friday.

The opposition against Pankaj started after All India Right to
Information Awareness forum submitted a memorandum to governor a
fortnight back. The RTI activists and activist organisations wrote to
the governor to stop Pankaj from attending the office of the state
chief information commissioner in compliance to the section 17 of the
Right to Information Act, 2005.

"We are alarmed and distressed to learn that the present Uttar Pradesh
chief information commissioner, Sri Ranjit Singh Pankaj has been
penalised by the Allahabad high court," read the memorandum. The court
had slapped a fine of Rs 50,000 on him for "favouring a lessee
involved in illegal mining" during his previous stint as mining
secretary.

The memorandum further stated that "even earlier to his appointment as
SCIC, the charges of corruption were levelled against him while he was
the district magistrate of Gorakhpur in 2008. The charges were
corroborated by the divisional commissioner, P K Mohanty, who
conducted an inquiry into the selection process of 3,448 safai
karamcharis. The probe report, acting on which the government
cancelled all the appointments, held Pankaj responsible for violating
norms and handpicking men of his choice, who later committed
irregularities, including accepting bribes."

"We are compelled to come together, endorse the concerns as stated
above, recommend and demand immediate removal of SCIC from office,"
said the memorandum. "We have been assured of necessary action in the
matter within 15 days' time by the governor's office," said activist,
Urvashi Sharma. The RTI activists, including Neeraj Kumar, Dev Dutt
Sharma and Akhilesh Saxena, signed the memorandum.
--
urvashi sharma
9369613513
@i$#w@ry@!
helpline-9235169855

#2392

From: urvashi sharma <rtimahilamanchup@...>
Date: Mon Nov 30, 2009 2:51 am
Subject: RTI activists demand removal of tainted SCIC

rtimahilaman...

Offline

5282632.cms

RTI activists demand removal of tainted SCIC

TNN 30 November 2009, 03:51am IST

LUCKNOW: The RTI activists have approached Governor B L Joshi individually and in small groups requesting him to take action against the state chief

information commissioner (SCIC) Ranjit Singh Pankaj. A group of activists handed over a memorandum to the governor office on Friday.

The opposition against Pankaj started after All India Right to Information Awareness forum submitted a memorandum to governor a fortnight back. The RTI activists and activist organisations wrote to the governor to stop Pankaj from attending the office of the state chief information commissioner in compliance to the section 17 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

"We are alarmed and distressed to learn that the present Uttar Pradesh chief information commissioner, Sri Ranjit Singh Pankaj has been penalised by the Allahabad high court," read the memorandum. The court had slapped a fine of Rs 50,000 on him for "favouring a lessee involved in illegal mining" during his previous stint as mining secretary.

The memorandum further stated that "even earlier to his appointment as SCIC, the charges of corruption were levelled against him while he was the district magistrate of Gorakhpur in 2008. The charges were corroborated by the divisional commissioner, P K Mohanty, who conducted an inquiry into the selection process of 3,448 safai karamcharis. The probe report, acting on which the government cancelled all the appointments, held Pankaj responsible for violating norms and handpicking men of his choice, who later committed irregularities, including accepting bribes."

"We are compelled to come together, endorse the concerns as stated above, recommend and demand immediate removal of SCIC from office," said the memorandum. "We have been assured of necessary action in the matter within 15 days' time by the governor's office," said activist, Urvashi Sharma. The RTI activists, including Neeraj Kumar, Dev Dutt Sharma and Akhilesh Saxena, signed the memorandum.

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

URVASHI SHARMA
http://aishwaryaj.hpage.com
helpline no. - 09235169855
@i$#w@ry@!

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

#2391

From: urvashi sharma <rtimahilamanchup@...>
Date: Sun Nov 29, 2009 3:31 pm
Subject: raise ur voice against uttar pradesh sic regulations 2008 to stop backdoor amendments to rti act

rtimahilaman...

Offline

http://www.petitiononline.com/urvashi/petition.html

rept. all ,

more than a year ago , when we got air of illconceived plans of sic up
to implement scic regulations , we raised our voice n succeeded in
compelling the scic to defer their plans .
==========================================================================================================================
a news item from memorylanes about all this is given

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/activists-cry-foul-as-up-information-commiss/365717/

Activists cry foul as UP Information Commission drafts regulations
Alka Pande
Tags : lucknow, government

Posted: Thursday , Sep 25, 2008 at 0208 hrs
Lucknow, September 24:

The UP State Information Commission has formulated some regulations
for the implementation of the Right to Information Act, which,
activists allege, are contrary to the spirit of the law enacted to
facilitate availability of information.

“The regulations of the state commission are the copy of the Central
Information Commission (CIC) rules and regulations, which reject 60
per cent cases on technical grounds,” said Arvind Kejriwal, who was
actively involved in the formation of the RTI Act.

The commission has not sought public opinion while formulating the
regulations. But since the matter was posted on the commission
website, it has attracted suggestions from various quarters.

Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah clarified that the
states have the authority to form regulations for the implementation
of the Act in its true spirit. But it is better to seek public opinion
while drafting the regulations, he added.

The activists from across the nation have now come together to oppose
the regulations and have demanded several amendments.

Social worker and RTI activist Urvashi Sharma from RTI Mahila Manch
has raised the issue by writing an open letter to the officiating
state Chief Information Commissioner, Gyanendra Sharma. Copies of the
letter have been sent to the President, besides the Governor and the
Chief Minster of Uttar Pradesh.

Urvashi says the rules are meant to make the process so complex that
it acts as a deterrent, and forces the applicant to seek legal help.

“The law was passed after a people’s movement. It was drafted by civil
societies. Its rules should also be made through public discussions,”
she said.

Gyanendra Sharma said the regulations were basically for the
functioning of the commission, but still he got them posted at the
commission website.

“We are going through all suggestions and will incorporate whatever is
feasible before implementing them,” said Sharma. He however, denied
that the regulations had been sent to the government for its approval.

“The question of sending the regulations to government does not arise
as they are an internal matter.”

Some of the points in the SIC regulations and the counterpoints of the
activists:

* Rule 6 mentions a flexible two to four-week summer break and a
two-week winter break. Activists say: This lacks clarity. Besides,
this is unjustified when over 10,000 cases are pending with the SIC.

* Rule 8(1) (a) makes it mandatory for the appellant/complainant to
furnish his personal details, apart from name and address.
Activists say: Personal details are not specified.

* Rule 11(5) (b) says that the registrar can cancel cases that are not
maintainable due to “some” reasons.
Activists say: The word “some” is ambiguous.

* Rule 12 dealing with filing of counter by the public information
officer gives a bunch of relaxations to the PIO as it says, “after
getting the complaint/appeal, the PIO shall submit his counter (if
there is any) along with related documents.
Activists say: Why the words “if there is any” when according to Rule
10, the complainant/appellant has to send a copy of complaint/appeal
to the PIO and compulsorily furnish attested copies to the SIC while
filing the complaint/appeal

* Rule 12 says during hearing in commission, “generally” the PIO shall
present his view.
Activists say: Why is this not mandatory?

* Rule 15(5) says the commission shall pass order on the merits of the case.
Activists say: The term “speaking order” has not been used, which is
mandatory as per Section 4(1)d of the Act.
==========================================================================================================================
at that time acting scic sri gyanendra sharma assured us that any
decision in this effect shall be taken only after taking us in full
confidance. we had submitted our objections on these regulations to
the scic. but now the website of upsic shows it as final though the
sic says these r draft regulations.

now since the issue has surfaced once again , i request all fello
rti-activists of uttar pradesh to raise the issue without any further
delay lest rti act is deprived of its soul in uttar pradesh.

==========================================================================================================================

The SCIC regulations can be accessed at given link

http://upsic.up.nic.in/

http://rtiact2005india4u.hpage.com/up_sic_rules__final_copy__77116916.html

उत्‍तर प्रदेश राज्‍य सूचना आयोग (संचालन) नियमावली, 2008

सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम, 2005 की धारा 15(4) और दूसरे प्रा‍वधानों के
तहत दी गयी शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए उत्‍तर प्रदेश राज्‍य सूचना आयोग
के मुख्‍य सूचना आयुक्‍त, राज्‍य सूचना आयोग के विभिन्‍न मामलों के
प्रभावी संचालन हेतु नि‍म्‍नलिखित नियम बनाते हैं:-

अध्‍याय:-1 संक्षिप्‍त नाम और प्रारंभ
1. नाम एवं प्रारम्‍भ तिथि: अ. इस नियमावली को राज्‍य सूचना आयोग
(संचालन) नियमावली
2008 के नाम से पुकारा जायेगा। आ. यह नियमावली उस तिथि से प्रभावशील होगी
जो मुख्‍य सूचना
आयुक्‍त अलग से आदेश जारी करके तय करेंगे।
इ. जो अपीलें/शिकायतें इस नियमावली के प्रभावी होने के पहले
पंजीकृत की जा चुकी हैं और जिनका निस्‍तारण हो चुका है उनके अलावा शेष पर
यह नियमावली लागू होगी। पूर्व में पंजीकृत् मामले तत्‍समय प्रभावी नियमों
के तहत सुने एवं निस्‍तारित किए जाएंगे। यह नियमावली उन पुराने वादों पर
भी लागू होगी जिनमें आगे कोई कार्यवाही प्रस्‍तावित की गई हो।

2. परिभाषाएं: इस नियमावली में प्रयुक्‍त शब्‍दों और संज्ञाओं की परिभाषा
इस प्रकार होगी:-
(i) ^अधिनियम* का तात्‍पर्य सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम, 2005 से होगा।
(ii) ^अपीलकर्ता* की श्रेणी में शिकायतकर्ता भी शामिल होगा
(iii) ^आयोग* का तात्‍पर्य राज्‍य सूचना आयोग से है।
(iv) ^मुख्‍य सूचना आयुक्‍त* से तात्‍पर्य राज्‍य मुख्‍य सूचना आयुक्‍त से होगा।
(v) ^जसूधि* का तात्‍पर्य जन सूचना अधिकारी से है] जो अधिनियम की धारा
5(1) के तहत नियुक्‍त किया गया हो और इसमें 5(2) के तहत नियुक्‍त सहायक
जन सूचना अधिकारी भी शामिल होगा। इसकी परिभाषा में निम्‍नलिखित भी शामिल
होंगे।
अ. वह अधिकारी जिसके पास धारा 5(4) के तहत सूचना सम्‍बंधी आवेदन
स्‍थानांतरित किया गया हो,
आ. वह अधिकारी जिसके पास सूचना सम्‍बंधी आवेदन जसूधि ने स्‍वीक`ति या
निस्‍तारण हेतु भेजा हो और,
इ. कोई जन सूचना अधिकारी नियुक्‍त या अधिसूचित न होने की स्थिति में लोक
प्राधिकारी का प्रमुख।
(vi) ^निर्णय* से तात्‍पर्य किसी विषय पर आदेश-निर्देश और किसी विषय पर
निष्‍कर्ष से होगा।
(vii) ^प्रथम अपीलीय अधिकारी* से तात्‍पर्य इस अधिनियम के तहत संबंधित
लोक प्राधिकkरी द्वारा नियुDr किये गये विभागीय अपीलीय अधिकारी से होगा।
यदि किसी लोक प्राधिकारी द्वारा किसी प्रथम या विभागीय अपील अधिकारी की
नियुक्ति न की गई हो तो वह उस लोक प्राधिकारी का प्रमुख भी हो सकता है।
(viii) ^सूचना आयुक्‍त* से तात्‍पर्य इस कानून के तहत नियुक्ति किये गये
राज्‍य सूचना आयुक्‍त से होगा।
(ix) ^विहित* का तात्‍पर्य अधिनियम के तहत और इस नियमावली में विहित
नियमों से होगा
(x) ^अभिलेखों* का तात्‍पर्य उन कागजातों से होगा] जो अपील या शिकायत के
संबंध में उभयपक्षों द्वारा प्रतिउततर, टिप्‍पणh, प्रकियाओं और
तर्को-वितर्को के दौरान दिए जाएं या अन्‍यथा प्रस्‍तुत किये जाएं या बाद
में दिए जाने वाले अभिलेख या मौखिक साक्ष्‍य से होगा जो विभिन्‍न
निर्णयों, आदेशों आदि के दौरान दिए जाएं।
(xi) ^रजिस्‍ट्री* से तात्‍पर्य आयोग की रजिस्‍ट्री से होगा जिसमें
रजिस्‍ट्रार, अतिरिक्‍त रजिस्‍ट्रार, संयुक्‍त रजिस्‍ट्रार, उप
रजिस्‍ट्रार या सहायक रजिस्‍ट्रार शामिल होगें।
(xii) ^रजिस्‍ट्रार* से तात्‍पर्य आयोग के रजिस्‍ट्रार से होगाA इसमें
अतिरिक्‍त रजिस्‍ट्रार, संयुक्‍त रजिस्‍ट्रार, उप रजिस्‍ट्रार और सहायक
रजिस्‍ट्रार शामिल होंगे।
(xiii) ^नियमावली* से तात्‍पर्य नियमित नियमावली से होगा।
(xiv) ^प्रतिनिधि* से तात्‍पर्य विभिन्‍न पक्षों की ओर से या उनकीh ओर से
अधिकृत किये गये व्‍यक्ति से होगा] इसमें अधिवक्‍ता शामिल होंगे।
(xv) ‘प्रतिवादी’ से तात्‍पर्य हस्‍तक्षेप करने वाले पक्ष, द्वितीय पक्ष
व आयोग द्वारा बनाए गए पक्ष से होगा।
(xvi) ‘नियम’ से तात्‍पर्य राज्‍य सरकार द्वारा इस अधिनियम की धारा 27 के
अंतर्गत बनkये गये नियमों से होगा।
(xvii) ‘धारा’ से तात्‍पर्य इस अधिनियम में शामिल धारा से होगा।
(xviii) ऐसे शब्‍दों और अभिव्‍यक्तियों का जिन्‍हें यहां परिभाषित नहीं
किया गया है] उनका तात्‍पर्य इस अधिनियम या यहां बनाये जा रहे नियमों के
अंतर्गत दी गयी परिभाषाओं से होगा।

अध्‍याय:-2 आयोग के अधिकारी और उनके कर्तव्‍य

3. रजिस्‍ट्रार की नियुक्ति
आयोग की ओर से मुख्‍य सूचना आयुक्‍त को यह अधिकार होगा कि वह आयोग में
रजिस्‍ट्रार और अतिरिक्‍त रजिस्‍टा्र के पद पर कार्य करने के लिए माननीय
उच्‍च न्‍यायालय से जिला न्‍यायाधीश अथवा अपर जिला न्‍यायाधीश के समकक्ष
न्‍यायाधिकारियों को आयोग में प्रतिनियुक्ति पर भेजने हेतु अनुरोध करे।
आयोग अतिरिक्‍त रजिस्‍ट्रार, संयुक्‍त रजिस्‍ट्रार, उप रजिस्‍ट्रार या
सहायक रजिस्‍ट्रार के पद पर कार्य करने के लिए भी अपने अधिकारियों में से
किन्‍हीं को नामित कर सकेगा और उक्‍त रजिस्‍ट्रारों को अपने कर्तव्‍यों
का निर्वहन के लिए आवश्‍यक कर्मी उपलब्‍ध करायेगा।
4. रजिस्‍ट्रार की शक्तियां और कर्तव्‍य
(i) रजिस्‍ट्रार आयोग के न्‍याय पक्ष के मामले मेंa मुख्‍य कार्यकारी
अधिकारी होगा, कोई भी पत्राचार जो उन्‍हें संबोधित किया जायेगा वह आयोग
को संबोधित पत्राचार माना जायेगा और वह सभी न्‍यायिक मामलों में आयोग का
प्रतिनिधित्‍व करेगा।
(ii) रजिस्‍ट्रार मुख्‍य राज्‍य सूचना आयुक्‍त के नियंत्रण एवं अधीक्षण
में अपने कर्तव्‍यों का निर्वहन करेगा।
(iii) आयोग के सभी अभिलेख रजिस्‍ट्रार के नियंत्रण में होंगे।
(iv) आयोग की अधिकृत मोहर रजिस्‍ट्रार के नियंत्रणाधीन होगी।
(v) मुख्‍य राज्‍य सूचना आयुक्‍त के सामान्‍य व विशेष निर्देशों के तहत
आयोग की अधिकृत मोहर विभिन्‍न आदेशों, समन और रजिस्‍ट्रार के अधीन अन्‍य
प्रक्रियाओं में लगायी जा सकेगी।
(vi) आयोग की अधिकृत मोहर आयोग द्वारा जारी की जाने वाली किसी प्रमाणित
प्रतिलिपि पर नहीं लगायी जायेगी सिवा ऐसे मामलों के जिनमेंa स्‍वयं
रजिस्‍ट्रार इसके लिए आदेश करें।
(vii) रजिस्‍ट्रार का कार्यालय सभी आवेदन, अपील, प्रतिउत्‍तर, उत्‍तर और
अन्‍य अभिलेख प्राप्‍त करेगा।
(viii) सभी अपीलों और शिकायतों को पंजीकृत किये जाने के पूर्व तत्‍संबंधी
मामलों में रजिस्‍ट्रार के आदेशानुसार उनकी जांच-पड़ताल होगी।
(ix) रजिस्‍ट्रार को यह अधिकार होगा कि वह किसी भी आवेदन, अपील,
प्रतिउततर, उत्‍तर जो आयोग के समक्ष प्रस्‍तुत किये जायेगें] उनमेंsa इस
नियमावली के तहत आवश्‍यक संशोधन के आदेश कर सकेंगे।
(x) रजिस्‍ट्रार विभिन्‍न अपीलों, शिकायतों अथवा दूसरी सुनवाई के मामलों
में तारीख तय करेंगे और सुनवाई के लिए सूचीबद्ध मामलों की काWWजलिस्‍ट
तैयार करके उसे अग्रिम रूप से अधिसूचित करेंगे।
(xi) रजिस्‍ट्रार को अधिकार होगा कि वे प्रतिउत्‍तर, उत्‍तर आदि दाखिल
किये जाने के संबंध में अतिरिक्‍त समय दिए जाने के अनुरोध पर फैसला
करेंa।
(xii) रजिस्‍ट्रार, निर्धारित शुल्‍क लेने के बाद किसी भी पक्ष को आयोग
के तत्‍संबंधी अभिलेखों का निरीक्षण करा सकेगें और यह कार्यवाही आयोग के
किसी अधिकारी की देख-रेख और उपस्थिति में होगी।
(xiii) विभिन्‍न मामलों से संबंधित पक्षों को अभिलेखों की अधिकृत या
प्रमाणित प्रतियां केवल रजिस्‍ट्रार के अधिकार के तहत दी जायेगी।
(xiv) रजिस्‍ट्रार आयोग के सभी निर्णयों, आदेशों व निर्देशों को संबंधित
पक्षों को अवगत करायेंगे और उन पर हस्‍ताक्षर करके उन्‍हें प्रमाणित
करेंगे। इस तरह दिये गये सभी अभिलेख आयोग की तरफ से दिये गये अभिलेख माने
जायेंगे।
(xv) आयोग द्वारा जारी किये गये सभी आदेशों, निर्देशों व निर्णयों के
क्रियान्‍वयन की जिम्‍मेदारी रजिस्‍ट्रार की होगी और वह इस संबंध में सभी
आवश्‍यक कदम उठाने के लिए अधिकृत होगें।
(xvi) रजिस्‍ट्रार यह सुनिश्चित करेंगे कि अपीलों, शिकायतों और दुसरी
सुनवाई के दौरान आयोग में उचित व अनुकूल माहौल रहे और इसके लिए वे सभी
आवश्‍यक कदम उठा सकेंगे।
(xvii) रजिस्‍ट्रार इस नियमावली के तहत उन्‍हें सौंपे गये सभी दायित्‍यों
और अधिका‍रों का निर्वहन करेंगे और मुख्‍य सूचना आयुक्‍त इस संबंध में
समय समय पर उन्‍हें निर्देश दे सकेंगे।
(xviii) रजिस्‍ट्रार सभी राज्‍य सूचना आयुक्‍तों को उनके कर्तव्‍यों के
निष्‍पादन में सहायता करेंगे।
(xix) अतिरिक्‍त रजिस्‍ट्रार को रजिस्‍ट्रार की सभी शक्तियां प्राप्‍त
होंगी और वह रजिस्‍ट्रार के दिशा निर्देशों के अधीन कार्य करेंगे।
(xx) रजिस्‍ट्रार इस नियमावली के अधीन उल्लिखित दायित्‍वों व कार्यों का
निष्‍पादन अथवा संपादन सुनिश्चित करने के लिए मुख्‍य राज्‍य सूचना
आयुक्‍त की स्‍वीकृति से संयुक्‍त रजिस्‍ट्रार, उप रजिस्‍ट्रार व सहायक
रजिस्‍ट्रार को कोई भी कार्य सौंप सकेंगे।
अध्‍याय-3 कार्य के घण्‍टे और अवकाश इत्‍यादि

5. मुख्‍य राज्‍य सूचना आयुक्‍त के आदेश के अधीन आयोग का कार्यालय सभी
कार्य दिवसों में प्रात: 09:30 बजे से सायंकाल 06:00 बजे तक खुला रहेगा
और अपराह्नन 01:00 बजे से 02:00 बजे के बीच भोजनावकाश रहेगा।
6. मुख्‍य राज्‍य सूचना आयुक्‍त के निर्देशों के चलते आयोग में जून-जुलाई
के बीच 2 से 4 सप्‍ताह का ग्रीष्‍म अवकाश और दिसम्‍बर से जनवरी में 2
सप्‍ताह का शीतकालीन अवकाश घोषित किया जा सकेगा, लेकिन आयोग का कार्यालय
उक्‍त अवकाश के दौरान राजपत्रित अवकाश के अलावा बाकी दिनों में खुला
रहेगा। अवकाश के दिनों में अविलंबनीय व आवश्‍यक कार्यों के निष्‍पादन के
लिए मुख्‍य सूचना आयुक्‍त आवश्‍यक उपाय करेंगे।
अध्‍याय-4 पंजीकरण, निस्‍तारण अथवा अपील की वापसी
7. पंजीकरण एवं निस्‍तारण :
अपील अथवा शिकायत इत्‍यादि के संबंध में प्राप्‍त अपील, शिकायत,
आवेदन, वक्‍तव्‍य, प्रतिउत्‍तर, उत्‍तर इत्‍यादि अथवा कोई भी अन्‍य
अभिलेख जो आयोग के समक्ष दायर किया जायेगा वह या तो टाइप किया गया या
मुद्रित होगा अथवा साफ-साफ और स्‍पष्‍टत: पठनीय विधि से और सुसंस्‍कृत
भाषा में लिखा जायेगा और उसमें किसी तरह की असभ्‍य या गाली गलौज वाली
भाषा का प्रयोग नहीं किया जायेगा। अपील, शिकायत अथवा आवेदन जो भी आयोग के
समक्ष लिये जायेंगे वह दो प्रतियां में होंगे और वे पेपर बुक के फार्म
में देय होंगे।

8. अपील/शिकायत की विषय वस्‍तु:
1- आयोग के समक्ष प्रस्‍तुत की जानी वाली अपील/शिकायत के साथ
निम्‍नलिखित अभिलेख/सूचनाएं संलग्‍न किया जाना आवश्‍यक है:- यथा,
अ. अपीलकर्ता/शिकायतकर्ता का नाम पता और दूसरा व्‍यक्तिगत विवरण। आ.
उस जन सूचना अधिकारी का नाम व पता जिसके खिलाफ अधिनियम
की धारा 18 के अंतर्गत शिकायत की जा रही है अथवा प्रथम अपीलीय
अधिकारी का नाम व पता जिसके खिलाफ धारा 19(1) के अंतर्गत द्वितीय अपील
की जा रही है।
इ. उस निर्णय का विवरण, जिसमें उसकी संख्‍या व दिनांक शामिल होगा,
जिसके कि खिलाफ अपील की जा रही है।
ई. अपील/शिकायत के कारणों का संक्षिप्‍त विवरण। उ. यदि अपील या शिकायत
सूचना देने से इंकार किये जाने या सूचना न
दिए जाने के खिलाफ की जा रही है तो उक्‍त जन सूचना अधिकारी को
दिये गये आवेदन का विवरण अथवा प्रथम अपीलीय अधिकारी के समक्ष
की गयी अपील का विवरण। ऊ. अपील/शिकायत के माध्‍यम से क्‍या
राहत मांगी जा रही है या क्‍या
प्रार्थना की जा रही है, उसका विवरण।
ए. उक्‍त प्रार्थना/राहत मांगने का आधार। ऐ. अपीलकर्ता/शिकायतकर्ता
द्वारा प्रस्‍तुत विवरण को स्‍वप्रमाणित किया
जाना। ओ. ऐसा कोई विवरण जिससे आयोग को अपील/शिकायत के निस्‍तारण
में मदद मिले।
2- दर्ज की जाने वाली शिकायत के साथ आवश्‍यक रूप से नत्‍थी किए जाने वाले
अभिलेख/सूचनाएं उसी तरह से दी जाएंगी जैसी कि अपील के मामले में दी जानी
होती हैं।

9. अपील/शिकायत के साथ नत्‍थी किये जाने वाले अभिलेख:
आयोग के समक्ष की जानी वाली प्रत्‍येक अपील/शिकायत के साथ निम्‍नलिखित
अभिलेख/दस्‍तावेज स्‍वप्रमाणित करके भेजा जाना अनिवार्य होगा:- अ. जन
सूचना अधिकारी के समक्ष दी गयी सूचना संबंधी आवेदन और उसके साथ
जमा किये गये शुल्‍क का प्रमाण। आ. यदि उक्‍त जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा
उक्‍त आवेदन पर कोई आदेश/निर्णय दिया
गया है तो उसकी प्रतिलिपि।
इ. प्रथम अपीलीय अधिकारी के समक्ष दायर की गयी अपील की प्रति एवं
उसे दायर किये जाने का प्रमाण।
ई. प्रथम अपीलीय अधिकारी द्वारा यदि संबंधित अपील पर कोई निर्णय या
आदेश जारी किये गये हैं तो उसकी प्रतिलिपि।
उ. वे दस्‍तावेज/अभिलेख जिसके आधार पर अपील/शिकायत की जा रही है।
ऊ. अपीलकर्ता/शिकायतकर्ता का यह प्रमाणपत्र कि जिस विषय पर वह अपील या
शिकायत कर रहा है उसके बारे में उसने पहले कोई अपील या शिकायत आयोग में
नहीं की है और न ही उसके संबंध में किसी न्‍यायालय अथवा किसी न्‍यायाधिरण
के समक्ष कोई मामला दायर है या उनके समक्ष विचाराधीन है।
ए. अपील/शिकायत के साथ नत्‍थी किये जा रहे अभिलेखों की सूची।
ऐ. अपील/शिकायत पर हुई कार्यवाही/सुनवाई आदि का तिथिवार विवरण
जो सभी अभिलेखों के ऊपर नत्‍थी किया जाये।

10. अपील/शिकायत की प्रतियों का दिया जाना
आयोग के समक्ष कोई भी अपील या शिकायत दर्ज कराने के पूर्व परंतु यदि जो
शिकायतकर्ता धारा 18 के अंतर्गत शिकायत करता है और उसे संबंधित जनसूचना
अधिकारी अथवा प्रथम अपीलीय अधिकारी का नाम या पता यदि ज्ञात नहीं है तो
अपनी शिकायत लोक प्राधिकारी के अथवा उसके प्रमुख के कार्यालय में देगा और
उक्‍त कार्यालय में अपनी शिकायत दर्ज करने का प्रमाण आयोग के समक्ष देगा।

11¬. अपील/शिकायत का प्रस्‍तुतीकरण और उसकी दस्‍तावेजी जॉच:
1- आयोग का रजिस्‍ट्रार या उसकी तरफ से अधिकृत कर्मी अपील/शिकायत
प्राप्‍त करेगा और यह देखेगा कि:-
(अ) क्‍या अपील/शिकायत निर्धारित प्रारूप के अनुसार की गयी है और
(आ) सभी विवरण/दस्‍तावेज अपीलकर्ता/शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा स्‍वप्रमाणित
किये गये हैं और कि
(इ) अपील/शिकायत इस नियमावली के विभिन्‍न नियमों के तहत दायर की गयी है।
2- रजिस्‍ट्रार यह भी सुनिश्चित करेगा कि अपील/शिकायत के साथ निम्‍नलिखित
दस्‍तावेज व उनकी प्रतिलिपियां निर्धारित विधि से संलग्‍न की गयी हैं:-
(अ) सूचना संबंधित आवेदन
(आ) सूचना संबंधित आवेदन जमा किये जाने की रसीद (इ) जमा की गयी फीस,
अतिरिक्‍त शुल्‍क के भुगतान का प्रमाण (यदि कोई हो)
(ई) संबंधित जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा दिये गये आदेश/निर्णय/उत्‍तर की
प्रतिलिपि (यदि कोई हो)
(उ) प्रथम अपीलीय अधिकारी के समक्ष की गयी अपील और प्रथम अपीलीय अधिकारी
द्वारा जारी किये गये आदेश/निर्णय (यदि कोई हो)
3- रजिस्‍ट्रार या अधिकृत कर्मी प्रत्‍येक अपील/शिकायत की जांच पड़ताल
करेगा और यह सुनिश्चित करेगा कि,
(अ) अपील/शिकायत बाकायदा प्रमाणित हो और उसकी प्रति वांछित
संख्‍या में जमा की गयी है।
(आ) जमा किये गये सभी दस्‍तावेज पृष्‍ठांकित किये गये हैं और वे
अपीलकर्ता/शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा प्रमाणित हैं।
(इ) जो दस्‍तावेज जमा किये जा रहे हैं वे स्‍पष्‍ट रूप से लिखे गये हैं और
पठनीय हैं।
4- रजिस्‍ट्रार या अधिकृत कर्मी ऐसी किसी अपील/शिकायत को वापस लौटा देगा
जो उपरोक्‍त विधि/प्रारूप के तहत प्रस्‍तुत नहीं की गयी है। वह उक्‍त
अपील/शिकायत को दोबारा निर्धारित प्रारूप पर दर्ज किये जाने की अनुमति दे
सकेगा।
5- रजिस्‍ट्रार को यह अधिकार होगा कि वह किसी अपील/शिकायत को खारिज कर दे यदि,
(अ) वह कालातीत है या (आ) वह किन्‍ही कारणवश पोषणीय नहीं है। या (इ) वह
इस नियमावली में निर्धारित नियमों के अंतर्गत नहीं आती है परन्‍तु शर्त
यह होगी कि कोई भी अपील/शिकायत रजिस्‍ट्री द्वारा तब तक खारिज नहीं की
जायेगी जब तक अपीलकर्ता/शिकायतकर्ता को उसके बारे में अपनी बात कहने का
मौका नहीं दिया जाता। अपील/शिकायत की पोषणीयता के संबंध में रजिस्‍ट्र।र
का जो निर्णय होगा, अंतिम माना जायेगा।
6- वे सारी अपीलें/शिकायतें जो अस्‍वीकार या वापस नहीं की जाती हैं और जो
नियमत: पायी जाती है उन्‍हें विधिवत् पंजीकृत किया जायेगा और प्रत्‍येक
को एक विशिष्‍ट नंबर दिया जायेगा।
7- रजिस्‍ट्रार या आयोग द्वारा अधिकृत कोई अन्‍य अधिकारी प्रत्‍येक
अपील/शिकायत पर उस तारीख का अंकन करेगा जिस तारीख को वह प्रस्‍तुत की गई
होगी।
8- सभी अपीलों/शिकायतों का अलग-अलग नंबर होगा ताकि उन्‍हें आसानी से
चिन्हित किया जा सके।
9- यदि किसी अपील/शिकायत में कोई खामी या कमी पायी जाती है जो तकनीकी हो
तो रजिस्‍ट्रार संबंधित अपीलकर्ता/शिकायतकर्ता से अपनी उपस्थिति में ही
खामी/कमी को दुरुस्‍त करा सकता है अथवा उसे दो सप्‍ताह का समय इसके लिए
दिया जा सकता है। यदि ऐसी कमी/खामी वाली अपील/शिकायत डाक से प्राप्‍त हो
तो रजिस्‍ट्रार द्वारा अपीलकर्ता/शिकायतकर्ता को इसे दुरुस्‍त करने के
लिए लिखेगा और इसके लिए तीन सप्‍ताह का समय उसे देगा।
10- यदि अपीलकर्ता/शिकायतकर्ता उक्‍त खामी/कमी को दी गयी समयावधि में
दुरुस्‍त नहीं करता है तो उक्‍त अपील/शिकायत वापस ली हुई मानी जायेगी।
11- यदि अपील/शिकायत जो अन्‍यथा त्रुटिपूर्ण होगी या निर्धारित प्रारूप
के अनुकूल नहीं होगी तो उसे खारिज कर दिया जायेगा। परंतु यदि रजिस्‍ट्रार
चाहे तो अपने विवेकानुसार शिकायतकर्ता/अपीलकर्ता को उचित या निर्धारित
प्रारूप पर नये आवेदन देने की अनुमति दे सकता है।
12- किसी अपील/शिकायत को उस सूरत में कभी भी खारिज किया जा सकेगा जब इस
बात की पुष्टि हो जाय कि उसके साथ नत्‍थी कोई भी अभिलेख या दस्‍तावेज या
कोई भी अन्‍य सम्‍बंधित सामग्री सत्‍य से परे है, भ्रामक है, अर्धसत्‍य
है, उसमें तथ्‍यों को छिपाने की कोशिश की गई है।

12. जनसूचना अधिकारी/प्रथम अपीलीय अधिकारी द्वारा प्रतिउत्‍तर दाखिल किया
जाना: अपील/शिकायत की प्राप्ति के बाद जनसूचना अधिकारी/प्रथम अपीलीय
अधिकारी अपना प्रतिउत्‍तर (यदि कोई हो) सम्‍बंधित दस्‍तावेजों के सहित
दाखिल करेगा और इसकी प्रतिलिपि अपीलकर्ता/शिकायतकर्ता को उसके या उसके
लोक प्राधिकारी द्वारा भेजी जायेगी। आयोग में सुनवाई के समय सामान्‍य तौर
पर जन सूचना अधिकारी अथवा प्रथम अपील अधिकारी (जैसा कि मामला हो) ही अपना
पक्ष रखेंगे। यदि किसी कारणवश वे आयोग के समक्ष उ‍पस्थित न हो पा रहे हों
तो अपने समकक्ष या वरीयता क्रम में अपने से एक क्रम नीचे के अधिकारी को
पूरे विवरण के साथ आयोग में भेज सकते हैं लेकिन उनके लिए इस सम्‍बंध में
यह स्‍पष्‍टीकरण देना अनिवार्य होगा कि वे आयोग के समक्ष क्‍यों नहीं
उपस्थित हो पा रहे हैं।

13. सूचना आयुक्‍त के समक्ष अपील/शिकायत का प्रस्‍तुतीकरण:
1- कोई भी अपील/शिकायत या विभिन्‍न अपीलें या शिकायतें जो एक निर्धारित
श्रेणी की हों, उन्‍हें एक राज्‍य सूचना आयुक्‍त, दो राज्‍य सूचना
आयुक्‍त की खण्‍डपीठ अथवा तीन या अधिक आयुक्‍तों की पूर्ण खण्‍डपीठ
द्वारा सुना जायेगा और यह मुख्‍य सूचना आयुक्‍त के विशिष्‍ट या सामान्‍य
आदेश के तहत होगा जो वे इस आशय के लिए समय-समय पर जारी करेंगे।
2- यदि किसी अपील/शिकायत की सुनवाई के दौरान सूचना आयुक्‍त की एकल पीठ यह
समझती है कि प्रश्‍नगत मामले से ही सम्‍बंधित कोई वाद किसी अन्‍य आयुक्‍त
द्वारा सुना जा रहा है या उनके निर्णयाधीन है तो वह इसे सम्‍बंधित
आयुक्‍त को संदर्भित करने के लिए मुख्‍य सूचना आयुक्‍त को भेज सकेगी। उकल
पीठ यदि समझती है कि प्रश्‍नगत वाद को किसी खण्‍डपीठ या पूर्ण खण्‍डपीठ
द्वारा सुना जाना चाहिए तो वह इस मामले को मुख्‍य सूचना आयुक्‍त को
संदर्भित करेगी। तत्‍पश्‍चात ऐसी पीठ का गठन मुख्‍य राज्‍य सूचना आयुक्‍त
द्वारा मामले की सुनवाई और निस्‍तारण के लिए किया जायेगा।
3- इसी तरह यदि किसी मामले की सुनवाई के समय खण्‍डपीठ यह समझती है कि
मामले को पूर्ण खण्‍डपीठ द्वारा सुना जाना चाहिए या फिर पूर्ण पीठ के समझ
सुनवाई के दौरान वह इस निष्‍कर्ष पर पहुंचती है कि इसे और बड़ी पीठ
द्वारा सुना जाना चाहिए तो वह मामले को मुख्‍य सूचना आयुक्‍त को संदर्भित
करेंगे और तत्‍पश्‍चात वे मामले की सुनवाई और उसके निस्‍तारण के लिए पीठ
का गठन करेंगे।

14. अपील/शिकायत में संशोधन व उसका वापस लिया जाना:
आयोग अपने विवेकानुसार किसी भी अपील या शिकायत में संशोधन किये जाने या
उसे वापस लिये जाने का अनुरोध यदि वह लिखित रूप में किया गया हो तो उसे
अपने विवेकानुसार स्‍वीकार कर सकता है। परंतु कोई अनुरोध या प्रार्थना तब
स्‍वीकार नहीं की जायेगी जब संबंधित मामले में अंतिम सुनवाई हो चुकी हो
या कोई आदेश या निर्णय जारी कर दिया गया हो।

15. अपीलकर्ता/शिकायतकर्ता की व्‍यक्तिगत उपस्थिति:
1- अपीलकर्ता/शिकायतकर्ता को सुनवाई की तारीख के बारे में कम से कम सात
दिन पूर्व सूचना दी जानी चाहिए।
2- अपीलकर्ता/शिकायतकर्ता अपने विवेकानुसार सुनवाई के दौरान स्‍वयं
उपस्थित हो सकता है अथवा अपने किसी अधिकृत प्रतिनिधि को उपस्थित कर सकता
है अथवा वह अनुपस्थित भी रह सकता है। अपीलकर्ता/शिकायतकर्ता यदि आयोग में
सुनवाई के समय अनुपस्थित रहने का विकल्‍प चुनता है तो उसे अपनी यह मंशा
अपनी मूल शिकायत/अपील में लिखित रूप में जाहिर कर देनी चाहिए।
3- यदि आयोग इस नतीजे पर पहुंचता है कि ऐसी प‍रिस्थितियां हैं, जिन में
अपीलकर्ता/शिकायतकर्ता को आयोग के समक्ष सुनवाई से दूर रखा जा रहा है तो
अपीलकर्ता/शिकायतकर्ता को मामले में अंतिम निर्णय से पूर्व सुनवाई का एक
और अवसर दे सकते हैं अथवा इस मामले में ऐसी कोई कार्यवाही कर सकता है
जिसे वह उचित समझे।
4- अपीलकर्ता/शिकायतकर्ता आयोग में अपने पक्ष के प्रस्‍तुतीकरण के समय
किसी भी व्‍यक्ति की सहायता ले सकता है और यह व्‍यक्ति अधिवक्‍ता के
अलावा भी कोई हो सकता है।
5- यदि अपीलकर्ता/शिकायतकर्ता बिना किसी पूर्व सूचना के आयोग में सुनवाई
के समय अनुपस्थित रहता है तो आयोग प्रस्‍तुत वाद में एकपक्षीय निर्णय
देने से पूर्व उसे अपना पक्ष प्रस्‍तुत करने का एक और अवसर दे सकता है।
लेकिन दूसरी सुनवाई के समय भी अपीलकर्ता/शिकायतकर्ता बिना किसी सूचना के
अनुपस्थित रहता है तो आयोग गुणदोष के आधार पर वाद पर अपना निर्णय देगा।
6- यदि वाद की दो लगातार सुनवाई के समय दोनों ही पक्ष बिना किसी सूचना के
अनुपस्थित रहते हैं तो आयोग या तो इस आदेश के साथ कि दोनों ही पक्षों की
दिलचस्‍पी प्रस्‍तुत वाद में नहीं रह गई है, उसे खारिज कर सकेगा या फिर
वह प्रतिवादी की अनिवार्य उपस्थिति के लिए सम्‍बंधित जन सूचना अधिकारी
या लोक प्राधिकारी के किसी अन्‍य वरिष्‍ठ अधिकारी को आवश्‍यक आदेश जारी
कर सकेगा और वाद के अंतिम निस्‍तारण के लिए एक और तारीख मुकर्रर कर
सकेगा।
7- विचाराधीन वाद में जब दोनों ही पक्ष उपस्थित हों और आयोग यदि मामले को
किसी अन्‍य तिथि को सुने जाने का निश्‍चय करे तो सुनवाई की अगली तिथि का
निर्धारण आयोग के उस दिन दिए गए आदेश का हिस्‍सा होगा और इसकी जानकारी
देने के लिए किसी भी पक्ष को अलग से कोई नोटिस जारी नहीं की जाएगी।

16. सुनवाई की तिथि को घोषित किया जाना: आयोग द्वारा किसी भी
अपील/शिकायत की सुनवाई की तारीख और स्‍थान की सूचना संबंधित पक्ष को इस
तरह से देगा जैसा कि मुख्‍य राज्‍य सूचना आयुक्‍त अपने सामान्‍य या
विशिष्‍ट आदेश द्वारा निर्देशित करेंगे।

17. सुनवाई का स्‍थगन: कोई भी अपीलकर्ता/शिकायतकर्ता अथवा कोई भी अन्‍य
पक्ष विधि सम्‍मत और उपयुक्‍त कारणों से सुनवाई को स्‍थगित किये जाने के
संबंध में आवेदन दे सकेगा जिस पर आयोग जैसा उचित समझे आदेश पारित कर
सकेगा।

18. आयोग के समक्ष साक्ष्‍य:
अपील/शिकायत पर निर्णय देते समय आयोग:- 1- शपथ या शपथपत्र पर
मौखिक या लिखित साक्ष्‍य संबंधित व्‍यक्ति या
व्‍यक्तियों से ले सकेगा। 2- संबंधित अभिलेख अथवा उसकी
प्रतिलिपियों का निरीक्षण व जांच पड़ताल
कर सकेगा।
3- अधिकृत अधिकारी के माध्‍यम से मामले के विभिन्‍न विवरणों/तथ्‍यों के
बारे में जांच पड़ताल कर सकेगा। 4- किसी भी जनसूचना अधिकारी, सहायक
जनसूचना अधिकारी, अथवा उस
विशिष्‍ट अधिकारी को, जिसने प्रथम अपील का निस्‍तारण किया हो अथवा
ऐसे व्‍यक्ति या व्‍यक्तियों जिनके खिलाफ शिकायत की गयी हो उनको
व्‍यक्तिगत रूप से सुन सकेगा, एक्‍जामिन कर सकेगा अथवा उनसे
शपथ पत्र पर साक्ष्‍य प्राप्‍त किए जा सकेंगे।
5- ऐसे तृतीय पक्ष को अथवा हस्‍तक्षेप करने वाले को अथवा किसी अन्‍य
व्‍यक्ति या व्‍यक्तियों को, जिनका संबंधित मामले में साक्ष्‍य आवश्‍यक या
प्रसांगिक हो, उन्‍हें व्‍यक्तिगत रूप से सुन सकेगा, उन्‍हें एक्‍जामिन कर
सकेगा अथवा शपथपत्र पर उनसे साक्ष्‍य प्राप्‍त किया जा सकेगा।

19. सम्‍मन जारी करना:
आयोग के समक्ष विभिन्‍न पक्षों अथवा गवाहों की उपस्थिति अथवा
अभिलेख/दस्‍तावेज अथवा अन्‍य चीजों को प्रस्‍तुत किये जाने के बारे में
रजिस्‍ट्रार द्वारा आयोग की ओर से समन जारी किया जायेगा और यह कार्य आयोग
द्वारा निर्धारित विधि से किया जायेगा।
20. जांच के आदेश: किसी भी अपील/शिकायत जो आयोग के समक्ष विचाराधीन है
उसके संबंध में आयोग किसी जांच का आदेश रजिस्‍ट्रार या अन्‍य अधिकारी को
दे सकता है। रजिस्‍ट्रार या ऐसा कोई अधिकारी जिसे जांच का काम सौंपा
जाये, उसे सभी आवश्‍यक अधिकार प्राप्‍त होंगे जिसमें निम्‍नलिखित अधिकार
शामिल हैं:-
1- विभिन्‍न व्‍यक्तियों को समन जारी करने और उन्‍हें उपस्थिति के लिए बाध्‍य
करना
2- दस्‍तावेज अथवा अन्‍य वस्‍तुओं को आयोग के समक्ष प्रस्‍तुत करने के लिए
बाध्‍य करना
3- शपथ दिलाना/मौखिक साक्ष्‍य लेना अथवा शपथ पत्र या लिखित साक्ष्‍य
प्राप्‍त करना।
4- दस्‍तावेजों का परीक्षण करना और दस्‍तावेजों के प्रस्‍तुतीकरण के लिए
आदेश देना तथा
5- किसी भी लोक प्राधिकारी से कोई भी सार्वजनिक अभिलेख अथवा दस्‍तावेज
मांगना।
21. आयोग द्वारा हर्जाने का आदेश दिया जाना: आयोग मामले के तथ्‍यों और
परिस्थिति के ध्‍यान में रखते हुए विभिन्‍न
पक्षों को ऐसे हर्जाने के भुगतान का आदेश दे सकता है जिसे वह उचित समझे।
22. आदेश या निर्णयों को जारी किया जाना:
1- आयोग के प्रत्‍येक निर्णय/आदेश पर उस आयुक्‍त एवं आयुक्‍तों द्वारा
हस्‍ताक्षर किया जायेगा और उसे दिनांकित किया जाएगा जिसने उससे सम्‍बंधित
अपील/शिकायत को सुना हो और उस पर निर्णय दिया हो। प्रत्‍येक आदेश/निर्णय
को रजिस्‍टार द्वारा प्रमाणित किया जाएगा।
2- आयोग का प्रत्‍येक निर्णय/आदेश वाद की सुनवाई के समय सुनाया जायेगा और
उसे लिख्रित रूप में रजिस्‍ट्ार या किसी अन्‍य अधिक़ृत अधिकारी द्वारा
प्रमाणित किया जाएगा।
3- कोई भी निर्णय/आदेश चाहे वह एक सूचना आयुक्‍त या खण्‍डपीठ या
तीन से अधिक सूचना आयुक्‍तों की पूर्ण पीठ द्वारा सुनाया जायेगा, उसे
आयोग द्वारा इस अधिनियम के तहत जारी किया गया निर्णय/आदेश
माना जायेगा।
4- आयोग के निर्णय/आदेश की नकल उक्‍त निर्णय या आदेश के पारित
होने के चार कार्य दिवस बाद आयोग के कार्यालय से स्‍वत: अथवा
अपने अधिकृत प्रतिनिधि के माध्‍यम से अथवा खुद का पता अंकित
टिकट लगा 10 गुणा 4 का खाली लिफाफा आयोग के कार्यालय में जमा
करके डाक से प्राप्‍त किया जा सकेगा।

23. अंतिम निर्णय:
1- आयोग द्वारा सुनाया गया निर्णय/आदेश अंतिम होगा। 2- हालांकि कोई भी
अपीलकर्ता/शिकायतकर्ता अथवा परिवादी मुख्‍य सूचना आयुक्‍त को आवेदन देकर
उक्‍त निर्णय/आदेश पर पुनर्विचार के लिए
पुनर्विचार याचिका (स्‍पेशल लीव पिटीशन) दायर कर सकेगा और इसमें वह उन
कारणों का उल्‍लेख करेगा जिन पर उसकी प्रार्थना आधारित है।
3- मुख्‍य सूचना आयुक्‍त ऐसे किसी प्रार्थना के मिलने के बाद उस पर
उचित आदेश जारी करेंगे और उचित समझेंगे तो उसे पुनर्विचार के लिए
सम्‍बंधित आयुक्‍त/आयुक्‍तों या उनकी सम्‍बंधित पीठ, जिसने वह आदेश दिया
हो, को पुनर्विचार के लिए संदर्भित कर सकेंगे।

24. अपील/शिकायत की समाप्ति: किसी अपीलकर्ता/शिकायतकर्ता की आयोग के
समक्ष विचाराधीन कार्यवाही उसके निधन के बाद समाप्‍त मानी जायेगी।

अध्‍याय-5 विविध:
25. मोहर एवं प्रतीक चिन्‍ह: आयोग की अधिकृत मोहर एवं प्रतीक चिन्‍ह ऐसा
होगा जैसा कि आयोग स्‍वयं तैयार करे।

26. आयोग की भाषा: 1- कोई भी अपील/शिकायत आयोग के समक्ष दस्‍तावेजों एवं
प्रतिलिपियों के साथ हिन्‍दी या अंग्रेजी में दायर की जा सकेगी।
जो भी दस्‍तावेज संलग्‍न
किया जायेगा वह अंग्रेजी या हिन्‍दी जिस भाषा में भी होगा उसमें ही उसे
नत्‍थी करके भेजा जाये। यह उपबंध, प्रतिउत्‍तर, उत्‍तर अथवा आयोग के
समक्ष प्रस्‍तुत किये जाने वाले किसी भी अभिलेख/दस्‍तावेज पर लागू होगा।
2- आयोग की कार्यवाही हिन्‍दी भाषा में सम्‍पादित की जायेगी।
----- / -----
==========================================================================================================================
please help save rti .

best regards

urvashi sharma
9235169855
9369613513

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
URVASHI SHARMA
http://aishwaryaj.hpage.com

helpline no. - 09235169855
@i$#w@ry@!

Sign n Circulate given online petitions
http://www.petitiononline.com/aishu/petition.html

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

#2390

From: urvashi sharma <rtimahilamanchup@...>
Date: Sun Nov 29, 2009 10:29 am
Subject: If law permits a corrupt and convicted person to hold a public post ?

rtimahilaman...

Offline

Respected All

I am a social worker , most of the times driven by emotions though necessarily with a justified logic embedded in it . I am not a legal expert but understand law on the basis of my logical approach to it n that’s why I know I am not legally right all the times but I intend to put the right things before others. I believe that we all activists are an individual entity and its better to express my weakness before myself than others tell this to me later on.

So please guide me On legal aspects on the issue of Removal of Uttar Pradesh State Chief Information Commissioner Ranjit Singh Pankaj.

( 1 ) Section 17 subsection (1) has the condition “ Subject to the provisions of subsection (3) ”, to me this means that subsection 3 overrides subsection 1 . please tell me if I am wrong.

( 2 ) Again section 17 subsection (3) says Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the Governor may by order remove from office the State Chief Information Commissioner if a State Chief Information Commissioner (b) has been convicted of an offence which, in the opinion of the Governor, involves moral turpitude;

The section 17 subsection (3) has condition “ Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) ” , to me this means in spite of the laid down provisions of subsection (1) , provisions of subsection ( 3 ) shall have overriding effect on subsection ( 1 ) .

( 3 ) Section 17 subsection (4) states some conditions that shall also be taken into consideration for the purposes of sub-section (1) .

( 4 ) So in my view , in section 17, subsection 3 is the ultimate n gives immense powers to an honest governor for an honest n just functioning of ICs .

( 5 ) On the issue of penalization of Ranjit singh Pankaj by Allahabad high court i.e. slapping a fine of Rs 50,000 on Singh for "misleading the court and extending favors to a lessee involved in illegal mining" during his previous tenure as the mining secretary in the state government and The court taking a strict view of the role of Pankaj as the mining secretary and directing pankaj to submit Rs 50,000 as fine to the registrar general of the high court from his salary through bank draft within four weeks for "concealing facts, telling lies" and favoring the wrong man instead of taking action against him.

I want to know if in compliance to above order the person named Pankaj who is SCIC also shall take 50000/- out of the salary a/c of SCIC , shall make a draft and deposit it with the registrar or it is some other Pankaj who shall do it? Then how SCIC Pankaj is not guilty of moral turpitude . If the past of a public servant ( SCIC ) has no bearing on his future assignments ? then does this mean that the general service rules of public servants are not applicable on SCIC , another public servant?

In a nutshell I want to know if pankaj’s case is a case of proved professional misconduct involving proved moral turpitude or not ?

If law permits a corrupt and convicted person to hold a public post ?

URVASHI SHARMA
http://aishwaryaj.hpage.com
helpline no. - 09235169855
@i$#w@ry@!

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

#2389

From: urvashi sharma <rtimahilamanchup@...>
Date: Fri Nov 27, 2009 1:40 pm
Subject: error of ( Indian ) law or law of ( pcrf ) errors.

rtimahilaman...

Offline

Was pcrf not ready to do it the way it should have been ? or was it
deliberate .
I Happened to visit the webpage
http://www.rtiawards.org/citizens_finalists.html on pcrf website .
This webpage has list containing names of “ citizen finalists ” which
are as given below –
• Ajay Dubey
• Ajay Singh Rawat
• Akhil Gogoi
• Amit Kumar
• Association for Democratic Reforms
• Bharatsinh R. Jhala
• Dev Ashish Bhattacharya
• Narmada Bachao Aandolan
• Prashant Kumar Dubey
• Prof Rajeev Kumar
• Raaj Mangal Prasad
• Rajesh Bissa
• Rajinder Nagar Welfare Association
• Ramesh Kumar Verma
• Ravindra Singh
• Shyamlal Yadav
• Subhash Chandra Agrawal
• Sunil Kumar Mahto
• Vinod Pandya
On citizen selection process , the website has the procedure as “We
received a total of 1130 nominations in the citizens’ category.In the
first round, those cases were shortlisted who had used RTI for any
public purpose rather than for personal benefit such as ones' own
transfer, rations card, pension etc. The intent was to recognize those
who attempted to use RTI for the larger good of citizens as a whole as
opposed to personal needs. Then we met each of the jury members
individually to discuss the applicants. 19 such citizens have now made
it to the list of finalists who made substantial public impact through
the use of RTI.”

As we all know that the settled law is as given below
(  i ) The Citizenship Act and the Constitution are completely
exhaustive of the citizenship of this country and these citizens can
only be natural persons, the fact that corporations may be nationals
of the country for purposes of International laws will not make them
citizens of this country for purposes of Municipal Law or the
Constitution; State Trading Corporation of India v. Commercial Tax
Officer, AIR 1963 SC 1811: (1964) 45 SCR 99.

(ii) Nationality and Citizenship are not interchangeable terms; State
Trading Corporation of India v. Commercial Tax Officer, AIR 1963 SC
1811: (1964) 4 SCR 99.

(iii) "Citizenship" has nothing to do with a juristic person. "Person"
means a natural person and not any legal entity; State Trading
Corporation of India v. Commercial Tax Officer, AIR 1963 SC 1811:
(1964) 4 SCR 99.

Going by these definitions ,
• 1- Association for Democratic Reforms
• 2-Narmada Bachao Aandolan &
• 3-Rajinder Nagar Welfare Association

Are not the citizens of India though these may be juristic person
.These three organizations cannot be said to be citizens of India and
putting them in the citizen’s category is neither legal nor justified.
I don’t understand if this is error of ( Indian ) law or law of ( pcrf
) errors.

I demand exclusion of these three from the citizen’s category at once
to have competitions among the citizens only.

If pcrf wish , it should go for a separate category of awards for such
organizations which are working for the noble cause rti.

But please don’t do anything that is illegal n may lead to more
controversies for the awards in the days to come.

strengthen rti , save the country

regards

urvashi

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

@i$#w@ry@!

#2388

From: urvashi sharma <rtimahilamanchup@...>
Date: Wed Nov 25, 2009 1:53 pm
Subject: rti news from maldives " all information must be provided within 30 days, which the Maldives Journalism Association (MJA) has argued should be shortened to 21 days.

rtimahilaman...

Offline

http://www.minivannews.com/news_detail.php?id=7801

Government submits right to information bill

25 November 2009 Ahmed NaishA right to information bill was submitted
to parliament this week to ensure the government conducts its
activities in a transparent and accountable manner, according to the
president’s office.

Deputy Attorney General Abdulla Muizza told Minivan News today the
bill was “very similar” to the current right to information
regulations, noting the right was enshrined in the constitution.

Article 29 of the constitution stipulates that everyone has the
freedom to acquire and impart knowledge, information and learning.

While the right to information regulations exist, Muizzu said an Act
would be “more effective” and have “more weight”, adding that
regulations have to be reviewed every year.

“Regulations can also be changed at any time by a three-member panel
in parliament but an Act requires all of parliament to be changed,” he
said.

Ali Shamaan, the editor of Hafta weekly, said the bill will compel
government offices to provide information.

“Legal action can be taken against those who refuse, whereas under the
regulations, there was no legal recourse,” he said.

The right to information regulations were adopted by presidential
decree last year after a bill on the issue was rejected by parliament
in 2007.

Shamaan said the 2007 bill had “serious flaws” as it was proposed by a
“30-year-old dictatorship” that did not have any intention of
providing information.

“But in the last few years of the Maumoon government, a circular was
sent to all government offices asking them to provide information to
media,” he said.

He added that the incumbent government had told offices to make
information available and was confidence MPs would vote for the bill.

The right to information regulations came into effect in May but have
been severely criticised by journalists, who have argued they hamper
rather than ease access to information.

Under the regulations, all information must be provided within 30
days, which the Maldives Journalism Association (MJA) has argued
should be shortened to 21 days.

The MJA further criticised provisions in the regulations which allow
government institutions to extend the period from 30 to 60 days on a
number of grounds such as if the information is not considered ready
for publication.

The regulations have also been criticised for their numerous
exceptions. Information can be withheld if, for example, it relates
“to a third party, is a trade secret or goes against a prior
agreement”.

In a UNESCO sponsored report published last month, Toby Mendel, senior
legal counsel at Article 19, an international organisation that
advocates for freedom of expression, said the regulations did not,
appear to be implemented in practice or used by either citizens or
civil society as a means of accessing information.


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

@i$#w@ry@!