Thank you, Hari.
regards n bw
ravi
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Hariraj M.R. <harirajmr@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Ravi Sir,
Sri Vijayakumar who was a commissioner was a District Judge.
HARI
On 16 November 2010 07:41, Ravindran P M <pmravindran@gmail.com> wrote:
Not District Judge perhaps, but a judge was there in the Kerala SIC. Incidently, when judiciary is amoung the institutions that has blatantly subverte the RTI Act- KG Balakrishnan declaring that his office of CJI is out of purview, the exhorbitant fee/cost fixed by various CJs as competant authorities and you think that having judges as ICs is a better option? Even otherwise it is the judicary as an institution that has failed the citizens more than any other organ.regards n bwraviOn Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 2:15 PM, Anil Agrawal <aadit3@gmail.com> wrote:
How can you protect it when bur'eaucrats are working as Information Commissioner? They may sure to get a cushy job after retirement? Have you seen any retired District Judge being appointed as Information Commissioner anywhere?
Anil
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 12:14 PM, PMK1504 <humjanenge.owner@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Sh Koppar
Many thanks for sparing your valued time to post to this list. Your points are well taken.
For the owner of this list, the prime concern is to put in place the supporting infrastructure for vast numbers of citizens and RTI activists to communicate freely and without moderation with each other strictly for our common objective and shared purpose..
With about 2,000 members now and 3,000 email IDs still to be added, it is a towering job to resurrect HumJanenge like a phoenix from the ashes. Members may be assured that this pioneering National RTI group will always be at their disposal when required and for their assistance in time of need, but occasionally harsh measures and words may need to be employed to bring the group back on track.
RTI had blossomed in India. But there are many enemies of RTI, some of them in very seductive and deceptive forms, who have conspired to weaken the power of this noble legislation and caused it to wither away.
PMK
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 9:56 PM, B J Koppar <bjkoppar@gmail.com> wrote:
Sir,I would request all to resist making harsh comments. RTI is blossoming in India and we need to protect it from ill effects of bureaucracy, therefore any expression about malfunctioning needs to be read and understood, so that right path comes into view. I as an RTI Activist in Daman since 2006 have learnt many a things through such follies. Well the decision to act is subjective, but let the objective be not lost. Thank you.--
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 7:39 PM, PMK1504 <humjanenge.owner@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Shri Bimal Khemani
Please (re)read the following message thread, especially my last post.
http://groups.google.com/group/HumJanenge/browse_thread/thread/ab72a1d13cc07778
In future,
a) Please don't post details of individual cases.
b) "Self publicity or publicity for NGOs (and their programs) is
strictly prohibited."
NB:This group is not the "other" HumJanenge where any rubbish can be dumped.
This is your final warning
PMK
> Friends
> I am attaching here with 6 documenmts
> Smt. Premlata Sharma applied to CPIO, BSNL , Aligarh
> for inspection of a particular file ( 01.jpg )
> The CPIO did not responded while after First appeal the FAA
> has sent his reply with a copy of affidavit ( 02.jpg & 03.jpg )
> Smt. Premalata filed her 2nd appeal before CIC ( 04.jpg )
> The funny order of CIC ( 05.jpg )
>
> BSNL , Aligarh is headed by a General Manager with various brances like Commercial, Accounts, Engineering etc. The applicant wanted inspection of a file which is available with the commercial section, . The FAA who is DGM in adminstrative department, without going into the details sent an affidavit signed by his Commercial officer stating that the file is not available in his branch , the FAA in place of searching file in other departments under his control, choose to take this shortest route.
> The matter was referred to CIC with a prayer that the authority be directed to give an affidavit recording the reason for the lost of file.
> The case was fixed for hearing on 12-10-2010, The appealant sent an E.mail as well as FAX to the Asstt. Registrar of CIC on 11-10-2010, which was not put up in the record and in absence of the appellant the appeal was heard.
> The learned CIC in his decision did not considered the prayer of the appellant and given the decision within the framework of RTI gave his verdict like a High Court judge.
> I am failed to understand, under RTI how CIC can ask the appelant to approach the public authority for refund of her money with interest.
>
>
> BIMAL KUMAR KHEMANI,
> TRAP group of RTI activists
> ALIGARH (U.P.)
> Mob:09359724625
> ******************************************
> Officially Certified A Grade by DoPT
> *****************************************
Keep emailing me bjkoppar@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment