Tab Content
  • digal's Avatar
    5 Days Ago
    Atul Kumar Mishra 1. So far as the proper address of the CPIO/CAPIO/AA is concerned, pl go through Lucknow circle of SBI & download the details: https://www.sbi.co.in/portal/documents/41076/60023/1364301808305_LUCKNOW_CIRCLE_AND_BRANCHES.xls/6c03f536-2234-40b3-a395-21e73d2706c8 However, for your help, i have provided the address/Ph details: CPIO NO. CAPIO NO. BRANCHCD BRANCHNAME CIRCLE NETWORK MODULE REGION ADDRESS1 ADDRESS2 ADDRESS3 ADDRESS4 DISTRICT NAME STATE NAME PINCODE STD CODE PHONE FAX EMAIL DGM(B&O) VARANASI 9453798000 CHIEF MGR(GB)VARANASI 9450960732 05954 ZONAL OFFICE, VARANASI LUCKNOW 3 VARANASI 8 OPPOSITE KACHAHARI ZONAL OFFICE VARANASI VARANASI UTTAR PRADESH 221002 0542 2503390 0 sbi.05954@sbi.co.in ======= 2. For your post#7: Let me clarify about the CAPIO of Dept of Post. Remember All post offices do not have CAPIOs to forward RTI applications to PIOs of PAs. Post offices(mostly at dist HQ) have designated CAPIOs to receive & forward RTI applications to few "Notified" central Public Authorities. But, you need to address a designated CAPIO, requesting him/her to transfer to the exact PA(if notified by central Govt.) India Post | RTI | Central Assistant Public Information Officers (CAPIOs) R K Mishra
    16 replies | 294 view(s)
  • digal's Avatar
    1 Week Ago
    The discussion has just deviated bit towards "accessing information on answer sheets over stipulated period". The esteemed argument has originated from some other thread: http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/132308-regarding-copy-answer-sheet-delhi-university.html
    9 replies | 1484 view(s)
  • digal's Avatar
    1 Week Ago
    Above "Observation" of Hon'ble Supreme Court is answer to the following question raised by the judges for their own consideration regarding that matter. If the examinee is entitled to inspection of the evaluated answer books or seek certified copies thereof, whether such right is subject to any limitations, conditions or safeguards? ================== Many activists will be dismayed to read the following "Observation" in the same case, which is being used indiscriminately by PIO/FAAs : "37.........Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising ‘information furnishing’, at the cost of their normal and regular duties." The esteemed "observation" is for those frivolous information requests, which engage 75% time of Public Authorities and can never be generalized. But, several PIOs use this as a "direction". Another "observation" by the judges in the same case hurts many Activists: "33. Some High Courts have held that section 8 of RTI Act is in the nature of an exception to section 3 which empowers the citizens with the right to information, which is a derivative from the freedom of speech; and that therefore section 8 should be construed strictly, literally and narrowly. This may not be the correct approach......." But, the Hon'ble judges forgot to mention an earlier citation of constitution bench { S.P.Gupta & Ors. vs. President of India and Ors. (AIR 1982 SC 149)} "66......The concept of an open government is the direct emanation from the right to know which seems to be implicit in the right of free speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a). Therefore, disclosure of information in regard to the functioning of Government must be the rule and secrecy an exception justified only where the strictest requirement of public interest so demands. The approach of the court must be to attenuate the area of secrecy as much as possible consistently with the requirement of public interest, bearing in mind all the time that disclosure also serves an important aspect of public interest…" =============== However, as the observation clarifies the question about limitations, it is very difficult for ICs to give direction to change the period of retention as per "Statutory Rules (not Executive Order)". Yes, if the period of retention seems to be irrational, that may be challenged at appropriate court. R K Mishra
    15 replies | 512 view(s)
  • digal's Avatar
    1 Week Ago
    For Information: The Next Date of listing of the above case at Supreme court is : 04/12/2014 Advocate Mr. Prashant Bhushan reprsents from respondent(Paras Jain) side. ---------- R K Mishra
    9 replies | 1484 view(s)
  • digal's Avatar
    1 Week Ago
    aarveee , Pl check whether the laid procedures are by "Statutory Rules"or by "Executive Order". If it is by the later, then follow : http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/123199-new-download-answer-papers-only-rs-2-a-post303485.html#post303485 http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/dhcqrydisp_o.asp?pn=80999&yr=2014 Though the Delhi HC order has been stayed by Supreme Court, the citation (LPA 275/2014, PARAS JAIN vs IOC Sec of India) may be helpful for Appeals. R K Mishra
    15 replies | 512 view(s)
  • digal's Avatar
    1 Week Ago
    Friends, Here is d esteemed order of Hon'ble IC M. Sridhar Acharyulu, where, he show-caused PIO for not accepting IPO in the name of the Accounts Officer, despite clear instruction from DoPT. (Subhash Chandra Agrawal Vs Irrigation & Flood Control Dept., GNCTD; Dtd. 13.11.2014) http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SA_A_2014_000046_M_142239.pdf "5. The Commission directs Shri Rajesh Singh, Executive Engineer: Civil Division:IV to show cause as to why penalty u/s 20 should not be imposed upon him for not accepting the IPO in the name of the Accounts Officer despite clear instructions from DoPT. He is directed to submit his response so as to reach the Commission within three weeks of receipt of this order." R K Mishra
    3 replies | 289 view(s)
  • digal's Avatar
    1 Week Ago
    Yes, u can. But, wait 4 few(enough 4 postal time, both ways) days; so that, u can frame 1st appeal based on d replies received. Many a times replies received just after the 1st appeal filed.
    4 replies | 215 view(s)
  • digal's Avatar
    2 Weeks Ago
    Through RTI, you can know about your own marks as well as your answer sheet. You can get the copy of Model answer sheet/Key If you can convince commission(less likely at lower stages) that larger public interest is involved in it(with compelling evidence), you can even know marks of other candidates. Pl go through http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/130204-rti-get-competitive-exam-answersheet-post325437.html#post325437 http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/51819-disclosure-university-examination-answer-sheets-post310153.html#post310153 R K Mishra
    4 replies | 163 view(s)
  • digal's Avatar
    2 Weeks Ago
    :SS: SHOCKING !!! We lost an active member, who tirelessly engaged in benevolent causes at that age. Showing his example, i used to encourage my Father to get accustomed with computer & web. Great loss! :eek::sad: May his soul rest in peace. We standby with his family at this difficult time.
    44 replies | 1171 view(s)
  • digal's Avatar
    3 Weeks Ago
    G.L.N. Prasad ji, Pl visit the related thread: http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/129771-reasons-locus-seeking-info-necessary-given-rti.html?highlight=High+court+reason
    46 replies | 5278 view(s)
  • digal's Avatar
    3 Weeks Ago
    All that does not depend on the NAME, but strictly how it functions, formed or financed in the context of section 2(h) of the Act. It depends & differs case to case basis as per the respective State co-operative Acts. Let me provide few links of co-op Banks having RTI pages, as they have the obligation under the Act as per their State co-op Acts: Bhandara Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Right to Information Act The Tripura State Cooperative Bank Limited (TSCB) TRIPURA STATE CO_OPERATIVE BANK Let show the reasons why the bodies were not covered under RTI, as in the examples stated by learned MANOJ B. PATEL In the impugned order the Hon'ble Judges have clarified the reasons. Not only that, in a later judgement at J& K High Court, the same Order was not considered as that case was DIFFERENT http://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/generatenewauth.php?auth=cGF0aD0uL2RhdGEvbmFnanVkZ2VtZW50cy8yMDA5LyZmbmFtZT1DV1AxOTg2MjA3LnBkZiZzbWZsYWc9Tg== 9. In the present case, admittedly, the share capital of the petitioner bank was not provided by the Government nor it is getting any financial assistance by the Government. No director of the petitioner-Bank is appointed by the Government nor the Government has any direct control or interference in functioning and management of the Bank.] http://jksic.nic.in/judgements/SK%20nov%2018.pdf The Learned Counsel for the Corporation cited authority titled PD Urban Cooperative Bank Limited V/s State Information Commissioner, AIR 2009 Bombay 75. This authority is not of much use to the plea taken by the respondents as it does not fit in the factual matrix of the complaint in hand. The perusal of the record amply shows that the J&K Cooperative Housing Corporation Limited is being controlled by the State Government as it has received a share capital of Rs. 76.15 lakhs from the State Government. The State Government also provides guarantee against the loans borrowed by the Housing Corporation. It has also provided equity in the form of share capital from time to time.] http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgments/bitstream/123456789/104665/1/WP16901-06-30-06-2008.pdf 7………that the notification dated 22.9.2005 (Annexure-B)has s been issued under Section 2(b)(d) of the Ri] Act. Solely on the basis of supervision and contml 1w the Rrgist.rar of socieics; and the definition of ‘public Servant’ in the co-operative . societies and in the kanmtaka Lokavukia P, ;,. 1981 ‘i sOciety cannol be tenurd as ‘Public authority ‘. So as to include a society wit Jim (lie definition ul Jw ttnn ‘Public authority’, it should futhih] hit- condiliojys stipi:lainl iii sub—clause (d) of clause (Ii) of ‘r’tioiz 2 of the Ri’! Act. The decisions cited by (lie learnn coinist-l (or tl’r pc!itioner/society fully support the east ‘t 11w petitioner. 11w petitioner—society does not rijilul the icui’r ‘-oii’llu(nIs laid down in sub—clause (d) of clause b) cJ sectim 2 of the Act Therefore, the petitioner soeje1 is nut a ‘public authority’ under the provisions of the R’!’( Act, 1005. Hence, the directions issued by the Registrar ķa the prtitioiicr/ society, by his communication dated 30.10.20W, by the respondent no.2 at Annexure- D are not hitiditig 011 the petitioner/society. 8 For the reasons stated supra, the petition is allowed holding that the petitioner-Society is not a public authority under the provisions of the Ri] Act, 2005.] →as the low Q embedded pdf converted to text, some words may not be readable. On the contrary, in the following order, Hon'ble Delhi High Court has cited ditailed discussion on sec 2(h) & fined the petitioners (Co-op Socities) Krishak Bharti Cooperative Ltd. vs Ramesh Chander Bawa on 14 May, 2010 http://indiankanoon.org/doc/159896809/ 60. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court finds no error having been committed by the CIC in its conclusion that KRIBHCO, NCCF and NAFED are „public authorities‟ within the meaning of Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act. 61. Each of the writ petitions is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs. 20,000/- which will be paid by each Petitioner to the respective Respondent within four weeks. ] Not only that, even PSIC has stated that Co-operatives controlled by Govt officials can be under RTI, even without financial help from Govt. Shri Vineet Malik Vs Cooperative Societies, Mohali : Even though the respondent-society is a cooperative society registered under the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1963 and does not have any share capital of the Government nor government has given any financial assistance, the fact is that as on date the elected body has been dissolved and government has appointed its officials as Chairman and Members of the Governing Body of the respondent-society. In fact, therefore, the day to day management of the cooperative society is in the hands of officials of the government in the Department of Cooperative Societies............3. The fact that the entire Governing Body of the respondent-society consists of only Government officials it amounts to virtually control and management of the Cooperative Society within the meaning of Section 2(h)(d)(i) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. I have no hesitation in holding that as on date the respondent is a public authority under the RTI Act.] Hence, Pl go through your State Co-op Act under which the bodies formed, & file RTI accordingly. If you feel they satisfy the provisions u/s 2(h) & if they have not yet covered, proceed till IC level to bring them uner RTI. R K Mishra
    4 replies | 292 view(s)
  • digal's Avatar
    10-17-2014
    digal replied to a thread railway in Non RTI Issues
    Hi B srinath, WELCOME to RTI INDIA, the ocean of knowledge on RTI matters. If you need information on the Policy of IR regarding the subject mater, file RTI u/s 6(1) of the Act to the PIO, attaching a fee (say IPO) of Rupees 10/-, asking a copy of the same. Go through Guide section to know abc of RTI Rules & Fees. Centre & States have different Rules. In this august forum, feel free to clarify your doubt on RTI matters. You may encounter the following abbreviations during your search/observations, described in simple form without technical details. PA : Public Authority > The Organization/Department which possesses the information. PIO : Public Information Officer > to whom you may apply for information. Under section 6(1), apply with prescribed fees (Rules & Fees) & wait for 30(48 hrs for life & liberty) days + postal delay. FAA : First Appellate Authority > If you did not get any reply or the reply is not satisfactory, you may Appeal to FAA u/s 19(1). Wait for 30 (45 for other reasons) + postal delay. IC : Information Commission; CIC for central Govt/PSUs, SIC for State Govt/PSUs.> last step in the process, where you need to appeal u/s 19(3), within 90 days of decision of FAA. U/s 18(1), you may Complain directly to CIC/SIC, where you did not get any reply from PIO/ got misleading/False/Incomplete Information. Also you may complain where PA doesn’t have any PIO or never displays/updates RTI information on it’s website. The Act is in simple form. Just have a look to epitomize the sections. You may download various Orders of Information Commissions, High Courts & Supreme Court. Regards R K Mishra
    4 replies | 185 view(s)
  • digal's Avatar
    10-17-2014
    digal replied to a thread RTI Fees in Ask for RTI Query
    In addition to that, as said by karira Sir, file another RTI to get the copy of the said bill→ Also, in your 1st Appeal, pray for the information free of cost u/s 7(6) of the Act. No such fees for compilation have been prescribed under RTI Rule 2012. Even if they have already spent mony to compile information, they cannot take umbrage of any other section to shield information.
    7 replies | 332 view(s)
  • digal's Avatar
    10-08-2014
    May his greatness respond to d petition to appoint Ch IC immediately: https://www.change.org/p/narendramodi-appoint-chief-information-commissioner-in-the-central-information-commission?alert_id=WVfmdJfCaF_D5UESW%2BSqgqN80G6%2BosYhobE3bqJKeBBuIUyDC3Lep4%3D&utm_campaign=155489&utm_medium=email&utm_source=action_alert May his fondness of "Quest for Transparency" ( Quest for Transparency | Prime Minister of India ) propel accountability, by removing all hurdles at CIC, appointing dynamic activist ICs to it's full strength in a transparent manner.
    1 replies | 477 view(s)
  • digal's Avatar
    10-02-2014
    Sharing the above Post#3 on my Networks ( FB, twitter, G+ ... ) Headless CIC has been collapsed, & in d verge of extinct :( R K Mishra
    12 replies | 522 view(s)
  • digal's Avatar
    09-28-2014
    It is very difficult to read into the minds of ICs. However, the IC as mentioned above, had decided FIVE years earlier than the famous Supreme Court Order, as quoted in the following CIC decision. @MANOJ B. PATEL ji, Pl go through the link provided by @RAVEENA_O ji to find the following post. http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/51819-disclosure-university-examination-answer-sheets-post310153.html#post310153 "FACTS Vide RTI dt 14.8.13, appellant had sought photocopy of his answer sheet for entrance exam 2013-14...... 6. The Commission is amazed to find that the Central Institute of Hindi, Agra are not complying with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Aditya Bandopadhyay Vs CBSE dt Aug 9, 2011. In this order, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had upheld the right of examinees to access their answer sheets. Denial of answer sheet to the appellant constitutes a contempt of the Supreme Court’s order. CPIO is directed to provide a copy of the answer sheet to the appellant within ten days from date of receipt of the order." Hence, the Later CIC order prevails; & is beneficial for information seekers, a blow to the vicious. R K Mishra
    11 replies | 473 view(s)
  • digal's Avatar
    09-27-2014
    Yes, you can. You may file RTI to know about your own Answer-sheet. If you can convince commission(less likely at lower stages) that larger public interest is involved in it(with compelling evidence), you can even know marks of other candidates. To The Public Information Officer, XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX From XXXXXXXX …. …. Date: XXXXXXXXXX Sub: Application for information u/s 6(1) of RTI Act, 2005. Sir, I hereby apply for the following information regarding xxxxxxxxxxxx examination for the post of XXXXXX, held on D-XXXXX (or provide any other details for the specific exam). I was a candidate in the examination bearing Reg. No/Roll No: XXXXXXXXXX.(provide suitable data for identification) 1. Marks scored by me in the above mentioned examination. 2. Cutoff marks for selection. 3. List of candidates, who have been selected. 4. Kindly provide certified copy of my OSR/OMR Answer Sheet. 5. Kindly provide certified copy of Model Answer Sheet/Answer key. 6. Name and address of the Agency, who conducted the examination. 7. Kindly provide certified copy of the Contract/Agreement between XXX and the above mentioned agency to conduct the examination. Thanking you, yours truly (XXXXXXXXXXX, Reg./Roll No. xxxxxxxx) Enclosures: IPO / e-IPO No. xxx xxxxxxxxx of Rupees XX(10 for central PAs)/- ------------------ The information inside bracket at Query#4 is for your/other viewers' reference; & may be deleted. R K Mishra.
    11 replies | 473 view(s)
  • digal's Avatar
    09-20-2014
    Many thanks for the order Vidyaranya Gargeshwari ji The case(A K Goel Vs FAA) is an issue, where Mr Goel(former CPIO, appellant b4 CIC) has been cited as a "person" as well as a "PA". In the impugned order, it is clearly mentioned that a 1st Appeal may be filed by a "PA" as a "person".→ naturally against a PIO (no doubt, that PA as u/s 2(h), should not be the same PIO) So, I still have doubt whether or not, that case can be generalized for 1st Appeals by designated present PIO(as a person) against decision of a PIO(deemed). However, leaving the matter to get more complicated, the best option would be to go safe→ as advised earlier. R K Mishra
    31 replies | 1203 view(s)
  • digal's Avatar
    09-20-2014
    Vidyaranya Gargeshwari Sir, i am interested in that order, where designated PIO can file 1st Appeal u/s 19(1) of the Act. However, as discussed, even without such appeal(or report), after receiving the forwarded application , the "delinquent officer" automatically becomes a deemed PIO u/s 5(5). Members are requested to upload/provide the link of the order. R K Mishra.
    31 replies | 1203 view(s)
  • digal's Avatar
    09-19-2014
    Some of us are ignoring the statement made by the learned member. The member is not an applicant but a PIO, who has forwarded application in his department (Not to different PA). Any contradiction with the above can be corrected by the member ( vinod7674 ) himself. R K Mishra
    31 replies | 1203 view(s)
  • digal's Avatar
    09-19-2014
    G.L.N. Prasad Saab, Maintaining silence cannot be the true spirit of the Act. The applicant should be communicated within thirty days. Let me tell about a notorious PA(you know better). I got reply for my RTI related to registry of IC ML after such communication. 1) i got a copy of reply(and a final reminder) from Nodal CPIO addressed to Mr. (obdurate) K L Das. This letter was sent just at the end of 30 days as defined in the Act & asked him to communicate with me directly. 2) Mr. K L Das woke up after the letter & provided information directly to me. If the Nodal CPIO would have maintained silence, no doubt, i would have gone for 1st appeal & would get reply after FAA order(happened in another case), a further delay & harassment. In my view, designated PIO should exonerate himself of all allegations by responding sincerely within specified time. In his last reminder letter(with a copy to the applicant), he should mention that the information should be provided directly to the applicant.
    31 replies | 1203 view(s)
  • digal's Avatar
    09-18-2014
    Hi vinod, welcome to RTIINDIA. It seems u/s 5(4) of the Act, you have forwarded the RTI application to the official who has the information. You have also sent reminders 5 times. For the spirit of RTI & for the benefit of the applicant, kindly inform the matter to the higher officials in writing. →Not required as per Act. Send a reply to the Applicant along with copy of all the reminders (or date of reminders), that the application has been forwarded to....., mentioning the Name & address of the FAA. This shoud be done within thirty days. The obdurate official is now a deemed PIO & will face all the music as per the Act. R K Mishra
    31 replies | 1203 view(s)
  • digal's Avatar
    09-17-2014
    Sajib Nandi sir, You may also be interested to read Sailesh Gandhi Sir's publication: Open letter to Chief Justice Open letter to Chief Justice
    9 replies | 1196 view(s)
  • digal's Avatar
    09-14-2014
    digal replied to a thread kya yah thik h. in Ask for RTI Query
    har wo phone jo Delhi se aati hei, wo PMO se nehin aati. PMO deshbhar ki bahut saare RTI handle karta hai. Tazub ki baat hai ki PMO applicant ko Phone vi karta hai. ↓↓↓aap ki pehle wali sawal se yeh lagta hai ki aaap ko uttar mil chuki hei. ↓↓↓ http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/129034-can-pio-seek-reasons-rti-applicant-having.html?highlight= kripaya wo saare phone call(agar sach hei to) ka najar-andaz kijiye. jaise @G.L.N. Prasad ji ne samjhayen hein, duwara ph. no. mat dijiye.
    5 replies | 372 view(s)
  • digal's Avatar
    09-13-2014
    No, It can only decide on the 2nd appeals/complaints (for the appellants/complainants) on RTI matters related to seeking information. An individual can not get relief for grievances on service matters. Through RTI He/she may ask information to the concerned PIO relating to the Rules/Procedures adopted (related to the grievance) & the data(record for actual action report/log book etc) in conformity with the Rules. To get the above information, he/she may go till Information commission level. The discrepancy between the two, may be reported to the appropriate Authority or legal relief can be sought based on the documents obtained. Provided, the employer is a Public Authority(or under), where he/she works. There are internal grievance redressal mechanisms in each Public Authority; and should be tried first(though least meaningful).
    7 replies | 315 view(s)
  • digal's Avatar
    08-30-2014
    pechettiEnsure that the link has exactly the same characters as shown in the url. Somehow the link location got modified as in "1"(wrong one). 1) http://http//rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SG_A_2011_000464_12432_M_56475.pdf Do not click on the link or copy link location directly.Just select the characters & copy. 2) http://rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SG_A_2011_000464_12432_M_56475.pdf
    28 replies | 23802 view(s)
No More Results
About cvinoy

Basic Information

Date of Birth
March 17, 1964 (50)
Personal Information

About the Personal Details.

Location:
Durgapur

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
1
Posts Per Day
0.00
General Information
Last Activity
12-25-2011
Join Date
11-04-2011
Referrals
0

1 Friend

Showing Friends 1 to 1 of 1

cvinoy's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated
No results to show...
No results to display...
No results to display...
No results to display...

Activity Information
  • Total Points:
  • 11.05
  • Activity Level:
  • 1
  • To Next Level:
  • 8.95
  • Percent Into Level:
  • 10.5% Achieved
  • Daily Activity:
  • 0 / 20.37 (0%)
  • Weekly Activity:
  • 0.1 / 142.6 (0.07%)
  • Monthly Activity:
  • 1.25 / 611.14 (0.2%)
Points
  • Points for Attachment:
  • 0
  • Points for Posts:
  • 0
  • Points for Posts (Own Threads):
  • 0
  • Points for Threads:
  • 0
  • Points for Thread Ratings Given:
  • 0
  • Points for Thread Ratings Received:
  • 0
  • Points for Polls Posted:
  • 0
  • Points for Poll Votes:
  • 0
  • Points for Confirmed Friends:
  • 0
  • Points for Reputation (Given):
  • 0
  • Points for Reputation (Received):
  • 0
  • Points for Referrals:
  • 0
  • Points for Days Registered:
  • 0
  • Points for Blogs:
  • 0
  • Points for Blog Comments:
  • 0
  • Points for Mentions Given:
  • 0
  • Points for Mentions Received:
  • 0
  • Points for Tags Given:
  • 0
  • Points for Tags Received:
  • 0
  • Points for Profile Completed:
  • 0
  • Points for Contests Won:
  • 0
  • Points for Registration:
  • 0
  • Points For [DBTech] DragonByte Gallery Uploads:
  • 0
  • Points For Award Bonuses:
  • 0
  • Points For Thanks Given:
  • 0
  • Points For Likes Given:
  • 0
  • Points For Thanks Received:
  • 0
  • Points For Likes Received:
  • 0
  • Points For Problems Posted:
  • 0
  • Points For Problems Solved:
  • 0
  • Points For Solutions Validated:
  • 0
1 Achievements
Achievement Earned on 06-22-2014 10:25 AM
Started off by making 1st Post
Achievement Earned on 06-22-2014 10:25 AM
0 Awards
Currently Held Trophies
Previously Held Trophies


About RTI INDIA

    RTI INDIA: Invoking Your Rights. We provide easy ways to request, analyze & share Government documents by use of Right to Information and by way of community support.

Follow us on

Twitter Facebook youtube Tumblr RTI Microblog RSS Feed Apple App Store Google Play for Android

Newsletter Subscription