• karira's Avatar
    5 Hours Ago
    Each University has a prescribed procedure for verification or marksheets/degrees. Visit the website of the University and follow the procedure described there. If there is no procedure given, check the procedure from the University.
    2 replies | 29 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    5 Hours Ago
    Investors, depositors have right to seek compensation in financial fraud In an historical decision, the NCDRC held that the remedy before a consumer forum is primarily a civil remedy, whereas the prosecution before and conviction by a designated court constituted under MPID Act is a criminal remedy The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), in a significant decision, has held that investors and depositors have a right to seek compensation under the Consumer Protection Act in case of defaults from a financial establishment. In a related case, the apex consumer Commission has asked Nagpur-based Shivaji Estate Livestock And Farms Pvt Ltd to refund money invested along with a 9% interest from filing the complaint. The NCDRC also directed the company to pay 10% of the amount invested as compensation and Rs1,000 as cost of litigation to the complainant. The NCDRC judgement ratifies a financial consumer's right to seek compensation for a fraudulent default on part of a financial establishment. A Bench of Justice VK Jain and Dr BC Gupta, said, "It would be seen from a perusal of the provisions contained in Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) Act that the designated court has no power to grant compensation to a person who is a victim of the fraudulent default on the part of a Financial Establishment. Therefore, it would be difficult to say that the said MPID Act provides an adequate redressal of the grievances of a person who suffers on account of the fraudulent default on the part of a Financial Establishment, where such defaults also constitutes deficiency in the services rendered by a service provider to its consumer. We are also in agreement with the learned counsel for the complainant that the remedy before a consumer forum is primarily a civil remedy, whereas the prosecution before and conviction by a designated court constituted under MPID Act is a criminal remedy available to the victim of a fraudulent default on the part of a Financial Establishment." In this case, the complainants, Pratibha Adelkar and 372 others were represented by Adv Shirish Deshpande of the Mumbai Grahak Panchayat. Shivaji Estate Livestock invited investors to invest in its goat farming and allied activities by purchasing units of several schemes floated by it. In its brochure, Shivaji Estate Livestock said it has arranged about 500 goats in each goat shed with 25-50 such shed in each rearing centre, 100% of the livestock would be insured and there would be 100% guarantee of the invested amount. The company also told investors that they would have hypothetical charge on 1,000 sq ft of land of Shivaji Estate Livestock and one time investment would offer consistent benefit for 15 years, experienced vets and professionals would look after livestock. The company also assured minimum expected return on the investment and if targets are achieved, investors were also promised additional bonus. The schemes also provided for pre-mature withdrawals by giving 45 days’ notice. Initially, Shivaji Estate Livestock made payments of some instalments due to the investors under the schemes but later on did not fulfil the terms (for repayment to investors). When the investors applied for pre-mature withdrawals, the company failed to honour its commitment. Alleging deficiency in the services offered by Shivaji Estate Livestock, the complainants filed appeal before the NCDRC. No one except a director of Shivaji Estate Livestock filed any reply. In the reply, the company director took a preliminary objection that in view of the provisions contained in the MPID Act, the NCDRC has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, since the Act provides complete machinery for recovery of investors' deposits. It also stated that a complaint and FIR was filed against the company. A charge sheet was filed against the Company and nine others, under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3 and 4 of the MPID Act and the case was pending before the Designated Court. Shivaji Estate Livestock, however did not deny floating of schemes and accepting deposits from the complainants. The NDCRD Bench, said, "As per Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, 'consumer' means any person, who either buys goods or hires or avails services for a consideration, but does not include a person, who avails of such services for any commercial purpose. The term 'service' has been defined in Section 2(a) of the Act to mean service of any description, which is made available to potential users. The Complainants hired or availed the services of the opposite party for investing their savings in the schemes floated by Shivaji Estate Livestock, and deposited money with it for investing on their behalf in goat farming and allied activities. Therefore, it can hardly be disputed that the complainants are consumers of Shivaji Estate Livestock within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act." The Bench then decided on whether the jurisdiction of NCDRC is barred under sub-section of Section 6 of the MPID Act. Adv Deshpande contented that since the consumer forum is not a court; the provisions of Section 6(2) of the MPID Act are not applicable to such forum. He also submitted that the remedy provided before a consumer forum is a civil remedy in a case where the fraudulent default, as defined in MPID Act also constitutes deficiency in the services rendered by a service provider, whereas MPID Act provides for criminal prosecution and punishment of the persons indulging in such fraudulent defaults. "...the designated court constituted under the provisions of MPID Act has no power to grant compensation, which a consumer forum can grant in a case of deficiency in the services rendered to a consumer," Adv Deshpande pointed out. Accepting the contention, the Bench said, "Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act provides that the provisions of the said Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. The MPID Act came to be enacted much later than enactment of the Consumer Protection Act. Despite that the Legislation in its wisdom used only the expression 'Court' and not the expression 'Court or any other forum' in sub-Section (2) of Section 6 of the said Act. In these circumstances, it would be difficult to say that the legislative intent behind the enactment of sub-Section (2) of the Section 6 was also to exclude the jurisdiction of the consumer forum in a case where fraudulent default on the part of the Financial Establishment also constitutes deficiency in the service rendered to a consumer. Therefore, in our view, for the purpose of the sub-Section (2) of Section 6 of the MPID Act, consumer forum cannot be said to be a 'court'." While disposing of the complaint, the apex consumer forum, then directed Shivaji Estate Livestock to refund to investors, money deposited in different schemes along with an interest of 9% from the date of filing complaint. Read More: Investors, depositors have right to seek compensation in financial fraud - Moneylife
    0 replies | 32 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    8 Hours Ago
    Make activities, finances public: Ministry to IOA, NSFs NEW DELHI: In a bid to ensure transparency, the Sports Ministry today made it mandatory for the Indian Olympic Association and the national federations to disclose their activities and finances online, failing which their recognition could be reviewed. In a letter to the IOA and NSFs, the Ministry has said these instructions have also been made part of the National Sports Development Code of India, 2011. The letter said, "It has been noticed tha .. Read more at: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/46428692.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
    0 replies | 62 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    8 Hours Ago
    If they think they are "flooded" with RTI applications on these two subjects, they can upload all the information on their website as well as give a media release on the expenses, as soon as possible.
    1 replies | 106 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    8 Hours Ago
    The new email policy, referred to in the above news report is available on this portal here: http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/7397-guidelines-government-websites-email-useage-management-government-post347506.html#post347506 Please also read: http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/7397-guidelines-government-websites-email-useage-management-government.html
    1 replies | 70 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    9 Hours Ago
    Haan mil jayega
    14 replies | 246 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    9 Hours Ago
    You have to visit the office of the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) of Maharashtra. Most probably they will give you the voters list to check in their office.
    3 replies | 41 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    11 Hours Ago
    Central RTI form jaisi koi cheez nahin hai. Aap apna RTI plain paper pey type yaan likh saktey hain.
    14 replies | 246 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    11 Hours Ago
    Which specific sub section of Sec 8(1) did he specify to reject your request ? Please specify. Please share the exact contents of your RTI application and the PIOs reply. This will enable our helpful members to guide you correctly.
    2 replies | 100 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    15 Hours Ago
    Maharashtra govt won’t probe anonymous graft complaints In a severe blow to whistleblowers in Maharashtra, the BJP-led state government has made it clear that anonymous complaints, irrespective of how serious allegations are levelled in them, won’t be probed. The General Administration Department, headed by Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, has issued directives to all state departments stating that complaints not carrying the name and the address of the complainant must be closed without any action. It further states that the same rule should be followed in complaints that carry the name of the complainant, but the allegations levelled in them are “vague” in nature. Even in cases where the complainant chooses to identify himself/herself and the allegations are “verifiable”, the approval of the competent authority should be taken for taking cognisance of such a complaint. After which, it must first be referred back to the complainant to ascertain if he/she owns up to filing the complaint. If nothing is heard from the complainant within a month, such complaints must be treated as “pseudonymous” in nature and discarded without any probe, the directive adds. Sources in the government said the move was to arrest policy paralysis in the bureaucracy. But anti-corruption activists said that it would discourage people from becoming whistleblowers and exposing corruption. The government, on the other hand, has argued that whistleblowers who desire to protect their identity were already protected under the Public Interest Disclosure and Protection of Informers Resolution, 2004, where the identify of a complainant is kept a secret. Read More: Maharashtra govt won’t probe anonymous graft complaints | The Indian Express
    0 replies | 30 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    15 Hours Ago
    Is there any such rule - in centre or state ?
    6 replies | 92 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    16 Hours Ago
    If he/she has obtained a passport using fake documents and you have all the evidence, then simply complain to the Passport office which issued that passport and let them act as per the law. RTI will only help you get the information....but it seems you already have the information.
    2 replies | 54 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    1 Day Ago
    karira has just uploaded Information under Sec 4 - no need for PIO to provide or reject application! The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Legislature never intended that applicants file RTI applications under Sec 6 for
    2 replies | 52 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    1 Day Ago
    The full judgment of the Bombay HC, referred to in the above news report, is available on our portal here: http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/docs/court-judgements-rti-issues/618-file-fir-files-go-missing-after-rti
    1 replies | 75 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    1 Day Ago
    karira has just uploaded File FIR for files which go missing after RTI application! The Bombay High Court has directed the Urban Development department of Maharashtra Govt. to file a FIR for missing files
    1 replies | 58 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    1 Day Ago
    Angry over missing Govt file, Bombay High Court directs FIR against officers MUMBAI: Observing that information under Right to Information Act (RTI) cannot be denied to a citizen, the Bombay High Court has directed Deputy Secretary of Urban Development Department in Maharashtra to register an FIR against officers responsible for a 'missing' file. A division bench of the HC further directed that after filing the FIR, the investigation must be completed within six months and it should be headed by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police. Justices Abhay Oka and A S Gadkari imposed costs of Rs 15,000 on the State Government for the lapse on part of officers which led to a UDD file going 'missing' as a result information under RTI Act couldn't be provided to an advocate. "The case in hand is a classic example as to how the Government officers protecting their fellow officers tend to frustrate the basic intention of the legislature behind the enactment of the Right to Information Act, 2005," said the Judges in their order on Friday. The HC was hearing a petition filed by Sangli-based advocate Vivek Vishnupant Kulkarni, who is also an office- bearer of Swatantraya Veer Savarkar Pratishthan, a voluntary group which runs two schools having 1,600 students on rolls. The 58-year-old petitioner filed an application on September 5, 2008, with the Section and Information Officer of UDD seeking information under RTI in respect of a Government Resolution (GR) dated August 21, 1996. The resolution pertained to release of various lands in and around Sangli city in western Maharashtra which were acquired by the Government under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. He sought information about the Government notings and other documents on the basis of which the GR was issued. By a communication dated September 22, 2008, the UDD Information Officer told Kulkarni the required information sought by him regarding file ULC/1089/2123//ULC-2 is not available on the Department's record and therefore, the said details cannot be furnished. In the same letter, the petitioner was also informed that some details sought by him is connected with the office of Deputy Collector and his application to that extent had been transferred to the said authority for further action. Being aggrieved by inaction of the Information Officer, the petitioner filed an appeal on November 27, 2008, before the Deputy Secretary of UDD. The Deputy Secretary asked the Information Officer to search the missing file and give the details sought by Kulkarni immediately. Read more at: Angry over missing Govt file, Bombay High Court directs FIR against officers - The Economic Times
    1 replies | 75 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    1 Day Ago
    karira replied to a thread help in Ask for RTI Query
    Ni it is not possible under RTI. If you are really disturbed, then file a police complaint and the police will search for the owner of the number..
    4 replies | 58 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    1 Day Ago
    Sri Lanka’s Right To Information Bill 2015 – Clearing Up Misconceptions And Recommending Revisions Contrary to the popular perception of some therefore, the RTI Bill now in the public domain is not the end product of a new drafting process initiated by this Government in 2015. That exercise still remains to be engaged in, which is presumably why the call for public feedback was issued. by Kishali Pinto-Jayawardena and Venkatesh Nayak Introduction ( February 28, 2015, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) In giving necessary context to Sri Lanka’s draft Right to Information (RTI) law disseminated by the current Government in order to obtain feedback from citizens, a few matters need to be clarified. In substantial respects, this draft is the 2003/2004 Bill of the United National Front (UNF) administration. This is quite evident by the insertion of the Legislative Draftsman’s Department, LDO Number 23/2003 on the left hand side of the Bill. The 2003/2004 Bill was finalized by a committee headed by then Attorney General, the late Mr KC Kamalasabeyson, PC and including the then Justice Secretary, the Legal Draftsman, senior editors and public interest advocates. It was approved by the UNF Cabinet at that time. However, due to the Parliament being dissolved by President Chandrika Kumaratunga, this draft was not enacted into law. The Bill was further revised in 2010 by then Justice and Legal Reforms Minister of the Peoples’ Alliance, Milinda Moragoda who attempted unsuccessfully to enact an RTI law. Later, then United National Party opposition parliamentarian Karu Jayasuriya also attempted to bring in an RTI law as a private member’s Bill. This attempt was disallowed by the Rajapaksa government in power in a move widely condemned at that time. Contrary to the popular perception of some therefore, the RTI Bill now in the public domain is not the end product of a new drafting process initiated by this Government in 2015. That exercise still remains to be engaged in, which is presumably why the call for public feedback was issued. Learning from comparative experience Some consequent issues arise as a result. Certain aspects of the 2003/2004 draft are salutary, such as the right of disclosure of information in the public interest and the duty imposed on public authorities to conform to RTI protections. In comparison to other RTI drafts, this draft was far more liberal. For example, the RTI draft law of the Law Commission of Sri Lanka was premised on a far more restrictive basis including parliamentary privilege as well as contempt of court among a wider list of grounds on which denial to information may be justified. That said however, more than ten years have passed since that initial drafting process in 2003. The Bill needs to be carefully and thoroughly revised given the development of RTI best practice standards internationally with particular reference to South Asia itself where Sri Lanka’s neighbouring countries have enacted well reasoned laws. There is much that we can learn therefore from comparative experience. This analysis is being written with that objective in mind. It is not proposed to deal with all the revisions that need to be made to the Bill due to space constraints. Rather, a few imperative revisions will be discussed. Relatively uncontestable revisions of the Bill relate to the correction of Clause 12(1)(b) of the Bill. As per the initial framing of this Clause in 2003/2004, this inadvertently specifies appointment of RTI Commissioners to be in the hands of the Minister whereas the actual applicable provision is the (later revised) Clause 12(2) which vests the appointment power in the President on the recommendation of the Constitutional Council. Similarly, Clause 31 which states that ‘the granting of access to any information in consequence of a request made under this Act shall not be taken to constitute an authorization or approval granted by a public authority or the Commission, of the publication of such information by the person to whom the access is granted’ was inserted at the insistence of the government at that time. This may be deleted entirely. This provision amounts to an unreasonable restriction on the freedom of speech and expression of people in Sri Lanka. The purpose of an RTI law is to enable free flow of information from public authorities and private entities to people who may then use them in their debates, discussions or other kinds of legal interventions. An RTI law must not place restrictions on such hard won liberties. Clarifying some misconceptions Putting this aside, a few general misconceptions regarding this 2002/2004 RTI Bill needs to be clarified. First is the claim that the 2003/2004 RTI Bill as revised only applies to institutions of the central government. This is not so. Clause 40 brings in ‘local authorities’ within the ambit of the definition of ‘a public authority.’ A local authority is defined to mean ‘a Municipal Council, Urban Council or a Pradeshiya Sabha and like bodies. It also includes ‘any department or other authority or institution established or created by a Provincial Council.’ Second the Bill’s obligation to provide information is not limited only to government bodies. The Interpretation Clause (Clause 40) specifically defines a ‘public authority’ to include interalia, ‘a company incorporated under the Companies Act, No.17 of 1982 in which the State or a public corporation or the State and a public corporation together hold a majority of the shares.’ It may be suggested however that the rider as to ‘majority’ shares be taken out in this clause so as to further expand the reach of access to information. Further, a private entity or organization rendering any service which is of a ‘public nature’ is included within this definition of a ‘public authority’. A valid concern has been raised as to whether the phrase ‘private entity or organisation’ (subject to the rider of rendering a public service) is a tad widely framed. The argument about extending RTI obligations to political parties is very clear. It is recommended that all organs of the State be covered by the RTI law in keeping with the internationally recognized principle of maximum disclosure. Political parties may be included under the purview of this law in order to make them directly accountable to the people they seek to represent. Political parties are covered by the RTI laws in Poland and Nepal One suggestion may be to reword ‘public service’ as ‘public functions’ which is a clearly defined term in administrative law and constitutional law and has been the subject of several judgments of Sri Lanka’s Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. This issue needs to be examined. It must be said meanwhile that South Africa has taken the lead in bringing even purely private entities within the ambit of a domestic access to information law, with a significant qualification. Access to information from a private entity is available as a matter of right only if it was required for the exercise or protection of any right recognised by law. As it stands, the Interpretation Clause is framed in such a manner as to (arguably) bring in political parties as well as non-governmental organizations registered under the Companies Act within the reach of the duty to disclose information. Expanding the reach of RTI The argument about extending RTI obligations to political parties is very clear. It is recommended that all organs of the State be covered by the RTI law in keeping with the internationally recognized principle of maximum disclosure. Political parties may be included under the purview of this law in order to make them directly accountable to the people they seek to represent. Political parties are covered by the RTI laws in Poland and Nepal. The argument for bringing political parties within the ambit of the RTI law rests on the premise that people should have the right to seek information from such bodies as their due and accountable functioning is essential and fundamental to democratic electoral politics. The travails that Indian RTI activists have had to undergo in this regard are instructive for Sri Lanka. In June 2013, a 3-member bench of the Central Information Commission (CIC) held six national political parties to be covered within the term ‘public authorities’ under the Indian RTI Act. In December 2013, instead of challenging this order in court, the political parties authorised the government to make amendments to the law to keep all political parties (not just the national parties) out of the RTI Act. The Government introduced an amendment Bill in Parliament later that year. Indian civil society launched a major campaign to get the amendment Bill withdrawn or at least have it referred to a Parliamentary Committee. That did happen when the Bharathiya Janatha Party (BJP), then in the Opposition capitalized on the public mood against the amendment. With the dissolution of the Lower House last year, this Bill has lapsed. The current government has not revived it. Currently the CIC is hearing a complaint case about non-compliance with its orders by the six national political parties which it had named. These parties have not deigned to appear before the CIC in manifest contempt. Where non-governmental institutions (NGOs) are concerned, the access laws of Bangladesh and Nepal specifically require any body that receives or utilises foreign funds to be as transparent as public authorities and other private entities that receive government support. Certainly RTI is a good route to make political parties transparent. As a matter of general principle, political parties must be treated as bodies essential and fundamental to the electoral politics of that country. No other non-governmental organisation aspires or claims to represent the people. So people should have the right to seek information from such bodies directly. Poland covers political parties under its Freedom of Information (FOI) law squarely as they are recipients of State funds. Nepal is the only other country in the world which covers political parties under its RTI Act but not for reasons of State funding. The addition to the law was made as a result of revolutionary fervour and has not progressed much beyond this effort. Hardly any instance has come to light where RTI applications have been filed with political parties demanding information directly from them. Where non-governmental institutions (NGOs) are concerned, the access laws of Bangladesh and Nepal specifically require any body that receives or utilises foreign funds to be as transparent as public authorities and other private entities that receive government support. Further important revisions Further substantial revisions relate to the Bill’s exclusions to a general right to ask for information. These were inserted into the draft in 2003 based on experiences in Sri Lanka at that time. Even so, civil society and media groups participating in the drafting committee successfully insisted on the right to a public interest disclosure despite objections by government representatives. That said, there is no doubt that RTI standards have substantively advanced since then. Broad revisions to the exclusion clauses in the Bill are certainly called for now. In addition, the public disclosure rule should apply to all the exemptions rather than only a few. Moreover, Clause 38 of the Bill, as originally drafted, only provided protection in terms of ‘official information which is permitted to be released or disclosed on a request submitted under Act.’ Those protected were also only officers and employees of a public authority. For the purposes of clarification, this clause was a compromise arrived at between government representatives and civil society during the 2003 drafting process as there was considerable resistance to the inclusion of even a limited whistleblower protection. That resistance is no longer evident. Consequently it is recommended that the Bill reflect internationally recognised standards in respect of whistleblower provisions. India’s RTI Act prescribes a variety of methods of disseminating proactively disclosed information such as through Internet websites, notice boards, the print and electronic media or simply making such information available for inspection free of charge at a publicly accessible place in every office. Similar modes of dissemination are recommended and the fee payable for obtaining copies must be subject to Regulations prepared by the concerned Ministry in consultation with the Commission and as approved by Parliament These standards require that persons should be protected from prosecution for disclosing not merely “official information” but “any information”, so long as the whistleblower acted in good faith, and in the reasonable belief that the information was substantially true, and that such information disclosed evidence of wrongdoing or a serious threat to the health or safety of any citizen or to the environment. Other imperative revisions relate to the need to vest the power to sanction for breach of RTI obligations in the RTI Commission as well as granting it civil powers and ensuring swift action when RTI users and activists are attacked. It is meanwhile important that the Bill reflect the principle of voluntary and pro-active disclosure. India’s RTI Act prescribes a variety of methods of disseminating proactively disclosed information such as through Internet websites, notice boards, the print and electronic media or simply making such information available for inspection free of charge at a publicly accessible place in every office. Similar modes of dissemination are recommended and the fee payable for obtaining copies must be subject to Regulations prepared by the concerned Ministry in consultation with the Commission and as approved by Parliament Good implementation, the key The actual worth of Sri Lanka’s RTI law lies in its good implementation and vigorous use by the media and citizens after it is enacted. Sri Lanka has been plagued for too long with good laws that lie inactive in the statue book. As pointed out in the January 2015 (Sage, India) book ‘‘Embattled Media: Democracy, Governance and Reforms in Sri Lanka’ co-edited by one of the authors of this article, it is important that ‘the media itself plays a pro-active role in promoting the right to information’. The culture of secrecy continuing even in this ‘yahapalanaya’ (good governance) age in most state departments and ministries must be unequivocally transformed. About the authors; Kishali Pinto Jayawardena is a Colombo based civil liberties advocate, the editorial (legal) consultant/columnist for the Sunday Times and as legal consultant for the Institute of Commonwealth Studies (ICwS) Sri Lanka media law initiative based at the University of London, co-edited ‘Embattled Media: Democracy, Governance and Reforms in Sri Lanka’ (Sage, January 2015). Mr. Venkatesh Nayak is the Coordinator of the Access to Information Programme, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI), New Delhi and an advisor to the Steering Committee of the Whistleblowers’ International Network. Ms. Saine Paul and Ms. Seema Choudhary of CHRI and Sri Lankan attorney Prameetha Abeywickreme assisted in the writing of this analysis.
    0 replies | 48 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    2 Days Ago
    Two threads by the same poster have been merged.
    8 replies | 206 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    2 Days Ago
    To aap kam saal ki mango .... paanch saal, yaan do saal.
    7 replies | 200 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    2 Days Ago
    Meeting of RTI Activists in Banagalore Dear Friends, A meeting of RTI Activists is arranged on 6th March 2015 at 11.30 AM at the Office Premises of Mahithi Hakku Adhyayana Kendra situated at Hotel Panchavati, No.54, 17th Cross, M C Layout, Vijayanagar Bus Stand, Bangalore. Alarming Pendency before Karnataka Information Commission and poor implementation of Section 4 information by the Public Authorities has resulted in abnormal delay in getting information by the citizen. Please send your suggestions on the above subject for discussion during the meeting. We are happy to inform you that MR. BHASKAR PRABHU, Convener Mahiti Adhikar Manch, Mumbai and Co-Convener, National Campaign for Right to Information will be sharing his experience in implementation of RTI Act in Maharashtra. Please participate and strengthen the RTI Movement in our State. will be joining us for the above meeting. -- B.H. VEERESHA CONVENER KARNATAKA RTI ACTIVISTS STATE COMMITTEE NO.54, 17TH CROSS M.C. LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR BANGALORE 560 040
    1 replies | 66 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    2 Days Ago
    It depends on which zone is your public authority located (the one to whom you filed the RTI petition). The correct SIC bench will be the one which handles second appeals for that zone. https://sic.maharashtra.gov.in/Site/Common/Section4View.aspx https://sic.maharashtra.gov.in/Site/Downloads/WorkDistribution/work_distribution_at_sic02Jul2014.pdf
    2 replies | 168 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    2 Days Ago
    That was the other case involving Railways - where costs were ordered to be recovered. That order was also struck down by court. This is a different one regarding disciplinary action - the PA is Salt Institute/Commissioner
    4 replies | 109 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    2 Days Ago
    Govt bans Gmail for official work, to monitor staff's online activities NEW DELHI: The government will be monitoring online activities of bureaucrats on official computers, block content which it feels is adversely affecting the productivity of the babus and also have a right to delete e-mails or internet history on such computers after intimating the user. The measures are a part of twin notifications issued by the Narendra Modi government on February 18 by which the use of private e-mail networks like Gmail and Yahoo has now also been officially banne .. Read more at: Govt bans Gmail for official work, to monitor staff's online activities - The Economic Times
    21 replies | 9806 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    2 Days Ago
    Meeting of RTI Activists of various hues including Office Bearers of various organiztions was held on 19.2.2015 at 11 AM at KIC premises to discuss the following Agenda: 1. To discuss various issues recorded in the Minutes of the High Power Committee Meeting constituted for implementation of RTI Act, 2005 under the Chairmanship of Additional Chief Secretary held on 6.9.2014 at 11.30 at Room No. 222, 2nd Floor, Vikasa Soudha. 2. Proposed amendment to Karnataka Right to Information Rules 2005 recommending collection of Postal Charges from the RTI applicants. 3. Publication of Section 4 application by all Public Authorities in Karnataka. 6. Invoking provision under Section 25 (5) of the Act by Karnataka Information Commissionners. 6. Protection to RTI applicants from malicious prosecution. 7. Consulting all stake holders before introduction of any amendment to RTI rules by Govt of Karnataka 8. Providing adequate facilities to RTI activists in new building of the KIC, presently under construction. 9. Quarterly Meeting of RTI Activists with KIC. 10. Voluntary disclosure of categories of records in accordance with Section 4 as laid down under Section 26(3)(g) of the Act. 11. Publication of RTI Applications and information provided there under in the websites of the Public Authorities. Discussions Mr. Srirama Reddy, Law Officer had submitted a proposal before the Karnataka Information Commission for levy of Postal Stamp Charges and the same was sent to the Government for implementation. Meeting unanimously condemned unilateral and unwarranted decision of KIC. It was decided to bring it to the notice of the Principal Secretary to Government - DPAR-AR to drop further action in the matter. Mr. Vikram Simha brought to the notice of the Meeting that Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, DOPT, Government of India vide their Official Memorandum No. 12/9/2009-IR dated 24th May 2010 wherein collection of any type of fee including postal expenses or cost involved in deployment of man power for supply of information etc., are totally prohibited. This clearly indicates that a false information has been provided by the Law Officer of KIC stating that Central Government Public Authorities are collecting Postal Charges from the RTI Applicants. All participants unanimously decided to bring this to the notice of the Chief Information Commissioner to initiate appropriate action against the Law Officer of the KIC forthwith for sending an incorrect suggestion not in the interest of public in general. Due to non implementation of Section 4 provisions, citizen are forced to file applications before the Public Authorities even for getting information which are required to be published under suo-moto declartion of the Act. Information like Work Orders, Bills, Quality Control Certificates, Estimates relating to Execution of Development Works are not being uploaded in the websites of the Public Authorities. This has forced citizens to file application under RTI application. Mis- interpretation of Rule 14 in Karnataka Right to Information Rules further agravated the problem. Even to get information relating to a single Project numerous applications had to be filed before the public authorities. Karnataka Information Commission has also ignored importance of publication of information by Public Authorities under Section 4. Hence it was unanimously decided to urge the Public Authorities and Karnataka Information Commission for proper implementation of Section 4 provision of the Act. Wg. Cdr. G B Athri explained the importance of Section 25(5) and 26(3)(g) of the Act and demanded early action by the Karnataka Information Commission in proper implementation in above provisions of the Act. Wg Cdr GB Athri explained with facts that under the present CIC Mr AKM Nayak the KIC is going no where and inefficiency has crept at all levels of functioning of KIC. It is taking too long to get information from Public authorities. He urged that all the activists must come together to ease out Mr AKM Nayak from the chair of CIC. The meeting expressed its unanimity to fight to remove CIC from authority. Mr. Umapathi and Mr. Vincent suggested invoking provision of 25(5) of the Act for effecting implementation of Provisions of RTI in Karnataka. Misleading Public Information Officers by one Mr. Chandra Shekar Rao and by Mr. Y G Muralidhar who have been appointed by ATI Mysore for training of Government Officers and Employees was also discussed. Meeting decided to take up the matter with the DPAR-AR to involve RTI Activists in such training programme in future. Participants also demanded publication of RTI applications and information provided thereon in the web site of the Public Authorities as is being done in the Central Government. Mr. L S Mallikarjun explained how he has been harassed for seeking information of Low Level Park situated in Sadashivananagar Bangalore. Participants condemned registration of False Complaint against him and decided to take up the matter with the Karnataka Information Commission. Participants demanded for providing additional facilities like KIOSKS, Waiting Lounge, Library and other facility in the new building of the Commission which is under construction. Meeting decided to urge the Karnataka Information Commission to hold Quarterly Meeting with RTI Applicants for effective implementation of RTI Act in the State. Meeting concluded at 12.30 PM with Vote of Thanks. All members thereafter met Mr. Vrishabhendra Murthy, Secretary, Karnataka Information Commission and explained the decisions of the Meeting and requested him to bring it to the notice of all the Commissioners in KIC including Chief Information Commissioner LIST OF PARTICIPANTS:: Mr. Umapathi, President, KRTIF. Ms. Sudha Katwa - KRTIF Red Arrow Bhaskar - Karnataka RTI Activists State Committee B R Ramamurthy -President, Karnataka RTI HOratagarara Hitharakshana Vedike L V Babu - Balakrishna.H. Thimma Reddy - D Kumar - T Ramu - - Vijayanagara Nagarikara Vedike G Vincent - President, Kengeri Residents Welfare Association B.H.Veeresha - Mahithi Hakku Adhyayana Kendra - Wg.Cdr. G B ATHRI (Rtd.) Dr. Kodur Venkatesh - -KRTIF Mallikarjun.L.S. - S Anantharamaiah - - Kengeri Residents Welfare Association B R Ravi Reddy - President, Bangalore Nagara Nagareekara Vedike - K Shivaramanna -President, Kannada Chaluvaligarara Samyukta Vedike - M Muniraju - Harish. R. - Pramod Halagatti - P Gangaraju - Narasimha Murthy - - KRTIF N Vikramsimha - - Trustee, Mahithi Hakku Adhyayana Kendra K Venkatesh Babu,President, Pragathi Nagareekara Vedike, Bangalore. The following Organisations and individuals expressed their solidarity: JSD Pani, President, Mahithi Hakku Jagrithi Vedike. Siddu Hiremath, Gulbarga. Kurtu Koti, RTI Activist. T Sainath,Editor,Prajahit Samachar. P Jayaram, Editor, Hassan Times, Hassan. B V Seetharam, Editor, Karavali Ale, Mangalore. Ananda Kumar, RTI & RTE Horata Samithi, Karnataka. ​ADDRESS FOR COMMUNICATION: B.H. VEERESHA CONVENER​ KARNATAKA RTI ACTIVISTS STATE COMMITTEE NO.54, 17TH CROSS M.C. LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR BANGALORE 560 04
    33 replies | 799 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    2 Days Ago
    The Central Government has finally announced a "Email Policy" in the official Gazette dated 19 Feb 2015. It is attached to this post.
    21 replies | 9806 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    3 Days Ago
    Bharat Gas Central RTI Rules follow karta hai. Isi liye mainen Central RTI Rules hindi mein link diya hai. Bihar RTU Rules hindi main idhar milengey: State Information Commission, Bihar
    14 replies | 246 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    3 Days Ago
    Sec 7(9) cannot be used by the PIO to deny information. It only offers the PIO an opportunity to provide information in "another form" than the form in which it is requested by the RTI applicant. The PIO also has to demonstrate that the information sought is really voluminous and that is why he has invoked Sec 7(9). Please read some of the threads in the following search results: https://www.google.co.in/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1KYPB_enIN603IN603&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=sec%207(9)%20site%3Awww.rtiindia.org
    7 replies | 200 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    3 Days Ago
    Have you been to the department to check the status of your RC card ? Visit the RTO where you got the bike registered.
    2 replies | 81 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    3 Days Ago
    That is precisely the reason why experienced members of this portal strongly advice against filing online RTIs. Logical action: File a first appeal, using traditional methods, for "deemed denial" of information since information was not given to you. Enclose a copy fo your online RTI application. Chances are the FAA will say that the PIO never received your RTI application. Better action: File a fresh RTI using traditional methods (speed post / registered post) and track it online till delivery. Keep a printout of delivery status as a proof. Then, if you do not receive any information from PIO within 30 + 7 days , then file a first appeal using traditional means. Traditional means of submitting RTI: How to submit a RTI Application - Guide
    2 replies | 156 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    3 Days Ago
    This portal is only meant for discussing issues related to the RTI Act 2005. It is not the place to seek help/guidance on all types of general issues.
    3 replies | 94 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    3 Days Ago
    Please also read: http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/docs/court-judgements-rti-issues/617-cic-cannot-order-disciplinary-action-against-appellant
    14 replies | 3090 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    3 Days Ago
    karira has just uploaded CIC cannot order Disciplinary action against appellant! The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that CIC cannot order a public authority to take disciplinary action against an appel
    4 replies | 109 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    3 Days Ago
    There was a JS (Law) in the CIC - Akash Deep Chakravarty. He had got into several problems with various RTI activists (including myself) and was actually caught by me for giving "misleading legal" advice to the Chief Information Commissioner and also for not revealing the entire judgment to the CIC. After a long and hard battle by Mr R K Jain, his extensions in CIC were regularly rejected by DoPT. He moved court and lost. He was sent to Agartala. From there he was trying to come back to DERC as Executive Director (Legal) but thankfully it was found that he had applied for the job illegally. He approached Delhi HC and the single judge bench hauled him up for hiding facts. Now, his LPA has also been dismissed with the Judges again hauling him up for not having clean hands. It seems such people never change. Full judgment of Delhi HC can be read here: Aakash Deep vs Union Of India & Anr. on 20 February, 2015 ================================== My question: If such are the people who are appointed in CIC, then there is there any hope for RTI ?
    2 replies | 92 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    3 Days Ago
    The correct course of action is to file a first appeal under Sec 19(1) of the RTI Act to the first appellate authority (FAA) immediately. The grounds will be "deemed denial" of information by the PIO since he has not provided you the requested information within the mandated time period of 30 days.
    3 replies | 84 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    3 Days Ago
    Have you been to the RTO and met the officer there to check as to what is the problem ? First visit the RTO where you registered the car and check the status.
    3 replies | 96 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    3 Days Ago
    RTI Rules Hindi mein yeh link peh available hain: http://ccis.nic.in/WriteReadData/CircularPortal/D2/D02rti/1_35_2009-IR-Hindi.pdf
    14 replies | 246 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    3 Days Ago
    ADDRESS IT TO: SPIO under RTI Act 2005 Office of Transport Commissioner Government of Maharashtra ...................... ................. ................ (Address) Get the address from: Motor Vehicles Department ( R.T.O.) , Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Department ( R.T.O.) , Maharashtra
    3 replies | 82 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    3 Days Ago
    Verification of each document means: Just write the words "Verified" or "Self Attested" and then sign below that (on each page).
    3 replies | 134 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    4 Days Ago
    Posts demerged from various threads and started a new thread.
    3 replies | 107 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    4 Days Ago
    He is trying to give big lecture......
    3 replies | 101 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    4 Days Ago
    As far as RTI is concerned DO NOT, I repeat DO NOT go by anything spoken verbally. Ask that JE to say whatever he wants in writing.
    13 replies | 249 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    5 Days Ago
    karira replied to a thread RTI Happenings: Over 37,000 RTI appeals pending with CIC in RTI in Media
    No, does not include figures of non compliance. Average per month in below table is for 2014 Pendency is as on 24 Feb 2015 Name of IC / Total pending / Avg per month / months required to clear IC VS / 6027 / 250 / 24 IC BS / 3341 / 220 / 15 IC YA / 4928 / 250 / 20 IC SS / 4282 / 200 / 21 IC MP / 3510 / 200 / 18 IC KY / 1166 / 200 / 6 IC SA / 1534 / 280 / 6 Chief IC pendency figures are not known.
    3 replies | 135 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    5 Days Ago
    Haryana Paid Rs. 5.5 Crore as Legal Fees For a Single Case NEW DELHI: To fight high-profile cases, state and Central governments often hire senior lawyers. But the previous Haryana government under chief minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda of the Congress was billed an unusually high amount - a whopping Rs. 5.5 crore - to prosecute workers accused of violence at Maruti's plant in Manesar, in the western part of the state. More than 150 workers were arrested - almost all are still in jail - in an outbreak of violence at the Manesar plant of the carmaker in 2012, in A Right to Information (RTI) application accessed by NDTV has revealed that senior counsel and now Congress Rajya Sabha MP KTS Tulsi was appointed by the state as a Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) in the Maruti case. Mr Tulsi charged Rs. 11 lakh for a single appearance in the Gurgaon Additional District and Sessions Court. The RTI reply also details other fees, including that of Mr Tulsi's three assistants - Rs. 66,000 for each appearance - and "clerkage" of over Rs. 1 lakh for his expenses - a total of over Rs. 5 crore in just two years. Mr Tulsi, who has been a Congress Rajya Sabha MP since February 2014, said the violence had caused great alarm in Manesar, the state's industrial hub, and that he was approached by the Haryana government to represent it. But even for a high-profile case, that is a large sum for any government to pay as legal fees to its special prosecutors, especially for a trial in a lower court. In contrast to Mr Tulsi's fees, the special prosecutor in the coal scam case is paid approximately Rs. 33,000 for each hearing. When NDTV persisted with its questions about his fees, Mr Tulsi lost his temper. "I don't want to discuss my fees," he snapped and added: "I will not let you discuss it. It was an agreement between the Haryana government and me. I don't have to justify it." Vrinda Grover, who represents the Maruti workers in the Supreme Court, said it was hard to see how such a major expense was in public interest. "It's the choice of the state who it appoints as SPP, but to use public money for a sum such as this, we can look around to see if that is appropriate," she said. The Haryana Congress couldn't be reached for comment. The new BJP government in Haryana says hiring Mr Tulsi is an example of the old regime's excesses. "The government has its own battery of 85 law officers," said Bhupeshwar Dayal, Officer on Special Duty to Chief Minister Manohar Lal Khattar. "Yet, a questionable amount of money was paid to KTS Tulsi by the Hooda government. We're looking into it." In December last year, Mr Tulsi was dropped from the case. Even as the previous administration is asked to justify spending such an unprecedented amount of public funds on trying its own workers, the BJP must decide on whether Mr Tulsi will get the remainder of his dues - Rs. 65 lakh - still owed for his services. Read More: Haryana Paid Rs 5.5 Crore as Legal Fees For a Single Case
    4 replies | 152 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    5 Days Ago
    karira started a thread RTI Happenings: Over 37,000 RTI appeals pending with CIC in RTI in Media
    Over 37,000 RTI appeals pending with CIC New Delhi: Over 37,000 appeals under the RTI Act are pending with the Central Information Commission, the government on Wednesday said, indicating that a lack of time limit for disposal of 2nd appeals by the body is the reason behind the large pendency. As on February 17, a total of 37,935 2nd appeals are pending with the CIC, Minister of State for Personnel Jitendra Singh informed the Lok Sabha in a written reply. "As per the Right to Information Act, the RTI applications and first appeals are required to be mandatorily disposed off within 30 days of their receipt. However, no time limit has been prescribed for disposal of 2nd appeals pending with the CIC," he said. As on December 31, 2013, 22,097 2nd appeals were pending before the information body. The number stood at 35,854 on December 31, 2014. Read More: Over 37,000 RTI appeals pending with CIC | Zee News
    3 replies | 135 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    5 Days Ago
    This portal is ONLY meant for discussing issues related to the RTI Act 2005. It is not the place to seek help/guidance on all types of general issues.
    3 replies | 76 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    5 Days Ago
    If it is your own number, just walk into your cellular operators showroom and get the details by paying the prescribed charges. If it is someone else's phone, you will not get any such information.
    4 replies | 89 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    5 Days Ago
    He visits this portal....he could have searched for it.
    11 replies | 379 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    5 Days Ago
    Charges for a new connection are available on the website of Bharat Gas: ebharatgas - FAQ Take a printout and ahow to your distributor. If they still do not agree to give you a new connection at the price specified, then loidge a complaint with Bharat Gas: https://ebiz.bpc.co.in/ccs/LPGWeb.faces First follow the above steps and if not successful , then only file a RTI.
    14 replies | 246 view(s)
  • karira's Avatar
    5 Days Ago
    RTI can only help you get "information" from the public authority. To get your marksheet verified you have to follow the prescribed procedure for verification, as laid down by the University/college. RTI will not be of any help to you.
    5 replies | 176 view(s)
More Activity
About Shakti Prakash

Basic Information

Date of Birth
June 30, 1967 (47)
Personal Information

About the Personal Details.

Location:
agra
Your Real Name:
Shakti Prakash

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
1
Posts Per Day
0.00
General Information
Last Activity
10-01-2008
Join Date
09-02-2008
Referrals
1

1 Friend

Showing Friends 1 to 1 of 1

Shakti Prakash's Downloads

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

Activity Information
  • Total Points:
  • 15.9
  • Activity Level:
  • 1
  • To Next Level:
  • 4.1
  • Percent Into Level:
  • 59% Achieved
  • Daily Activity:
  • 0 / 19.01 (0%)
  • Weekly Activity:
  • 0.05 / 133.05 (0.04%)
  • Monthly Activity:
  • 0.1 / 589.22 (0.02%)
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 08:03 AM
Started off by making 1st Post
Achievement Earned on 06-22-2014 08:03 AM
0 Awards


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