murali mohan | 1 Feb 02:48 2009
Picon

Fw: Threat to democracy



--- On Sun, 1/2/09, murali mohan <muralivmohan <at> yahoo.com> wrote:

From: murali mohan <muralivmohan <at> yahoo.com>
Subject: Fw: Threat to democracy
To: colnrkurup <at> gmail.com
Cc: rtiadvice <at> yahoo.com
Date: Sunday, 1 February, 2009, 7:11 AM

--- On Sun, 1/2/09, murali mohan <muralivmohan <at> yahoo.com> wrote:

From: murali mohan <muralivmohan <at> yahoo.com>
Subject: Fw: Threat to democracy
To: colnkurup <at> gmail.com
Date: Sunday, 1 February, 2009, 7:03 AM

--- On Thu, 29/1/09, murali mohan <muralivmohan <at> yahoo.com> wrote:

From: murali mohan <muralivmohan <at> yahoo.com>
Subject: Threat to democracy
To: parivartan_india <at> rediffmail.com
Cc: chairman <at> sbi.co.in, cgm.lhohyd <at> sbi.co.in, rjayadev <at> yahoo.com
Date: Thursday, 29 January, 2009, 8:00 AM

Dear friends,
I am murali mohan an officer of S.B.I illegally retired by the management of S.B.I.
I and my members  are victims of the bearocratic management of S.B.I
Iam giving below few details of we have been tortured by the S.B.I management.
1For no fault of mine my leave record in the bank was misplaced in the year 2001.Even thogh I have made several representations, to trace out my missing leave record,the management didnot respond .Since 2001 the management started stopping my salaries on the grounds of unauthorised absence  as they claim that i have exhausted my leave..In theyear 2004  even when my daughter was seriously  leave they have refused leave to me for her major surgeries.Keeping the life of my daughter in view I was foced to go leave  but under intimation to the management in advance.The management framed a chargesheet on me on the grounds of unauthorised absence.I have requested for my leave record and some documents to defend my self .,the A.P.High court als gave directions to supply my leave record etc.But in violation of the couirt orders I was punished.
 My wife who has read an article in a EENADU,a telugu daily aboutPARIVARTAN and its efforts in fighting for R.T.I.Act suggested me seek information pertaining to my leave record under R.T.I.Act.I have made several applications some of which either not responded or evasive replies were given
3.However the management responded to one of my applications and gave evasive reply i.e the same old reply ,that i have exhausted my leave ,without supporting documents.I have made my 2nd apeeal to the C.I.C.. The C.I.C gave a direction tot he appellate authority asking to comment on my appeal and also directed to forward a copy of their comments to me.
4.The Appellatte authority thogh not in time offerd their comments without providing a copy to me.saying that my contention that the leave record is not true and that  my leave record
is available.i
5.the cic ordered the cpio to provide the`available leave record,but the CPIO inviolation of the directions ,cunningly interpreting the cic`s orders provided only  a little portion of my record suppressing the important portion of the leave record.The cpio misrepresented the facts that my leave in toal is available but did not provide the whole record..The cpio even provided fabricate and forged record.
6.I have complained the cic about the false,incomplete and fabricated information.The authority prejudiced by complaint which bropught their fraud into light RETIRED ME ILLEGALLY FROM SERVICE MANIPULATING MY DATE OF BIRTH AND DENYING EXTENSION OF SERVICE.
7.In fact there was dicripency in recording my date of birth in my service record.I have made sevsral representations to my higher authorities to correct it .But it was not done and now taking advantage of that,they have retired me even without following the service rules and norms and procedure of the bank.
8.When i sought information from the management  about my service record,service sheet,and the files relating to denial of my extension of service ,my correspondence and my SOS MESSAGES SENT TO THE CHAIRMAN ETC  AND THE RESPOSIBILITY OF THE OFFICIALS IN NOT RESPONDING TO MY CORRESPONDENCE MADE WITH THE CHAIRMAN ETC  THE CHAIRMAN GOT SERVED A NOTICE S AND LETTERS  THROGH THE BANK`S LAWER HOLDING OUT THREATS.
iIam forwarding few mails which throw some light on the above mentioned facts
my ILLEGAL RETIREMENT AS A PUNISHMENT FOR MY USAGE OF RTI ACT TO BRING IN TO LIGHT THE FRAUD PLAYED IN SUPRESSING MY LEAVE RECORD,.
THE LEGAL NOTICE ISSUED BY THE MANAGEMENT SINCE I QUESTIONED THE LIABILITY OF THE CHAIRMAN WHO WAS SILENT ON MY CORRESPONDENCE PERTAINING TO MY GREIVENCES IS  AN INFRINGEMENT TO MY FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO LIFE AND LIBERTY AND AGAINST THE SPIRIT OF r.t,i.aCT.iT IS A PROOF OF THE DISRESPECT SHOWN BYTHE HHEAD OF A GIANT PUBLIC AUTHORITY WHICH SHOULD BE STONGLY OPPOSED.
 I REQUEST YOU TO RAISE YOUR VOICE AND CONDEMN THE ACT OF THE PUBLIC AUTHORITY I.E THE CHAIRMAN AND PUBLICISE THE MATTER THROGH THE MEDIA SO THAT NO OTHER PUBLIC AUTHORITY WOULD DARE TO  HARASS THE USERS OF RTI AND DO SUCH  VIOLATION  OF THE CONSTITUTION IN FUTURE.
 I WANT A NATION WIDE DEBATE OVER THE MATTER BECAUSE IT IS FOR THE FIRST TIME A PUBLIC AUTHORITY DARED TO HARASS A CITIZEN FOR THE REASON HE SOUGHT INFORMATION UNDER RTI ACT AND FOR THE REASON THE AUTHORITY DARED TO SERVE A LEGAL NOTICE ASKING NOT ASK INFORMATION.
 
THIS ACT OF THE PUBLIC AUTHORITY IS A THREAT TO INDIAN DEMOCRASCY
                                 with regards
ypurs sincerely
MURALI MOHAN
 

Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Invite them now.

Get perfect Email ID for your Resume. Get before others grab.

Get perfect Email ID for your Resume. Get before others grab.

Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Go to http://messenger.yahoo..com/invite/

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

__._,_.___
Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
Yahoo! Finance

It's Now Personal

Guides, news,

advice & more.

New web site?

Drive traffic now.

Get your business

on Yahoo! search.

Y! Messenger

PC-to-PC calls

Call your friends

worldwide - free!

.

__,_._,___
chi_international | 1 Feb 02:56 2009
Picon

Re: Fw: Threat to democracy


A special group of activists to protect victimization of RTI users is
planned by Consumer Human and Information rights group those who wish to
volunteer may join

chiinternational-subscribe <at> yahoogroups.com
<mailto:chiinternational-subscribe <at> yahoogroups.com>

--- In rti_india <at> yahoogroups.com, murali mohan <muralivmohan <at> ...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- On Sun, 1/2/09, murali mohan muralivmohan <at> ... wrote:
>
> From: murali mohan muralivmohan <at> ...
> Subject: Fw: Threat to democracy
> To: colnrkurup <at> ...
> Cc: rtiadvice <at> ...
> Date: Sunday, 1 February, 2009, 7:11 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- On Sun, 1/2/09, murali mohan muralivmohan <at> ... wrote:
>
> From: murali mohan muralivmohan <at> ...
> Subject: Fw: Threat to democracy
> To: colnkurup <at> ...
> Date: Sunday, 1 February, 2009, 7:03 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- On Thu, 29/1/09, murali mohan muralivmohan <at> ... wrote:
>
> From: murali mohan muralivmohan <at> ...
> Subject: Threat to democracy
> To: parivartan_india <at> ...
> Cc: chairman <at> ..., cgm.lhohyd <at> ..., rjayadev <at> ...
> Date: Thursday, 29 January, 2009, 8:00 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear friends,
> I am murali mohan an officer of S.B.I illegally retired by the
management of S.B.I.
> I and my members are victims of the bearocratic management of
S.B.I
> Iam giving below few details of we have been tortured by the S.B.I
management.
> 1For no fault of mine my leave record in the bank was misplaced in the
year 2001.Even thogh I have made several representations, to trace out
my missing leave record,the management didnot respond .Since 2001 the
management started stopping my salaries on the grounds of unauthorised
absence as they claim that i have exhausted my leave..In theyear
2004 even when my daughter was seriously leave they have
refused leave to me for her major surgeries.Keeping the life of my
daughter in view I was foced to go leave but under intimation to
the management in advance.The management framed a chargesheet on me on
the grounds of unauthorised absence.I have requested for my leave record
and some documents to defend my self .,the A.P.High court als gave
directions to supply my leave record etc.But in violation of the couirt
orders I was punished.
> Â My wife who has read an article in a EENADU,a telugu daily
aboutPARIVARTAN and its efforts in fighting for R.T.I.Act suggested me
seek information pertaining to my leave record under R.T.I.Act.I have
made several applications some of which either not responded or evasive
replies were given
> 3.However the management responded to one of my applications and gave
evasive reply i.e the same old reply ,that i have exhausted my leave
,without supporting documents.I have made my 2nd apeeal to the C.I.C..
The C.I.C gave a direction tot he appellate authority asking to comment
on my appeal and also directed to forward a copy of their comments to
me.
> 4.The Appellatte authority thogh not in time offerd their comments
without providing a copy to me.saying that my contention that the leave
record is not true and that my leave record
> is available.i
> 5.the cic ordered the cpio to provide the`available leave record,but
the CPIO inviolation of the directions ,cunningly interpreting the cic`s
orders provided only a little portion of my record suppressing the
important portion of the leave record.The cpio misrepresented the facts
that my leave in toal is available but did not provide the whole
record..The cpio even provided fabricate and forged record.
> 6.I have complained the cic about the false,incomplete and fabricated
information.The authority prejudiced by complaint which bropught their
fraud into light RETIRED ME ILLEGALLY FROM SERVICE MANIPULATING MY DATE
OF BIRTH AND DENYING EXTENSION OF SERVICE.
> 7.In fact there was dicripency in recording my date of birth in my
service record.I have made sevsral representations to my higher
authorities to correct it .But it was not done and now taking advantage
of that,they have retired me even without following the service rules
and norms and procedure of the bank.
> 8.When i sought information from the management about my service
record,service sheet,and the files relating to denial of my extension of
service ,my correspondence and my SOS MESSAGES SENT TO THE CHAIRMAN
ETCÂ AND THE RESPOSIBILITY OF THE OFFICIALS IN NOT RESPONDING TO MY
CORRESPONDENCE MADE WITH THE CHAIRMAN ETCÂ THE CHAIRMAN GOT SERVED A
NOTICE S AND LETTERSÂ THROGH THE BANK`S LAWER HOLDING OUT THREATS.
> iIam forwarding few mails which throw some light on the above
mentioned facts
> my ILLEGAL RETIREMENT AS A PUNISHMENT FOR MY USAGE OF RTI ACT TO BRING
IN TO LIGHT THE FRAUD PLAYED IN SUPRESSING MY LEAVE RECORD,.
> THE LEGAL NOTICE ISSUED BY THE MANAGEMENT SINCE I QUESTIONED THE
LIABILITY OF THE CHAIRMAN WHO WAS SILENT ON MY CORRESPONDENCE PERTAINING
TO MY GREIVENCES ISÂ AN INFRINGEMENT TO MY FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO LIFE
AND LIBERTY AND AGAINST THE SPIRIT OF r.t,i.aCT.iT IS A PROOF OF THE
DISRESPECT SHOWN BYTHE HHEAD OF A GIANT PUBLIC AUTHORITY WHICH SHOULD BE
STONGLY OPPOSED.
> Â I REQUEST YOU TO RAISE YOUR VOICE AND CONDEMN THE ACT OF THE
PUBLIC AUTHORITY I.E THE CHAIRMAN AND PUBLICISE THE MATTER THROGH THE
MEDIA SO THAT NO OTHER PUBLIC AUTHORITY WOULD DARE TOÂ HARASS THE
USERS OF RTI AND DO SUCH Â VIOLATIONÂ OF THE CONSTITUTION IN
FUTURE.
> Â I WANT A NATION WIDE DEBATE OVER THE MATTER BECAUSE IT IS FOR THE
FIRST TIME A PUBLIC AUTHORITY DARED TOÂ HARASS A CITIZEN FOR THE
REASON HE SOUGHT INFORMATION UNDER RTI ACT AND FOR THE REASON THE
AUTHORITY DARED TO SERVE A LEGAL NOTICE ASKING NOT ASK INFORMATION.
> Â
> THIS ACT OF THE PUBLIC AUTHORITY IS A THREAT TO INDIAN DEMOCRASCY
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
             Â
     with regards
> ypurs sincerely
> MURALI MOHAN
> Â
>
>
> Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Invite them now.
>
>
> Get perfect Email ID for your Resume. Get before others grab.
>
>
> Get perfect Email ID for your Resume. Get before others grab.
>
>
> Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Go to
http://messenger.yahoo..com/invite/
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

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

__._,_.___
Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
Yahoo! Finance

It's Now Personal

Guides, news,

advice & more.

Y! Messenger

PC-to-PC calls

Call your friends

worldwide - free!

Yahoo! Groups

Cat Owners Group

Connect and share with

others who love their cats

.

__,_._,___
virender johar | 1 Feb 18:36 2009
Picon

Re: Corrupt CONDONATION of Penalty at CIC

Yes I agree. The penalty needs to be made mandatory and the CIC/SIC have no
right to use there discretion to warn the PIO. As per the Act either the
info has been provoded in time or not. The act does not provide for any loop
holes for the PIO to take shelter for not providing the info in time. The
parliament in its wisdom knew what was right and the CIc/ SIC thus cannot
distort the ACT.

Col Virender Johar

On 31/01/2009, Lalit Mohan Sharma <lmsdelhi <at> yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Mr Sarbajit
>
> We agree and are with you
>
> Lalit Mohan Sharma
>
> --- On Sat, 31/1/09, sroy1947 <sroy1947 <at> yahoo.com <sroy1947%40yahoo.com>>
> wrote:
>
> From: sroy1947 <sroy1947 <at> yahoo.com <sroy1947%40yahoo.com>>
> Subject: [rti_india] Corrupt CONDONATION of Penalty at CIC
> To: rti_india <at> yahoogroups.com <rti_india%40yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Saturday, 31 January, 2009, 7:53 AM
>
> SPECIAL NOTICE
>
> http://cic.gov. in/CIC-Orders/ SG-27012009- 11.pdf
> http://cic.gov. in/CIC-Orders/ SG-27012009- 13.pdf
>
> In a series of corrupt little decisions like these,
> IC Shailesh Gandhi has been regularly "condoning"
> levy of penalty on PIOs of MCD who fail to give
> information in time. (IG(SG) is only following in
> the great IC(ANT)'s footsteps).
>
> Now the question is: "Can delayed information beyond
> the time of 7(1) be condoned?".
> The answer of course is NO !!!
> (The group members are free to dispute this)
>
> Section 20(1) (as per my reading) stipulates that
> Penalty SHALL be levied in the following cases
> "when in the opinion of the IC, the PIO"
>
> a) without any reasonable cause refused to receive an
> application for information, OR
>
> b) has not furnished information within the time specified
> under sub-section (1) of section 7, OR
>
> c) malafidely denied the request for information, OR
>
> d) knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading
> information, OR
>
> e) destroyed information which was the subject of the
> request, OR
>
> f) obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information.
>
> Accordingly in my opinion, IC(SG), IC(T) and IC(WH) by letting
> these errant PIOs off the hook in droves are regularly indulging
> in "criminal misconduct" and other corrupt little acts of
> turpitude by misusing their office.
>
> Anyone who wishes to join me in getting penalty imposed
> MANDATORILY (ie. in every instance) at CIC may sign up with
> me OFFLIST (ie. send me a direct email). The movement kicks
> off after 7-Feb-2009 when the PIO of CIC has to reply to an
> RTI of mine. People with faint hearts need not apply.
>
> Sarbajit
>
> Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Go to
> http://messenger.yahoo.com/invite/
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

--
virender

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

__._,_.___
Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
Yahoo! Finance

It's Now Personal

Guides, news,

advice & more.

New business?

Get new customers.

List your web site

in Yahoo! Search.

Y! Messenger

Want a quick chat?

Chat over IM with

group members.

.

__,_._,___
LESLIE ALMEIDA | 2 Feb 04:33 2009
Picon

Fw: Anna Hazare says, “Agitate throughout Maharashtra for RTI Implementation”

Dear Citizens

how many files the SIC or CIC clears without application of mind is not important, numbers dont make a difference, quality of orders is important, a Postman delivers more mail walking house to house in the heat of the sun (not in aircondition comfort)., its about the arbitary decisions of SIC's and more important not imposing penalities which is the very tooth of the act, at SIC mumbai i have 8 arbitary decisions in favour of PIO contrary to sec 2F of RTI act.
4 orders in my favour dated 10.10.08 but upto date 4 orders just requesting the PIO to comply and give me the said information ( no penalties imposed )i waited for over a year for 2nd appeal to add salt to my wounds the PIO has not yet complied, complain made u/s 18 to SIC Ramanand twari dated 2.12.09 and 2.1.08 ( under guidance from Sarabjit )which i submitted personally after waiting the building for almost one hour,still no response "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH" along with Ajay Marathe i intend filing also case against SIC mumbai at Mumbai High court.
we should now go for agitation thru peaceful means withen the Law
Krish Rao and Mohamad Afzal are doing a wonderful Job,
for a worth cause the T shirts are available ( medium, large, extra large for Rs 150 ) let us all buy one and join them in their agitation for obtaining Justice and throw out the persons appointed by the Government for the Government .its a small price to pay to get the SIC impose penalties on the PIO then only the toothless act will have great tooth
even our RTI free helpline at Bandra is slowly becoming helpless.

Leslie Almeida

--- On Sat, 1/31/09, thebravepedestrian <thebravepedestrian <at> gmail.com> wrote:

> From: thebravepedestrian <thebravepedestrian <at> gmail.com>
> Subject: Anna Hazare says, “Agitate throughout Maharashtra for RTI Implementation”
> To: "krish" <sahasipadyatri <at> gmail.com>
> Date: Saturday, January 31, 2009, 7:37 PM
> Dear All,
>
> "The key is to penalize PIOs who don't do their
> duty," said Maharashtra's
> veteran activist Anna Hazare yesterday evening at Satara
> Circuit House,
> where Mohammed Afzal and I met with him.
>
> Annaji liked our T-shirt slogan which urged the SIC,
> 'Stop arbitrary
> decisions in RTI Orders. Penalize PIOs'. "Let us
> all wear such T-shirts and
> agitate", he remarked as he put on a T-shirt himself.
> (See attached photo or
> click here…
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/34945175 <at> N06/3240475169/ ).
>
> "How many activists are fighting for this cause in
> Mumbai?" he enquired. We
> estimated an available force of about 30 individuals, to
> which he responded,
> "Scale up that figure. Our protesters must gather
> outside the state
> administration's offices in every district and
> taluka." Annaji's colleagues
> who were present expressed eagerness to collaborate, and
> exchanged phone
> numbers with us.
>
> "For the past three years, CSIC Dr Suresh Joshi has
> not delivered results.
> I have lost all hope in him. I won't waste my time by
> even accepting his
> calls. You must now seek a meeting with the Governor to
> press for his
> removal under section 14(3)(d)," he said.
>
> Annaji noted the four demands of our ultimatum letter
> (Marathi version),
> heard our explanation and asked for extra copies, which we
> gave.
>
> In Mumbai on 3rd January, Anna expects to meet with the
> Chief Minister and
> others concerned with RTI implementation.
>
> In August 2006, Anna Hazare – who was then 68 years old
> – went on a
> hunger-strike for eleven days at Alindi. His fasting,
> accompanied by
> vigorous protests by the common man throughout Maharashtra,
> prevented the
> Central government from amending and diluting RTI Act 2005.
>
> The stage is set for a similar agitation to enforce the
> common man's will on
> a reluctant administration.
>
> Our heartfelt thanks to:
>
> 1) Arvind Kejriwal for nudging us in the right direction
> from time to time
>
> 2) Vihar Durve for timely ideas and wake-up calls at many
> junctures
>
> 3) RTI expert Dr Shriram Pande for translations to reach
> out to
> Maharashtra's common man
>
>
> Warm Regards,
> Krishnaraj Rao
> 98215 88114

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

__._,_.___
Recent Activity
    Visit Your Group
    Yahoo! Finance

    It's Now Personal

    Guides, news,

    advice & more.

    Need traffic?

    Drive customers

    With search ads

    on Yahoo!

    Y! Messenger

    PC-to-PC calls

    Call your friends

    worldwide - free!

    .

    __,_._,___
    Babubhai Vaghela | 2 Feb 05:31 2009
    Picon

    PMO won’t reveal ministers’ assets - Judges not bound to disclose their wealth: CJI - CIC members not willing to disclose assets in public

    Smt Pratibha Patil, Hon'ble President of India, New Delhi
    Respected Madam,
    Your kind attention is invited to the following headlines from the media
    news.
    
       - PMO won't reveal ministers' assets.
       - Judges not bound to disclose their wealth: CJI.
       - CIC members not willing to disclose assets in public : CIC.
    
    What these news show is that neither political leaders nor judiciary nor
    even the apex transparency body is prepared to open up and declare as to how
    much wealth they have collected in an illegal manner or otherwise.
    In the light of the above, Babubhai - a common man of India - would like to
    know whether there is any Govt authority in this great country that is in
    favour of transparency? Babubhai would like to salute for his / her courage
    of conviction.
    It may kindly be appreciated that the citizens of India are desperately
    craving for transparency in public administration. There has been undue
    secrecy in the administration in the garb of confidentiality on various
    pretexts and under the Official Secrets Act 1923 - a legacy of the
    Britishers.
    The entire world is greatly moving towards the transparency in
    administration and these lame excuses for non-disclosure cannot have the
    place in India. We need to seriously take cognizance of the aspirations of
    the citizens of India.
    Let the long overdue legitimate wish of the people for transparency be
    fulfilled forthwith. All other virtues shall follow this single one and the
    masses shall prosper.
    Submitted for kind intervention in larger public interest on behalf of the
    illiterate & ill-informed crores o suffering citizens of India whose voice
    never reaches the top echelons.
    With warm regards,
    
    -- 
    Babubhai Vaghela
    202, Sarap, Opp Navjivan Press,
    Off Ashram Road, Ahmedabad - 380 014
    M -  94276 08632
    (Administrator - Google Group - Right to Information Act 2005)
    http://groups.google.com/group/Right-to-Information-Act-2005?hl=en&pli=1
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     TOI Mumbai 2nd February 2009 Front PagePMO won't reveal ministers'
    assets TIMES
    NEWS NETWORK
    
    New Delhi:At a time when pressure is mounting on the judiciary to disclose
    its assets, the executive wing of the government has come in the limelight
    for its reluctant commitment towards transparency.
        In a decision that could have far-reaching impact on administrative
    accountability, the Prime Minister's Office, widely seen as leading the
    government towards transparency, has decided to withhold information related
    to assets of ministers and their relatives.
        Responding to a query by applicant Subhash Chandra Agrawal, the PMO
    termed the information as exempt under clauses 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) which
    relate to immunity granted to "documents of fiduciary relationship'' and
    "cabinet documents'' under the RTI Act. Agrawal has now filed an appeal with
    the Central Information Commission.
        Significantly, the PMO had initially agreed to part with the
    information. It had on May 19, 2008, made all the details available to the
    cabinet secretariat to deal with similar RTI applications in future. In a
    curious U-turn on December 17, 2008, the PMO held that details sought by the
    applicant were exempt from disclosure. *PMO's U-turn stumps applicant *
    New Delhi: The PMO, which had first agreed to share the information on
    assets of ministers and their relatives to a RTI applicant, has now decided
    to exempt it from the RTI Act. This was conveyed to applicant Subash Chandra
    Agrawal first on December 17, 2008, and again on January 27. It was last
    year that Agrawal had filed the RTI application seeking the details from the
    cabinet secretariat. The letter was forwarded to the PMO. In his appeal,
    Agrawal points to the PMO's reversal of stance. "The PMO was ready to
    divulge...but there has been a change in decision.'' TNN
    
    ---------- Forwarded message ----------
    From: vaghelabd <vaghelabd@...>
    Date: Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 11:33 AM
    Subject: CIC members not willing to disclose assets in public - I would like
    to know it.
    To: Wajahat Habibullah CIC <whabibullah@...>
    Cc: Himanshi.Dhawan@..., corporateaffairs@...,
    ammirrorfeedback@..., letters@...,
    letters.editor@...,
    letters@..., letters@...,
    letters@..., letters@...,
    letters@..., NDTV
    <feedback@...>, Help Hindustan Times <
    feedback@...>, feedback@...,
    feedback@..., blfeedback@...,
    feedback@..., NEWS WIRE 18
    <feedback@...>, "hemali.
    chhapia" <Hemali.Chhapia@...>, Pradeep Thakur <
    Pradeep.Thakur@...>, Satya.prakash@...,
    right-to-information-act-2005 <
    Right-to-Information-Act-2005@...>, Pratyanshu Sinha CVC New
    Delhi <cvc@...>, "Smt. Rajni Razdan Secretary AR PG&P" <
    rajni.razdan@...>, Shri A N Tiwari
    <an.tiwari@...>, "Mrs. Annapurna
    Dixit Information Commissioner" <adixit@...>, "Shri D.C. Singh" <
    dc.singh@...>, Shri G Subramanian
    <gs.manian@...>, Shri L C Singhi <
    lcsinghi@...>, Shri M M Ansari
    <mm.ansari@...>, "Shri M.L. Sharma
    Information Commissioner" <sharma.ml@...>, Shri O P Kejariwal <
    okejariwal@...>, Shri P K P Shreyaskar
    <pkp.shreyaskar@...>, Shri
    Tarun Kumar <tarun.kumar@...>, Transparency International India <
    tiindia.newdelhi@...>,
    delhihighcourt@..., Help Supreme Court <
    supremecourt@...>, Hon'ble Speaker Lok Sabha Parliament <
    speakerloksabha@...>, Hon'ble Vice President of India <
    vpindia@...>, Hon'ble Prime Minister
    <pmosb@...>, Smt
    Pratibha Patil Hon'ble President of India <presidentofindia@...>
    
    Shri Wajahat Habibullah,Chief Information Commissioner,
    Central Information Commission,
    New Delhi
    
    Dear Sir,
    
    As an inquisitive person and a citizen concerned about the transparency in
    public administration & on the rampant corruption in India, I would like to
    know the details of the assets presently held by you and other ICs of
    CIC (excluding Shri Shailesh Gandhi IC CIC as I have seen the details of his
    assets).
    
    Kindly let me know it for yourself and for other ICs of CIC.
    
    With kind regards,
    
    -- 
    Babubhai Vaghela
    202, Sarap, Opp Navjivan Press,
    Off Ashram Road, Ahmedabad - 380 014
    M -  94276 08632
    (Administrator Google Group - Right to Information Act 2005)
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Times of India Ahmedabad 31st Jan 2009
    CIC members not willing to disclose assets in public Himanshi Dhawan | TNN
    
    New Delhi: Information commissioners have chosen not to disclose their own
    assets on the CIC's website in a development which may cause many to wonder
    whether the transparency watchdog has trouble following what it preaches to
    others.
        In a candid admission, chief information commissioner Wajahat Habibullah
    said, "All information commissioners have declared their assets but they
    felt that this information should not be put on the commission's website.
    They did not want it on the CIC website.''
        Queried further on why the transparency watchdog was not keen on
    disclosure of its assets, Habibullah said, "The commissioners felt that they
    could put up the information on their personal websites.'' Crucially, none
    of the eight commissioners have their own website.
    *Times View: *The CIC owes its existence to the principle of transparency in
    public life. It must therefore go beyond just what the law mandates in
    furthering the cause of transparency. While it will be restricted by what
    the law says in passing orders on others, in its own case it would do well
    to set a moral example for others to follow. *'CIC should not hide behind
    technicalities' *
    New Delhi: A recent CIC meeting saw information commissioners, save a
    couple, vigorously contesting the idea of full public disclosure of their
    assets. They were of the view that giving income details would force state
    commissioners to follow suit, providing an opportunity to those who wished
    to "embarrass them''. Sources said that since it was not "legally binding'',
    the commissioners decided to reject the idea.
        Although the law does not require the commissioners to make their assets
    public, information rights activists including Shailesh Gandhi, a
    commissioner himself, say that the CIC should not take shelter behind
    technicalities. In fact, commissioners have often frowned upon and ruled
    against those who have cited procedures and conventions to resist demands
    that their assets be put in the public domain.
        The decision comes days after a CIC order in which it ruled that the CJI
    was a public authority and information held by the CJI's office—including
    the number and names of judges who have filed their assets—should be made
    public. The decision has been challenged by the SC in the Delhi HC. TNN
    
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Judges not bound to disclose their wealth: CJI
    17 Jan 2009, 1403 hrs IST, PTI
      Print<http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-3993402,prtpage-1.cms>
       Email   Discuss  Share  Save
    Comment<http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/3993402.cms#write>
    Text:
    NEW DELHI: With Supreme Court moving an appeal in the Delhi High Court
    against the CIC order on making assets of its
    judges<http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/3993402.cms#>
    public,
    the Chief  Justice of India K G Balakrishnan has made it clear that the
    judges "are not bound to disclose" their wealth.
    
    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    
    ------------------------------------
    
    Yahoo! Groups Links
    
    <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rti_india/
    
    <*> Your email settings:
        Individual Email | Traditional
    
    <*> To change settings online go to:
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rti_india/join
        (Yahoo! ID required)
    
    <*> To change settings via email:
        mailto:rti_india-digest@... 
        mailto:rti_india-fullfeatured@...
    
    <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        rti_india-unsubscribe@...
    
    <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
        http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
    
    
    Myth Kumar | 2 Feb 11:39 2009

    Ministers' assets to be exempted from RTI: PMO

    New Delhi: The PMO has decided to keep the assets of ministers and their
    relatives under wraps saying information in this regard is exempted from the
    Right to Information Act.
    In a reply to the RTI application filed by Subhash Chandra Agrawal, the PMO
    has termed the information as exempt under Section 8 of the RTI Act and
    refused to divulge it. The PMO had reportedly provided the details to the
    cabinet secretariat to facilitate answering of RTI applications in this
    regard but later denied the information to the applicant.
    Agrawal had filed an RTI application last year seeking details of assets of
    Union Ministers and their relatives for the last two years from Cabinet
    Secretariat. The letter was forwarded to the Prime Minister's Office for
    necessary action on the application.
    "In a letter dated May 19, 2008 the PMO provided the details of assets and
    liabilities of members of Union Council of Ministers to cabinet secretariat
    to deal with such RTI applications," Agrawal said. "But after that I did not
    get any response from either of the offices. I had even moved an application
    with the Central Information Commission in this regard."
    After six months, the PMO in a letter dated December 17, 2008 told Agrawal
    that the information sought could not be provided as it was exempt under the
    RTI Act provisions. The office sought exemption under clauses 8(1)(e) and
    8(1)(j), which relate to immunity granted to "documents fiduciary
    relationship" and "Cabinet Documents" under the RTI Act, 2005 respectively.
    —PTI
    
    http://epaper.dnaindia.com/dnabangalore/newsview.aspx?eddate=2/2/2009&pageno=20&edition=9&prntid=1709&bxid=28017844&pgno=20
    -----------------------------
    http://www.saveindianfamily.org/
    http://www.societymirror.info/
    http://www.crisp-india.org/
    http://www.antidowry.org/
    http://www.wethemen.us/
    
    I also blog at:
    http://legalterror.wordpress.com
    
    Keep Fighting Legal Terrorism
    Keep Fighting Inequality in Justice
    
    http://www.pollsb.com/webdigr
    http://www.myntra.com/affiliate/329
    
    If "con" is the opposite of "pro", then what is the opposite of progress?
    
    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    
    ------------------------------------
    
    Yahoo! Groups Links
    
    <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rti_india/
    
    <*> Your email settings:
        Individual Email | Traditional
    
    <*> To change settings online go to:
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rti_india/join
        (Yahoo! ID required)
    
    <*> To change settings via email:
        mailto:rti_india-digest@... 
        mailto:rti_india-fullfeatured@...
    
    <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        rti_india-unsubscribe@...
    
    <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
        http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
    
    
    bobby ramakant | 2 Feb 12:08 2009
    Picon

    Shankar Singh: From a tout to an activist

    Shankar Singh: From a tout to an
    activist

    [To read in Hindi language ,
    click here ]

    [To read the English version, click here]

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


    Shankar Singh was a tout at the Road
    Transport Office earlier and used to get people’s work done by paying bribes to
    the officials and take his own cut. Today he is a right to information activist
    working with a team in Kanpur to check corruption not just at the road transport
    office but also at other offices.

    Born to a family of JK Jute Mill worker, his early
    days were tough. His father met with an accident and had to leave the job. He
    became an associate of communist leader S.N. Banerji and started a restaurant
    named Raja Tea Stall which was managed by eight of the twelve children who
    survived in the family. As Shankar grew up he managed to get a job with the
    Roshan Transport Company. He was paid Rs. 2000 a month to be stationed at the
    RTO to take care of the company’s work there. He used to get the roads and goods
    tax deposited. He used to take care of license, fitness, permit and registration
    of new vehicles. In 2006 he was unknowingly involved in the illegal sale of a
    Maruti van which was bought with loan from a company. When the new owner sought
    loan from another company, the first company objected as its payments were still
    pending and a complaint was filed. Shankar Singh was beaten by a clerk on the
    directions of the officer. This provoked his conscience. He decided to take on
    the system. He lodged complaints with the Chief Minister and the Commissioner
    about irregularities in the RTO. The Commissioner and the officer at RTO worked
    out a compromise for him and the clerk was made to apologize to him. That is how
    his file was closed.

    But now
    he did not want to go back to the rotten system. He saw news about right to
    information campaign in the newspapers. He was attracted by it. He decided to go
    to the camp. Before he realized, he became a volunteer with the right to
    information campaign in Kanpur city. At the RTO where a learning license which
    costs Rs. 60 but is made for Rs. 200 and the regular license which costs Rs. 140
    but is made for Rs. 350, when Shankar and his friends decided to organize a RTI
    camp, the licenses were made for the actual fees. His role was reversed. He was
    no longer facilitating corruption. He was there to check it. The staff of the
    office was terrorized by his presence.

    Shankar
    now finds himself in a piquant situation. 1200 of his old colleagues, who prefer
    to call themselves as ‘transport advisors’ and are formally registered as
    ‘Parivahan Salahkar Samiti’ since 1982 as a society, want their profession to be
    legitimized. They claim that if their role is officially recognized and they are
    authorized to charge a legitimate fees for the service they render, they would
    stop facilitating corruption at the RTO. They have told Shankar that if he wants
    a corruption free system then he must lead the struggle for their livelihood
    rights. On the other hand Shankar has vowed that he would not allow any
    corruption to take place at the RTO even if it means going against his own
    former colleagues.

    Shankar Singh joined the first RTI camp in Kanpur
    city on 15th November, 2006, the conclusion of which was attended by Central
    Government Minister Shriprakash Jaiswal, also the MP from Kanpur . Since then
    over the last two years Shankar Singh must have been present as a volunteer in
    hundreds of camps. There are about ten camps organized every month with two to
    three averaging per week. Anywhere from 50 to 200 applications are prepared in
    these camps which are filed in different government offices. Most of the
    applications are concerned with Kanpur Development Authority, Nagar Nigam,
    Kanpur Electricity Supply Corporation, Water Board, Police, RTO, Social Welfare
    Department, District Supply Office, Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Kanpur University ,
    Awas-Vikas, Banks, Passport, District Magistrate’s office, etc. Recently after
    results for the High School were announced there was a huge number of students
    wanting to know whether they could see their answer books. The Kanpur Right to
    Information Campaign Committee, of which Shanker Singh is now a permanent and
    important part, immediately organized a six day camp in which 1200 students
    filed applications seeking photocopies of their answer books for various
    subjects. They suspect that they have not been fairly evaluated and would like
    to verify this. The RTI campaign has generated an empowering awareness among
    people as a result of which people feel that they can ask legitimate questions
    as their democratic right.

    In May
    2008 Shankar Singh also participated in a social audit of National Rural
    Employment Guarantee Scheme in the Miyaganj Block of neighbouring Unnao
    District. He now feels that his responsibility as a concerned citizen are not
    just limited to Kanpur city. As his horizon of understanding broadens he feels a
    growing commitment within him for other social issues too. He spent nine days in
    rural areas of Unnao trying to understand the way the village panchayats and the
    Block Development Office functions and how the vested interests are responsible
    for siphoning off huge sums of money from government schemes and how the papers
    are fudged. He proved to be an important member of his social audit team too
    which visited various villagers and interacted with ordinary village labourers
    and interviewed them to find deficiencies in the implementation of
    NREGS.

    Shankar Singh’s life has taken an about turn. From
    slipping into the ever deadly world of corruption and crime he has dragged
    himself out with some effort and placed himself in a position from where he is
    rising everyday as a shining star. He has become synonymous for hope for many a
    people who have been victimized in some way. And Shankar is full of optimism. He
    always encourages people to stand up and fight for their rights. His exuberance
    inspires confidence in others.

    Shankar
    Singh’s dream is now to serve the people from even bigger platforms. He wishes
    to contest an election some day. He has realized that the small battles that he
    is now fighting every day would become a little bit easier if he acquires a
    legitimate constitutional position. He wishes to serve more people and at a
    faster rate.

    Dr
    Sandeep Pandey

    (The author is a Ramon Magsaysay Awardee (2002) for emergent
    leadership, heads the National Alliance of
    People's Movements (NAPM) and did his PhD from University of California,
    Berkeley in control theory which is applicable in missile technology. He taught
    at Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Kanpur before devoting his life to
    strengthening people's movements in early 1990s. He can be contacted at:
    ashaashram <at> yahoo.com, www.ashaparivar.org)


    ________________________________
    New Email addresses available on Yahoo!
    Get the Email name you've always wanted on the new <at> ymail and <at> rocketmail.
    Hurry before someone else does!

    New Email names for you!
    Get the Email name you&#39;ve always wanted on the new <at> ymail and <at> rocketmail.
    Hurry before someone else does!
    http://mail.promotions.yahoo.com/newdomains/aa/

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

    __._,_.___
    Recent Activity
      Visit Your Group
      Yahoo! Finance

      It's Now Personal

      Guides, news,

      advice & more.

      New business?

      Get new customers.

      List your web site

      in Yahoo! Search.

      Y! Groups blog

      The place to go

      to stay informed

      on Groups news!

      .

      __,_._,___
      LESLIE ALMEIDA | 2 Feb 15:57 2009
      Picon

      Re: [rti_india] PMO won’t reveal ministers’ assets - Judges not bound to disclose their wealth: CJI - CIC members not willing to disclose assets in public

      the UPA govt should be thrown out of power, we have elected them, now they misuse their powers, where is the transperency and accountability?
      in a world biggest democratic country, why should they not disclose their assests, why are they afraid to do so, bada golmal hai
      it could open a can of worms if they do so, if any political party makes
      its the political agendy/manisfesto that they will ammend laws to make theses top bureaucrats to declare their assets and also impose penalities on PIO's for not giving information, i'm sure they will win the elections,
      but no party will do so, everyone is equal before the eyes of the Law.
      if not the law is an ass

      L.Almeida

      --- On Mon, 2/2/09, Babubhai Vaghela <vaghelabd <at> yahoo.com> wrote:

      > From: Babubhai Vaghela <vaghelabd <at> yahoo.com>
      > Subject: [rti_india] PMO won’t reveal ministers’ assets - Judges not bound to disclose their wealth: CJI - CIC members not willing to disclose assets in public
      > To: "Smt Pratibha Patil Hon'ble President of India" <presidentofindia <at> rb.nic.in>
      > Cc: "Hon'ble Prime Minister" <pmosb-A5gn5j7FT0U@public.gmane.orgin>, "Hon'ble Vice President of India" <vpindia <at> sansad.nic.in>, "Hon'ble Speaker Lok Sabha Parliament" <speakerloksabha <at> sansad.nic.in>, "Help Supreme Court" <supremecourt <at> nic.in>, delhihighcourt <at> nic.in, "Help Gujarat High Court" <rg-hc-guj <at> nic.in>, "Registrar General Bombay High Court" <rg-bhc-R9E+szwozl8@public.gmane.org>, "Help Kolkata High Court" <clist-R9E+szwozl8@public.gmane.org>, "High Court Jodhpur" <hc-rj <at> nic.in>, "High Court of Karnataka" <shhcourt <at> kar.nic.in>, "High Court Jaipur" <hcjaipur-rj <at> nic.in>, "Registrar General Madras High Court" <hcourt-pjF4QjOAM0c@public.gmane.orgin>, "Transparency International India" <tiindia.newdelhi <at> gmail.com>, "K.C, Jayarajan" <kc.jayarajan <at> rb.nic.in>, "Cabinet Secretary to Government of India" <cabinetsy <at> nic.in>, "Sh. K M Chandrasekhar" <kcsekhar <at> ias.nic.in>, "Shri Ajit Seth Secretary (Coord & PG) PG PMO" <secypg-R9E+szwozl8@public.gmane.org>, "Smt. Rajni Razdan Secretary AR PG&P" <rajni.razdan <at> nic.in>, "Pratyanshu Sinha CVC New Delhi" <cvc-R9E+szwozl8@public.gmane.org>,
      "Wajahat Habibullah CIC" <whabibullah <at> nic.in>, "Prof M M Ansari Information Commissioner CIC" <mm.ansari <at> nic.in>, "O P Kejariwal" <okejariwal <at> nic.in>, "A N Tiwari" <an.tiwari <at> nic.in>, "PKP Shreyaskar Under Scy CIC" <PKP.shreyaskar <at> nic.in>, "Shri D.C. Singh" <dc.singh <at> nic.in>, "L C Singhi Joint Secretary (Law) CIC" <lcsinghi <at> nic.in>, "Shri Tarun Kumar" <tarun.kumar <at> nic.in>, "tarun tejpal" <peoplepower <at> tehelka.com>, "NASSCOM" <info <at> nasscom.in>, "Infosys" <parvatheesam_k <at> infosys.com>, "info-pcSFYgJo42F0QpJUvnrPoA@public.gmane.orgin" <info-pcSFYgJo42GzQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.orgt.in>, "Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation" <info <at> egovamc.com>, "info <at> karmayog.org" <info <at> karmayog.org>, "OHCHR Geneva" <InfoDesk <at> ohchr.org>, info-OjNLdkngicQ@public.gmane.org, Info <at> ilfsindia.com, info <at> pewglobal.org, info-CNO0mXnzGD4@public.gmane.org, ammirrorfeedback <at> gmail.com, corporateaffairs <at> sandesh.com, "Mrs. Annapurna Dixit Information Commissioner" <adixit-R9E+szwozl8@public.gmane.org>, "CPIO CIC New Delhi" <gs.manian <at> nic.in>, "Shri M.L. Sharma Information, Commissioner" <sharma.ml <at> nic.in>, "Shri
      Mohammad Haleem Khan" <secy-cic <at> nic.in>, "Shri Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner" <shaileshgandhi <at> nic.in>, "Mr. Jitesh Khosla, Joint Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Corporate Affairs" <Jitesh.Khosla <at> mca.gov.in>, Pd.sudhakar <at> mca.gov.in, "ANURAG GOEL" <agoel-R9E+szwozl8@public.gmane.org>, fm-O75zveVQ+eFp2Ifq47vBSA@public.gmane.orgin, "Montek Singh Ahluwalia Dy Chairman Planning Commission" <dch-R9E+szwozl8@public.gmane.org>, letters <at> thehindu.co.in, letters.editor <at> intoday.com, letters <at> washpost.com, letters <at> nytimes.com, letters <at> business-standard.com, blfeedback <at> thehindu.co.in, letters <at> hindustantimes.com, letters <at> latimes.com, "NDTV" <feedback <at> ndtv.com>, "Help Hindustan Times" <feedback <at> hindustantimes.com>, feedback <at> business-standard.com, feedback <at> moneycontrol.com, "NEWS WIRE 18" <feedback <at> newswire18.com>, "Election Commission of India" <feedback <at> eci.gov.in>, "Arvind_Kejriwal" <parivartan_india <at> rediffmail.com>, "Milap Choraria" <milap_choraria <at> yahoo.com>, "Mahendra Gaur" <mahendragaur <at> gmail.com>, "shailesh
      Mehta" <spmehta46 <at> gmail.com>, "mahendratyag" <mahendratyag <at> hotmail.com>, "Nutan Thakur" <drnutanthakur <at> yahoo.com>, "santosh shukla" <santosh_shukla99 <at> yahoo.com>, "Ravindran Major" <majorravi <at> gmail.com>, "Indur Chhugani" <ikchhugani <at> yahoo.com>, "krish" <sahasipadyatri <at> gmail.com>, "Bimal Khemani" <bimal.khemani <at> rediffmail.com>, "DGM (LPG) IOC GSO Ahmedabad" <kkutty <at> indianoil.co.in>, "Subodh Dakwale" <sdakwle <at> gmail.com>, "President Indian Oil Officers Association" <sdakwale <at> indianoil.co.in>, "SC Meshram ED IOC GSO Ahmedabad" <SCMESHRAM <at> indianoil.co.in>, "Gautam Dutta ED (HR) IOC HO" <gdatta <at> indianoil.co.in>, "Gautam Datta" <Gautam <at> indianoil.co.in>, "G C Daga Director (Marketing) IOC" <gcdaga <at> indianoil.co.in>, "Visha APIO IOC CO Delhi" <VISHALAKSHIC <at> iocl.co.in>, "Company Secretary IOC" <rajurang <at> indianoil.co.in>, "KAMAL GWALANI" <kgwalani <at> indianoil.co.in>, "Satish Kumar PIO & ED (HR) IOC New Delhi" <satishk <at> iocl.co.in>, "V C Agarwal Director (HR) IOC"
      <AgrawalVC <at> iocl.co.in>, "S Behuria Chairman IOC" <behurias <at> iocl.co.in>, "S K GUPTA" <skgupta <at> indianoil.co.in>, "R Sareen" <rsareen <at> indianoil.co.in>, "Makrand Nene" <mnene <at> indianoil.co.in>, "Mrinal Roy" <mrinalroy <at> indianoil.co.in>, guptasc <at> indianoil.co.in, "Shri Sanjay Gupta" <sanjay.g <at> nic.in>, "Mr. D. K. Gupta Registrar of Companies Maharashtra" <Devendar.Gupta <at> mca.gov.in>, "Regional Director (West) Ministry of Corporate Affairs Mumbai" <rdwest-4MxsrPCa0e4@public.gmane.orgin>, "Regional Director (North) Ministry of Corporate Affairs" <rdnorth-4MxsrPCa0e4@public.gmane.orgin>, "REGIONAL DIRECTOR (SOUTH) MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS" <rdsouth-4MxsrPCa0e4@public.gmane.orgin>, "REGIONAL DIRECTOR, (EAST) MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS" <rdeast-4MxsrPCa0e4@public.gmane.orgin>, dinsha <at> sansad.nic.in, praful <at> sansad.nic.in, soniagandhi <at> sansad.nic.in, advanilk <at> sansad.nic.in, rajnath <at> sansad.nic.in, ajaitley <at> sansad.nic.in, jairam <at> sansad.nic.in, "Kamal Nath" <nath <at> sansad.nic.in>, ksibal <at> sansad.nic.in, "Mani Shankar Aiyar" <msaiyar <at> hotmail.com>,
      "Prashant Bhushan" <prashantbhush <at> gmail.com>, cc-VeFLRaXnriU@public.gmane.org, brinda.k <at> sansad.nic.in, somnath <at> sansad.nic.in, shyam.benegal <at> sansad.nic.in, pcalex <at> sansad.nic.in, "Dr. E. M. Sudarasna Natchiappan" <emsn <at> sansad.nic.in>, "Ashok Sinha CMD BPCL" <sinhaa <at> bharatpetroleum.com>, "Arun Balakrishnan Chairman HPCL" <arunbal <at> hpcl.co.in>, "Vaghela B D" <vaghelabd <at> yahoo.com>, "CII" <ciico <at> ciionline.org>, "ASSOCHAM" <assocham <at> nic.in>, "FICCI" <ficci <at> ficci.com>, "BRPL Officers Association" <brpl_oa <at> yahoo.co.in>, "right-to-information-act-2005" <Right-to-Information-Act-2005 <at> googlegroups.com>
      > Date: Monday, February 2, 2009, 10:01 AM
      > Smt Pratibha Patil, Hon'ble President of India, New
      > Delhi
      > Respected Madam,
      > Your kind attention is invited to the following headlines
      > from the media
      > news.
      >
      > - PMO won't reveal ministers' assets.
      > - Judges not bound to disclose their wealth: CJI.
      > - CIC members not willing to disclose assets in public :
      > CIC.
      >
      > What these news show is that neither political leaders nor
      > judiciary nor
      > even the apex transparency body is prepared to open up and
      > declare as to how
      > much wealth they have collected in an illegal manner or
      > otherwise.
      > In the light of the above, Babubhai - a common man of India
      > - would like to
      > know whether there is any Govt authority in this great
      > country that is in
      > favour of transparency? Babubhai would like to salute for
      > his / her courage
      > of conviction.
      > It may kindly be appreciated that the citizens of India are
      > desperately
      > craving for transparency in public administration. There
      > has been undue
      > secrecy in the administration in the garb of
      > confidentiality on various
      > pretexts and under the Official Secrets Act 1923 - a legacy
      > of the
      > Britishers.
      > The entire world is greatly moving towards the transparency
      > in
      > administration and these lame excuses for non-disclosure
      > cannot have the
      > place in India. We need to seriously take cognizance of the
      > aspirations of
      > the citizens of India.
      > Let the long overdue legitimate wish of the people for
      > transparency be
      > fulfilled forthwith. All other virtues shall follow this
      > single one and the
      > masses shall prosper.
      > Submitted for kind intervention in larger public interest
      > on behalf of the
      > illiterate & ill-informed crores o suffering citizens
      > of India whose voice
      > never reaches the top echelons.
      > With warm regards,
      >
      > --
      > Babubhai Vaghela
      > 202, Sarap, Opp Navjivan Press,
      > Off Ashram Road, Ahmedabad - 380 014
      > M - 94276 08632
      > (Administrator - Google Group - Right to Information Act
      > 2005)
      > http://groups.google.com/group/Right-to-Information-Act-2005?hl=en&pli=1
      > ----------------------------------------------------------
      > TOI Mumbai 2nd February 2009 Front PagePMO won't
      > reveal ministers'
      > assets TIMES
      > NEWS NETWORK
      >
      > New Delhi:At a time when pressure is mounting on the
      > judiciary to disclose
      > its assets, the executive wing of the government has come
      > in the limelight
      > for its reluctant commitment towards transparency.
      > In a decision that could have far-reaching impact on
      > administrative
      > accountability, the Prime Minister's Office, widely
      > seen as leading the
      > government towards transparency, has decided to withhold
      > information related
      > to assets of ministers and their relatives.
      > Responding to a query by applicant Subhash Chandra
      > Agrawal, the PMO
      > termed the information as exempt under clauses 8(1)(e) and
      > 8(1)(j) which
      > relate to immunity granted to "documents of fiduciary
      > relationship'' and
      > "cabinet documents'' under the RTI Act.
      > Agrawal has now filed an appeal with
      > the Central Information Commission.
      > Significantly, the PMO had initially agreed to part
      > with the
      > information. It had on May 19, 2008, made all the details
      > available to the
      > cabinet secretariat to deal with similar RTI applications
      > in future. In a
      > curious U-turn on December 17, 2008, the PMO held that
      > details sought by the
      > applicant were exempt from disclosure. *PMO's U-turn
      > stumps applicant *
      > New Delhi: The PMO, which had first agreed to share the
      > information on
      > assets of ministers and their relatives to a RTI applicant,
      > has now decided
      > to exempt it from the RTI Act. This was conveyed to
      > applicant Subash Chandra
      > Agrawal first on December 17, 2008, and again on January
      > 27. It was last
      > year that Agrawal had filed the RTI application seeking the
      > details from the
      > cabinet secretariat. The letter was forwarded to the PMO.
      > In his appeal,
      > Agrawal points to the PMO's reversal of stance.
      > "The PMO was ready to
      > divulge...but there has been a change in
      > decision.'' TNN
      >
      > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
      > From: vaghelabd <vaghelabd <at> gmail.com>
      > Date: Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 11:33 AM
      > Subject: CIC members not willing to disclose assets in
      > public - I would like
      > to know it.
      > To: Wajahat Habibullah CIC <whabibullah <at> nic.in>
      > Cc: Himanshi.Dhawan <at> timesgroup.com,
      > corporateaffairs <at> sandesh.com,
      > ammirrorfeedback <at> gmail.com, letters <at> thehindu.co.in,
      > letters.editor <at> intoday.com, letters <at> washpost.com,
      > letters <at> nytimes.com,
      > letters <at> business-standard.com, letters <at> hindustantimes.com,
      > letters <at> latimes.com, NDTV <feedback <at> ndtv.com>, Help
      > Hindustan Times <
      > feedback <at> hindustantimes.com>, feedback <at> livemint.com,
      > feedback <at> business-standard.com, blfeedback <at> thehindu.co.in,
      > feedback <at> moneycontrol.com, NEWS WIRE 18
      > <feedback <at> newswire18.com>, "hemali.
      > chhapia" <Hemali.Chhapia <at> timesgroup.com>,
      > Pradeep Thakur <
      > Pradeep.Thakur <at> timesgroup.com>,
      > Satya.prakash <at> hindustantimes.com,
      > right-to-information-act-2005 <
      > Right-to-Information-Act-2005 <at> googlegroups.com>,
      > Pratyanshu Sinha CVC New
      > Delhi <cvc-R9E+szwozl8@public.gmane.org>, "Smt. Rajni Razdan Secretary
      > AR PG&P" <
      > rajni.razdan <at> nic.in>, Shri A N Tiwari
      > <an.tiwari <at> nic.in>, "Mrs. Annapurna
      > Dixit Information Commissioner" <adixit-R9E+szwozl8@public.gmane.org>,
      > "Shri D.C. Singh" <
      > dc.singh <at> nic.in>, Shri G Subramanian
      > <gs.manian <at> nic.in>, Shri L C Singhi <
      > lcsinghi <at> nic.in>, Shri M M Ansari
      > <mm.ansari <at> nic.in>, "Shri M.L. Sharma
      > Information Commissioner" <sharma.ml <at> nic.in>,
      > Shri O P Kejariwal <
      > okejariwal <at> nic.in>, Shri P K P Shreyaskar
      > <pkp.shreyaskar <at> nic.in>, Shri
      > Tarun Kumar <tarun.kumar <at> nic.in>, Transparency
      > International India <
      > tiindia.newdelhi <at> gmail.com>, delhihighcourt <at> nic.in, Help
      > Supreme Court <
      > supremecourt <at> nic.in>, Hon'ble Speaker Lok Sabha
      > Parliament <
      > speakerloksabha <at> sansad.nic.in>, Hon'ble Vice
      > President of India <
      > vpindia <at> sansad.nic.in>, Hon'ble Prime Minister
      > <pmosb-A5gn5j7FT0U@public.gmane.orgin>, Smt
      > Pratibha Patil Hon'ble President of India
      > <presidentofindia <at> rb.nic.in>
      >
      >
      > Shri Wajahat Habibullah,Chief Information Commissioner,
      > Central Information Commission,
      > New Delhi
      >
      > Dear Sir,
      >
      > As an inquisitive person and a citizen concerned about the
      > transparency in
      > public administration & on the rampant corruption in
      > India, I would like to
      > know the details of the assets presently held by you and
      > other ICs of
      > CIC (excluding Shri Shailesh Gandhi IC CIC as I have seen
      > the details of his
      > assets).
      >
      > Kindly let me know it for yourself and for other ICs of
      > CIC.
      >
      > With kind regards,
      >
      >
      > --
      > Babubhai Vaghela
      > 202, Sarap, Opp Navjivan Press,
      > Off Ashram Road, Ahmedabad - 380 014
      > M - 94276 08632
      > (Administrator Google Group - Right to Information Act
      > 2005)
      >
      > ----------------------------------------------------------
      > The Times of India Ahmedabad 31st Jan 2009
      > CIC members not willing to disclose assets in public
      > Himanshi Dhawan | TNN
      >
      > New Delhi: Information commissioners have chosen not to
      > disclose their own
      > assets on the CIC's website in a development which may
      > cause many to wonder
      > whether the transparency watchdog has trouble following
      > what it preaches to
      > others.
      > In a candid admission, chief information commissioner
      > Wajahat Habibullah
      > said, "All information commissioners have declared
      > their assets but they
      > felt that this information should not be put on the
      > commission's website.
      > They did not want it on the CIC website.''
      > Queried further on why the transparency watchdog was
      > not keen on
      > disclosure of its assets, Habibullah said, "The
      > commissioners felt that they
      > could put up the information on their personal
      > websites.'' Crucially, none
      > of the eight commissioners have their own website.
      > *Times View: *The CIC owes its existence to the principle
      > of transparency in
      > public life. It must therefore go beyond just what the law
      > mandates in
      > furthering the cause of transparency. While it will be
      > restricted by what
      > the law says in passing orders on others, in its own case
      > it would do well
      > to set a moral example for others to follow. *'CIC
      > should not hide behind
      > technicalities' *
      > New Delhi: A recent CIC meeting saw information
      > commissioners, save a
      > couple, vigorously contesting the idea of full public
      > disclosure of their
      > assets. They were of the view that giving income details
      > would force state
      > commissioners to follow suit, providing an opportunity to
      > those who wished
      > to "embarrass them''. Sources said that since
      > it was not "legally binding'',
      > the commissioners decided to reject the idea.
      > Although the law does not require the commissioners to
      > make their assets
      > public, information rights activists including Shailesh
      > Gandhi, a
      > commissioner himself, say that the CIC should not take
      > shelter behind
      > technicalities. In fact, commissioners have often frowned
      > upon and ruled
      > against those who have cited procedures and conventions to
      > resist demands
      > that their assets be put in the public domain.
      > The decision comes days after a CIC order in which it
      > ruled that the CJI
      > was a public authority and information held by the
      > CJI's office—including
      > the number and names of judges who have filed their
      > assets—should be made
      > public. The decision has been challenged by the SC in the
      > Delhi HC. TNN
      >
      > ----------------------------------------------------------
      > Judges not bound to disclose their wealth: CJI
      > 17 Jan 2009, 1403 hrs IST, PTI
      >
      > Print<http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-3993402,prtpage-1.cms>
      > Email Discuss Share Save
      > Comment<http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/3993402.cms#write>
      > Text:
      > NEW DELHI: With Supreme Court moving an appeal in the Delhi
      > High Court
      > against the CIC order on making assets of its
      > judges<http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/3993402.cms#>
      > public,
      > the Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan has made it
      > clear that the
      > judges "are not bound to disclose" their wealth.
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >

      __._,_.___
      Recent Activity
        Visit Your Group
        Yahoo! Finance

        It's Now Personal

        Guides, news,

        advice & more.

        Need traffic?

        Drive customers

        With search ads

        on Yahoo!

        Y! Messenger

        All together now

        Host a free online

        conference on IM.

        .

        __,_._,___
        veeresh bellur | 3 Feb 00:20 2009
        Picon

        karnataka High Court Dismisses contempt petition



        B.H. VEERESHA
        MAHITHI HAKKU ADHYAYANA KENDRA
        54, 17TH CROSS, M C LAYOUT
        VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE 560 040
        TEL.NO. 9448704693

        Check out the all-new face of Yahoo! India.. Go to http://in.yahoo.com/

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

        __._,_.___
        Recent Activity
          Visit Your Group
          Yahoo! Finance

          It's Now Personal

          Guides, news,

          advice & more.

          New web site?

          Drive traffic now.

          Get your business

          on Yahoo! search.

          Y! Messenger

          All together now

          Host a free online

          conference on IM.

          .

          __,_._,___
          veeresh bellur | 3 Feb 00:23 2009
          Picon

          kARNATAKA high court DISMISSES CONTEMPT PETITION

           
          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
           
          DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2009
           
          PRESENT
           
          THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BANNURMATH
           
          AND
           
          THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.VENUGOPALA GOWDA
           
          C.C.C.No.525 of 2008 (Civil)
           
          BETWEEN;
           
          SRI.G.BASAVARAJU
          S/O LATE SRI GAVISIDDAIAH
          AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
          R/AT NO.7, 9TH ‘A’ MAIN ,
          11 TH CROSS, 4TH BLOCK,
          NANDINI LAYOUT, BANGALORE96.
           
                                                                                    …COMPLAINANT
          ( BY SRI.H.K.KENCHEGOWDA, ADV.)
           
          AND;
           

          SMT. ARUNDATHI
          PRESIDENT,ANANDA C0-OPERTIVE BANK LIMITED,
          HIG-29, N.V.ARCASDE IST CROSS,
          2ND STAGE, KHB COLONY, BASAVESHWARNAGAR,
          HAVANOOR CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 001.
           

          SRI.SRIKANTH L JATTAIAH
          SECRETARY,   ANANDA C0-OPERTIVE BANK LIMITED,
          HIG-29, N.V.ARCASDE IST CROSS,
          2ND STAGE, KHB COLONY, BASAVESHWARNAGAR,
          HAVANOOR CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 001.
            
                                                                          ….ACCUSED
           
           
          (BY SRI. N RAMACHANDRA, ADV. FOR A1 & A2)
           
           
          THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 & 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED AND DIRECT THE ACCUSED TO IMPLEMENT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON’BLE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION IN COMPLAINT NO.KIC/2860/COM/2007, DATED 05-12-2007, VIDE ANNEXURE-‘B’
           
          This CCC having been reserved this day, A.N.VENUGOPALA GOWDA.J., made the following:
           
          O R D E R
           
          This contempt petition has been filed under Ss.11 and 12 of the contempt of Courts Act 1971 (‘the Act’ for short) to initiate contempt proceedings against the accused for non-implementation of  an order dated 5.12.2007 passed by Karnataka Information Commission (‘Commission’ for short ) in case No.KIC/2860/Com/2007 and to direct the accused, to implement the said order.
           
          2       To appreciate the grievance raised in this petition, few relevant facts may be noted;
           
          Complainant was a member of Ananda Co-operative Bank Limited, Basaveshwaranagar, Havanur Circle, Bangalore-79. Accused are the President and Secretary of the said Bank. Complainant had filed an application dated 17.7.2007 to the second accused under Ss.5(1), 5(2) and 19(1) of The Right to Information Act, 2005 (‘RTI ACT’ for short) requesting to  furnish, a copy of the letter dated 23.12.2006 addressed to the Bangalore Water Supply and Sanitary Board and copies of documents such as, T.A., D.D. and Log Book extract and payments made to the first accused. Subsequently, he filed a complaint before the Commission against the second accused under S.18(1) of the RTI Act, for a direction to furnish copies of the aforenoticed records. The Commission after inquiry in respect thereof, has passed an order dated, 5.12.2007 directing the respondent (accused No.2 herein) to furnish the relevant information on item No.1 and the information available on the record
          in respect of item No.2 to the complainant, free of cost, within 15 days. Complainant submitted a copy of the said order to the accused, along with his representation dated 20.12.2007, seeking compliance. In response thereto, the second accused sent a communication dated 20.12.2007 to the effect that, it has been decided to present appeal before the appellate authority. Complainant submitted a further representation dated 3.1.2008 seeking compliance, which having not been done, alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 5.12.2007 passed by the Commission and contending that, to pro9tect the status, dignity, prestige and majesty of the Court, this petition has been filed.
           
           

          We have heard Sri.H.K.Kenchegowda, learned counsel for the complainant, who contended that, the Commission stands on the same footing as that of a subordinate Court, the disobedience complained of, falls within the definition of the S.2(b) of the Act and therefore this Court has the power to take cognizance of the complaint alleged against the accused and committed by them.. He contended that, the provisions of S. 20 of the RTI Act is not efficacious in the matter of enforcement of the Commission order dated 5.12.2007 and the delay would defeat the object of the Commission in passing the order and hence the accused should be punished for the act of committing contempt, with a further direction to implement the order without any delay.
           

          Per contra,  Sri.N.Ramachandra, learned counsel for the accused contended that, the Managing Committee of the Bank has decided to seek remedy against the said order of the Commission and necessary steps in that regard have also been taken. He further submitted that, there is no willful disobedience, in view of the communication dated 20.12.2007 sent to the complainant.. Relying upon an order dated 16.12.2008 passed by this Bench in CCC No.423/2008 (Civil) (T.Srinivasa Vs.J.J.Prakash), learned counsel contended that, the contempt petition is not maintainable.
           
           

          Considering the rival contentions, the following points, arise for decision;
           
          (i)              Whether, for disobedience of the order passed by the Karnataka Information Commission, in exercise of the powers and functions under Ss.18 and 19 of the RTI Act, 2005, the contempt petition under the Contempt of Courts Act, is maintainable?
          (ii)            Whether, the complainant has made out a prima facie case to frame charge against the accused?
           

          Indisputable, the complaint of the complainant filed before the Commission was allowed and a direction was issued on 5.12.2007 to provide the relevant information. Accused have informed the complainant that, a decision has been taken to file an appeal against the said order. Grievance of the complainant is that, the said order has been willfully disobeyed by the accused, who should be directed to give effect to the same and punish them for non-compliance.
           

          We have carefully perused the record and given anxious consideration to the rival contentions. For the reasons recorded infra, the contempt petition is not maintainable.
           

           
           
           

          S.20(1) of the RTI Act enables the Commission to impose on the respondent before it, a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day, till the information is furnished, subject to a total amount of twenty five thousand rupees. Prior to the imposition of such fine amount, it is mandatory that reasonable opportunity of hearing must be provided to the Public Information Officer-respondent. In addition, sub-section (2) thereof, enables the Commission that, if the concerned Public Information Officer, without any reasonable cause and persistently, has not furnished the information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of S.7. to recommend for disciplinary action against the concerned Information Officer, under the Service Rules applicable to him. The provisions contained in S.20of RTI Act shows that, the Commission has been conferred with the jurisdiction to penalize the defaulting officer by levy of penalty up to a total amount of Rs.25,000/-
          and also recommend for disciplinary action under the Service Rules applicable to the defaulting officer. Thus, it is clear that, the RTI Act itself provides the procedure and remedy.
           

          S.20 of RTI Act provides for penalties. It confers powers on the Commission on the basis of which it can enforce its order. The Act having provided for constitution of the Commission and the power to impose the penalties by way of  levy of fine and also the Statutory right to recommend to the Government for disciplinary action against the State Information Officer, itself has the necessary powers / provisions,  in the form of the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act. It is cardinal principle of interpretation of Statute, well settled by catena of decisions of the Apex Court, that Courts or tribunals, must be held to possess power to execute its own order. Further, the RTI Act, which is a self-contained code, even if it has not been specifically spelt out, must be deemed to have been conferred upon the Commission the power in order to make its order effective, by having recourse to S.20.
           

          In the case of SAKIRI VASU VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409, it has been held as follows;
           
                        18. It is well settled that when a power is given to an authority to do something it includes such incidental or implied powers which would ensure the proper doing of that thing. In other words, when any power is expressly granted by the statute, there is impliedly included in the grant, even without special mention, every power and every control the denial of which would render the grant itself ineffective. Thus where an Act confers jurisdiction it impliedly also grants the power of doing all such acts or employ such means as are essentially necessary for its execution.
           
                        19. The reason for the rule (doctrine of implied power) is quite apparent. Many matters of minor details are omitted from legislation. As Crawford in his Statutory Construction (3rd Edn., p.267):
          “…If these details could not be inserted by implication, the drafting of legislation would be an interminable process and the legislative intent would likely be defeated by a most insignificant omission.”
           
                       20.. In ascertaining a necessary implication, the court simple determines the legislative will and makes it effective. What is necessarily implied is as much part of the statute as if it were specifically written therein.
           
                                                            (Emphasis supplied by us)
           
          The powers of the Commission to entertain and decide the complaints, necessarily shows that, the Commission has the necessary power to adjudicate the grievances and decide the matters brought before it, in terms of the provisions contained in the RTI Act. The legislative will, in incorporating S.20 in the RTI Act, conferring power on the Commission to impose the penalties, by necessary implication is to enable the Commission to do everything which is indispensable for the purpose of carrying out the purposes in view contemplated under the Act. In our considered view, provisions of S.20 can be exercised by the Commission also to enforce its order. The underlying object in empowering the Commission to impose the penalty and/or to resort to other mode provided therein, cannot and should not be construed only to the incidents/events prior to the passing of an order by the Commission, but are also in aid of the order passed by the Commission and its
          enforcement/execution, as otherwise, the legislative will behind the enactment gets defeated.
           

          In the case if T.SRINIVASA (suprs), the grievance put forth was that, an award passed by departmental arbitrator under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, was not complied with and that there is willful disobedience by the accused. Against whom the contempt petition was filed. Considering the question of maintainability of the contempt petition, in view of the availability of the remedy under S.109 (13) of the said Act and also taking into consideration an order passed by this Court in the case of K.JAGDISH PONRAJ AND OTHERS VS. A.MUNIRAJU AND OTHERS (CCC 114/2007 (Civil), disposed of on 4.12.2008), it was held as follows;
           
          9.  The provision under Order 39 Rule 2A(1) relates to the consequence of disobedience or breach of injunction. The remedy available in case of disobedience or breach of injunction is provided therein itself, which in our view, has been made to provide a speedy inexpensive and effective forum and to avoid multiplicity of litigation before different forums. The legislative policies and intendment should necessarily weigh with us in giving meaningful interpretation to the provision. We do not find any extraordinary case having been made out by the complainants, who are insisting for initiation and prosecution of the proceedings under the Act, than by availing the remedy provided under the code. From the said perspective, taking into consideration the remedy provided under the Code, the complaint filed under the act, for taking action for breach or disobedience of an order of temporary injunction made or granted by the subordinate Court, is not
          permissible. In our view, when the subordinate court itself has been sufficiently empowered to deal with the situation, where there is disobedience or breach of the injunction order granted by it, the same forum should be approached for relief and to see that its orders are honoured and given effect to rather than seeking punishment under section 123 of the Act.
                                                                                    (Emphasis supplied)
           

          In view of the powers conferred upon the Commission under S.20 of the RTI Act, the complainant has to seek relief there under and consequently, this contempt petition is not maintainable. Point No.(i) is answered accordingly.
           

          In view of the above finding, point No.(ii), does not survive for consideration.
           
          In the result, we hold that, the complaint is not maintainable and is dismissed accordingly, without prejudice to the right of the complainant, to approach Karnataka Information Commission, under S.20 of the RTI Act, for relief. No costs.
           
           
           
          (S.R.BANNURMATH)                
                      JUDGE
           
           
          (A.N.VENUGOPALA GOWDA)
                      JUDGE
           
           
           
           
           

          B.H. VEERESHA
          MAHITHI HAKKU ADHYAYANA KENDRA
          54, 17TH CROSS, M C LAYOUT
          VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE 560 040
          TEL.NO. 9448704693

          Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Go to http://messenger.yahoo.com/invite/

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

          __._,_.___
          Recent Activity
            Visit Your Group
            Yahoo! Finance

            It's Now Personal

            Guides, news,

            advice & more.

            Search Ads

            Get new customers.

            List your web site

            in Yahoo! Search.

            Y! Messenger

            Group get-together

            Host a free online

            conference on IM.

            .

            __,_._,___

            Gmane