NAVIN PANDYA | 9 Dec 12:28 2012

Plan to Prevent Corruption & other Democratic Evils

Dear All,

My Plan to Prevent Corruption & all other Democratic Evils:

1. Replace bogus Representation of Peoples Act, 1950-51 with new JanPratinidhi Act enacted with     public suggestions.
2. Introduce Voters Education & Protection.
3. Scrap UPSC/State PSCs & create more institutions to qualify Public Servants with Public Spirit.
4. Reserve Rajya Sabha entirely for Civil Society to balance Politics Vs Civil Society.
5. Create Regulator for Political Parties like Regulators for other organisations.
6. Enact excellent Corporate Laws purely in national/public interest.
7. Strengthening Right to Information Act, 2005 for excellent public accountability & transparency.

8. Enacting & Enforcing Excellent Citizens Charter for Excellent Public Service.

9. Reviewing & Scrapping present laws unsuitable to Democracy.

10. Holding Constitutional Heads, ie, President & Governors of States responsible for better Governance.

Are citizens ready and willing to work for this plan?

Best regards,

Navin Pandya







Pradip Pradhan | 7 Dec 19:38 2012

Irresponsible Act of Information commissioner Sri Jagadananda towards Appellant/Complainant


Dear friends 

During appointing any person  as State Information Commissioner, the government  should arrange  proper training and conduct  examination of the Information Commissioners before their appointment to the post of Information Commissioner because it is being observed that the Information commissioner Sri Jagadananda is not at all aware of the rules, Act of the RTI, for example in Second Appeal 439 of 2011 dated 09th Feb 2012 , the commissioner has reflected my(Appellant) character  falsely that I am involved in court cases and criminal activities without any proof  because the PIO  of Health department has mentioned the same in his reply by showing some news papers cuttings (for your kind information On 28th Jun 2011 I have handed over one Sub-inspector Kashinath Dash of Town Police Station, Puri, Odisha to Vigilance Bhubaneswar as the Sub-Inspector was caught by vigilance  officers while taking bribe Rs 20,000/- from me near Hospital square, Puri at 10:30 AM on 28th June 2011 hence a lot corrupt police officer in Puri and some fake journalists are behind me to fix me in false cases).

 This type of immature, brainless, careless, irresponsible act is not at all expected from one matured, highly responsible and intelligent person who is appointed as Information Commissioner by the Governor of Odisha.

Mr. Jagadananda ha got no right to do so, he is not being appointed by the Governor of Odisha to defame the complainant/ Appellant and reflect the same in his decision, instead of taking disciplinary action against the PIO for doing so. One Appellant / Complainant is appealing or registering a complaint / appeal to get information and to get justice from the Information Commissioner, if the complainant/ Appellant is being defamed and insulted by the Information commissioner himself then what we can expect from the Public Information officers and First appellate authorities! This type of activity of Information Commissioner Jagadananda will certainly discourage any RTI activist who is fighting against corruption and corrupt government servants.

Hence after going through the decision on Appeal 439 of 2011, I have objected and wrote a letter to Sri Jagadananda on 19.5.2012 by Speed Post as well as by email by condemning his decision but so far I have not received any reply to my condemnation. If this type of irresponsible act has happened by mistake then Sri Jagadananda should have asked apology but he has not asked any apology to me after doing this blunder mistake. It shows that how serious he is towards the RTI Act!  

I request all the citizens to go through the Appeal 439 of 2011 and my reply dated 19.5.2012 to Sri Jagadananda(Scan copy of the Appeal and the reply is given in Attachment) because this type of incident can happen with any citizen.   


suresh nangia | 6 Dec 10:12 2012
M.K. Gupta | 4 Dec 09:14 2012


Shri Basant Seth, Central Information Commissioner issued a show cause notice to the CPIO & Asstt. Director, Deptt. Of Posts on 23.8.2012 directing him to furnish his submissions whether he had any reasonable cause for not providing complete/timely information. In case of failure, Commission may consider imposing penalty on him. 

The PIO has given his reply on ___ (date not mentioned in reply) Sept. 2012. Not hearing anything from the CIC, I filed an RTI application on 10.10.2012 and obtained a copy of the reply of the PIO. But Shri A.K. Jha, Dy. Secy. & Dy. Registrar, CIC has not given any information on the 9i) present status of the case, (ii) whether the CPIO will be granted any hearing on the matter and (iii) if yes, whether I will also be given an opportunity to attend the same and present my submissions or an opportunity to make submissions on the CPIO’s reply.  Dy. Secy. CIC has replied that this information is not covered u.s. 2(f) of the RTI Act and therefore cannot be provided.

Reply of the CPIO of the Postal Department is unsatisfactory and appears an eye wash. In such circumstances, what an applicant should do so that the case is not buried under the carpet without a fair trial as per provisions of the RTI Act? 
Mohit Goel | 4 Dec 07:35 2012

Re:: Re: Court case of DPS vs CIC and othrs

Dear mr sarbajit - thanks for your response . I cant engage a advocate right now . Yes i can fight the case on my
own but need your and member support in getting the argument ready . I have all data with me . Affidavit and re
joinder have been filled so far and next date of hearing is in april . 

Please advise if forum is ready to help me in this case . If this case is won them half of delhi school would come
under rti . sankriti school case was of section 2 f where as mine is section 2 h

On Tue 4 Dec, 2012 5:06 AM GMT sarbajit roy wrote:

>Dear Mohit
>The tragedy of the legal system is that nobody can fight this case
>except you.
>You must hire an advocate and at least put up some sort of defence.
>CIC wont help you, they will simply get their name deleted. The Court
>knows that you wont fight which is why they brought in the DA Sangh.
>You see by  this DPS order all the other orders like Poorna Prajna
>School, Sanskriti School will get washed away.
>On Dec 4, 9:30 am, Mohit Goel <mr_moh...@...> wrote:
>> Dear mr sarbajit . I can understand your frustration on me but you know the entire case and how had i fought
to get this case out of mr gandhi ill intention who at that time was determined to make school out of rti ambit
as he already had got his share from the school otherwise he would not have adjourn the case for two year and
would not have lost the file of my case . Anyways i fought and won at cic level .
>> The case was against cic and others . I could not join the proceedings since i have my jobs
responsibilities and could not spare time initially .
>> I have now understood the the ill fate of the case and thats why i approached forum for help to at least take
this cause forward . I have all arguments - data available with me which i can share -
>> i hope you all will respond positively
>> ------------------------------
>> > of Rs 10 per annum.

M.K. Gupta | 23 Nov 13:56 2012



I went to file an RTI application for the Delhi Jal Board at Karkardooma Post Office, Delhi, designated P.O. for accepting RTI applications but was amazed to hear that the post office only accepts RTI applications for the Central Govt. offices and not for Delhi Govt.  For the office of the Delhi Govt., application should be sent to the office directly by speed post etc.  Though this application was not under the Delhi RTI Act but was under the Central Act i.e. RTI Act, 2005. Now, the same will be sent by post tomorrow.  However, post office staff was unable to give any reason for this except stating that they accept application for Central Govt. offices only as per list sent to them by the DoPT.   

What we should do so that the designated Post Offices also accept application for the offices of the Delhi Govt also?
M.K. Gupta | 3 Dec 14:43 2012


I want to file an FIR with Delhi Police against a renowned builder cum promoter who has his corporate office in Gurgaon but Regd. Office in New Delhi for cheating, duping and hoodwinking thousands of customers including me.  Is it possible to file an FIR in a police station in Delhi and if so, in which PS? I am a resident of West Delhi.. I am afraid that the Delhi Police will register a case easily and in case of reluctance, should I send application along with the documents substantiating the fraud to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi.  Also, will it be prudent to send a complaint to the Economic Offence Wing, Delhi by a group of 10-15 investors in the projects of the above builder. .
I add that I have already filed a case in the Consumer Forum, Gurgaon in my individual capacity against the builder for the refund and interest, as per agreement, on the amount given to him for the purchase of plot in 2005 which has not been delivered so far against the promised period of 3 years. The case in the Forum is of civil nature and now we want to initiate the criminal proceedings against the erring builder.
Request for suitable guidance.  .
C K Jam | 2 Dec 09:33 2012

Is the Cabinet Secretariat out of RTI ?

From the following order of the CIC, it seems that the Cabinet Secretariat has wrongly sought shelter under Sec 24 of the RTI Act 2005 - and surprisingly, the CIC has agreed !

We agree with the Appellant that the desired information is very factual
and ordinary in nature, but the Cabinet Secretariat is not obliged to provide
even this information under the RTI as it is included in the Second Schedule to
the RTI Act. As per the proviso to section 24 of the Act, it is supposed to
disclose information only when it pertains to allegations of corruption or human
rights violation. The desired information in this case does not fall within either of
these two categories. Therefore, we cannot direct the CPIO to disclose the
information. Needless to say, it is for the Cabinet Secretariat to decide if they
would still like to provide this information outside of the RTI for the sake of the
past association of the husband of the Appellant with them.

(NOTE: There cannot be a typo to such a large extent - ie all over the order !)

Mohit Goel | 1 Dec 07:54 2012

Court case of DPS vs CIC and othrs

Dear Members

Need your guidance and support on below matter.

In one of my case of RTI,  CIC declared DPS Rohini as Public Authority last year . 

Later on this decision was stayed by  Honble Justice Rajeev Sahai Endlaw. Seeing the importance of case, the court has made Delhi Abhivavak sangh, Directorate of Education and Federations of Private school of Delhi as party to the case. This case still pending at high court with next date of hearing on 14th April . 

As per last input received from some known sources, following were the update of the case

1. All parties except CIC and Delhi abhivavak sangh are in favor of keeping Private schools out of RTI preview.

2. Some one dropped the hint that shri Honble Justice Rajeev Sahai Endlaw was alumni of DPS and he should have rescue himself from the case while staying the judgement then. 

DPS society is known for its high connections and influencing the data etc and that is the main reason Directorate of Education is not in favor of bringing any private school under RTI. 

Currently this matter sub judice. Unfortunately i could not attend any of the hearing and seems i have already been made ex parte to the case.

Please advise if some one is interested in representing this case on my behalf and take this social cause forward. I have complete data in terms of various judgement of other high courts in similar cases, data related to DPS etc which would be very useful in fighting the case and ensuring CIC judgement is not setaside.

Mohit Goel 

Times of India :: 24 September 2011

CIC's RTI order on pvt schools stayed

Abhinav Garg, TNN | Sep 24, 2011

NEW DELHIDelhi high court on Friday decided to examine if the private unaided schools in the capital fall under the RTI Act and can be termed a "public authority".

Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw admitted a petition filed by one of the Delhi Public Schools challenging a Central Information Commission ruling that such schools are "public authority" as defined by the RTI Act and stayed the CIC order.

HC also made 'Delhi Abhibhavak Mahasangh' - an association of parents - a party to the case and asked all stakeholders , including the education directorate, to respond to the petition filed by DPS Rohini through its Principal Rita Sen.

Appearing for the school, advocate Punit Mittal argued the school is neither directly nor indirectly funded by the government. He also opposed CIC's conclusion that land was allotted to the school in 1997 at a concessional rate and said the CIC ruling is bad in law. After taking into account the arguments , HC has now posted the case for December.

Earlier this year, the CIC had declared DPS comes under the ambit of RTI Act as it received substantial funding from the government in the form of subsidized land. The transparency panel said Delhi Public School, Rohini, is a public authority within the ambit of the RTI Act as it is controlled by different agencies under the Delhiadministration like DDA and Directorate of Education.

The case relates to an RTI applicant Mohit Goel who sought information from DPS, Rohini, on admission procedures and admissions made under the policy framework specified by the Department of Education for 2010-11 for preschool.

The school refused to give any information saying the RTI Act is not applicable on it as it is a private unaided organization and also cited clause of exemption of personal and private information. Before the Commission, Goel challenged the reasons put forth by the school saying over 10,000sqm of land has been allotted to the school by DDA at a nominal rent of Rs 10 per annum. 
suresh nangia | 2 Dec 04:11 2012

[rti_india] (unknown)

suresh nangia | 2 Dec 04:11 2012

[RTI INDIA] great video!