Dear All
Assessment by Ravi and LESLIE ALMIDA as also by others
may not be incorrect, but we want results, as I wrote earlier.
The results will be based on the feedback given by RTI
Activists sitting at various centres.
RTI Activists at Lucknow, for example are little unhappy
with the collusive attitude of State Information Commissioners who do
not impose penality in cases of delay, incorrect information supplied
by PIOs., who happen to be beurocrats( brother colleagues)
It is most expedient in the interest of Justice and
equity that , in all such cases the SIC should reconsider the
petitions/requests of RTI Activists and now impose maximum penalities
of Rs 25000/-, in the light of fresh directive of CIC Mr Wazahat
Habibullah.
Let us hope for the good. and watch the results
Regards
Dr JN Sharma
On 4/1/09, LESLIE ALMEIDA <lesals2000 <at> yahoo.com> wrote:
> absolutely correct, penalties are the very tooth of the RTI act,but by the
> SIC/CIC soft peddling, the applicant is put to hardships mental agony there
> is a lot of loose talk
> by both SIC;s of mumbai , because of pressure being exerted by RTI activists
> but they will never walk the talk,
>
> L.Almeida
>
>
> --- On Tue, 3/31/09, Jagnarain Sharma <jagnarain.sharma <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From: Jagnarain Sharma <jagnarain.sharma <at> gmail.com>
> Subject: [Praja-Vol] Re: [rti4empowerment] Congrats, Dr Joshi... Habibulah
> is following your good example!
> To: "Ravindran P M" <pmravindran <at> gmail.com>
> Cc: HumJanenge <at> yahoogroups.co.in, Antibriberycampaign <at> yahoogroups.com,
> rti4empowerment <at> yahoogroups.com, rti4ngo <at> yahoogroups.com,
> praja-vol <at> yahoogroups.com, rti.lucknow <at> rediffmail.com, msisodia <at> gmail.com,
> srdarapuri <at> yahoo.co.in, parivartan_india <at> rediffmail.com,
> sahasipadyatri <at> gmail.com, rtimahilamanchup <at> yahoo.co.in,
> prof.leorebello <at> gmail.com, sharmarobby <at> hotmail.com, majorravi <at> gmail.com,
> drnutanthakur <at> yahoo.com, bimal.khemani <at> rediffmail.com,
> dhirendra.krishna <at> yahoo.com, Kumarniraj1000 <at> rediffmail.com,
> Amitabhth <at> yahoo.com, batra_lokesh <at> yahoo.com, shanti_ranjan <at> rediffmail.com,
> bhatnagarsundeep <at> yahoo.in, hgpandya <at> gmail.com, sndpjalan <at> gmail.com,
> ansari.youngindia <at> gmail.com, sampadaway <at> gmail.com,
> thebravepedestrian <at> gmail.com, vikramsimha54 <at> yahoo.co.in,
> ashaashram <at> yahoo.com, mkssrajasthan <at> yahoo.com, jusufkabir <at> gmail.com,
> prakashbelwade <at> gmail.com, mkgupta100 <at> yahoo.co.in, barbarathyabali <at> yahoo.com,
> rangajan <at> yahoo.com, gaur_a <at> yahoo.com,
> arkitectindia <at> yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tuesday, March 31, 2009, 7:54 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Ravi
> Your assessment may not be incorrect, but we want results,
> which is like mirage.
> In whatever manner, the CIC functions, the benefit should be passed on
> to the ultimate beneficiary, the applicant for information seekers.
> The delay on the part of PIOs Or APIOs, may be reduced, if
> penality of Rs 25000/- imposed against them.
> Let us wait and watch and see the results.
> Always have a positive approach and react only when justice is denied.
> Regards
> Dr JN Sharma
>
> On 3/31/09, Ravindran P M <pmravindran <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dear Dr Sharma
>>
>> This is a fraud being perpetuated by Wajahat Habibullah. There is nothing
>> preventing the info commissioners from including an order directing the
>> PIO
>> to file a compliance report within, say, 30 days of the order. And now he
>> wants the applicatn to follw up the IC's order with anotehr application
>> under the RTI Act and take anotehr three years to pass an order on that
>> and
>> then again have a fresh application to find out if that order has been
>> complied with! And the circus can carry on...
>>
>> Before I conlcude, please do not give any compliments or even respect
>> where
>> it is NOT due. Let us NOT forget that right from the President downward
>> all
>> functionaries of the govt are public servants. And NOWHERE in the world
>> does
>> anybody address one's servant as Sir or Honorable etc. For a change let us
>> begin to behave like the masters we are under our constitution.
>>
>> Regards and best wishes
>>
>> ravi
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 6:06 AM, Jagnarain Sharma <
>> jagnarain.sharma <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> DEAR KRISH,KUDZ AND ALL
>>>
>>> Hope this direction of Wazahat Sahab, is complied with in letter and
>>> spirits by all SICs and CIC and all PIOs APIOs.
>>> May God bless Wazahat Sahab, at least some relief will be
>>> now on the door steps of the RTI Activists all over the country.
>>> Most sufferers are in Lucknow and none of the SIC has
>>> imposed any fine on erring PIOs.
>>> Hope they will not avoid the order/direction of Wazahat Sahab.
>>> Regards
>>> Dr. JN Sharma
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/30/09, Krishnaraj Rao <sahasipadyatri <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Dear All,
>>> >
>>> > I think we should congratulate Dr Suresh Joshi for taking the lead.
>>> > What
>>> > Mumbai does today, the nation will do tomorrow.
>>> >
>>> > *Read the forwarded post on HJ group.*
>>> >
>>> > Hope Dr Joshi continues to take the lead in many such matters. Godspeed
>>> to
>>> > you. Jai Mahatashtra, Jai Hind, Jai Ho!
>>> >
>>> > Warm Regards,
>>> > Krish
>>> >
>>> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> > From: v_kudz <v_kudz <at> yahoo. com>
>>> > Date: Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:06 PM
>>> > Subject: [HumJanenge] *Non-compliance of CIC orders will attract Rs
>>> 25,000
>>> > as fine
>>> > *To: HumJanenge <at> yahoogro ups.co.in
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> http://economictime s.indiatimes. com/News/ News-By-Industry
>>> /Non-compliance- of-CIC-orders- will-attract- Rs-25000- as-fine/articles
>>> how/4334610. cms
>>> >
>>> > Ignoring Central Information Commission's orders may prove costly for
>>> public
>>> > authorities as non-compliance of the same will now be
>>> > treated as "obstruction of information" attracting a maximum fine of Rs
>>> > 25,000 under the RTI Act.
>>> >
>>> > "We will treat the non-compliance of our orders as fresh complaints. It
>>> will
>>> > be treated as obstruction of information thus liable for a maximum
>>> penalty
>>> > of 25,000," Chief Information Commissioner, Wajahat Habibullah told
>>> > PTI.
>>> >
>>> > Habibullah said though the Commission has not penalised any authority
>>> > for
>>> > non-compliance till now, but there have been instances where the CIC's
>>> > orders were not followed and it has been decided that such public
>>> > authorities would be dealt with strongly.
>>> >
>>> > The Commission, however, does not have any mechanism to know if its
>>> orders
>>> > are followed by public authorities or not. In such a situation,
>>> petitioners
>>> > will have to file a follow-up appeal with the CIC, which takes its own
>>> time
>>> > to come up for hearing.
>>> >
>>> > According to the Chief Information Commissioner, the new procedure will
>>> mean
>>> > that petitioners, if faced with non-compliance of CIC's orders and
>>> > directives by public authorities, can file their grievance as fresh
>>> > complaint which will ensure penal action by the Commission.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
RSS Feed