Sunday, February 26, 2012

[rti4empowerment] Immediate help required for Manoj admitted in AIIMS


The AIIMS, New Delhi.
Dear Sir,
Please arrange to confirm the genuinuess of the Patient (manoj) as per website of he is a poor and admitted in AIIMS New Delhi and is to undergo cardial surgery. The trust reliefindiatrust is appealing public for donation to help manoj. The trust have also posted on thier website certain documents/OPD issued by Dr SS Kothari, DR Akhilesh of AIIMS New Delhi relating to treatment of patient Manoj. We will be highly thankful if you please arrange to confirm the genuiness of above documents as members/volunteers of NGO Sehyog Jalandhar want to help the patient Manoj if found genuinue.
Waiting for an early reply
Paramjit Singh

From: Sehyog, a NGO <>
Subject: Immediate help required for Manoj admitted in AIIMS
Date: Friday, 24 February, 2012, 2:31 PM
The Reliefindiatrust (NGO)
Dear Sir,
In response to  your subject appeal for donation, we want to be a part of this social/noble cause but to proceed further we have following queries in the matter :-
1) Please intimate Name and complete address with phone number of your trustees.
2) Reasons for not displaying name of trustee on your website.
3) Detail about name, address  & phone number of Executive body of your NGO and reasons for not posting this detail on your website.
4) Total amount collected by you so far for treatment of Manoj and out of that amount how many amount have been transfered to the patient/AIIMS.
5) Reasons for not displaying  in your website about amount collected/donated by your NGO during last 2 years
Waiting for your feedback.
With Regards,


Raj Nagar,

Kapurthala Road,

Jalandhar City (Pb.)

Recent Activity:


[rti4empowerment] OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject: Disclosure of third party information under the RTI Act, 2005.


NO. 8/2/2010-lR
Govemrnent of India
Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pensions
Department of Personnel & Training ***
North Block, New Delhi-110001
Dated: the 27"'April, 2010

Subject: Disclosure of third party information under the RTI Act, 2005.
The undersigned is directed to say that the Goveminent,'in a number of
cases makes inter departmental consultations. In the process, a public authority
may send some confidential papers to another public authority. A question has
arisen whether the recipient public authority can disclose such confidential
papers under the RTI Act, 2005. If yes, what procedure is required to be
followed for doing so.

2. Section 11 of the Act provides the procedure of disclosure of 'third
party' information. According to it, if a Public Information Officer (PIO)
intends to disclose an information supplied by a third party which the third party
has treated as confidential, the PIO, before taking a decision to disclose the
information shall invite the third party to make submission in the matter. The
third party has a right to make an appeal to the Departmental Appellate
Authority against the decision of the PI0 and if not satisfied with the decision
of the Departmental Appellate Authority, a second appeal to the concerned
Information Commission. The PI0 cannot disclose such information unless the
procedure prescribed in section 11 is completed.

3. As defined in clause (n) of Section 2 of the Act, 'third party' includes a
public authority. Reading of the definition of the terin, 'third party' and Section
I 1 together makes it clear that if a public authority 'X' receives some
information from another public authority 'Y' which that public authority has
treated as confidential, then 'X' cannot disclose the infonnation without
consulting 'Y', the third party in respect of the information and without
following the procedure prescribed in Section 11 of the Act. It is a statutory
requirement, non-compliance of which may make the PI0 liable to action.

4. The Public Information Officers and the First Appellate Authorities
should keep these provisions of the Act in view while taking decision, about
disclosure of third party information in general and disclosure of the third party
information, when third party is a public authority, in particular.

5. Hindi version will follow.
Tei: 23052158
Copy to:
1. All the Ministries/Departments of the Government of India.
2. Union Public Service Commission/Lok Sabha SecretariatlRajya Sabha
SecretariatlCabinet Secretariat/ Central Vigilance Commission/
President's SecretariatlVice-Presidents's SecretariatlPrime Minister's
Office/PIanning Commission/Election Commission.
3. Central lnformation Commission/State lnformation Commissions.
4. Staff Selection Commission, CGO Complex, New Delhi.
5. Office of the Comptroller & Auditor General of lndia, 10, Bahadur Shah
Zafar Marg, New Delhi.. ,
6. All Officers/Desks/Sections, Department of Personnel & Training and
Department of Pension & Pensions Welfare.
Copy to: Chief Secretaries of all the States/UTs,

Recent Activity:


Wednesday, February 22, 2012

[rti4empowerment] Mrs. Sonia Gandhi objected to disclose her income tax returns for my RTI applications [6 Attachments]

[Attachment(s) from gopala krishnan included below]

Mrs. Sonia Gandhi objected to disclose her income tax returns for my
RTI applications
i enclosed first PIO rejected my RTI application, first appeal letter,
Appellate authority order and PIO reply.


Attachment(s) from gopala krishnan

4 of 4 Photo(s)

2 of 2 File(s)

Recent Activity:


Tuesday, February 21, 2012

[rti4empowerment] Notice seeking Citizens' feedback on Grievance Redressal Bill 2011.


I will feel truely a free Indian if this bill is passed. I support the bill and request all to extend support and if u hv suggestions for improvement then do so. ......Alok
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Krishnaraj Rao <>
Date: Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 11:53
Subject: [loksatta_initiative] Notice seeking Citizens' feedback on Grievance Redressal Bill 2011. [1 Attachment]

[Attachment(s) from Krishnaraj Rao included below]


Please respond early, on or before 26th Feb. This bill promises to be as important as the RTI Act.

Thank you jagdish gianchandhani <> for sending this in soft format.


Attachment(s) from Krishnaraj Rao

1 of 1 Photo(s)

Recent Activity:


[rti4empowerment] Polytechnic comes under scanner for RTI imbroglio


Polytechnic comes under scanner for RTI imbroglio

TNN | Feb 22, 2012, 02.29AM IST

LUCKNOW: A government polytechnic not following the order of the State
Information Commission, which was about the recovery of the fine, from
the principal of the institute, paints a grim picture about
implementation of RTI in Uttar Pradesh.

The office of the principal of Gobind Ballabh Pant Polytechnic, Mohan
Road, Lucknow issued two letters under the same dispatch numbers,
regarding the recovery of fine which was slapped on a former principal
of the institute by the State Information Commission in April 2009.

While, one of the letters, issued by the principal's office to the
cashier, directed for the recovery of the fine, from the salary of AK
Bajpai, the then principal of the institute, by November 2011, another
letter, issued under the same dispatch, has directed for the recovery
of the fine by December 2011.

The two letters also bear the same date, November 26, 2011. The fine
was imposed on the polytechnic, under the social welfare department,
after it did not provide the information sought by RTI applicant
Urvashi Sharma in 2007. A fine of Rs 25,000 was slapped on the then
principal of the institute, for failing to provide information on

The applicant did not get the desired information, even five years
after she made an application under the Right to Information (RTI)
Act. The commission slapped the fine and disposed of the matter in
April 2009. However, it was another RTI query, regarding the letters,
issued by the polytechnic, all through this period, which brought out
the anomaly to the fore. The polytechnic provided the copies of two
letters issued under the same dispatch number, and on the same date.

Recent Activity:


[rti4empowerment] say no to water privatisation and commodification - petitions


[rti4empowerment] Let us not give away- Contempt notice issued


Something to share with my friends.
In a Contempt Petition filed by me in Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow, notice has been issued against Sri Kunwar Fateh Bahadur and Sri Manjeet Singh, previous and present Principal Secretary (Home) in UP government. I had filed a contempt petition No 42/2011 in December 2011. This contempt was filed as regards an order of Hon'ble CAT, Lucknow in case No 177/2010. In its order Hon'ble CAT, through its order dated 08 August 2011 had quashed a pending disciplinary enquiry against me as being against Rule 24 prescribed in All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1968.
With this there was no departmental enquiry pending against me. As per the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India dated 15/01/1999, an officer against whom there is no disciplinary enquiry pending shall be promoted as per his service records.  A Departmental Promotional Committee meeting was held on 22 December 2011 in which IPS officers till 1996 batch were promoted.
On the basis of not being promoted, the contempt of Hon'ble CAT was pleaded. On the basis of the facts presented before the Hon'ble CAT, it has issued contempt notice against these two officials and has fixed 09 April 2012 as the next date of hearing.
I thought I must share it with my friends as an instance of how I have kept pursuing a matter in a legal manner to the best of my abilities. A humble request to all my friends is that this shall be taken as an example by all to keep pursuing a genuine case against all odds.
Amitabh Thakur
IPS, Lucknow
# 94155-34526

Recent Activity:


Sunday, February 19, 2012

[rti4empowerment] Suggestion invited on current pending case in the Delhi High Court from person h


Subject: Suggestion invited on current pending case in the Delhi High Court from person having legal knowledge .
Facts of the case
1. It is an RTI case pending in the High Court, in which Central Information Commission had directed Income Tax Department to disclosed the Income Tax detail of High Profile person to me (respondent).
2. Petitioner ( Dr Naresh Trehan) had requested certain material to be removed from my ( respondent) affidavit (which has characteristics that they are true and relevant to the case) .Like CCTV footage of Rape by High profile person and case is in the Court for criminal action/ damage / etc.). Rape accused denied the incident of rape and wants that CCTV footage be removed from the case records because it is untrue and scandalous. Petitioner had repeated told false statement (in the affidavit) in the Court, which was proved deliberately stated false statement. No action was taken by the petitioner to remove his false statement. And no action, is taken by Honourable Justice on it , till date .
3. Contents sought to be removed are basically evidence of theft by the petitioners and other criminal action by the Petitioner. And non-action (on the crime done by the petitioners) by the Government agencies even after High Court and Supreme Court orders. There are other connected 5 cases/ persons , but other petitioners had not requested removal of the content. One petitioner- Government of India stated that certain facts stated by me are true like evidence of tax evasion and theft case(which sought to be removed by Dr Naresh Trehan).
4. Honourable Justice had informed us during hearing that Petitioner is his friend Honorable Justice had directed me (respondent) on the request of petitioner (Civil Procedure Code 1908 151. Saving of inherent powers of Court.-ORDER VI- 1[16. Striking out pleadings) to file new counter affidavit after removing scandalous material (scandalous matter to remove is not specified in the order)
5. Relevant rule of CPC - 16. Striking out pleadings
The Court may at any stage of the proceedings order to be struck out or amended any matter in any pleading-
(a) Which may be unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, or
(b) which may tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trail of the suit, or
(c) which is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court.]
6. In the light of above facts , I want to file new counter affidavit in the Court. Kindly take the previous affidavit as the new affidavit because I had found no material in my counter affidavit, which lacks two characteristics (that it is true and relevant to the case). In the affidavit I want to put more evidence of false statement by the Petitioner).
7. Complete pleading is on web. the web link is at .
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 85/2010- Dr Naresh Trehan

Advice Sought\Kindly suggest improvement in my planned actions.
With regards
Rakesh k gupta

Recent Activity:


[rti4empowerment] BBMP engineer faces salary cut for withholding information


BBMP engineer faces salary cut for withholding information
Atul Chaturvedi
The Karnataka Information Commission (KIC) has told BBMP's Shantinagar division executive engineer S Narasimharaju to pay a penalty of Rs 5,000 for not furnishing information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The amount will be deducted from his March salary.
Former corporator B M Pari had asked Narasimharaju to provide details of potholes filled in BBMP's east zone and whether tenders had been called for estimation. The work order was issued on December 4, 2010.


When Narasimharaju failed to meet the deadline of 30 days, Pari appealed to the KIC on March 29, 2011. The commission issued a notice to Narasimharaju on October 3, 2011 to which he replied on November 9, 2011, stating that the details were furnished to the applicant. "As the information sought was huge, we had asked the applicant to come to the office to see the documents," he said.
Pari claimed, "I received a letter asking me to visit his office, but no information was furnished to me."
On November 30, 2011, KIC chief commissioner A K M Nayak ordered Narasimharaju to furnish all the details to the applicant, including proof of posting the letter to the applicant.
Pari had first applied for the information to chief engineer (east) who had directed Narasimharaju to furnish the details in three days' time.


Pari said, "I had sought details of potholes filling done in east zone. I wanted to know the list of roads where potholes had been filled and whether tenders had been called for execution of the work and estimation of work."
Narasimharaju said, "I had furnished the details to the applicant. Despite that, I have been penalised. I am thinking of appealing against this ruling in a higher court."

Recent Activity: