Sunday, February 26, 2012
[rti4empowerment] OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject: Disclosure of third party information under the RTI Act, 2005.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
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
4 of 4 Photo(s)
2 of 2 File(s)
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
From: Krishnaraj Rao <firstname.lastname@example.org>
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
1 of 1 Photo(s)
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.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
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.
Rakesh k gupta
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.
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.
DETAILS OF POTHOLES
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."