Sunday, September 29, 2013

[rti4empowerment] apply now : UPSIC 8 info-commissioners' vacancies : last date extended to 18-10-13 [1 Attachment]

 
[Attachment(s) from urvashi sharma included below]

apply now : UPSIC 8 info-commissioners' vacancies :  last date extended to 18-10-13

form n details attached

__._,_.___

Attachment(s) from urvashi sharma

1 of 1 File(s)

Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1)
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

[rti4empowerment] आखिर क्यों राजनेता जो कहते वह करते नहीं और जो करते वह कहते नहीं'

 

अभी अपनी कक्षा सात की अर्धवार्षिक परीक्षाओं में व्यस्त यह बच्ची भोलेपन से सबाल करती है कि ऐसा क्यों है कि हमारे देश के राजनेता जो कहते हैं वह करते नहीं और जो करते हैं वह कहते नहीं l प्रश्न का आशय पूछने पर ऐश्वर्या स्पस्ट करती है कि आने बाले 2 अक्टूबर को हम जाने कितने नेताओं को टेलीविज़न पर गाँधीजी को राष्ट्रपिता कहते और गाँधी जयन्ती राष्ट्रीय पर्व कहते सुनेंगे पर जब यही सम्मान आधिकारिक रूप से देने की बात आती है तो संविधान की दुहाई दी जाती है और यही नेता वैसे तो कानून की बात करते हैं पर चुपके से सजायाफ्ता जनप्रतिनिधियों की सदस्तयता बरकरार रखने को इसी संविधान को बदलने की तैयारी कर लेते है और पूछती हैं कि क्या यही महात्मा गाँधी के सपनों का भारत है ?

read full article at


__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1)
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

Saturday, September 28, 2013

[rti4empowerment] Dear Mr. (UPA-ishly) Congress

 

Although not prettily done, at last a sensible move to trash the ordinance.
But to establish real credibility, we would like to see you do at least half the following, if necessary by calling a special parliment session:

1. Janlokpal bill (not the trash version)
2. Autonomy to CBI
3. Five-fold increase in number of judges
4. Judicial accountability bill
5. Audio-video in all courts as public record
6. Police reforms in at least the congress states
7. No accumulation of leave or its encashment by babus, if not utilised it should lapse
8. Cut office cars to 10% of present, in a pauper nation the officers should use metro / auto.
9. No babu colony housing, they should make their own arrangement the way we all do
10. Medical expenses limit of 5 lacs with same conditions as for citizens per annum
11. Travel by sleeper class upto Section Officer, 3 tier A/c for higher officers
12. Summary dismissal of maybe 20% babus known to be criminal / corrupt
13. Cut government petrol bill by 75%
14. etc.

Regards,
Victor


__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1)
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

Friday, September 27, 2013

[rti4empowerment] Representation opposing Ordinance about criminals

 

Friends,

I have today sent a representation in my individual capacity to the President of India as regards the Ordinance being proposed for certain amendments in section 8, sub section 4 of the Representation of People's Act.

In Lily Thomas vs Union of India & Ors., the Supreme Court has struck down section 8(4) as being ultra-vires because it provides different dates of disqualification for sitting MP/MLA vis-à-vis those qualified to be chosen so.  

Later the Representation of the People (Second Amendment and Validation) Act, 2013 which proposes amendment in section 8(4) in a minor way was introduced in the Parliament and recently an Ordinance to the same effect has been proposed by the Union Cabinet.

I have stated my personal disagreement to the proposed Ordinance because previously in PUCL vs Union of India, challenging the validity of the Representation of the People (Amendment) Ordinance, 2002, Supreme Court has already said that 'the Legislature in this country has no power to ask the instrumentalities of the State to disobey or disregard the decisions given by the Courts', a fact which seems to hold completely true for the proposed Ordinance as well.
 
Amitabh Thakur
Lucknow
# 094155-34526


Copy of representation--

To,
The Hon'ble President of India,
New Delhi

Subject- Regarding the Ordinance being proposed as regards certain amendments in the Representation of People's Act
Hon'ble Sir,

            The petitioner Amitabh Thakur is an officer of the Indian Police Service in the UP Cadre but he presents this representation in his individual capacity as a responsible citizen of this Nation.
2. That as is quite well known, in the Constitution, Article 102(1) lays down the disqualifications for membership of either House of Parliament and Article 191(1) lays down the disqualifications for membership of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of the State.  In exercise of the power conferred under Article 102(1)(e) and under Article 191(1)(e) of the Constitution, Parliament provided in Chapter-III of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act'), the disqualifications for membership of Parliament and State Legislatures. Section 7 of the Act is as regards definitions of "appropriate Government" and "disqualified". Section 8 is as regards disqualification on conviction for certain offences.
3. That in section 8 of the Act, a sub-section (4) was subsequently introduced which said-"Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (1), sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) a disqualification under either subsection shall not, in the case of a person who on the date of the conviction is a member of Parliament or the Legislature of a State, take effect until three months have elapsed from that date or, if within that period an appeal or application for revision is brought in respect of the conviction or the sentence, until that appeal or application is disposed of by the court."
4. That recently in Lily Thomas vs Union of India & Ors.(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 490 of 2005) filed as Public Interest Litigations for mainly declaring sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act as ultra vires the Constitution, the Hon'ble Supreme Court through its order on 10/07/2013 conclusively said-"The result of our aforesaid discussion is that the affirmative words used in Articles 102(1)(e) and 191(1)(e) confer power on Parliament to make one law laying down the same disqualifications for a person who is to be chosen as member of either House of Parliament or as a member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State and for a person who is a sitting member of a House of Parliament or a House of the State Legislature and the words in Articles 101(3)(a) and 190(3)(a) of the Constitution put express limitations on such powers of the Parliament to defer the date on which the disqualifications would have effect. Accordingly, sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act which carves out a saving in the case of sitting members of Parliament or State Legislature from the disqualifications under sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 8 of the Act or which defers the date on which the disqualification will take effect in the case of a sitting member of Parliament or a State Legislature is beyond the powers conferred on Parliament by the Constitution."

5. That hence the Hon'ble Supreme Court said-"Looking at the affirmative terms of Articles 102(1)(e) and 191(1)(e) of the Constitution, we hold that Parliament has been vested with the powers to make law laying down the same disqualifications for person to be chosen as a member of Parliament or a State Legislature and for a sitting member of a House of Parliament or a House of a State Legislature. We also hold that the provisions of Article 101(3)(a) and 190(3)(a) of the Constitution expressly prohibit Parliament to defer the date from which the disqualification will come into effect in case of a sitting member of Parliament or a State Legislature. Parliament, therefore, has exceeded its powers conferred by the Constitution in enacting sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act and accordingly sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act is ultra vires the Constitution." 
6. That after this order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a Bill was introduced in the Parliament by the name of "the Representation of the People (Second Amendment and Validation) Act, 2013. Section 2 of this Bill says- "In the Representation of the People Act, 1951, in section 8, for sub-section (4), the following sub-section shall be substituted, namely:––(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), sub-section (2) or sub-section (3), a disqualification under any of the said sub-sections shall not, in the case of a person who on the date of the conviction is a member of Parliament or the Legislature of a State, take effect, if an appeal or application for revision is filed in respect of the conviction and sentence within a period of ninety days from the date of conviction and such conviction or sentence is stayed by the court:  Provided that after the date of the conviction and until the date on which the conviction is set aside by the court, the member shall neither be entitled to vote nor draw salary and allowances, but may continue to take part in the proceedings of Parliament or the Legislature of a State, as the case may be.'' Similarly section 3 of this Bill says-"Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court, tribunal or other authority, the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, as amended by this Act, shall have and shall be deemed always to have effect for all purposes as if the provisions of this Act had been in force at all material times."
7. That to the best of the petitioner's understanding, a perusal of the above two sections 8(4) as it existed before being stuck down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the new section being introduced as section 8(4) shows that the only difference between the two are as follows-
(A) In the newly introduced sub-section, the words "such conviction or sentence is stayed by the court" has been introduced which was not there previously
(B) A Proviso is being introduced that after the date of the conviction and until the date on which the conviction is set aside by the court, the member shall neither be entitled to vote nor draw salary and allowances, but may continue to take part in the proceedings of Parliament or the Legislature of a State.
8. That while the Bill was still in the process of being cleared in the two Houses of Parliament, the session of Parliament got expired.
9. That as per the news reports, an Ordinance has been proposed by the Union Cabinet whereby the same amendments in section 8(4) of the Act as being introduced through the Representation of the People (Second Amendment and Validation) Act, 2013 has been passed by the Union Cabinet and sent to the Hon'ble Sir for promulgation of Ordinance under Article 123 of the Constitution.
10. That again as per the news reports, Hon'ble Sir has already sought certain clarification as regards this Ordinance where, as per an Indian Express report-"Sources said Mukherjee asked the ministers about the "urgency" behind issuing the ordinance, since a Bill in this regard is pending in Parliament. He is also learnt to have asked questions about the Supreme Court judgment of July 10, and wanted to know whether the government could issue an ordinance on a matter that is before a standing committee of Parliament."
11. That in this context the petitioner would like to bring into Hon'ble Sir's kind notice the facts that had arisen in almost similar circumstances when the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed a landmark judgment in May 2002 ordering all candidates seeking to be elected to the Parliament or the state assembly to disclose their criminal backgrounds, their financial assets and educational qualifications, the Government within four months promulgated an ordinance amending the Representation of People Act to negate the Hon'ble Apex court order.
12. That this was later challenged in Writ Petition (Civil) No.490 of 2002 (People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) & another Versus Union of India and another) filed challenging the validity of the Representation of the People (Amendment) Ordinance, 2002 (No.4 of 2002) ("Ordinance" for short) promulgated by the President of India on 24/08/2002.
13. That in its order in PUCL vs UOI (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had said-"At the outset, we would state that such exercise of power by the Legislative giving similar directions undertaken in the past and this Court in unequivocal words declared that the Legislature in this country has no power to ask the instrumentalities of the State to disobey or disregard the decisions given by the Courts. For this, we would quote some observations on the settled legal position having direct bearing on the question involved in these matters:-- A. Dealing with the validity of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation (Gujarat Amendment and Validating Provisions) Ordinance 1969, this Court in The Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad and Anr. v. The New Shrock Spg. and Wvg. Co. Ltd. : [1971]1SCR288 observed thus-"But no Legislature in this country has power to ask the instrumentalities of the State to disobey or disregard the decisions given by courts...'
14. That in the above case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also said-"Further, Khanna, J. In Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Shri Raj Narain : [1976]2SCR347 succinctly and without any ambiguity observed thus:--'190. A declaration that an order made by a court of law is void is normally part of the judicial function and is not a legislative function. Although there is in the Constitution of India no rigid separation of powers, by and large the spheres of judicial function and legislative function have been demarcated and it is not permissible for the Legislature to encroach upon the judicial sphere. It has accordingly been held that a Legislature while it is entitled to change with retrospective effect the law which formed the basis of the judicial decision, it is not permissible to the Legislature to declare the judgment of the court to be void or not binding."
15. That the current situation seems no different from the one that lead to the Ordinance being challenged in the PUCL vs UOI (supra) case.
16. That similarly, the expressions made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in PUCL vs UOI, The Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad and Anr. v. The New Shrock Spg. and Wvg. Co. Ltd and Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Shri Raj Narain seem to completely hold true as the law of the land.
17. That in the prevailing circumstances, as a concerned citizen of this Nation and as a person who strives to the best of his abilities in his individual capacity for transparency and accountability in governance and for better governance, the petitioner humbly prays before Hon'ble Sir to kindly have a look at the above mentioned facts and the legal conditions, which to the best of the petitioner's ability seem to suggest that once the Hon'ble Supreme Court has struck down section 8(4) of the Act as being ultra-vires, should not be re-introduced through the Ordinance way or otherwise, in the same form or with minor transformations because the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated in unequivocal terms that "Looking at the affirmative terms of Articles 102(1)(e) and 191(1)(e) of the Constitution, we hold that Parliament has been vested with the powers to make law laying down the same disqualifications for person to be chosen as a member of Parliament or a State Legislature and for a sitting member of a House of Parliament or a House of a State Legislature. We also hold that the provisions of Article 101(3)(a) and 190(3)(a) of the Constitution expressly prohibit Parliament to defer the date from which the disqualification will come into effect in case of a sitting member of Parliament or a State Legislature" while such a feature seems to be attempted through the Ordinance in question.
PRAYER
 
A.      That having stated all the facts and its legal interpretation to the best of the petitioner's abilities, the petitioner a humble citizen of this Nation, prays before the Hon'ble Sir to kindly uphold the law of the land to the best of its tradition, in keeping with the immense glory and dignity of your august and elevated office.
 
Lt No- AT/Des/MP/01
Dated- 27/09/2013                                                  Regards,
                                                                                                            Yours,

                                                                                                            (Amitabh Thakur)
                                                                                                            5/426, Viram Khand,
                                                                                                            Gomti Nagar, Lucknow
                                                                                                            # 094155-34526
                                                                                                         amitabhthakurlko@gmail.com



__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1)
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

Thursday, September 26, 2013

[rti4empowerment] Fwd: Vit. B12 Lecture

 



Use this area to offer a short teaser of your email's content. Text here will show in the preview area of some email clients.
Is this email not displaying correctly?
View it in your browser.


OPEN HOUSE- VITAMIN D, B12, CALCIUM- WHAT DO THEY MEAN?

DID YOU KNOW…

·         The dietary supplement industry in the USA made 32 billion dollars in revenue in 2012. Its projected to double in 2021!
·         India surpassed it by making 42.7 billion dollars in supplement sale!
·         In 1900's there were 8 known essential vitamins and minerals, today in 2013 there are 89-108 known nutrients from the categories of vitamins, minerals, macro nutrients (carbohydrates, proteins, fatty acids (trans, polyunsaturated, monounsaturated)), amino acids, trace elements, water, starches, intrinsic sugars, fiber, and many more!
·         For centuries we have allowed our instinct and geography to guide us to eat. It is only since 1941 that we are being told what to eat, in specific quantities, in even more specific categories!
·         Did you know in 1941, RDA started as Recommended Dietary Allowance which today stands for Recommended Daily Allowance, with a pitch being made to change it to Reference Daily Intake.
·         That though Vitamin D is a hormone it is called a Vitamin!
·         That Vitamin B12 is required for the digestion and absorption of only animal products and is therefore abundantly found in meats. Fruits and vegetables do not need B12 for their absorption!

 
 

DO YOU WANT TO KNOW…
·         What are vitamins and minerals?
·         What is the body's daily requirements of vitamins and minerals?
·         Is the copper in the soil and the calcium in the chalk cliff the same as in our body?
·         Do supplements have side-effects?
 
FIND OUT AT OUR NEXT OPEN HOUSE- THE TRUE STORY ABOUT SUPPLEMENTS…
TOPIC: VITAMIN D, B12, AND CALCIUM- WHAT DO THEY MEAN?


DATE: 26TH SEPTEMBER, 2013 (THURSDAY)
TIME: 6:30 PM TO 8:30 PM
VENUE: SACRED HEART SCHOOL, SANTACRUZ

Copyright © *|With The Health Awareness Centre







This email was sent to rachaelhammerlein@hotmail.com
why did I get this?    unsubscribe from this list    update subscription preferences
The Health Awareness Centre · Worli, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India · Mumbai 400018

Email Marketing Powered by MailChimp

__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1)
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

Tuesday, September 24, 2013

[rti4empowerment] Fwd: [aloktholiya] RTOs to fix rates for private ambulances .....they will encourage looting of common man...Alok

 



All govt decisions in India are based on note or vote. The ambulance owners will form union , together they will bribe Transport minister,RTO and Transport commissioner and  like Auto, Taxi unions they too will go about looting common man  and will harass them. They will blackmail emergency patients etc.. Such services are better when they are disorganized. Today rent act affected buildings owners still get Rs 30/- per room but PUC costs Ts 80 /- but they charge Rs 100/- cause RTO officers are themselves owners of most booth. Similarly pay and park, towing van etc are owned by mafias, govt officials or ministers and common men  are looted. .........PIL seems to be filed by a man of Sharad Rao or an ignorant or RTO. And WIAA is controlled by vested interests so they never raise any voice and malpractice goes on. . ......No one tells you this except Alok......


RTOs to fix rates for private ambulances in Maharashtra by 31st October.

The fixed fare for private ambulances comes as relief for citizens as currently there is no control over the money charged by drivers and owners

Following directions from the Bombay High Court, all the regional transport officers (RTOs) in Maharashtra would declare fixed rates for private ambulances operated in the state. The fixed fare for private ambulances would come as relief to citizens as currently there is no control over the money charged by operators. In several cases, relatives of patients are taken for a ride by ambulance drivers and owners.
Nainesh Dolas had filed the public interest litigation (PIL) in the High Court. In the PIO he prayed for directions to authorities to fix a fare or rates for ambulances not covered under the Public Health Department or attached with government hospitals under section 67(1)(d)(i) read with section 68(3) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.

In an affidavit before the HC, Laxman Khade, deputy transport commissioner stated that the transport commissioner had directed all RTOs across the state to fix fare or rates for ambulances as per the provisions under the Motor Vehicle Act before 31 October 2013. As per the affidavit, so far RTOs from 18 regions have already fixed fares or rates for ambulances.

According to Dolas, the petitioner, so far RTOs from 20 regions have declared fixed rates for private ambulances. The rest 23 RTOs who would declare the same by 31st October, include Mumbai (East, West and Central), Thane, Panvel, Pune, Dhule, Aurangabad, Ratnagiri, Karad, Baramati, Shrirampur, Majalgaon, Beed, Osmanabad, Parbhani, Hingoli, Buldhana, Yavatmal, Akola, Wardha, Chandrapur and Bhandara.



--
Posted By Blogger to aloktholiya at 9/24/2013 11:15:00 PM

__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1)
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

Sunday, September 22, 2013

[rti4empowerment] Beating of subordinate staff by SSP- FIR demanded

 

Beating of subordinate staff by SSP- FIR demanded

An incidence of beating of three followers (class IV employees of police department in Uttar Pradesh, who perform household jobs in houses of police officers) came in today's newspapers. As per news, Sri Sundar Sengar, Sri Daya Kishan and Sri Gumaan Singh were posted at the official residence of Sri Rajesh Modak, SSP Moradabad. Dr S T Hasan, the MP candidate for Samajwadi party candidate for MP and ex Mayor of Moradabad had come to SSP residence to meet him. Somehow the information about Dr Hasan having come to meet the SSP and waiting for him could not reach the SSP in time because the SSP was in his bathroom and subsequently taking his breakfast at that time. Again as per the news, when the SSP came to know that Dr Hasan had been kept waiting for around an hour, he got extremely angry and started beating the three followers. He beat them physically not only with his hands but also with broom (jhaadoo) and wiper. The three followers got injured in this process. These followers went to the DIG Moradabad who asked them to present a complaint.

The incidence was extremely inhuman, dastardly and abhorring and from my long experience I know that there are people who are used to such acts. Since on my personal level I work for the welfare of subordinate police officers, hence I made efforts to get the mobile number of these followers. I got mobile number 095579-17565 of Sri Guman Singh and talked to him for around 12 minutes from my phone number 094155-34526.

Sri Guman Singh verified the entire incidence while stating that so far there has been no FIR or medical examination of their injuries.
I also talked to Sri Sundar who again stated the same facts. He also said that the SSP beat them with his hands and legs (laat-ghoonsa). He beat Sri Gumaan Sing, who is an elderly person, quite mercilessly, with a wiper so much so that he got a deep injury. Sri Sundar was also beaten a lot and could not sleep on bed in the night. In the evening the SSP's wife called him and threatened with dire consequences, including getting the house vacated. He told his father was an ex policeman and he got his ex-gratia appointment after his father's death. He could tolerate abusive words but this kind of beating was intolerable.


Then I also talked to DIG Moradabad and requested him to take appropriate action as per law. I told him that I would pursue the matter with all my might.  

Later I have sent a letter to DGP, UP and Principal Secretary Home with the following requests-
1. Registration of FIR against SSP, Moradabad on complaint of these three followers
2. Administrative action against SSP
3. Issuing strict instructions to all police officers to behave properly with their subordinate police staff working in household jobs

I hope my friends agree with me on this extremely sensitive issue of Human Rights violation.
 
Copy of letter sent to DGP, UP--



__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1)
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___