Flash Feed Scroll Reader
Online Services offered by State Governments

 

Incoming search terms:

  • GOI ORDER NO 2333/14447f/FIN/2012
  • 2333/14447f/fin/2012
  • 2333/14447f
  • 2333/14447f/fin
  • goi order no 2333/14447f
  • goi order no 2333/14447f/fin/2012 reg 5 days week for banks
  • goi 2333
  • 2333/14447
  • goi order no 2333/14447
  • government of india order no 2333
Ad Space
Search Here
Right to Information Corner
  • How to deal with threats and intimidationI have some RTI requests against a corrupt senior police officer. I won one case after Second Appeal. In the second case, because of this, the PIO allowed my inspection request after a great deal of drama (antedating documents, saying I didn't come within the time period, etc). During inspection, some documents were given to me. Others that were the subject matter of this RTI and referenced in the same case file were not, and I was told that they were missing. These documents are very important to my request. I was asked to sign acknowledgment of inspection/receipt of documents. I did, but I also made a note of certain documents not being given to me, so I could appeal. This resulted in the PIO abusing me and threatening to teach me a lesson. I kept my cool and also called up the Police Control Room, but they simply asked me to file a complaint with the incharge, who happens to be the same corrupt officer. What can I do now?
  • RTI Activism: Goa: RTI documents reveal Goa Cabinet Ministers have 172 staff on pay-roll**RTI documents reveal Goa Cabinet Ministers have 172 staff on pay-roll** Reported by goachronicle.com on 19.05.2013 RTI documents reveal Goa Cabinet Ministers have 172 staff on pay-roll (http://www.goachronicle.com/goa/current-affairs/20022-rti-documents-reveal-goa-cabinet-ministers-have-172-staff-on-pay-roll) Chief Minister of Goa Manohar Parrikar and his eleven cabinet Ministers have a total of 172 office staff paid by the State exchequer. This has been revealed in the information obtained by Adv. Aires Rodrigues under the Right to Information Act from the General Administration department at the Secretariat. Chief Minister Manohar Parrikar tops the list with 30 staff while Co- operation Minister Deepak Dhavalikar manages his office with only 7 staff. As per the rules revised last year the Chief Minister is now entitled to a maximum of 33 office staff while each cabinet Minister is allowed up to 15 staff. PWD Minister Sudin Dhavalikar, Power Minister Milind Naik, Sports Minister Ramesh Tawadkar and Tourism Minister Dilip Parulekar have all 15 staff each. Water Resources Minister Dayanand Mandrekar has 14 while Health Minister Laxmikant Parsekar and Industries Minister Mahadev Naik have 13 each. Forest Minister Alina Saldanha has 12 staff while the Labour Minister Avertano Furtado has 11. Interestingly, Deputy Chief Minister Francis D’Souza has managed with 12 staff. As per the documents obtained under the Right to Information Act, out of the 30 staff working in the office of Chief Minister Manohar Parrikar, only three are from the minority community. Joint Secretary Michael D’Souza, Officer on Special Duty (OSD) Levinson Martins and Section officer Rahammatulla Aga. The documents also reveal that though the Chief Minister is entitled to only two OSDs, he has currently four. Of the two Joint Secretaries the Chief Minister is entitled to, one is a BJP worker Siddharth Kunkalienkar appointed on a salary of Rs 70,000 a month. It is for the first time that a non government officer has been appointed to such a post. Any appointment to a post from Under Secretary upwards has always been drawn from the Goa Civil Service. Also appointed as Special Assistant in the office of the Chief Minister is Mr. Giriraj M. Pai Vernekar on a pay scale of a Joint Secretary. It may be recalled allegations have been made that Vernekar was heading the massive media blitz campaign launched by an NGO, Friends of Good Governance (FOGG) in the run up to last year’s Goa Assembly elections. The documents also reveal that two Ministers have staff brought on deputation from the Central Government. Sanjay Naik, a LDC from Customs and Central Excise has been appointed as Junior Assistant while Sunil Kumar Damodaran as Private Secretary and Babu Shetye as Personal Assistant both from Mormugoa Port Trust. All three are now working in the office of Power Minister Milind Naik. Health Minister Laxmikant Parsekar has as his Private Secretary Premanand Kadam, a Transmission Executive from All India Radio. A perusal of the documents also reveals that five cabinet Ministers do not have any staff from the minority communities working in their office. They include Health Minister Laxmikant Parsekar, Sports Minister Ramesh Tawadkar, Co-operation Minister Deepak Dhavalikar, Water Resources Minister Dayanand Mandrekar and Industries Minister Mahadev Naik. Of the total 172 staff working in the office of the Chief Minister and his eleven cabinet Ministers, only 28 are from the minority community which includes three Muslims. Out of the 172 staff 40 are ladies of which seven are working in the office of Tourism Minister Dilip Parulekar.
  • RTI Happenings: Chhattisgarh: National Mineral Development Corporation ignores steel ministry objections to export iron ore*National Mineral Development Corporation ignores steel ministry objections to export iron ore * Reported by Amarjeet Singh & Joseph John in timesofindia.indiatimes.com on 19.05.2013 National Mineral Development Corporation ignores steel ministry objections to export iron ore – The Times of India (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bhopal/National-Mineral-Development-Corporation-ignores-steel-ministry-objections-to-export-iron-ore/articleshow/20128181.cms) RAIPUR: National Mineral Development Corporation (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/National-Mineral-Development-Corporation) (NMDC) has entered into an agreement with Japanese and Korean companies for supply of iron ore from Bailadila mines in Chhattisgarh 'overlooking' objections raised by ministry of steel. The export of quality iron ore was being proposed when domestic industries are facing crisis of iron ore and are shutting down. The fact came to light following an RTI query by activist Kusum Chandrashekhar Gaur to ministry of steel. The ministry informed that NMDC and ministry of commerce were apprised with the opinion of ministry of steel over the export to Japan and Korea, but ministry of steel refused to provide details of the opinion stating, 'the same could affect the commercial interests of NMDC'. Replying to a similar query under RTI Act, NMDC has informed that the Bailadila mines are having an estimated reserve of just around 30 years. "Given the quantity of reserves available there seems to be no rationale behind the exports that too at the cost of domestic units, which are shutting down," Gaur, an activist based at Neemuch in Madhya Pradesh (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Madhya-Pradesh) said. According to Chhattisgarh Sponge Iron Manufactures Association (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Chhattisgarh-Sponge-Iron-Manufactures-Association) president Anil Nachrani, pricing policy and non-tactical cost of iron ore supplied by public sector giant NMDC is responsible for the situation. NMDC is exporting iron ore to Japan at a much lower rate than its domestic sale price. After two years of break in 2009-10 and 10-11, NMDC has again resorted to export of iron ore to Japan, despite getting a lower realization in exports than the domestic market thereby subsidizing Japan's steel industry, he said. "It is surprising that NMDC is exporting iron ore to Japan at a lower price at a time when the domestic steel industry (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Steel-Industry) is struggling. We smell a rat in the NMDC-Japan pricing deal", Nachrani alleged. He claimed that the public sector giant was supplying iron ore to Japan at a much lesser price than the prices in the domestic market presumably under pressure from the Union ministry of commerce to maintain good bi-lateral relations with that country. *Status of steel industries* There were 90 iron ore based local industries in Chhattisgarh 20% of them have already been closed down due to short supply of iron ore 50% of them are operating at 40% capacity
  • RTI Point of View: MP: BCCI, IPL be brought under RTI Act: Cong SecretaryReported by Thehindubusinessline.com on May 18, 2013 BCCI, IPL be brought under RTI Act: Cong Secretary – Business Line (http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/sports/bcci-ipl-be-brought-under-rti-act-cong-secretary/article4727446.ece) Indore, May 18: The BCCI and the IPL should be brought under the purview of RTI Act, Congress National Secretary Pankaj Sharma demanded today. Sharma said that an inquiry should be held into the working of the IPL which was giving India a bad name. The AICC Secretary told reporters here that the Board of Control for Cricket in India, IPL and the companies associated with it should be brought under the Right to Information act purview.
  • RTI Help: Important Questions related to First and Second Appeal.Hi, I apologise if I am asking for same questions which were already answered before in some of the forums but unfortunately I was unable to find the ones which I am looking for,so please bear with me and help me out with my queries. _*Regarding Second Appeal*_ *# *I was searching the forums and I found out that their are two address in mentioned in some of the forums regarding filing of second. I would like to know appeal which one should I address my second appeal (It concerns Registrar cooperative society,Delhi) and I am living in Delhi. Address 1. Room No. 326, 2nd Floor, "C" Wing August Kranti Bhawan Bhikaji Kama Place New Delhi-110 066 *Address 2: CIC, Room No. 412, 4th Floor, Block IV,* Old JNU Campus, New Delhi – 110067 *#* Please clear my thought about whether I can write my second appeal as a complaint against the replies and misinformation provided to me, or should I only ask for the the information I required and which was declined on false pretext of inspection (though I have filed a complaint to RCS office regarding the inspection issue and I believe I should mention that in my second appeal). *#* Please inform me how much penalty I can seeks against FAA and APIO/PIO under CIC Rules and directives.Is there any limit or provision under which I cannot seek penalty. ii)I would also like to know what sort of disciplinary action against FAA/PIO I can seek under penalty apart from financial compensation. iii) Do the financial penalty is paid by the concerned department or Is it paid by the concerned official from his own pocket. *_#_* How can I raise the issue of corruption by the PIO and FAA as I also have proof that they are saving corrupt official by not providing the information to me and rejecting it with saying that I can inspect records.The reality is I want copy of records of action taken against my complaints related to the corrupt official and since no action as been initiated there is no records available for inspection. *#* I would appreciate if esteemed members of this forum would share some of the important Judgment involving corrupt official against whom CIC has imposed some sort of Financial Penalty and which I use in my Second Appeal. *#* I would also appreciate ,if someone could clear my doubt related to the copies of second appeal which need to be send to FAA as well as PIO. Is it mandatory in the Act that I should send copy of my second appeal to the concerned officials. ii) Do I need to include the proof/receipt of post in my second appeal. iii) How many copies do I need to submit in relation to my second appeal at CIC office. *_Regarding First Appeal_* # I am concerned and would like to know can FAA deliver it's order without asking the appellant for any personal hearing,as it not only sound prejudice on his part but I would like to know Is is permissible under the Rules? *#* How can I highlight the discrepancies in FAA's order, dues to his lack of information about the RTI ACT or discrepancies dues to misreporting by the PIO apart from filing second appeal. *#* It is also informed to me that I can file as many First appeal as I want, so Can I raise my queries related to above mentioned discrepancies by filing another first appeal or should I file a complaint to the FAA concerning the discrepancies. *# *How could my non appearance on the day of hearing affect my case? # Please let me know Can FAA reject my demand for information on grounds of Voluminous information? If know Is there any specific Judement which I can quote related to this fact.
  • anillrti is best and goods
  • anilrti is best
  • Cat among the pigeonsGreetings All Please find attached file. As a saying goes "If can bowl bouncers at us(RTI Fraternity) be prepared to handle our goggles. Attachment 9146 (http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/attachments/post-your-rti-success-here/9146-cat-among-pigeons-open-letter-coc.pdf) The smart SPIO should have imagined he could get away by replying to a wrong address, "Ab Hamara Bari Hai, hum bhi Chupe Rustum Hai"….;) Dear Moderaters Request not to delete the post for sharing personal information. I have posted the file fully aware that sharing personal details is not allowed. Please look into the larger picture before deleting the post or banning me. Regards Anil C
  • JOB due to info under RTIApplicants name was on serial no.2 in the resolution of Gaon Sabha, certificates of candidate on serial no.2 were found forged through RTI so applicant submitted her claim on that seat and was entertained by Alld. H.C. too. Through this petition, the petitioner has claimed that after the appointment of Maya Singh, whose name finds place at serial no.1 in the resolution of the Goan Sabha, the BSA has cancelled the entire resolution of the Gaon Sabha. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the resolution was passed in the year 2005 and thereafter the *proceedings went on and ultimately the petitioner obtained information under the Right to Information Act in regard to marks sheet of Maya Singh. The marks sheet of Maya Singh was found to be forged. He further submits that instead of cancelling the appointment of Maya Singh, entire resolution has been cancelled by the BSA. * Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment and the petitioner is liable to be appointed on the post in question, but on account of the fact that there was some confusion in respect of ban, the claim of the petitioner was rejected. In the aforesaid circumstances,* the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 16.3.2013 is quashed and BSA, Pratapgarh is directed to consider and appoint the petitioner, keeping in view the observation made in this order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. *
  • RTI Question: Transfer of Application U/s 6(3) from State to Central Govt. Public Authorities applicableCase 1: RTI filed to a PIO of State Govt Public Authourity. PIO in his reply submitted that information pertains to a other Public Authorities and further asked to contact the other Public Authority Case 2: Reverse Central to State Govt Public Authourity Issue: In both the case the SPIO & CPIO ought to have transferred my application U/s 6(3) to the respective public authorities But did not do so. Query: 1) Provision U/s 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005 not applicable in cases if both the public authorities are different i.e State public authority to Central public authority or Central public authority to State public authority 2) SPIO & CPIO are correct or wrong
Next »
India Against Corruption