आईजी जोन वाराणसी को लिखे पत्र की प्रतिः

सेवा में, 
      पुलिस महानिरीक्षक,
      वाराणसी ज़ोन,
      वाराणसी। 

विषय- श्री मनीष कुमार सिंह,सूचना कार्यकर्ता,निवासी-ग्राम-गोतवां, पोस्ट-जमुआ बाजार, जिला-मीरजापुर, उत्तर प्रदेश को भदोही में आरटीआई मांगने पर पुलिस थाने में प्रताड़ित किये जाने 

महोदय, 
      कृपया निवेदन है कि मैं अमिताभ ठाकुर निवासी 5/426, विराम खंड, गोमती नगर, लखनऊ हूँ और वर्तमान में पुलिस महानिरीक्षक, नागरिक सुरक्षा, उत्तर प्रदेश, लखनऊ के पद पर कार्यरत हूँ. मैं यह पत्र आपको निजी हैसियत में एक आरटीआई कार्यकर्ता के रूप में प्रस्तुत कर रहा हूँ.

मुझे श्री मनीष कुमार सिंह, सूचना कार्यकर्ता, निवासी-ग्राम-गोतवां, पोश्ट-जमुआ बाजार, जिला-मीरजापुर, उत्तर प्रदेश मो० -9621800325, ईमेल- mirzapur.singh@gmail.com द्वारा पुलिस अधीक्षक, संत रविदास नगर को प्रेषित पत्र संख्या-02/02 दिनांक 24.08.2014 की प्रति उनके द्वारा ईमेल के जरिये प्राप्त हुआ है. (पत्र की प्रति संलग्न). इस पत्र के अनुसार श्री मनीष सूचना कार्यकर्ता हैं जिन्होंने जन सूचना अधिकारी, कार्यालय सन्तरविदास नगर भदोही के यहाँ सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम 2005 के तहत सूचना प्राप्त करने हेतु पत्र संख्या 37 जनसूचना दिनांक-24/07/2014 द्वारा आवेदन किया था.

उन्हें उपरोक्त आवदेन पर सूचना प्रदान करने हेतु क्षेत्राधिकारी औराई कार्यालय से मो० नम्बर-8931057498 द्वारा दिनांक 23.08.2014 को फोन करके दिनांक 24.8.2014 को बुलाया गया. श्री मनीष दिनांक 24.08.2014 को समय लगभग 11.00 बजे क्षेत्राधिकारी औराई से मिले और क्षेत्राधिकारी औराई ने उनके आवेदन पत्र दिनांक 24.07.2014 पर की गयी कार्यवाही की मौखित जानकारी दी.

आवेदनपत्र के अनुसार क्षेत्राधिकारी औराई से मिलकर जैसी ही वे उनके कार्यालय के बाहर आये तो वहा पर मौजूद एक पुलिसकर्मी श्री जितेन्द्र यादव मो० -8115960014 ने कहा कि तुमको थानाध्यक्ष औराई बुला रहे हैं, वहां थाने में पहुचते ही सिपाही श्री जितेन्द्र यादव उन्हें गाली देते हुए माट-पीट करने लगे और कहने लगे, बहुत बड़का पत्रकार बनता है, मेरे खिलाफ आरटीआई फाइल करता हैं चल तुझे मैं आज बताता हॅू. श्री जितेन्द्र यादव ने उन्हें ले जाकर कथित रूप से थाने में जबरदस्ती बैठा दिया और उनका  मोबाईल छिन कर स्वीच आफ कर दिया.

थानाध्यक्ष की अनुपस्थिती में उन्हें थाने में जबरजस्ती बैठाया गया और थाने के ज्यादातर पुलिसकर्मीयों द्वारा उन्हें भला-बुरा कहा गया. किसी तरह क्षेत्राधिकारी को सूचना होने पर उन्होने श्री मनीष को छुड़वाया और श्री जितेन्द्र यादव से उनका मोबाईल दिलवाया परन्तु क्षेत्राधिकारी औराई ने उक्त सिपाही के खिलाफ कोई कार्यवाही नही की.
 
श्री मनीष का यह पत्र प्राप्त होने के बाद मैंने स्वयं श्री मनीष से फोन से बात की जिन्होंने पूरी घटना की मुझसे फोन पर पुष्टि की. फिर मैंने क्षेत्राधिकारी ओराई, जनपद संत रविदासनगर से उनके फोन पर बात की और उन्होंने मुझे भी यह कहा था कि श्री मनीष उनके पास एक आरटीआई प्रार्थनापत्र के सन्दर्भ में आये थे. उन्होंने मुझे यह भी कहा था कि उन्होंने अपने स्तर से श्री जीतेन्द्र से श्री मनीष को उनका मोबाइल वापस दिलवाया था और उन्हें अपने स्तर से श्री जीतेन्द्र को डांट-फटकार भी लगाई थी.

उपरोक्त तथ्यों से प्रथमद्रष्टया ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि श्री मनीष की बातों में काफी कुछ तथ्यात्मक सच्चाई है. मैं निवेदन करना चाहूँगा कि यदि श्री मनीष की कही बातें सही हैं तो यह अपने आप में एक अत्यंत गंम्भीर घटना मानी जाएगी जहां एक व्यक्ति को एक पुलिसकर्मी द्वारा मात्र इस आधार पर प्रताड़ित किया गया कि उसने उस पुलिसवाले के खिलाफ आरटीआई मांगने की हिम्मत और गुस्ताखी की. यह भी कहना चाहूँगा कि यदि यह घटना सही है तो मात्र मोबाइल वापस दिलाया जाना और डांट-डपट किसी भी प्रकार से पर्याप्त नहीं माना जाएगा क्योंकि श्री मनीष ने जैसा कि मुझे भी फोन पर बताया कि श्री जीतेन्द्र ने थाने में बुला कर श्री मनीष को गाली-गलौज किया, उनसे माट-पीट की, उन्हें आरटीआई फाइल करने पर बुरी तरह जलील किया, थाने में जबरजस्ती बैठा दिया और उनका मोबाईल छिन कर स्वीच आफ कर दिया.

यदि जैसा श्री मनीष कह रहे हैं कि उन्हें थाने में जबरदस्ती बैठाया गया और थाने के ज्यादातर पुलिसकर्मीयों द्वारा उन्हें भला-बुरा कहा गया और वह भी मात्र इसलिए कि श्री मनीष ने एक पुलिसवाले के खिलाफ आरटीआई मांगने की गलती की थी तो यह अपने आप में अत्यंत ही गंभीर और व्यापक प्रश्न लिए प्रकरण है और यह मात्र श्री मनीष और श्री जीतेन्द्र का मामला नहीं है बल्कि पुलिस और प्रशासन के कुछ अधिकारियों द्वारा इस प्रकार का आरटीआई मांगने वाले को प्रताड़ित करने, उनके साथ आपराधिक कृत्य करने और सीधे-सीधे अपने पद का दुरुपयोग कर ऐसा कुकृत्य करने के व्यापक प्रश्नों से जुड़ा प्रकरण है.

अतः मैं आपसे निवेदन करूँगा कि प्रकरण की गंभीरता को देखते हुए इस मामले की उच्चस्तरीय जांच कम से कम अपर पुलिस अधीक्षक स्तर के अधिकारी से कराते हुए मामले में श्री मनीष कुमार सिंह को न्याय दिलाने की कृपा करें ताकि इस के माध्यम से लोगों में सही सन्देश जाए और पुनः कोई पुलिसकर्मी अपनी राजकीय सत्ता अथवा अपने शासकीय अधिकारों का दुरुपयोग करने का अनुचित कृत्य ना कर सके.

पत्र संख्या- AT/Insurance/HZG
दिनांक- 04/08/2014

भवदीय,

(अमिताभ ठाकुर)
5/426, विराम खंड,
गोमती नगर, लखनऊ 
#094155-34526

XXXXXX

पत्र संख्या-02/02 दिनांक 24.08.2014

प्रेषक- मनीष कुमार सिंह, सूचना कार्यकर्ता एवं संवाददाता जनवार्ता हिन्दी दैनिक, निवासी-ग्राम-गोतवां, पोस्ट- जमुआ बाजार, जिला-मीरजापुर, उत्तर प्रदेश, पिन-231314 मो- 9621800325, ईमेल- mirzapur.singh@gmail.com

सेवा में
      पुलिस अधीक्षक,
      सन्तरविदास नगर, भदोही।

विषय- क्षेत्राधिकारी औराई कार्यालय बुलाकर मारपीट, गाली-गलौज और धमकी देने के सम्बन्ध में।

महोदय,
      निवेदन है कि प्रार्थी सूचना कार्यकर्ता है प्रार्थी ने जन सूचना अधिकारी, कार्यालय सन्तरविदास नगर भदोही के यहाँ सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम 2005 के तहत सूचना प्राप्त करने हेतु पत्र संख्या 37 जनसूचना दिनांक-24/07/2014 द्वारा आवेदन किया हुआ है।

प्रार्थी के उपरोक्त आवदेन पर सूचना प्रदान करने हेतु क्षेत्राधिकारी औराई कार्यालय से मो० नम्बर-8931057498 द्वारा दिनांक 23.08.2014 को फोन करके आज दिनांक-24.8.2014 को बुलाया गया। प्रार्थी आज दिनांक 24.08.2014 को समय लगभग 11.00 बजे क्षेत्राधिकारी औराई से मिला और क्षेत्राधिकारी औराई ने मेरे आवेदन पत्र दिनांक 24.07.2014 पर की गयी कार्यवाही की मौखित जानकारी दी।

क्षेत्राधिकारी औराई से मिलकर जैसी ही मैं उनके कार्यालय के बाहर आया तो वहा पर मौजूद एक पुलिसकर्मी जितेन्द्र यादव मो० -8115960014 ने कहा की तुमको थानाध्यक्ष औराई बुला रहे हैं चल के मिल लिजिए, तो मैंने जीतेन्द्र यादव से कहा कि चलिए मैं अपनी मोटरसाइकिल से आता हूँ, तो जितेन्द्र यादव ने कहा की नही क्षेत्राधिकारी औराई कार्यालय के पिछे से ही एक शॉर्टकट रास्ता हैं इधर से चलिए। क्षेत्राधिकारी औराई कार्यालय के पीछे पहुंचते की सिपाही जितेन्द्र यादव मुझे गाली देते हुए माट-पीट करने लगा और कहने लगा बहुत बड़का पत्रकार बनता हैं मेरे खिलाफ आरटीआई फाइल करता हैं चल तुझे मैं आज बताता हॅू।

जितेन्द्र यादव ने मुझे ले जाकर थाने में जबरजस्ती बैठा दिया और मेरा मोबाईल छिन कर स्विच ऑफ कर दिया। थानाध्यक्ष की अनुपस्थिती में मुझे थाने में जबरजस्ती बैठाया गया और थाने के ज्यादातर पुलिसकर्मियों द्वारा मुझे भला-बुरा कहा गया। किसी तरह क्षेत्राधिकारी को सूचना होने पर उन्होने मुझे छुड़वाया और जितेन्द्र यादव से मेरा मोबाईल दिलवाया। परन्तु मेरे द्वारा क्षेत्राधिकारी औराई से अनुरोध करने के बाद भी उन्होने उक्त सिपाही के खिलाफ कोई कार्यवाही नहीं की।

सिपाही जितेन्द यादव ने प्रार्थी से साथ मार-पीट की जिसके लिए धारा 323 भा0द0स0, गाली-गलौझ जिसके लिए-504 भा0द0स0, धमकी जिसके लिए धारा 506 भा0द0स0, जबरजस्ती बिना कारण थाने में बन्धक बनाये रखना जिसके लिए धारा 362 भा0द0स0, द्वारा अपने पद का गलत इस्तेमाल करना धारा 166 भा0द0स0 व पुलिस सेवा नियमावली के तहत दोषी हैं।

अतः दोषी के खिलाफ उपर्युक्त व अन्य धाराओं के तहत कार्यवाही करने की कृपा करें।

प्रार्थी

(मनीष कुमार सिंह)

ग्राम प्रधान के विरुद्ध उक्त पद पर रहते हुए (आवेदन की तिथि तक) कितनी शिकायतें प्राप्त हुई एवं उन पर हुई कार्यवाही का विस्तृत ब्यौरा प्रदान करे, उनके कार्यकाल के दौरान उनपर हुए अनुशासनात्मक जांच की जानकारी भी प्रदान करे | (प्रमाणित प्रति उपलब्ध कराये)
6. ग्राम प्रधान के उक्त कार्यकाल के दौरान उन्हें कभी अभ्यारोपित किया गया, अगर किया गया है तो उसकी विस्तृत जानकारी दे | (प्रमाणित प्रति उपलब्ध कराये)

केन्द्रीय सतर्कता आयोग द्वारा दिनांक ..............से .................... के बीच प्राप्त की गई शिकायतों का संक्षिप्त विवरण, क्या शिकायत गुमनाम थी, शिकायत की तिथि, उस अधिकारियों या प्राधिकरण का पूरा विवरण (नाम, पद तथा संपर्क का पता आदि) जिसके खिलाफ शिकायत की गई है।

2. उपयुर्क्त में से कौन सी शिकायतें तुरन्त ख़ारिज़ कर दी गई तथा कौन सी आगे की जांच के लिए स्वीकार की गईं। केस के अनुसार शुरूआती जाँच की तिथि या ख़ारिज करने का संक्षिप्त कारण का विवरण भी दें।

3. आगे की जांच के लिए स्वीकार की गई शिकायतों में से कितने मामलों में जांच बन्द हो चुकी है? प्रत्येक के बन्द होने का संक्षिप्त विवरण दें।

4. विभिन्न कानून, नियम, निर्देश, प्रकिया, मैन्युअल आदि के अनुसार केन्द्रीय सतर्कता आयोग में शिकायत दर्ज कराने के बाद कितने समय बाद जांच पूरी हो जाती है। कृपया ऐसे दिशानिर्देशों की प्रति उपलब्ध् कराएं, जिसमें शिकायत प्राप्ति से लेकर उस पर कार्रवाई और दण्डारोपण तक के विभिन्न चरणों के लिए समय सीमा का वर्णन हो।

5. दिनांक.............से अब तक आयोग को कुल कितनी शिकायतें प्राप्त हुई हैं? उनमें से कितनी तत्काल ख़ारिज कर दी गई तथा कौन-कौन सी आगे की जांच के लिए रखी गई? जांच के लिए रखी गई शिकायतों में से कितनी शिकायतों की छानबीन में उपरोक्त समय सीमा का पालन किया गया?

Decision No. CIC/WB/A/2008/01401/LS

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No.CIC/WB/A/2008/01401/LS
Govind Prasad Aggarwal VS DDA
Dated : 10.3.2010
This is in continuation of this Commission’s proceedings dated
13.3.2009, 13.9.2009 & 12.1.2010 in the above cited matter.  As scheduled,
the matter is called for hearing today dated 11.3.2010.  Appellant Shri
Govind Prasad Agagrwal is present along with his son Shri Sanjeev
Aggarwal.  Shri R.L. Punyani, Dy. Director (MIG) (H); Shri H.C. Kaushik,
Sr AO & Shri S.N. Vats, Asstt Director (MIG) (H) are also present.  The
matter in hand, raises the following two important issues :-
(i) Non-intimation of details of costing in respect of flat No 259, LIG,
Pocket-V, Phase-II, Mayur Vihar to the appellant; &
(ii) Not supplying requested information in the prescribed period of 30
days.
2. I will now take these issues one by one.  As regards issue No (i), it
is the submission of the appellant that DDA has miscalculated the cost of
the flat in violation of the judgment dated 3.8.2007 of the Hon’ble Delhi
High Court in CONT (CAS(C)1236 of 2006 (G.P. Aggarwal Vs DDA).
On the other hand, Shri Kaushik forcefully submits that the costing has
been done in accordance with the judgment of the Delhi High Court with
the approval of the competent authority.  It is not for the Commission to go
into the merits of the calculation of cost made by DDA.  It would suffice if
the DDA provides the details of costing to the appellant.  The DDA
officers have shown me their internal notings in which the details has been
worked out but this has not been communicated to the appellant.  In view
of this, Shri R.L. Punyani, Dy Director (MIG) (H), is hereby directed to
communicate the details of costing to the appellant in 04 weeks time.  
3. As regards, Issue No (ii), it is undisputed that the appellant had filed
RTI application on 29.2.2008.   The para-wise information was provided to
him by Dy Director (MIG) (H) vide letter dated  28.7.2008.  Needless to
say, u/s 6 (1) of the RTI Act, information is required to be provided in 30
days time.  In other words, the information should have been provided by
the appellant by the end of March,  2008.  However, there was delay of
about 04 months.  Dy Director (MIG) (H) has drawn my  attention to the
letter dated 29.4.2008 of Shr B.B. Kundal, the then Director (H) II vide
which the appellant was informed that this matter was to be dealt with in
MIG section.  It is also to be noted that the Commission had issued notice
to Smt Neelam Chaddha, Director (H) II and she had filed a response vide
letter dated 20.4.2009 which is reproduced below :-
“Please refer to your Show Cause Notice issued vide File No
CIC/WB/A/2008/01401/LS dated 27.11.2009 on the above noted
subject.  In this regard, it is submitted that the undersigned joined as Director (Housing)-II w.e.f. 4.6.2008, whereas, the RTI application
of Shri Gobind Prasad Aggarwal dated 29.2.2008 received vide ID
No 1115 dated 29.2.2009 was prior to my posting in the Housing
Deptt.
It is further submitted that the  aforesaid application was initially
forwarded by Shri B.B. Kundal, the then PIO/Director (Housing)-II,
DDA to Shri Desh Raj Arora, Dy Director (LIG)-H vide his even
No 591 dated 14.3.2008 for furnishing suitable information.  In
response to abvoe, the Asstt Director (LIG)-H vide his note dated
1.4.2008 (on the  body this office letter  dated 14.3.2008 informed
that case relates to MIG (Housign) Branch.  As such, vide this office
letter of even No 808 dated 7.4.2008, the applicant was informed
accordingly and his RTI application was transferred to Dy Director
(MIG)-H.
Further, the applicant filed the appeal application dated 9.6.2008.
The AA(H)/Commissioner  (H) passed order No
488/RTI/AA(H)/ID-1115/DH-II/PIO/1606 dated 3.7.2008 on the
aforesaid application and immediately the same was forwarded to
Dy Director (MIG)-H vide this office letter of even No 1770 dated
4.7.2008.  In response to above, Dy Director (MIG)-H vide her letter
dated 28.7.2008 submitted the para-wise information to RTI
application dated 29.2.2008 as well as appeal application dated
9.6.2008 and thereafter, the same was provided to the appellant vide
this office letter of even No. 2040 dated 30.7.2008.  Therefore, there
is no delay on the part of undersigned.
It is also pertinent to mention  here that Smt Krishna Mehta, Dy
Director (MIG)-H was also posted in MIG (Housing) branch w.e.f.
10.7.2009.
In the light of above, you are requested to withdraw the aforesaid
notice since there is no delay on the part of PIO/Director (Housing)-
II/the undersigned as well as Dy Director (MIG)-H, Smt Krishna
Mehta.”
4. From her letter, it is clear that this matter has  passed through the
hands of several officials, and, therefore, it is difficult to determine
individual responsibility for the purposes of imposition of penalty u/s
section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.  The fact, however, remains that there has
been delay of 04 months in responding to the RTI application.  The DDA
officers present before the Commission are heard on this issue.  They
vehemently oppose payment of compensation to the appellant on the
ground that the matter in hand involved several departments/offices of the
DDA, particularly the Accounts Department for sending an conclusive
response to the appellant, and this, naturally took time.  They also plead
that delay was not deliberate was inherent in the situation..  The
explanation given by the DDA officers is not found to be satisfactory.  
5. The appellant pleads that this  has caused him detriments and he
requests for compensation u/s 19 (8) (b) of the RTI Act.  As mentioned
herein above, delay of 04 months has occurred in supply of information to the appellant and thereby the appellant has suffered detriment in terms of
section 19 (8) (b) of the RTI Act.  On a thoughtful consideration of the
matter, we are of the opinion that the ends of justice will be met if
compensation of Rs 15000/- is paid to the appellant.  A copy of this order
may be sent to Smt Asma Manjar, Commissioner (H), DDA,  with the
direction to pay compensation of  Rs 15000/-  to Shri Goving Prasad
Aggarwal, R/o House No 2686, HBC  Colony, Sector-03, Faridabad,
Haryana by Demand Draft/Cheque.
6. The order of the Commission may  be complied with in 04 weeks
time.
7. With this, the matter stands closed at the Commission’s end.
Sd/-
(M.L. Sharma)
Central Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be
supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under
the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(K.L. Das)
Assistant Registrar
Address of parties :-
1. Smt Asma Manjar
 Commissioner (H),
 Delhi Development Authority,
 INA, Vikas Sadan,
 New Delhi-110023
2. Shri R.L. Punyani
Dy Director, MIG (H),
 Delhi Development Authority,
 INA, Vikas Sadan,
 New Delhi-110023
3. Shri Govind Prasad Aggarwal
 R/o House No 2686,
 HBC Colony, Sector-03,
 Faridabad, Haryana.

Delhi-based lawyer claims he's being harassed by the police for targeting unauthorised encroachment on Yamuna river-bed in Jamia Nagar area

Looking at the state it is in now, some believe it's already too late to save the Yamuna. But Jagbir Singh is not giving up. The 48-year-old lawyer has been actively involved with the Save the Yamuna campaign for the past 15 years. 

He played a key role to get an order from the High Court to stop illegal constructions on the river-bed. But now, Singh says he is facing trouble from the cops for filing Right to Information (RTI) pleas and Public Interest Litigations (PILs) against them.

"In the year 1993, the Delhi High Court ordered the removal of unauthorised encroachment from the river-bed but the authorities didn't take any action. Then I filed a writ petition in 1996 and the court ordered Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and the Delhi police to ensure that there will not be any construction within 300 metres of the river. 

Justice JK Mehar and Justice Usha Mehra had separately ordered the DDA and the cops to ensure that the orders were complied with. The court had also asked for the land around the river-bed to be surveyed on a regular basis. But in October last year I saw that construction was going on the river-bed in Jamia Nagar area and I complained to the court regarding the same on October 6. I also reported  the matter to the Additional CP of the area. I filed an RTI plea to find out about the action taken by cops," Jagbir Singh told MiD DAY.

But his earnestness only invited trouble. Singh claims the Station House Officer (SHO) of Jamia Nagar, Satbeer Dagar, allegedly threatened him of dire consequences if he pursued the matter any further. "Last October, the Jamia SHO asked me not to file any complaints regarding the matter but I ignored. On February 7 at around 7pm I received a call from the SHO who started abusing me. He said that if I continued with my efforts against them, he would implicate me in false cases. I immediately called the PCR and complained about the SHO. I went to the senior police officers of the area on February 8," he said.

Singh says he didn't have an easy time. "The Additional Commissioner of Police (southeast) VS Chahal was busy that day, so I met the Additional DCP and complained about the Satbeer Dagar. Next day I met the Additional Commissioner but he forwarded the local matter to local vigilance department. I protested and said that the SHO was working under the very people who would investigate the case. So the matter must be forwarded to the vigilance headquarters or crime branch," Singh added.
Singh was asked to wait till the cops completed their inquiry. But the complainant didn't receive a positive response from the police. So he went to meet Delhi Police Commissioner BK Gupta.
"On February 28 I went to meet the Commissioner of Police. I was the fourth person waiting for him that day but when my turn came Gupta left his office to attend some meeting. Then I again went to meet him on March 1. I told him the whole situation but he didn't give me a proper hearing and said that the matter is in court. I tried to explain him that the matter in court is about illegal constructions and I was complaining about the threats from the SHO.
But he hardly paid any attention. Actually it's very clear by the order of the last Commissioner of Police YS Dadwal that the SHO of the area will be responsible for any such encroachment. But no one was ready to accept my point that Dagar is threatening me because he will be in trouble if my allegations are proved in court," Singh added.
Jagbir Singh filed an RTI on March 21 to find out about the action taken by cops after his complaints against the Jamia Nagar SHO.
When MiD DAY contacted them cops refused to comment on the issue saying it was related to a court's order. "The matter is investigated by the concerned department. We can't say anything more as the case is already in court," said a police officer.
Experts say there can be no leeway as far as the issue of river-bed encroachment is concerned. "Rivers are basically resource of water and climate change and excessive melting is happening. Water crisis is the biggest problem we are facing. River-bed should be untouched so discharge of water can happen unhindered. The illegal construction can cause huge floods. Pakistan faced floods last year just because of just this reason. We need to learn more lessons from such situations," said Sanjay Vashisht, Director, South Asia, Climate Action Network (CAN).

CIC's RTI order on pvt schools stayed

Abhinav Garg, TNN Sep 24, 2011, 06.09am IST

NEW DELHI: Delhi high court on Friday decided to examine if the private unaided schools in the capital fall under the RTI Act and can be termed a "public authority" .

Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw admitted a petition filed by one of the Delhi Public Schools challenging a Central Information Commission ruling that such schools are "public authority" as defined by the RTI Act and stayed the CIC order.

HC also made 'Delhi Abhibhavak Mahasangh' — an association of parents — a party to the case and asked all stakeholders , including the education directorate, to respond to the petition filed by DPS Rohini through its Principal Rita Sen.

Appearing for the school, advocate Punit Mittal argued the school is neither directly nor indirectly funded by the government. He also opposed CIC's conclusion that land was allotted to the school in 1997 at a concessional rate and said the CIC ruling is bad in law. After taking into account the arguments , HC has now posted the case for December.

Earlier this year, the CIC had declared DPS comes under the ambit of RTI Act as it received substantial funding from the government in the form of subsidized land. The transparency panel said Delhi Public School, Rohini, is a public authority within the ambit of the RTI Act as it is controlled by different agencies under the Delhi administration like DDA and Directorate of Education.

The case relates to an RTI applicant Mohit Goel who sought information from DPS, Rohini, on admission procedures and admissions made under the policy framework specified by the Department of Education for 2010-11 for preschool.

The school refused to give any information saying the RTI Act is not applicable on it as it is a private unaided organization and also cited clause of exemption of personal and private information. Before the Commission, Goel challenged the reasons put forth by the school saying over 10,000sqm of land has been allotted to the school by DDA at a nominal rent of Rs 10 per annum.

Is DDA above the law of this country? Mockery of RTI Act.

The Chief Information Commissioner,  
Central Information Commission (CIC),New Delhi

Sub:    Is DDA above the law of this country?  Mockery of RTI Act.

Respected Sir,
I would like to invite your kind attention towards the unsavory and thus challengeable manner, through which RTI Act is being distorted by DDA officials.

Even if the requisite RTI fee is not paid and a formal request is not made, a complaint/ letter forwarded from other departments (instant example: from Hon’ble LG office) for an action and report back, is treated as RTI application by ‘efficient DDA officials’. Most shocking, this letter has the receiving stamps and remarks of almost all higher DDA officials/ offices including VC & Principal Commissioner – Secretary. 

1.          Letter no. F.11(1517)08/RTI/DDA/406 dated 25.02.2009 from Sr. R.O. (RTI) informing me about my RTI application being forwarded to Dy.Director (LSB)Rohini, DDA. 

2.          Letter no. F.11(1517)09/RTI/DDA/465 dated 03.03.2009 from Sr. R.O. (RTI) informing me about my RTI application being forwarded to Director (RL)-DDA, Dy. Director (GH), DDA, Dy.Director (LSB)-Rohini, DDA and Dy. Director (CL)-DDA.
 

3.          Letter no. F-100(02)2009/CL/RTI/82/968 dated 17.03.3009 from Dy. Director (CL)-DDA informing me about the transferring his responsibilities on Dy. Director (LSB) Rohini in relation to RTI application ID No. 82 dated 05.03.2009. 

There are numbers of PIOs and subsequently many First Appellate Authorities, but no Central PIO or Central Appellate Authority at DDA. 

1.            If a proper RTI application is made, the same is transferred to many other sub-department(s) without any proper justification and this new sub-department does not provide the required information on time and some times no information is provided at all. 

2.            Even if, the First Appeal is made to the concerned First Appellate Authority, the same is also transferred to other Appellate Authority and all are ready to make the mockery of RTI Act. 

Not only receiving the informations, RTI Act is also effective in making officials accountable for their responsibilities. At the same time and as a fact, this ‘effective tool’ is being manipulated as well distorted by unaccountable DDA officials for not providing the informations also. 

Although CIC office can better answer but I am confident that maximum numbers of RTI applications are being filled at DDA and as the RTI applications are not properly/ satisfactorily answered by DDA, Second Appeal with CIC may also be highest in number against DDA. Respected Sir, I am sure that CIC will take a note of above and issue suitable directions in this regard.  With regards, (Rahul Gupta)        Date:  20.05.2009 158, Munirka Vihar, New Delhi – 110067 Mobile: 09811071782 E-mail: cipherbox@hotmail.com

Sample Letter of Request for Information

Sample Letter of Request for Information
                                                                                              Your address      
         
[Insert date]
The Central / State Public Information Officer
Name of the relevant public authority
Address
(You can submit this request to the Manager(Customer care centre) of a designated post-office-in respect of
Central Government departments having no offices in your place of stay.)*
                                     Request under the Right to Information Act
Dear Public Information Officer :
Under the Right to Information Act 2005,Section 6, please provide me the
following information (here, clearly describe the information you require and
the period to which it relates.).
I prefer to receive the information in the form:(Xerox copy / printout / diskette /
floppy / tape / video cassette / certified copies of documents or records/certified
samples of material/ I would like to take notes or extracts) by post/ email/in
person.
OR
I would like to inspect the following works/documents/records.(clearly describe
what you want to inspect ) . Please inform me a suitable date and time for my
visit.
Initial request fee under s6(1): Rs.______paid in cash/cheque/banker’s draft/Indian
Postal Order/treasury challan ( give details ).
OR
I am a person below poverty line. (attach a photocopy of the proof ).I need not
pay fees.
 
(optional) I am sensorily disabled. Kindly provide me appropriate assistance to
enable access to the information ( reading aloud/in Braille )
Thank you.
Yours faithfully,
[ Your name ]

Right To Information Act, 2005

RTI

How to file a RTI Application

View more PowerPoint from साहिल जैन